Sydney Sweeney's jeans and an American (Eagle) controversy

0:02By now you've likely heard about American Eagle's latest marketing campaign. Hey, it's Sydney on set with AE. It's a collaboration between the clothing retailer and actress Sydney Sweeney. The ads for Jeans released last week feature short clips and images of Sweeney as a kind of all-American girl next door type. At the end of the day, I love to come home and play with my dog. Do you see the camera? Say hi. In some, she's wearing an all-denim outfit. In others, flared jeans with a fitted white tank. But there's one ad that's been shared around the internet, critiqued on social media, and talked about in group chats.

0:39Here's Shane O 'Neill, style reporter for The Post. That particular ad is a sort of close-up pan starting from the bottom of Sidney Sweeney's body while she's reclining. Jeans are passed down from parents to offspring. We go from sort of her ankles up to her waist where we see her buttoning her jeans. And even eye color. We see her lips moving for the first time when she says, My jeans are blue. Sidney Sweeney, Casper Keynes.

1:32Some critics online calling it a pro-eugenics, anti-feminist campaign. And then there's others celebrating it as a new era of anti-woke marketing.

1:44So Rachel, Shane, this again is an ad featuring Sydney Sweeney, who listeners might know from shows like Euphoria and White Lotus. And in the ad, she points out her blue eyes and blue jeans and makes this sort of pun on genes and genetics. It seems actually that American Eagle has taken this particular ad down. Adweek reported that American Eagle removed it from their YouTube and Instagram accounts, and I haven't been able to find it on any of their social media pages. So let's talk a little bit about the backlash to that ad. Well, I think a lot of the backlash, you know, bubbled up over the weekend and has continued into the past couple of days.

2:25You know, if you went on TikTok and looked at these ads, there were people who were just commenting pro-eugenics and there were hundreds of these comments in some cases. And what happened was that that was one interpretation of the ads that was picked up by a number of different kinds of outlets, some of them tabloids, you know, some of them blogs or magazines, newspapers. And then that became a huge controversy as if that was the dominant reading or anger with the ad. The sort of short answer is there was a wing of people online who said making jokes about having good genes is promoting eugenics, or at least alluding to eugenics.

3:06And let's remind listeners what that means exactly. What does eugenics mean in this? So basically, eugenics, as I understand it, it's an unproven and inaccurate theory that you can pass down your best genes selectively. that you can engineer a better person or a better society by genetics, by breeding and selecting who and who is not left in the gene pool. It's a really complicated and sometimes super duper ugly theory. I mean, eugenics is what inspired Nazism. And historically, it has led to a lot of terrible practices and it's been championed by racists. I mean, the argument to kind of summarize it from critics of the ad is like, OK, here is this blonde, blue eyed white woman.

3:51And we're saying that she has, quote, good genes. And so does her good genes mean that others that don't look like her have bad genes? Right. And so is that kind of part of the sensitivity around talking about someone having good genes? Well, I can speak for myself. Yeah. When I saw the tagline, Sidney Stweeney has her genes. The very first thing that I thought about was a sort of, the Department of Homeland Security had made social media posts, one that featured sort of like a questionably subtle racist painting, and then one that I would say is explicitly racist, depicting manifest destiny embodied as like a giant blonde woman chasing Native people off of the page.

4:32So I think that it's not necessarily ascribing any blame or intention to the ads. But yes, when I saw a blonde woman saying I have good genes, that was the first thing that I thought of whether it's fair or not. That's so interesting. I mean, on the one hand, you have critics saying this is a pro-eugenics ad. But then on the other hand, there seems to be mostly people like on the right, people like on Fox News, that have then criticized the backlash. And in fact, Trump's communication director, Stephen Chung, he even posted about it on X. And I'll read what he said. He says, quote, cancel culture, run amok.

5:11This warped, moronic and dense liberal thinking is a big reason why Americans voted the way they did in 2024. They're tired of this BS. But he spelled out the word. For some, you know, this reaction to the ad on the left does seem to kind of feed into what Donald Trump says is wrong with liberals. that liberals are, you know, a bunch of snowflakes who can't handle anything that potentially pushes an envelope. Well, I would push back on it pushing an envelope. I think it's more of returning to a previous envelope. I really do think the ambiguity of the ad is what is creating many of the issues here and the misunderstandings and the controversy, frankly.

5:50In fact, these jeans are part of a fundraiser for domestic violence. So 100 percent of the proceeds, the price of each of these specific genes, which I think are$89.99, the funds from that will go to a domestic abuse crisis line. Has that fact made its way into the discourse? Yes, that was very early on. I think one of the first points of contention, you know, were these ads which were so overtly flirtatious and sexual, inappropriate way to promote a product that was supposed to be raising money for domestic violence. I think that's got a little that's gotten a little bit lost as the politics of this and this emphasis on the, you know, eugenics or not eugenics conversation has really taken over.

6:38And I do wonder, you know, when looking at, you know, the way that American Eagle has sort of backed away from making any comment here, at least so far, the fact that they have removed one of the ads from social media, you have to wonder if this is taking them somewhat by surprise. Also haven't heard back from the PR rep from American Eagle for questioning. Yeah, I wondered that too, guys, because I was like, are they like, that's not what we meant. It's just a pun. Like, we weren't trying to say that her genes are like actually better than anyone else's genes. Or were they like, yep, this is what we were hoping to do.

7:15We were hoping to, you know, spark conversation and get people talking about American Eagle. I mean, it's hard to know, right? Well, it's impossible to know because they're not releasing a statement, which is absolutely their prerogative. There's also an argument to be made that because it's so ambiguous, that's an effective image, that it's something that can be debated and that, you know, one person sees one thing, one person sees another. I think this whole ad campaign can be a cultural Rorschach. What I would say is that I'm not expecting American Eagle to say anything. They have nothing to gain from saying anything right now.

7:46Their stock has gone up, as of right now, I believe 11 % since the ad dropped last week. So as long as there's money rolling in, they have everything to lose by clarifying their position. I guess if their stock had gone down 10%, we might be hearing a more explicit position on what they were and were trying to do. But as of right now, it seems like a great move for them. It seems like it's generated money and it's certainly generated publicity and chatter. Which is interesting. Like, is that, you know, in fashion, when you think about success, is success sales or is it the public perception of the brand?

8:19And I don't think we'll know for another month or two how this has impacted the sales of the brand. I think it's important to add as well that one of American Eagle's great successes of the past decade is an underwear line called Aerie, which has championed the body positivity movement. I mean, they took that and ran with it more successfully than almost any other brand except maybe Fenty's underwear line. And, you know, they encouraged like people, regular people to post pictures of themselves in the underwear and they would repost them. I mean, if it's something that they feel seen in, then maybe that makes it a good advertisement.

9:02Right. You know, there was a period of time in the 90s and early 2000s where like there's a very clear idea of what made someone beautiful. And then we got into this body positivity movement where different shapes and sizes and races and hair color, like so many things could be beautiful. So many people could be beautiful. And so now are we coming back around to, no, no, no, there's just one kind of beautiful. And this is it. It's a really difficult question. And I think there's never going to be an answer that satisfies everyone about the question of aspirational imagery and whether that has anything to do with yourself.

9:44After the break, Rachel and Shane talk about how companies have long used provocative images to sell jeans. We'll be right back.

10:01When it comes to the big questions, who you ask matters. From breaking news to politics that impact your life to advice you can trust. Get answers you don't have to question with Ask the Post AI. Trained exclusively on post journalism with clear sourcing. And if we don't know the answer, we'll tell you. Ask the Post AI. Find it on WashingtonPost.com or in the app.

10:33So brands like Calvin Klein and Levi's and Gap, they've been selling jeans in these big campaigns for years. Gene ads are kind of iconic Americana. But this isn't the first time that gene ads have actually sparked controversy, right? So can you talk through what past controversies have been around people selling jeans? Two big ones that come to mind that I think are directly referenced in this particular American Eagle campaign is a 1980 Calvin Klein campaign with Brooke Shields. Maybe you've heard that slogan, nothing comes between me and my Calvins. You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins?

11:08Nothing. That came from these ads featuring a very young Brooke Shields with TV spots that were shot by Richard Abaddon, who's, you know, a giant in fashion photography. She was, I believe, 15 years old when that ad was shot. And today, Brooke Shields has expressed some indifference about appearing in those ads. I had sort of forgotten the content. I revisited some of the commercials that are available on YouTube or Facebook to revisit those ads. Genes are fundamental in determining the characteristics of an individual. And I was struck that there's language about natural selection in the gene ads that Brooke Shields was doing, which I found very surprising just because a big part of this controversy with the American Eagle ads is that they're making a joke about genes and genetics.

11:53both feature a beautiful, very popular actress in a similar reclined situation selling jeans, and both of them are making jokes or alluding to genetics in one way or another. What's interesting though, Shane, is that in the early 80s, the genetics part of it was not the controversy with the Calvin Klein ad, right? It was the fact that they were sexualizing a teenage girl. Yes. The bigger issue in the 80s was the fact that Brooke Shields was underage, not that we were talking about genetics. You know, Sidney Sweeney is an adult, so that's sort of like off the table in this discussion, although genetics seem to be a much hotter button issue right now than they were in 1981.

12:33Yeah, yeah. Let me speak again to my personal experience. There's another ad campaign, another Calvin Klein ad campaign from 1995 that was shot by Stephen Mizell, and it featured people auditioning sort of ambiguously. It's a wood paneled room with carpeting and a ladder, and there's an off-camera male voice giving direction. You think you can rip that shirt off of you? It's very sleazy. It's pretty unsettling. It's a nice body. Do you work out? Mm-hmm. I remember when that ad campaign came out, my mother just being like, this is pornography. And me being like, lighten up, mom. Low-rise jeans rule, you know.

13:09Watching it as an adult, you know, watching it as a 41-year-old, I was like, oh, yeah, this is extremely provocative. And I think there is something to be said from a marketing standpoint about things that drive a wedge between people can be really meaningful because it becomes a totem. And by the way, there's a direct analog between those ads and these ads in that there's one of the clips is Sydney Sweeney auditioning. Hi, I'm Sydney Sweeney and I'm from Spokane, Washington. And the same thing off camera, not nearly as provocative or suggestive, but she's walking on camera. She's presenting herself as though she's auditioning.

13:43I can work as a local hire as well, though, and I'm available for the American Eagle jeans campaign shoot. Profile and hands, please. And there's a male off-camera voice sort of directing her.

14:00Thanks. What was strange about that one is that Sydney Sweeney is an incredibly famous actress and producer who makes really intelligent choices about the roles that she plays. you know, she's making this film where she stars as a female boxer and she's also producing that. I mean, I think we have this image of her as being really in control of her femininity. And to see her sort of put in this small town gal, almost casting couch situation, it just didn't make sense to me. It's like, this is not who, this is not why we enjoy this, this person's celebrity, you know? She's not the every woman. Right.

14:45She's not the every woman, but she's also not a vulnerable woman who's fallen predatory to the dirty side of Hollywood and advertising. You know, that's just not who we've come to know this person to be. So, guys, at the end of the day, I mean, this is an ad, right? Like, is it really that serious? Are we taking it too seriously? I mean, I'm on a group chat with some of my college friends, and they were texting me about this yesterday, and they were like, I don't get it. Like, why is everyone mad about this? Please explain. Should we be mad too? Like, are we trying to project meaning onto something that maybe doesn't mean what people think it means?

15:27I think that online people jump to extremes. You know, the way that the way that social media is designed, it encourages you to say the most extreme thing in the shortest amount of time. Yeah, I guess you could say that social media in a way has like degraded the quality of information we receive, but also the quality of conversation. I hear people's complaints that like we're talking too much about this. I definitely understand the argument of like a beautiful woman selling jeans. How is this news? Like, I understand that this is something that we see all the time. I guess I would also add that I don't think it's fair to hang an entire industry onto one ad campaign or certainly one person.

16:11There's a couple ways you can look at it. First of all, I think apart from this, we've already seen it. Like the runway models are thinner than ever or as thin as they used to always be. I've talked to plus size models who say they're just not getting booked the way they were even a few years ago. So I don't think it's unfair to say that that's happening and to investigate why that might be. I do think it's unfair to hang all of that onto one ad campaign or onto Sydney Sweeney herself. Um, so I think part of the frustration that some people have is that there is a tendency to take one cultural moment and use that as a way to explain all of American culture or all of American politics.

16:53And I think that that's a really frustrating way to look at the world. And I think it's also a really popular way to look at the world, especially when we're talking about online discourse. That said, I also don't think the answer is like, you're taking it too seriously. So you have no right to talk about it or talk about how it makes you feel or how it connects to history. So I think there's a fine line that we have to thread here. Sidney Sweeney and American Eagle is not all of American culture, but it's also not divorced from American culture. I think you have to look at it in the context of what's happening in politics and in the world in order to understand why these reactions are happening.

17:32Well, guys, thank you so much. It was a blast having you on. Thanks for talking through this with me. I appreciate it. Of course. Thanks for having us. Such a pleasure.

17:45Shane O 'Neill writes the Style Memo newsletter for The Post. Rachel Tasgian is our fashion critic. That's it for Post Reports. Thanks for listening. If you appreciated this conversation, please subscribe to The Washington Post. There's a new offer for premium subscribers. It's a way for you to share The Post's journalism with other people in your life. A premium subscription now comes with three extra accounts. Three accounts that you can give to friends or family members. And if you subscribe now, there's a great sale happening. You can get your first year for just$3 every four weeks. Three bucks every four weeks.

18:22After the first year, the price is$17 every four weeks. And you can cancel anytime. There's also an even better deal if you pay for the whole year up front. To see that and to sign up now, go to WashingtonPost.com slash subscribe. That's WashingtonPost.com slash subscribe. There's also a link in our show notes. Today's show was produced by Thomas Liu. It was edited by Reena Flores and mixed by Sean Carter. Thanks to Carla Sbardos. I'm Colby Ickowitz. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from The Washington Post.

19:03When it comes to the big questions, who you ask matters. From breaking news to politics that impact your life to advice you can trust. Get answers you don't have to question with Ask the Post AI. Trained exclusively on post journalism with clear sourcing. And if we don't know the answer, we'll tell you. Ask the Post AI. Find it on WashingtonPost.com or in the app.