Sydney Sweeney / American Eagle Controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

NP. It’s almost as if progressives want to alienate literally every voter except the extreme left. This is a delusional take.

Agree. Getting worked up over this shows that some people will feign outrage over just about anything.

And they're only giving the ad campaign more publicity in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

You sound insane.
So ad companies can’t just feature ONE person in a commercial anymore? They can’t say “wow—she has good genes/jeans” without people understanding that it’s a linguistic play on words and the fact that she’s a good looking young woman who has superior (aka “good looking”) genes AND superior (aka their brand) jeans?!?!
Or is it only okay if the good looking woman they used for the ad were a young woman of color like Simone Biles or an older woman of color like Beyonce?
Honestly I feel like it’s only a race thing because you are trying to make the messaging be about race! And why is that? Do YOU think that Sidney Sweeney’s WHITEness is what makes her genes superior??? Because I bet the ad execs at AE do not. And I guarantee you that Sidney Sweeney does not consider her whiteness to be “the good part” of her gene pool. (Or maybe you think she SHOULD think that…and so therefor should have known better …or at least should have predicted that there are people like you who are so racist that THEY would assume that the double meaning implied that she was a white supremacist??)

AE is not a “white supremacist” company anymore than Planned Parenthood is! (Actually—come to think of it, only one of those two has its roots in eugenics, and spoiler alert: it’s ain’t AE)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this ad is a bit tone deaf, but not actually offensive. They could easily just add a couple more pairs of jeans/spokespeople and defuse all of this, so they may go that route.

None of the people who care about this would actually buy AE jeans so no need to waste money.

I disagree. There is definitely an extreme contingent that thinks AE is promoting eugenics, but there are also a lot of younger women who seem to dislike the ad because they don’t like how Sydney panders to men and — although they haven’t really articulated it this way — they find it cringy. I see so many TikTok videos of attractive* users mocking her because of her weird pronunciation. These sexy ads remind me od perfume commercials — awkward and earnest and desperate to seem sexy, and that alone kills their appeal among Gen Zers

*I know it sounds weird to bring up they’re attractive, but I’m mentioning it because a lot of people seem to think the backlash is coming from a bunch of ugly, jealous women.

I saw an ad today of her at Baskin Robbins sucking her drink through a straw while two male employees look on, dumbfounded. I was struck by the infantile drink which was a strawberry soda type thing with gummy bears floating in it. I don't know what Gen zers find sexy but I doubt it's this.

The guys probably like it. It’s like the waitresses they have at Hooters, they don’t put the girls in tight tank tops and tiny shorts to sell wings and beer to women.

Hooter is kept afloat by reitrement-age men. No Gen Z guys are going to Hooters.

They just declared bankruptcy so it's hard to say they're much afloat.

My wife, genuinely, likes the wings.

You don’t need the commas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree she's an odd choice of spokesperson for this brand. I remember a few years ago AE's swimsuit line made headlines for using "real" non-airbrushed models, with cellulite, imperfect bikini lines, etc. who looked like regular gals you'd see on any beach. SS's look and appeal is... not that.

Hmm - wonder if the “real body” campaign didn’t land…?

I mean, inclusive advertising is nice.
But aspirational is what sells.

Signed—a thick girl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

You sound insane.
So ad companies can’t just feature ONE person in a commercial anymore? They can’t say “wow—she has good genes/jeans” without people understanding that it’s a linguistic play on words and the fact that she’s a good looking young woman who has superior (aka “good looking”) genes AND superior (aka their brand) jeans?!?!
Or is it only okay if the good looking woman they used for the ad were a young woman of color like Simone Biles or an older woman of color like Beyonce?
Honestly I feel like it’s only a race thing because you are trying to make the messaging be about race! And why is that? Do YOU think that Sidney Sweeney’s WHITEness is what makes her genes superior??? Because I bet the ad execs at AE do not. And I guarantee you that Sidney Sweeney does not consider her whiteness to be “the good part” of her gene pool. (Or maybe you think she SHOULD think that…and so therefor should have known better …or at least should have predicted that there are people like you who are so racist that THEY would assume that the double meaning implied that she was a white supremacist??)

AE is not a “white supremacist” company anymore than Planned Parenthood is! (Actually—come to think of it, only one of those two has its roots in eugenics, and spoiler alert: it’s ain’t AE)

Example #1467 of this ad making people defensive and feel the need to white knight Sydney. I can’t believe people are actually falling for this fake controversy. This is literally the internet talking itself in circles to hack culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

NP. It’s almost as if progressives want to alienate literally every voter except the extreme left. This is a delusional take.

Agree. Getting worked up over this shows that some people will feign outrage over just about anything.

And they're only giving the ad campaign more publicity in the process.

Social media has a handful of people saying crazy stuff and normalizing extreme beliefs as they go just so they can get a viral post. Is it a strange ad? Yes because it really isn’t selling the jeans to the 15-25 year old women who would buy them. But is it Nazi Eugenics propaganda? No. I think they will get a tiny MAGA money boost from this with the risk of alienating their existing customers. Nobody is talking about the actual jeans which is what they are supposed to be selling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

NP. It’s almost as if progressives want to alienate literally every voter except the extreme left. This is a delusional take.

Agree. Getting worked up over this shows that some people will feign outrage over just about anything.

And they're only giving the ad campaign more publicity in the process.

+1000 I'm so sick of the outrage over nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

NP. It’s almost as if progressives want to alienate literally every voter except the extreme left. This is a delusional take.

Agree. Getting worked up over this shows that some people will feign outrage over just about anything.

And they're only giving the ad campaign more publicity in the process.

+1000 I'm so sick of the outrage over nothing.

You being “sick of the outrage over nothing” is just an example of you being manipulated by this company and their marketers. You literally are “sick” about the “outrage” generated by fake Twitter posts and paid media - like DailyMail - to publish a planted article.

Don’t you get it? They want you to have an emotional reaction. They have you “sick” about people who do not exist in the hope that you’ll buy some AE jeans as a way to “stick it to the woke libs.”

The ad campaign is working as designed. Really gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ad is a thermometer. People are scared and stressed out. This is why the ad is so triggering.

I agree, I think it's understandable why people are frazzled and I don't like that they're being made fun of for being "oversensitive woke people."

But they should be mocked, and thoroughly. If you are so lacking in perspective that an ad for blue jeans sends you into a performative tizzy, you absolutely should be roundly mocked. Mockery is the only way we will slowly inch towards sanity.

“Blue jeans ads are Nazi OMG!?!?!” has to be one of the dumbest takes of the progressive left I’ve seen in awhile, and there are a lot of candidates to choose from.

[Anonymous]

It’s hilarious watching people defend this ad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree she's an odd choice of spokesperson for this brand. I remember a few years ago AE's swimsuit line made headlines for using "real" non-airbrushed models, with cellulite, imperfect bikini lines, etc. who looked like regular gals you'd see on any beach. SS's look and appeal is... not that.

Hmm - wonder if the “real body” campaign didn’t land…?

I mean, inclusive advertising is nice.
But aspirational is what sells.

Signed—a thick girl

I would love to see recent stats on this. Do you have them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think there's a serious judgment lapse with an ad campaign extolling the "great genes" of a blonde haired blue eyed white woman and literally no one else, I'm not sure what to tell you. There are political figures sieg heiling on stage at political conventions, now is not the time to pretend we've never heard of Nazis.

Sure if they had done it about different women or a lot of random beautiful women it would read differently. Because there wouldn't be a history of violent eugenics behind the message.

NP. It’s almost as if progressives want to alienate literally every voter except the extreme left. This is a delusional take.

Agree. Getting worked up over this shows that some people will feign outrage over just about anything.

And they're only giving the ad campaign more publicity in the process.

+1000 I'm so sick of the outrage over nothing.

You being “sick of the outrage over nothing” is just an example of you being manipulated by this company and their marketers. You literally are “sick” about the “outrage” generated by fake Twitter posts and paid media - like DailyMail - to publish a planted article.

Don’t you get it? They want you to have an emotional reaction. They have you “sick” about people who do not exist in the hope that you’ll buy some AE jeans as a way to “stick it to the woke libs.”

The ad campaign is working as designed. Really gross.

DP- thank you! I was genuinely curious on how this ad would sell clothes.

[Anonymous]

I think it's miss for the tagline connotations and also- she's no Charlize Theron- you would never look at that face and go 'wow great genes' at the best of times. So it's a lot of cringe in one campaign. But maybe it's supposed to be funny/ironic?

[Anonymous]

AE stock is up 15%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AE stock is up 15%.

That translates to about a $1.