The Context of the American Eagle Ad
Like the Pepsi campaign, the American Eagle advertisement cannot be fully understood without considering the political and cultural environment in which it was released. By the summer of 2025, public discourse had become increasingly polarized, with social media serving as the primary space where political debates unfolded. Conversations surrounding identity, race, representation, and corporate responsibility had become deeply intertwined with online culture. At the same time advertisements were increasingly expected to communicate not only a product, but also a set of social and political values.
The campaign also emerged during a period of heightened global tension. The ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict remained at the forefront of international news, generating widespread protests, activism, and intense online debate. Demonstrations were occurring across the country and discussions surrounding human rights and political responsibility dominated public conversation. Although American Eagle's campaign made no explicit reference to the conflict, it entered an environment in which audiences were already engaging with these debates. In many ways, the political climate shaped not only how people consumed media, but also what they expected media to communicate. The advertisement demonstrates how, in an increasingly polarized digital environment, meaning is partially constructed through the cultural moment in which it appears.
Selling Sex
Many of the earliest criticisms of the campaign focused on the sexualization of Sydney Sweeney herself. Across the campaign, American Eagle repeatedly emphasized Sweeney's physical appearance through both cinematography and styling. Advertisements featured slow camera movements that lingered on her body, close-up shots of her hips and legs, flirtatious dialogue, and imagery that often framed her as an object of desire before drawing attention to the jeans themselves. Rather than simply using a celebrity to model a product, the campaign frequently blurred the line between marketing denim and marketing Sweeney's sexuality.
This strategy extended beyond the advertisements themselves and into the broader promotional campaign. On social media, American Eagle posted photographs of Sweeney appearing topless, with only a bomber jacket covering her chest. The company later announced a giveaway of the very jacket worn during the photoshoot, encouraging followers to enter for the chance to own it. While presented as a promotional opportunity, many viewers interpreted the giveaway as an attempt to capitalize on the intimacy of the image itself. The jacket became desirable not simply because it was fashionable, but because it had been worn by Sydney Sweeney. It is important to note, that the jacket itself was not made of denim. This helps reinforce that the campaign was selling perceived intimacy to a celebrity as much as it was selling clothing.
Echoes of Brooke Shields
As discussion surrounding the campaign grew, many viewers began drawing comparisons to Brooke Shields' famous 1980 Calvin Klein advertisements. Those commercials, which featured the then 15 year old Shields delivering the now-iconic line, "You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing," have long been debated for their use of overt sexuality to market denim. Although the circumstances were different, audiences saw similarities in American Eagle's campaign. Both centered on a young actress, relying on provocative camera work and suggestive imagery, and positioned denim as inseparable from female sexuality.
These comparisons added another layer to the controversy because they connected the campaign to a broader history of advertising that has often relied on women, or in the case of Shields, girl’s bodies to sell products. Rather than viewing the campaign as innovative, many audiences interpreted it as a revival of a decades-old marketing strategy that prioritized spectacle over substance. The Brooke Shields comparisons therefore framed the American Eagle campaign within an existing cultural conversation about the objectification of women in advertising. More significantly, because the Calvin Klein campaign has long been criticized for sexualizing a minor, some social media users extended that association to American Eagle itself. Thus, accusing the brand of reviving an advertising style rooted in the exploitation and objectification of young women. These comparisons demonstrate how audiences used the historical legacy of the Brooke Shields campaign to shape their interpretation of American Eagle's advertisement.
Reading Between the Lines
One of the most interesting aspects of the American Eagle campaign is that it seems to encourage audiences to search for meaning beyond what is being said. In one of the campaign's first advertisements, Sydney Sweeney opens with, "I’m not here to tell you to buy American Eagle jeans". Her final line of dialogue in this particular ad is then, “But just so we’re clear this is not me telling you to buy American Eagle jeans”. Obviously, the intention of an ad is to get people to buy the product. This advertisement, though, is built around the idea of the audience filling in the blanks. Viewers are encouraged to look beyond what is explicitly stated and draw their own conclusions. Whether intentional or not, the advertisement establishes a framework in which meaning is implied rather than directly communicated.
That invitation became even more significant when American Eagle released a short reel showing Sydney standing in front of a billboard reading "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Genes." She crosses out the word "Genes" and replaces it with "Jeans," revealing the campaign's central slogan. Although the reel ultimately clarifies the intended pun, it also explicitly introduces the double entendre that would soon become the focus of public debate. Coming immediately after advertisements that encouraged audiences to look beyond the obvious, the campaign inadvertently reinforced the idea that there was something beneath the surface worth interpreting. Rather than closing off alternative readings, the correction itself invited viewers to consider both meanings simultaneously.
This dynamic became even more pronounced with the release of the advertisement in which Sydney explains that "genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color," before concluding, "My jeans are blue." Unlike the earlier reel, this commercial no longer relied solely on the visual similarity between genes and jeans, it is using genetics as the central premise of the advertisement. As audiences increasingly connected the campaign to broader conversations about race, inherited traits, and beauty standards, this commercial became the primary focus of criticism.
Notably, American Eagle later removed this particular advertisement from its official social media platforms while leaving much of the rest of the campaign intact. The company never publicly explained why the video was taken down, nor did it directly address the interpretations that had emerged around it. This silence is significant. By quietly removing the advertisement without acknowledging the controversy, American Eagle eliminated the campaign's most debated piece while offering no guidance on how audiences should understand it. The result was that the dominant interpretation continued to be shaped almost entirely by public discussion rather than by the company itself. In many ways, this reflects a central idea of this project. Once audiences begin constructing meaning collectively, removing the original message does little to reclaim control over the narrative.