Two Sides of the Same CoinÂ
Although separated by nearly a decade, the Pepsi and American Eagle campaigns reveal striking similarities. Both relied on the star power of well-known female celebrities, Kendall Jenner and Sydney Sweeney, to communicate a carefully crafted corporate message. In each case, the companies sought to capitalize on the public recognition and cultural influence of their spokespersons, believing that celebrity could strengthen the emotional impact of the campaign. Instead, both women became central figures in the backlash that followed. While neither Jenner nor Sweeney created the advertisements or determined their messaging, public criticism frequently became directed toward them personally, demonstrating how celebrity often becomes the face of corporate decisions.
At the same time, the companies themselves responded in dramatically different ways. Pepsi immediately apologized, withdrew the advertisement, and acknowledged that it had missed the mark. American Eagle, by contrast, remained largely silent during the controversy, later defended the campaign publicly, and ultimately expanded its partnership with Sydney Sweeney through a second campaign. Examining these cases side by side illustrates that while audiences may reinterpret corporate messaging in similar ways, corporations do not necessarily respond to that reinterpretation in the same manner. Their differing strategies reveal that there is no single formula for managing controversy in the digital age.
Perhaps the most surprising finding from this comparison is that controlling meaning and achieving commercial success are not necessarily the same thing. In both cases, audiences effectively redefined the advertisements in ways that differed from corporate intent. However, the consequences of that reinterpretation were remarkably different. Pepsi's campaign was withdrawn within days and remains remembered primarily as one of the most infamous public relations failures in modern advertising. American Eagle, on the other hand, experienced significant commercial success despite the controversy, publicly defended the campaign, and continued its partnership with Sydney Sweeney.
This distinction suggests that viral controversy does not produce a single, predictable outcome. Audience interpretation may shape an advertisement's cultural legacy, but it does not always determine its financial performance or corporate strategy. Companies can lose control over meaning while still benefiting from the attention that controversy generates. Ultimately, these case studies reveal that in the age of virality, there are multiple forms of success, multiple forms of failure, and multiple actors competing to define what an advertisement ultimately comes to represent. The corporation may create the message, but once it enters the digital public sphere, its meaning no longer belongs to the corporation alone.