e surface, the move appears to have been well-received. At the end of trading on July 28, American Eagle’s stock closed at US$12.03, up from US$10.20 before the campaign launched. This marked a 17.9 per cent increase and an estimated US$317 million boost to its market capitalisation.  However, at the same time, a backlash has been brewing on social media, with several critics describing the campaign’s message as culturally insensitive.  The controversy behind American Eagle’s latest campaign  At the heart of the controversy is the play on words between the homophones “jeans” and “genes”.  The campaign tagline “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans” appears in multiple videos and related imagery, with the word “genes” crossed out and replaced by “jeans”.  In a now-deleted video, Sweeney is seen buttoning up her jeans, musing, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality and even eye colour… my jeans are blue.” Some viewers found this focus on “genes” – particularly those of a blond-haired, blue-eyed white actress – to be problematic in light of numerous companies pulling back on their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the past few years.  One Instagram user, who goes by @brindanotbrenda, commented, “Hey AE remember when you pretended to care about diversity and inclusion? Wonder what happened… sales didn’t go so well for a year and since 2022 we’ve seen a slow rollout of conservative marketing and this campaign is quite frankly weird and sterile. So sad to see the regression play out in real time.” Some critics went further, calling the campaign a “racist dogwhistle” and comparing it to “Nazi propaganda”.  However, as crisis communications expert Megan Paquin told Inside Retail, “Assuming good intentions, using a play on words, like swapping ‘genes’ for ‘jeans,’ is common in marketing and doesn’t necessarily signal a more nefarious message.” Regardless of the brand’s intentions, “If American Eagle wanted to make their brand culturally relevant, mission accomplished,” she noted. “Everyone is talking about the campaign, and it’s unique in that the criticisms are so wide-ranging, with different takes from all sides.”  In addition to its focus on “genes”, the campaign has also been criticised for its use of sexualised imagery. “It is a page from familiar playbook,” Cydnee Harrison, the founder of public relations firm Synpatic, told Inside Retail. “Think Brooke Shields as a teen in her Calvins, stirring controversy to grab attention.” However, she said, “Times have changed. And if long-term brand loyalty matters, this is a pretty risky play.” Before launching a potentially controversial campaign for the sake of it, Harrison suggested brands ask themselves whether short-term market reaction justifies long-term reputational risk, and whether a campaign can succeed if it alienates the very audience it’s supposed to serve. Ultimately, time will tell if American Eagle’s latest campaign is a misstep or a hit. “When a campaign like this catches fire, it’s up to the brand to decide whether to stoke the flames, pour water on it, or let it burn out,” Paquin said. “Unless it has a negative impact on brand perception or sales, we’ll likely see American Eagle continue the campaign.”  As of Monday morning, neither Sweeney nor American Eagle had addressed the backlash publicly.