The Double-Edged Sword of Viral Controversy: Lessons from Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle Ad

When actress Sydney Sweeney partnered with retailer American Eagle for what became a viral ad campaign for American Eagle jeans, nobody expected the firestorm that followed. 

The controversy surrounding the images reminds us of the old rule: "There's no such thing as bad publicity." 

But in an era of cancel culture and brand boycotts, is this still true?

Sweeney couldn’t have anticipated becoming the face of a marketing crisis. Yet her seemingly innocuous ad campaign managed to hit a nerve, invoking concerns about genetic superiority messaging and dividing audiences along political lines. 

As the controversy raged, American Eagle found itself caught in the crosshairs of a cultural moment, raising the question of “When does going viral become a liability?”. With former employees criticizing the brand's apparent shift away from inclusivity and right-wing political figures weighing in, the Sweeney debacle proves that in advertising, the line between buzz and backlash is dangerously thin.

‍

Anatomy of a Viral Backlash

The ad's seemingly innocuous wordplay—"Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My jeans are blue."—sparked immediate outrage. Critics drew parallels to eugenics, accusing the brand of promoting outdated and harmful ideologies.

Social media amplified these concerns, with users likening the campaign language to "Nazi propaganda" and calling the messaging "fascist weird." The controversy escalated when political figures weighed in with support, further polarizing public opinion.

Kara Hauck, SVP at Sable Strategy, notes, "This shows how quickly brand campaigns can take on political weight." The controversy deepened as former employees criticized the ad for contradicting American Eagle's previous commitments to inclusion and diversity.

‍

Measuring the Fallout

While the ad certainly achieved viral status and stock prices rose, with the brand's market value increasing by over $200 million, its impact on American Eagle's bottom line was far from positive. Exclusive data revealed a 9% drop in in-store foot traffic in the two weeks following the ad's release. 

This decline matches what research shows about brand controversies; a Kellogg School of Management study found that companies facing public backlash typically see a short-term dip in sales.

‍

The Myth of "All Publicity is Good Publicity"

The American Eagle incident proves that not all attention is beneficial for brands. A 2024 Morning Consult survey found that 57% of U.S. consumers say a brand's perceived alignment with their values significantly influences their purchase decisions.

Professor Jonah Berger, author of "Contagious: Why Things Catch On," explains: "Emotionally charged content—especially anger—tends to spread faster and further online. But brands must be careful: the wrong kind of emotional engagement can erode trust and alienate key segments."

‍

Navigating Virality

For marketers considering controversial campaigns, here’s what to consider:

• Content sensitivity: Does the message risk touching on deeply divisive issues?
• Brand alignment: Does the campaign reflect the company's stated values and commitments?
• Audience impact: Will the controversy attract new customers or alienate existing ones?

Kara Hauck advises: "You have to ask if the attention is on your values or just on making people mad."

‍

The Value of Authenticity

The Sydney Sweeney-American Eagle controversy highlights why authenticity matters in branding. While shock value can generate short-term buzz, it often comes at the cost of long-term brand equity.

As consumers increasingly expect brands to reflect their values, companies must carefully weigh the potential benefits of viral marketing against the risks of alienating their customer base. 

The American Eagle incident serves as a reminder that the line between edgy marketing and brand-damaging controversy is thinner than ever.

The Sweeney incident reveals a more nuanced reality. While the ad undeniably boosted visibility for both the actress and American Eagle, it also sparked important conversations about body image, photoshop ethics, and celebrity responsibility. This suggests that the value of publicity lies not just in its reach, but in its ability to start meaningful conversations..

Moving forward, brands and public figures should approach controversial marketing with a new perspective. Instead of simply aiming for shock value or virality, they should ask how their campaigns can contribute positively to societal discussions. By doing so, they can transform potential "bad publicity" into opportunities for genuine engagement and brand growth. 

The true winners are those who can balance virality with values, turning controversy into constructive conversation.