Sydney Sweeney / American Eagle Controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM showing how out of touch it is once again.

+1
Never fails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM showing how out of touch it is once again.

I don't know which side you're talking about. I hope it isn't the ones complaining about the ad. Sydney is getting absolutely roasted on TikTok by the exact target demo AE wants.

No, not really. This is a giant win for AE.

How so?

Weeds out the annoying demographic AE doesn’t want, new consumer association with hotness, seen as standing up to schoolmarm scolds, brand now being talked about in socials (remember, the woke scolding helps their brand, doesn’t hurt it, they want those TikToks), free publicity.

I actually agree that the controversy is probably been fanned by AE itself but no matter what, no consumer brand for teens wants “endorsed by DCUMs” as a selling point. So, DCUMs scolding is only good for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM showing how out of touch it is once again.

I don't know which side you're talking about. I hope it isn't the ones complaining about the ad. Sydney is getting absolutely roasted on TikTok by the exact target demo AE wants.

No, not really. This is a giant win for AE.

How so?

Weeds out the annoying demographic AE doesn’t want, new consumer association with hotness, seen as standing up to schoolmarm scolds, brand now being talked about in socials (remember, the woke scolding helps their brand, doesn’t hurt it, they want those TikToks), free publicity.

I actually agree that the controversy is probably been fanned by AE itself but no matter what, no consumer brand for teens wants “endorsed by DCUMs” as a selling point. So, DCUMs scolding is only good for them.

The average teen does not even know what DCUM is for it to care whether a brand was endorsed by it or not, lol.

You sound like an out-of-touch anti-woke Boomer/Gen-Xer who thinks they know about marketing. Women/young girls are not getting excited about those jeans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM showing how out of touch it is once again.

I don't know which side you're talking about. I hope it isn't the ones complaining about the ad. Sydney is getting absolutely roasted on TikTok by the exact target demo AE wants.

No, not really. This is a giant win for AE.

How so?

Weeds out the annoying demographic AE doesn’t want, new consumer association with hotness, seen as standing up to schoolmarm scolds, brand now being talked about in socials (remember, the woke scolding helps their brand, doesn’t hurt it, they want those TikToks), free publicity.

I actually agree that the controversy is probably been fanned by AE itself but no matter what, no consumer brand for teens wants “endorsed by DCUMs” as a selling point. So, DCUMs scolding is only good for them.

The average teen does not even know what DCUM is for it to care whether a brand was endorsed by it or not, lol.

You sound like an out-of-touch anti-woke Boomer/Gen-Xer who thinks they know about marketing. Women/young girls are not getting excited about those jeans.

Their audience for this is men. Not women/young girls. They are targeting men. The fact you don’t understand this disqualifies you immediately from any analysis. Go back to scolding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM showing how out of touch it is once again.

I don't know which side you're talking about. I hope it isn't the ones complaining about the ad. Sydney is getting absolutely roasted on TikTok by the exact target demo AE wants.

No, not really. This is a giant win for AE.

How so?

Weeds out the annoying demographic AE doesn’t want, new consumer association with hotness, seen as standing up to schoolmarm scolds, brand now being talked about in socials (remember, the woke scolding helps their brand, doesn’t hurt it, they want those TikToks), free publicity.

I actually agree that the controversy is probably been fanned by AE itself but no matter what, no consumer brand for teens wants “endorsed by DCUMs” as a selling point. So, DCUMs scolding is only good for them.

The average teen does not even know what DCUM is for it to care whether a brand was endorsed by it or not, lol.

You sound like an out-of-touch anti-woke Boomer/Gen-Xer who thinks they know about marketing. Women/young girls are not getting excited about those jeans.

Their audience for this is men. Not women/young girls. They are targeting men. The fact you don’t understand this disqualifies you immediately from any analysis. Go back to scolding.

They are not buying AE jeans either omg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM showing how out of touch it is once again.

I don't know which side you're talking about. I hope it isn't the ones complaining about the ad. Sydney is getting absolutely roasted on TikTok by the exact target demo AE wants.

No, not really. This is a giant win for AE.

How so?

Weeds out the annoying demographic AE doesn’t want, new consumer association with hotness, seen as standing up to schoolmarm scolds, brand now being talked about in socials (remember, the woke scolding helps their brand, doesn’t hurt it, they want those TikToks), free publicity.

I actually agree that the controversy is probably been fanned by AE itself but no matter what, no consumer brand for teens wants “endorsed by DCUMs” as a selling point. So, DCUMs scolding is only good for them.

The average teen does not even know what DCUM is for it to care whether a brand was endorsed by it or not, lol.

You sound like an out-of-touch anti-woke Boomer/Gen-Xer who thinks they know about marketing. Women/young girls are not getting excited about those jeans.

Their audience for this is men. Not women/young girls. They are targeting men. The fact you don’t understand this disqualifies you immediately from any analysis. Go back to scolding.

They are not buying AE jeans either omg

Dear God. You really don’t understand how marketing works, do you?

[Anonymous]

This time last year, AE would have to remove the ad and apologize.

We live in different time now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM showing how out of touch it is once again.

I don't know which side you're talking about. I hope it isn't the ones complaining about the ad. Sydney is getting absolutely roasted on TikTok by the exact target demo AE wants.

No, not really. This is a giant win for AE.

How so?

Weeds out the annoying demographic AE doesn’t want, new consumer association with hotness, seen as standing up to schoolmarm scolds, brand now being talked about in socials (remember, the woke scolding helps their brand, doesn’t hurt it, they want those TikToks), free publicity.

I actually agree that the controversy is probably been fanned by AE itself but no matter what, no consumer brand for teens wants “endorsed by DCUMs” as a selling point. So, DCUMs scolding is only good for them.

The average teen does not even know what DCUM is for it to care whether a brand was endorsed by it or not, lol.

You sound like an out-of-touch anti-woke Boomer/Gen-Xer who thinks they know about marketing. Women/young girls are not getting excited about those jeans.

Their audience for this is men. Not women/young girls. They are targeting men. The fact you don’t understand this disqualifies you immediately from any analysis. Go back to scolding.

They are not buying AE jeans either omg

Dear God. You really don’t understand how marketing works, do you?

You clearly don't, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM showing how out of touch it is once again.

I don't know which side you're talking about. I hope it isn't the ones complaining about the ad. Sydney is getting absolutely roasted on TikTok by the exact target demo AE wants.

No, not really. This is a giant win for AE.

How so?

Weeds out the annoying demographic AE doesn’t want, new consumer association with hotness, seen as standing up to schoolmarm scolds, brand now being talked about in socials (remember, the woke scolding helps their brand, doesn’t hurt it, they want those TikToks), free publicity.

I actually agree that the controversy is probably been fanned by AE itself but no matter what, no consumer brand for teens wants “endorsed by DCUMs” as a selling point. So, DCUMs scolding is only good for them.

The average teen does not even know what DCUM is for it to care whether a brand was endorsed by it or not, lol.

You sound like an out-of-touch anti-woke Boomer/Gen-Xer who thinks they know about marketing. Women/young girls are not getting excited about those jeans.

Their audience for this is men. Not women/young girls. They are targeting men. The fact you don’t understand this disqualifies you immediately from any analysis. Go back to scolding.

They are not buying AE jeans either omg

Dear God. You really don’t understand how marketing works, do you?

You clearly don't, apparently.

Sigh, I do, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I legitimately believe that American Eagle is actually pushing the “controversy” angle via PR spin. If you read the articles about this they quote random-ass people on Twitter, who are “outraged” by the ads.

That totally feels like PR planted tweets that then get forwarded along to reporters at the daily mail by American Eagle PR company to write stories about it.

It’s an absolutely fake controversy. The effect of this is to attract eyeballs to American Eagle. This then puts white people on the defensive and draws in men to white night defend Sydney Sweeney. If you look at the American Eagle website, it shows pictures of Sydney Sweeney next to men’s clothing line options. The whole controversy is to get white men stirred up and purchasing items from American Eagle Eagle.

+1

Six pages of comments debating this ad before someone said this. As the PP mentioned, American Eagle definitely knew what it was doing.

I’m a millennial who didn’t know American Eagle was still open. I had heard of Sydney Sweeney, but couldn’t have identified her before this thread. I just wasn’t familiar with her. But here I am, commenting on this thread, just having watched the YouTube video of all the ads. They remind me of Brooke Shield’s campaign for Calvin Klein that aired years before I was born but suburban moms still found outrageous 15 years later in the mid-90s.

Well played, American Eagle!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM showing how out of touch it is once again.

I don't know which side you're talking about. I hope it isn't the ones complaining about the ad. Sydney is getting absolutely roasted on TikTok by the exact target demo AE wants.

No, not really. This is a giant win for AE.

How so?

Weeds out the annoying demographic AE doesn’t want, new consumer association with hotness, seen as standing up to schoolmarm scolds, brand now being talked about in socials (remember, the woke scolding helps their brand, doesn’t hurt it, they want those TikToks), free publicity.

I actually agree that the controversy is probably been fanned by AE itself but no matter what, no consumer brand for teens wants “endorsed by DCUMs” as a selling point. So, DCUMs scolding is only good for them.

The average teen does not even know what DCUM is for it to care whether a brand was endorsed by it or not, lol.

You sound like an out-of-touch anti-woke Boomer/Gen-Xer who thinks they know about marketing. Women/young girls are not getting excited about those jeans.

Their audience for this is men. Not women/young girls. They are targeting men. The fact you don’t understand this disqualifies you immediately from any analysis. Go back to scolding.

They are not buying AE jeans either omg

Dear God. You really don’t understand how marketing works, do you?

DP. At the end of the day, AE needs to increase revenue. How did this ad help make that happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s literally a play on a controversial jeans ad done by Brooke Shields in the 80s. Similar copy on “genes”. It’s a play on words.

The difference was that Brooke Shields was an intelligent and talented actress

Ha. It was 1980 and Brooke Shields was 15 years old. No one thought she was “an intelligent and talented actress” at the time.

I like Brooke Shields and I don’t get why they would try and make a pay on that ad. She’ll be eligible to collect social security in a year or two. Not sure how this helps revitalize their brand with the consumers they want or need.

[Anonymous]

We should start calling these pants dungarees to fight the Nazi propaganda!

[Anonymous]

I’m usually not big on controversies but this one hits hard a as black woman. Definitely won’t be buying from them

[Anonymous]

Nobody under the age of 40 thinks this a controversy.