The American Eagle Sydney Sweeney ad (4 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

News outlets reporting things like "people on social media are saying..." are ones that I'm probably not all that interested in hearing from. First, I'm guessing like half of these "people" online are bots generating comments. Second, people complaining on social media shouldn't be seen as newsworthy. If someone wants to do an actual scientific poll about how people feel about this ad campaign, then maybe I'll have some interest in discussing whether or not it is racist. As it stands now, I find it hard to believe this is a significantly widespread complaint. I think I'd have a hard time finding anyone IRL that cares about this at all.

I too don't like the reporting where it's "people on social media are saying" and they prove their point posting one tweet from an account wtih 8 followers.

This is not that.

This is ABC News and Good Morning America.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1950197691717210397

My point was that is it started out as an article that with a tweet(or tik-tok video in this case) and 8 followers, then people see that article and post it on their feeds because they couldnt imagine how other people are outraged by this.

Then it keeps getting shared that way, organically at first on social media, forums, and the story eventually gets so big that major news sites picks it up like ABC news.

The news sites like ABC only cover stories that people want to hear, they are not in the news business they are in the entertainment business and when a story blows up then they also want to get in on the action.

ABC News and Good Morning America are as mainstream as media gets.

My point is this isn't a "some guy on social" thing.

This is one of the largest media companies in America, running the story on its marquee show.

 

[MTskibum]

News outlets reporting things like "people on social media are saying..." are ones that I'm probably not all that interested in hearing from. First, I'm guessing like half of these "people" online are bots generating comments. Second, people complaining on social media shouldn't be seen as newsworthy. If someone wants to do an actual scientific poll about how people feel about this ad campaign, then maybe I'll have some interest in discussing whether or not it is racist. As it stands now, I find it hard to believe this is a significantly widespread complaint. I think I'd have a hard time finding anyone IRL that cares about this at all.

I too don't like the reporting where it's "people on social media are saying" and they prove their point posting one tweet from an account wtih 8 followers.

This is not that.

This is ABC News and Good Morning America.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1950197691717210397

My point was that is it started out as an article that with a tweet(or tik-tok video in this case) and 8 followers, then people see that article and post it on their feeds because they couldnt imagine how other people are outraged by this.

Then it keeps getting shared that way, organically at first on social media, forums, and the story eventually gets so big that major news sites picks it up like ABC news.

The news sites like ABC only cover stories that people want to hear, they are not in the news business they are in the entertainment business and when a story blows up then they also want to get in on the action.

ABC News and Good Morning America are as mainstream as media gets.

My point is this isn't a "some guy on social" thing.

This is one of the largest media companies in America, running the story on its marquee show.

I agree completely with your post. ABC covering this story on July 30 is not a some guy on social media post, but how this story started out yesterday is what I was talking about.

 

[dgreen]

News outlets reporting things like "people on social media are saying..." are ones that I'm probably not all that interested in hearing from. First, I'm guessing like half of these "people" online are bots generating comments. Second, people complaining on social media shouldn't be seen as newsworthy. If someone wants to do an actual scientific poll about how people feel about this ad campaign, then maybe I'll have some interest in discussing whether or not it is racist. As it stands now, I find it hard to believe this is a significantly widespread complaint. I think I'd have a hard time finding anyone IRL that cares about this at all.

I too don't like the reporting where it's "people on social media are saying" and they prove their point posting one tweet from an account wtih 8 followers.

This is not that.

This is ABC News and Good Morning America.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1950197691717210397

Are you saying since GMA covered this that there likely is a decent amount of honest backlash out there?

 

[Nugget]

I'd guess AE marketing was trying to be edgy and maybe underestimated the backlash, If they thought there would be no pushback, then they are tone def. Social media is pushing the story because it is creating engagement, which is also why the ABC's of the world are picking it up us well. It made it way to FBGs, so it has legs now.

I'd have to imagine that the AE target audience is closer to the 12-19 age range, they are likely not going to support the cute message or that AE was completely innocent.

 

[Peak]

News outlets reporting things like "people on social media are saying..." are ones that I'm probably not all that interested in hearing from. First, I'm guessing like half of these "people" online are bots generating comments. Second, people complaining on social media shouldn't be seen as newsworthy. If someone wants to do an actual scientific poll about how people feel about this ad campaign, then maybe I'll have some interest in discussing whether or not it is racist. As it stands now, I find it hard to believe this is a significantly widespread complaint. I think I'd have a hard time finding anyone IRL that cares about this at all.

I too don't like the reporting where it's "people on social media are saying" and they prove their point posting one tweet from an account wtih 8 followers.

This is not that.

This is ABC News and Good Morning America.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1950197691717210397

Are you saying since GMA covered this that there likely is a decent amount of honest backlash out there?

I think GMA only covered this because of the online momentum it's gained. This isn't an organic choice by GMA, as you pointed out, it's more a result of the first TT post that gathered stem and GMA did a story on it thinking it's what people wanted to hear since it's moved across all social media platforms - good or bad.

 

[ChicoCat]

News outlets reporting things like "people on social media are saying..." are ones that I'm probably not all that interested in hearing from. First, I'm guessing like half of these "people" online are bots generating comments. Second, people complaining on social media shouldn't be seen as newsworthy. If someone wants to do an actual scientific poll about how people feel about this ad campaign, then maybe I'll have some interest in discussing whether or not it is racist. As it stands now, I find it hard to believe this is a significantly widespread complaint. I think I'd have a hard time finding anyone IRL that cares about this at all.

I too don't like the reporting where it's "people on social media are saying" and they prove their point posting one tweet from an account wtih 8 followers.

This is not that.

This is ABC News and Good Morning America.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1950197691717210397

Are you saying since GMA covered this that there likely is a decent amount of honest backlash out there?

I don't know if there is/was a decent amount of honest backlash. But I think a situation like this gets to the point that it is covered by GMA because of a number of factors; including:

Honest backlash
Backlash towards the backlash
Honest approval of the perceived message that fomented the honest backlash
Backlash towards people who approve of the perceived message that fomented the original honest backlash.

Then, this story reaches a new level in when we started associating and amplifying the aforementioned backlash with political and societal narratives into the conversation; including but not limited to:

Woke
Anti Woke
Right
Left
Liberal
Conservative
Anti-American
American
Racist etc. etc.

 

[-OZ-]

This backlash (and the response to it) is why we’re where we are today, a country divided. Where too many people don’t even bother to listen to different perspectives.

We are not a country divided. When you get outside and interact with people, none of this **** ever happens to anyone of us rarely if ever.

We must be seeing very different things. I wish you were right.

 

[Moe.]

I'd guess AE marketing was trying to be edgy and maybe underestimated the backlash, If they thought there would be no pushback, then they are tone def. Social media is pushing the story because it is creating engagement, which is also why the ABC's of the world are picking it up us well. It made it way to FBGs, so it has legs know.

I'd have to imagine that the AE target audience is closer to the 12-19 age range, they are likely not going to support the cute message or that AE was completely innocent.

I would guess AE is astroturfing the outrage to drive engagement. Nothing is real anymore.

 

[Buckna]

I'd guess AE marketing was trying to be edgy and maybe underestimated the backlash, If they thought there would be no pushback, then they are tone def. Social media is pushing the story because it is creating engagement, which is also why the ABC's of the world are picking it up us well. It made it way to FBGs, so it has legs know.

I'd have to imagine that the AE target audience is closer to the 12-19 age range, they are likely not going to support the cute message or that AE was completely innocent.

I'm jaded enough these days that IMO they 100% knew what they were doing and hoped the controversy would drive engagement and publicity. As you said, even with the benefit of the doubt at best A LOT of marketing people were very tone deaf. A major ad campaign with a big celebrity doesn't get greenlit without a lot of cooks in the kitchen.

I've seen enough documentaries and articles, etc. that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if AE didn't have some hired social media and PR people pushing this controversy in the first place. Once you learn about how hard some of these PR / social media companies can push things via bots, influencers, AI, fake news, etc. you kind of start distrusting a lot of what you read or see out on the internet

 

[dgreen]

Honest approval of the perceived message that fomented the honest backlash

Ah, maybe that's what Joe was saying. That GMA agrees with the criticism and that's why they ran the story. Just from the posted clip, it seemed like they were just saying the outrage is out there and here's one professor explaining why. I didn't necessarily assume agreement on GMA's part, but maybe that's there.

 

[Capella]

lol I saw this on Twitter the other day and couldn’t believe it. I have to be as big of a liberal as there is and couldn’t even wrap my head around it. Too many people are terminally online and they need to go touch grass.

 

[ChicoCat]

Honest approval of the perceived message that fomented the honest backlash

Ah, maybe that's what Joe was saying. That GMA agrees with the criticism and that's why they ran the story. Just from the posted clip, it seemed like they were just saying the outrage is out there and here's one professor explaining why. I didn't necessarily assume in agreement on GMA's part, but maybe that's there.

I kind of feel like once GMA (or just about any national news outlet with these stories) gets one of these stories...it's already been filtered into that next level of generalized societal narratives. The story has gotten past the original "anti-pro eugenics" narrative and has now jumped into woke/anti woke etc. etc.

 

[Judge Smails]

Got people talking. Great advertising

 

[Joe Bryant]

News outlets reporting things like "people on social media are saying..." are ones that I'm probably not all that interested in hearing from. First, I'm guessing like half of these "people" online are bots generating comments. Second, people complaining on social media shouldn't be seen as newsworthy. If someone wants to do an actual scientific poll about how people feel about this ad campaign, then maybe I'll have some interest in discussing whether or not it is racist. As it stands now, I find it hard to believe this is a significantly widespread complaint. I think I'd have a hard time finding anyone IRL that cares about this at all.

I too don't like the reporting where it's "people on social media are saying" and they prove their point posting one tweet from an account wtih 8 followers.

This is not that.

This is ABC News and Good Morning America.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1950197691717210397

Are you saying since GMA covered this that there likely is a decent amount of honest backlash out there?

Yes. I would hope ABC News and Good Morning America would not devote time on their marquee program for something that wasn't significant.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Speaking as one of these "children" that are allegedly being looked after all the time, we'd rather you worry about yourselves and focus on you, your actions and what you can control. We're fine. We don't need your "help" or "protection".

There is always someone to be offended. I don't know where this discomfort in disagreement came from, but its pervasive. Grown adults can't handle being in disagreement with each other. They feel the need to shame others into their position. My dad claims these are the same people who grew up with participation trophies and have been told that all opinions are equally valid and deserve respect/consideration. Fortunately, that wasn't taught in my house. Rather, we were taught to be our own person. We were taught to do our best and learn in our failures and have enough self esteem to acknowledge wrong and work to fix it moving forward.

Anyone ever wonder why some aren't impacted by "cancel culture"? Think about Eminem, the South Park dudes, etc. They aren't impacted because they don't give a crap and don't buy into the nonsense. They don't care what people think of them. They act/speak as they feel and that's good enough for them. They don't care if they are on an island. "Cancel culture" only works if we buy into it.

If I had FU money I wouldn't care about cancel culture either.

This is sort of a point, Problem is, those mentioned have their FU money because they told others to pound sand and were their own beacons of direction. If they worried about what the internet said, they wouldn't be who they are.

 

[PlayaHata]

Put me squarely in the "I don't get the uproar" camp. Even after seeing the "great genes/jeans" slogan, I took it to mean that her body fills out a pair of jeans very nicely , which can most certainly be true no matter your skin color.

 

[Joe Bryant]

lol I saw this on Twitter the other day and couldn’t believe it. I have to be as big of a liberal as there is and couldn’t even wrap my head around it. Too many people are terminally online and they need to go touch grass.

I hear you. I try to be pretty sensitive to all this as we publish content. I'm not especially worried about the cancel stuff. I already get mail every year about how sexist we are with our name being "guys". Whatever. Not a lot surprises me.

Mainly, I just try to avoid controversial things as I don't need the extra email in my mailbox.

But I saw this ad and didn't even remotely think Nazi/Racism was the slightest possibility. Wasn't on my radar at all. Maybe I'm insensitive, but I don't think so.

 

[Moe.]

It’s like Lenin said, you look for the person who will benefit and…

 

[Joe Bryant]

News outlets reporting things like "people on social media are saying..." are ones that I'm probably not all that interested in hearing from. First, I'm guessing like half of these "people" online are bots generating comments. Second, people complaining on social media shouldn't be seen as newsworthy. If someone wants to do an actual scientific poll about how people feel about this ad campaign, then maybe I'll have some interest in discussing whether or not it is racist. As it stands now, I find it hard to believe this is a significantly widespread complaint. I think I'd have a hard time finding anyone IRL that cares about this at all.

I too don't like the reporting where it's "people on social media are saying" and they prove their point posting one tweet from an account wtih 8 followers.

This is not that.

This is ABC News and Good Morning America.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1950197691717210397

My point was that is it started out as an article that with a tweet(or tik-tok video in this case) and 8 followers, then people see that article and post it on their feeds because they couldnt imagine how other people are outraged by this.

Then it keeps getting shared that way, organically at first on social media, forums, and the story eventually gets so big that major news sites picks it up like ABC news.

The news sites like ABC only cover stories that people want to hear, they are not in the news business they are in the entertainment business and when a story blows up then they also want to get in on the action.

ABC News and Good Morning America are as mainstream as media gets.

My point is this isn't a "some guy on social" thing.

This is one of the largest media companies in America, running the story on its marquee show.

I agree completely with your post. ABC covering this story on July 30 is not a some guy on social media post, but how this story started out yesterday is what I was talking about.

Thanks GB. I can see that.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Speaking as one of these "children" that are allegedly being looked after all the time, we'd rather you worry about yourselves and focus on you, your actions and what you can control. We're fine. We don't need your "help" or "protection".

There is always someone to be offended. I don't know where this discomfort in disagreement came from, but its pervasive. Grown adults can't handle being in disagreement with each other. They feel the need to shame others into their position. My dad claims these are the same people who grew up with participation trophies and have been told that all opinions are equally valid and deserve respect/consideration. Fortunately, that wasn't taught in my house. Rather, we were taught to be our own person. We were taught to do our best and learn in our failures and have enough self esteem to acknowledge wrong and work to fix it moving forward.

Anyone ever wonder why some aren't impacted by "cancel culture"? Think about Eminem, the South Park dudes, etc. They aren't impacted because they don't give a crap and don't buy into the nonsense. They don't care what people think of them. They act/speak as they feel and that's good enough for them. They don't care if they are on an island. "Cancel culture" only works if we buy into it.

OK, Sparky. Cancel culture isn't just about how you feel. It has been about people's livelihoods. If it was just online TikToks that made people mad, that would be one thing, but people had their lives effected in real and tangible ways by cancel culture up to losing opportunities and even jobs over something stupid they said decades before. South Park & Eminem have always made a living through being shocking, over the top people so of course it didn't effect them as much.

And I'm glad you are level-headed and strong willed enough to handle these things, but there are a whole lot of people that didn't grow up with your father in their ear and are stumbling through life and very susceptible to indoctrination. A bad professor can corrupt a lot of kids' minds.

Also, pretty hilarious that you seem to think you can speak for an entire generation.

You make my point for me, so thanks for that. The bold is exactly how almost all of these things start. If those people were minimized as they should be instead of magnified as they are, we wouldn't have a problem. It would be the equivalent of the town idiot standing in the corner yelling at the wall. Something that has happened since the dawn of time. There are literally billions of these sorts of potential interactions every day in our social media culture and we hear about less than a fraction of a % of them, but then we turn around and pretend they are the norm. It doesn't help anyone to feed the nonsense.

I don't really know where the "bad professor" comment comes from, but its true that there are bad professors out there. Its also true that there are a ton of good professors out there. I'll just leave it at that as I have no real idea how it has anything to do with my comments.

 

[-OZ-]

But I saw this ad and didn't even remotely think Nazi/Racism was the slightest possibility. Wasn't on my radar at all. Maybe I'm insensitive, but I don't think so.

Agreed, although I do think they’d have been less controversial with the same ad but included Zendaya or other diverse models. Surely they recognized that but opted to go this route.

 

[Ilov80s]

But I saw this ad and didn't even remotely think Nazi/Racism was the slightest possibility. Wasn't on my radar at all. Maybe I'm insensitive, but I don't think so.

Agreed, although I do think they’d have been less controversial with the same ad but included Zendaya or other diverse models. Surely they recognized that but opted to go this route.

I think they knew it hinted at it just enough to stir up lots of internet attention but be subtle enough that it would easily be defended. Like you said it wouldn’t have been hard to put another model or 2 of different ethnicities in similar ads as part of a campaign. I saw Dunkin Donuts did a play on the ad as well. To me it all reeks of corporations trying to use this very specific moment of deep polarization to get attention. I haven’t followed much but I saw AE stocks absolutely boomed after this and I’m sure for every post about how it’s bad there’s another post about how it’s nothing and another how they support AE for being so boldly conservative. You can see whatever you want in the ad which I guess makes it genius in a way.

I asked my 17 year old daughter what she thought of the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad and she said “the what?” I was very proud.

 

[glvsav37]

lol I saw this on Twitter the other day and couldn’t believe it. I have to be as big of a liberal as there is and couldn’t even wrap my head around it. Too many people are terminally online and they need to go touch grass.

But I saw this ad and didn't even remotely think Nazi/Racism was the slightest possibility. Wasn't on my radar at all. Maybe I'm insensitive, but I don't think so.

I am really having a hard time with the ease that the word "nazi" has re-entered the casual vocabulary. If anyone truly thinks we as a country are similar to that era in Germany, I have no need to talk to you and you need to go speak to some holocaust survivors

 

[Manster]

This backlash (and the response to it) is why we’re where we are today, a country divided. Where too many people don’t even bother to listen to different perspectives.

We are not a country divided. When you get outside and interact with people, none of this **** ever happens to anyone of us rarely if ever.

Unfortunately, the young people who are glued to social media are being brainwashed by **** like this though

 

[ChiefD]

I quit reading and watching the news years ago. Best thing I ever did.

 

[Zow]

The scary thing there is always a "Professor" there to be interviewed to justify the outrage. These are the people we're putting in front of young minds.

Most professors (I was one for a bit) are reasonable and level-headed. Some professors, like there are some in every profession, are nutcases.

I really don't find this situation that crazy to grasp. American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better. Then, a small percentage of viewers identified the cringe-worthy "joke" and got overly outraged. Dumb by them as well.

Should’ve caught what… That people are idiots and they should cater to them? Would prefer not to.

That the optics of the ad could easily be misconstrued.

If I were their in house counsel and was told to review the ad I would have immediately advised them to never air it even if I knew it was well-intentioned.

ETA: Unless, of course, the plan all along was to drum up controversy.

 

[dgreen]

I quit reading and watching the news years ago. Best thing I ever did.

I like that one of the "Similar threads" below is "Studies Show the FFA is bad for your brain". I feel like knowing this story exists, thanks to the FFA, is bad for my brain.

 

[Zow]

American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better.

This shouldn't be considered "dumb by them". They came up with a clever play on words and likely had no intent for it to be nazi propaganda. Because some people are reaching for a negative connotation should be on those people. Not the creator with zero intent for the outrage overstep.

You really believe that? Again, I watched it for the first time looking for the issue, but I thought it was blatantly obvious. Again, to be clear, not worth being outraged about but it was still pretty ****ing dumb even if the joke was innocently clever.

I saw nothing wrong with it and think the leap to outrage is pretty huge. I watched it for the first time knowing what the outrage was about and thought it wasn't even close to anything outrage worthy. I can see the leap and unfortunately not surprised someone went with that angle but think it's a non-issue.

I agree this shouldn't be an issue and I am not personally offended by the ad, but as stated I immediately saw the problem and am genuinely surprised the ad agency didn't see it (unless, of course, this was intentional to get people talking about American Eagles which I honestly didn't even know still existed).

In other words, while I don't agree with the leap, I can easily see how some would make it.

 

[glvsav37]

The scary thing there is always a "Professor" there to be interviewed to justify the outrage. These are the people we're putting in front of young minds.

Most professors (I was one for a bit) are reasonable and level-headed. Some professors, like there are some in every profession, are nutcases.

I really don't find this situation that crazy to grasp. American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better. Then, a small percentage of viewers identified the cringe-worthy "joke" and got overly outraged. Dumb by them as well.

Should’ve caught what… That people are idiots and they should cater to them? Would prefer not to.

That the optics of the ad could easily be misconstrued.

If I were their in house counsel and was told to review the ad I would have immediately advised them to never air it even if I knew it was well-intentioned.

ETA: Unless, of course, the plan all along was to drum up controversy.

When I was in advertising, I would joke "We can be as creative as your legal team allows us to be"

 

[Joe Bryant]

The scary thing there is always a "Professor" there to be interviewed to justify the outrage. These are the people we're putting in front of young minds.

Most professors (I was one for a bit) are reasonable and level-headed. Some professors, like there are some in every profession, are nutcases.

I really don't find this situation that crazy to grasp. American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better. Then, a small percentage of viewers identified the cringe-worthy "joke" and got overly outraged. Dumb by them as well.

Should’ve caught what… That people are idiots and they should cater to them? Would prefer not to.

That the optics of the ad could easily be misconstrued.

If I were their in house counsel and was told to review the ad I would have immediately advised them to never air it even if I knew it was well-intentioned.

ETA: Unless, of course, the plan all along was to drum up controversy.

Thanks. I would have said it would not be easily misconstrued and generate Nazi/Racism claims. Even with the bar as low as it is.

With that said, not much surprises me these days.

 

[dgreen]

American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better.

This shouldn't be considered "dumb by them". They came up with a clever play on words and likely had no intent for it to be nazi propaganda. Because some people are reaching for a negative connotation should be on those people. Not the creator with zero intent for the outrage overstep.

You really believe that? Again, I watched it for the first time looking for the issue, but I thought it was blatantly obvious. Again, to be clear, not worth being outraged about but it was still pretty ****ing dumb even if the joke was innocently clever.

I saw nothing wrong with it and think the leap to outrage is pretty huge. I watched it for the first time knowing what the outrage was about and thought it wasn't even close to anything outrage worthy. I can see the leap and unfortunately not surprised someone went with that angle but think it's a non-issue.

I agree this shouldn't be an issue and I am not personally offended by the ad, but as stated I immediately saw the problem and am genuinely surprised the ad agency didn't see it (unless, of course, this was intentional to get people talking about American Eagles which I honestly didn't even know still existed).

In other words, while I don't agree with the leap, I can easily see how some would make it.

When you say "I immediately saw the problem", do you mean you saw this ad without any knowledge that there was a controversy and you thought it could cause problems?

 

[Zow]

American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better.

This shouldn't be considered "dumb by them". They came up with a clever play on words and likely had no intent for it to be nazi propaganda. Because some people are reaching for a negative connotation should be on those people. Not the creator with zero intent for the outrage overstep.

You really believe that? Again, I watched it for the first time looking for the issue, but I thought it was blatantly obvious. Again, to be clear, not worth being outraged about but it was still pretty ****ing dumb even if the joke was innocently clever.

You thought it was blatantly obvious this ad would have nazi undertones?

Not nazi but yeah talking about "good genes" while displaying a white girl with blue eyes and blonde highlights in a country where white colored skin people used to enslave darker color skinned people and consider them literally 3/5s of a person seems pretty dumb and obvious it could appear offensive.

 

[Zow]

American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better.

This shouldn't be considered "dumb by them". They came up with a clever play on words and likely had no intent for it to be nazi propaganda. Because some people are reaching for a negative connotation should be on those people. Not the creator with zero intent for the outrage overstep.

You really believe that? Again, I watched it for the first time looking for the issue, but I thought it was blatantly obvious. Again, to be clear, not worth being outraged about but it was still pretty ****ing dumb even if the joke was innocently clever.

I saw nothing wrong with it and think the leap to outrage is pretty huge. I watched it for the first time knowing what the outrage was about and thought it wasn't even close to anything outrage worthy. I can see the leap and unfortunately not surprised someone went with that angle but think it's a non-issue.

I agree this shouldn't be an issue and I am not personally offended by the ad, but as stated I immediately saw the problem and am genuinely surprised the ad agency didn't see it (unless, of course, this was intentional to get people talking about American Eagles which I honestly didn't even know still existed).

In other words, while I don't agree with the leap, I can easily see how some would make it.

When you say "I immediately saw the problem", do you mean you saw this ad without any knowledge that there was a controversy and you thought it could cause problems?

As recognized above, I acknowledged that I first viewed the ad knowing it was problematic. So, yea, while I didn't know the exact issue I knew to view with an eye and ear for something. But it genuinely hit me immediately and wasn't some sort of stretch of my logic.

 

[Zow]

The scary thing there is always a "Professor" there to be interviewed to justify the outrage. These are the people we're putting in front of young minds.

Most professors (I was one for a bit) are reasonable and level-headed. Some professors, like there are some in every profession, are nutcases.

I really don't find this situation that crazy to grasp. American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better. Then, a small percentage of viewers identified the cringe-worthy "joke" and got overly outraged. Dumb by them as well.

Should’ve caught what… That people are idiots and they should cater to them? Would prefer not to.

That the optics of the ad could easily be misconstrued.

If I were their in house counsel and was told to review the ad I would have immediately advised them to never air it even if I knew it was well-intentioned.

ETA: Unless, of course, the plan all along was to drum up controversy.

When I was in advertising, I would joke "We can be as creative as your legal team allows us to be"

Just seems stupid to me to put something out there that could offend a significant portion of your marketing base.

 

[TLEF316]

Saying person A has "good genes" doesn't mean that hypothetical person B has "bad genes". And the message of the ad would be exactly the same if it was Anna de Armas or Dua Lipa instead of Sweeney.

Simply seeing an attractive white girl in a clothing ad can't really be the threshold for being rationally offended. It just can't.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Saying person A has "good genes" doesn't mean that hypothetical person B has "bad genes". And the message of the ad would be exactly the same if it was Anna de Armas or Dua Lipa instead of Sweeney.

Simply seeing an attractive white girl in a clothing ad can't really be the threshold for being rationally offended. It just can't.

And yet it is.

I think the elephant in the room that isn't been said here is that the women complaining about this online would never be considered for a commercial like this if being the bolded at very least was the standard. I tended bar long enough to know that unattractive women often have a strong dislike for very attractive women. I think that is the main driving force here. It sounds a bit harsh, I know, but I would bet most here agree with it (even if they won't say it).

 

[Zow]

Saying person A has "good genes" doesn't mean that hypothetical person B has "bad genes". And the message of the ad would be exactly the same if it was Anna de Armas or Dua Lipa instead of Sweeney.

Simply seeing an attractive white girl in a clothing ad can't really be the threshold for being rationally offended. It just can't.

Humans are predictably irrational. My point here is that AE is dumb for not recognizing that some may be irrationally offended.

I know this frustrates many and it shouldn't be this way, but contextually at this time in this country it's going to and I side with Seinfeld about the "ad wizards" on this one.

 

[Sand]

Saying person A has "good genes" doesn't mean that hypothetical person B has "bad genes". And the message of the ad would be exactly the same if it was Anna de Armas or Dua Lipa instead of Sweeney.

Simply seeing an attractive white girl in a clothing ad can't really be the threshold for being rationally offended. It just can't.

Obviously it is, because someone has to be a victim here. And, obviously, because she's blond and blue eyed she's a Nazi, thus accentuating that someone has to be a victim here.

I'd guess AE marketing was trying to be edgy and maybe underestimated the backlash, If they thought there would be no pushback, then they are tone def. Social media is pushing the story because it is creating engagement, which is also why the ABC's of the world are picking it up us well. It made it way to FBGs, so it has legs now.

I'd have to imagine that the AE target audience is closer to the 12-19 age range, they are likely not going to support the cute message or that AE was completely innocent.

Backlash? They are in the news and stock price is up 10-20% thanks to the ad. I find it hysterical there are claims of racism, fascism, or even tone deafness. OMG - and eugenics, talk about completely unhinged. There is nothing, zero, wrong with the ad. It's a cute girl selling clothes. We've seen the same thing a million times.

Maybe we'll get the Swedish Bikini Team back and this paves the way - one can only hope!

 

[Ghost Rider]

Saying person A has "good genes" doesn't mean that hypothetical person B has "bad genes". And the message of the ad would be exactly the same if it was Anna de Armas or Dua Lipa instead of Sweeney.

Simply seeing an attractive white girl in a clothing ad can't really be the threshold for being rationally offended. It just can't.

Humans are predictably irrational. My point here is that AE is dumb for not recognizing that some may be irrationally offended.

I know this frustrates many and it shouldn't be this way, but contextually at this time in this country it's going to and I side with Seinfeld about the "ad wizards" on this one.

Using this logic, no one should ever advertise anything then, because, let's face it, some are irrationally offended now no matter what. A company could spit out the most innocuous ad possible, and I am sure there'd still be some who'd find a way to be bothered by it. In cases like that and THIS, you have the ignore the white noise of the loons and just move on. Give them a day or two and they will find something else to cry about on X.

 

[dgreen]

American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better.

This shouldn't be considered "dumb by them". They came up with a clever play on words and likely had no intent for it to be nazi propaganda. Because some people are reaching for a negative connotation should be on those people. Not the creator with zero intent for the outrage overstep.

You really believe that? Again, I watched it for the first time looking for the issue, but I thought it was blatantly obvious. Again, to be clear, not worth being outraged about but it was still pretty ****ing dumb even if the joke was innocently clever.

I saw nothing wrong with it and think the leap to outrage is pretty huge. I watched it for the first time knowing what the outrage was about and thought it wasn't even close to anything outrage worthy. I can see the leap and unfortunately not surprised someone went with that angle but think it's a non-issue.

I agree this shouldn't be an issue and I am not personally offended by the ad, but as stated I immediately saw the problem and am genuinely surprised the ad agency didn't see it (unless, of course, this was intentional to get people talking about American Eagles which I honestly didn't even know still existed).

In other words, while I don't agree with the leap, I can easily see how some would make it.

When you say "I immediately saw the problem", do you mean you saw this ad without any knowledge that there was a controversy and you thought it could cause problems?

As recognized above, I acknowledged that I first viewed the ad knowing it was problematic. So, yea, while I didn't know the exact issue I knew to view with an eye and ear for something. But it genuinely hit me immediately and wasn't some sort of stretch of my logic.

Thanks. Sorry, didn't see you already said that. I guess I just assume having that seed of knowledge beforehand is a big factor. And, my guess is most people who have seen this commercial had much more than a seed; they had the full grown tree of "this commercial has nazi and white supremacist undertones because it says a white woman has good genes." There's no way to get an honest reaction to the ad with either the seed or the full tree provided beforehand.

But I guess I've also never heard "good genes" used in a negative manner. My assumption is that it is not common knowledge that "good genes" was, according to that professor in the GMA clip, a phrase used by white supremacists in the early 1900s. I just have my doubts that a significant portion of the population even considers a nazi-type of interpretation of that phrase. Maybe I'm naive about that.

 

[BLOCKED_PUNT]

Haven't read the article or this thread yet but I find most advertising rather silly. Using this commercial as an example, I'm not going to buy a pair of jeans based on a fairly attractive woman wearing them.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Saying person A has "good genes" doesn't mean that hypothetical person B has "bad genes". And the message of the ad would be exactly the same if it was Anna de Armas or Dua Lipa instead of Sweeney.

Simply seeing an attractive white girl in a clothing ad can't really be the threshold for being rationally offended. It just can't.

I was trying to type something similar.

I was going to say Lupita Nyong’o and Isabela Merced...but those names work fine.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

News outlets reporting things like "people on social media are saying..." are ones that I'm probably not all that interested in hearing from. First, I'm guessing like half of these "people" online are bots generating comments. Second, people complaining on social media shouldn't be seen as newsworthy. If someone wants to do an actual scientific poll about how people feel about this ad campaign, then maybe I'll have some interest in discussing whether or not it is racist. As it stands now, I find it hard to believe this is a significantly widespread complaint. I think I'd have a hard time finding anyone IRL that cares about this at all.

I too don't like the reporting where it's "people on social media are saying" and they prove their point posting one tweet from an account wtih 8 followers.

This is not that.

This is ABC News and Good Morning America.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1950197691717210397

Are you saying since GMA covered this that there likely is a decent amount of honest backlash out there?

Yes. I would hope ABC News and Good Morning America would not devote time on their marquee program for something that wasn't significant.

The last time I watched Good Morning America they were interviewing the Savanah Bananas

let’s not act like that program is some hard hitting investigative news outfit, it’s national news and weather for suburban moms

 

[glvsav37]

American Eagle put out probably an innocent ad but contained a clear potential for misinterpretation that the ad creators should have caught (unless they decided that outrage was a good thing to get people discussing their ad). Dumb by them and they should have known better.

This shouldn't be considered "dumb by them". They came up with a clever play on words and likely had no intent for it to be nazi propaganda. Because some people are reaching for a negative connotation should be on those people. Not the creator with zero intent for the outrage overstep.

You really believe that? Again, I watched it for the first time looking for the issue, but I thought it was blatantly obvious. Again, to be clear, not worth being outraged about but it was still pretty ****ing dumb even if the joke was innocently clever.

You thought it was blatantly obvious this ad would have nazi undertones?

Not nazi but yeah talking about "good genes" while displaying a white girl with blue eyes and blonde highlights in a country where white colored skin people used to enslave darker color skinned people and consider them literally 3/5s of a person seems pretty dumb and obvious it could appear offensive.

when as a society can we move past this thought process. Yes it happened, yes it was not right, but no one today had anything to do with that mindset and time period. Every time this is said it picks the scab and intentionally doesn't allow it heal. Its 2025, this is no longer an issue and prevents any rational conversation.

So you have a blonde haired (bottle blonde BTW) white woman talking about having good genes in a fashion ad, is the same as Saquon Barkley doing an ad for football cleats, showing him hurdling defenders and breaking away down the field faster then the rest with the voiceover talking about having superior genetics for his profession.

How can one be looked down at as "slaving overlords" and the other as "damn he's good"?

At what point can we just agree that everyone is different in their own way and there are beautiful people, athletic people, smart people, regular people, mean people, ugly people and everything in between. Race and history is not a predominant factor in any of it. We all know someone in those traits, regardless of their race and what our country engaged in 150 years ago.

 

[Moe.]

@glvsav37 yes, chattel slavery is no longer an issue in the US, but racism is still definitely a thing.

It’s easy to say as part of the majority that everyone needs to move on and forget about it, but you might want to consider that you are not the right person to make that claim. It’s not outrageous for people to think the consequences of that system are still very much a thing in 2025.

If Gatorade came out with a commercial that featured Saquon and talked about his good genes it would absolutely be seen as problematic.

 

[belljr]

Lol anybody that thinks someone's saying they have good genes is an issue is the problem.

If saquon Barkley was in a Levi's commercial and said he has great jeans. I wouldn't bat an eye either.

Why would saquon Barkley say he has great jeans and a Gatorade commercial? It's a jeans ad

 

[Gally]

If Gatorade came out with a commercial that featured Saquon and talked about his good genes it would absolutely be seen as problematic.

I highly doubt this would be seen as a problem at all.

 

[Mookie]

AE's marketing department knew what they were doing. They probably considered having a beautiful woman of color or other ethnicity in the shoot, but chose instead to throw bait out and see if some would take it and become outraged. It worked and here we are. Even with middle-aged white men, they have won as 4 pages of comments over whether there is even an issue here demonstrates profound engagement with their brand. Was AE on your radar before the ad? It is now, and that's a huge marketing win. Heck, they even got free plugs on Good Morning America! We're all playing into their hands.

 

[Gally]

Was AE on your radar before the ad? It is now,

It wasn't on my radar before and it still isn't on my radar. This does nothing in regards to getting me to use their product (and that is regardless of the ad campaign being controversial as i don't see it as being controversial).

So while they may be a product I have heard of now in about a day or two I may not remember them and I still haven't/won't buy anything from them.

 

[Moe.]

Lol anybody that thinks someone's saying they have good genes is an issue is the problem.

If saquon Barkley was in a Levi's commercial and said he has great jeans. I wouldn't bat an eye either.

Why would saquon Barkley say he has great jeans and a Gatorade commercial? It's a jeans ad

You’ve seen the ad right? I get that it’s a pun but she’s literally talking about genes being passed down from one generation to the next. They are leaning into it because they knew it would get this reaction and they chose Sweeney on purpose, and it’s not just because she’s white and pretty. There’s other baggage with her specifically that they are tapping into, but we can’t really get into that here without violating the no politics thing.

You don’t hear the whistle because you aren’t a dog but it’s not some crazy leap to look at it that way.