When Marketing Brings in More Than Just Money
How a series of jean ads became an arena for cultural and political shifts in 2025
Liv Bennis and Olivia Miro
9/24/20254 min read
What’s so exciting about jeans? If you’ve been on social media lately, chances are you’ve watched a viral denim ad or seen some discourse surrounding jeans. Is this dramatic surge in the keyword “jeans” due to skinny jeans trending, or because darker washes are “in”? Surprisingly, in 2025, denim campaigns are no longer only about fit or style; instead, they’ve become platforms for cultural meaning, political interpretation, and viral storytelling. Specifically, Gap’s “Better in Denim” campaign, featuring international K-Pop group Katseye, and American Eagle’s “Great Genes” ad with actress Sydney Sweeney, have captured the internet's attention for weeks– driving unprecedented clicks and engagement. Together, these ads highlight how a single campaign can push a brand forward, spark controversy, or do both at once.
American Eagle: When Worldplay “Backfires”
On July 23rd, 2025, American Eagle released its new “Great Genes” campaign starring actress Sydney Sweeney. Best known for her role in HBO’s hit series Euphoria, Sweeney has faced criticism for inadvertently reinforcing the oversexualization of young women, both through her acting roles and her personal media presence. Through the “Great Genes” campaign, American Eagle paired Sydney’s celebrity appeal with her provocative image in the advertisement tagline, “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Genes.” Despite the clever double meaning of the word “genes", this campaign left viewers confused on both the true meaning behind the phrase and the choice of Sweeney to represent “great genes.”
As viewers shared their interpretations of the ad on social media, many drew comparisons between the phrase “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Genes” and eugenics—an ideology that misused genetic theories to promote white superiority and spread harmful rhetoric against people of color. (1) Pairing the phrase “Great Genes”with a white actress left many consumers outraged and confused– especially amidst a global trend towards DEI initiatives and inclusion. Beyond the DEI controversy, the campaign drew striking parallels to Calvin Klein’s 1980 jeans ads starring actress and model Brooke Shields, where the 14-year-old was given similarly provocative lines and directed in ways many critics have deemed inappropriate for a minor.
While this campaign had no shortage of initial critics amongst experts and the “chronically online,” the advertisement eventually moved to the general public, where a new perspective began to emerge from the broader audience. The NYT noted that “there were three times as many posts supportive of the campaign… as there were posts critical of [it].” Further, conservative commentators seized the online dialog to frame the widespread criticism of the campaign as another example of “woke” overreach. The controversy surrounding the ad even caught the attention of prominent political figures, such as President Trump, who chimed in to say that “Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the HOTTEST ad out there. Go get 'em, Sydney!”(2) This attention from political figures only continued to skyrocket the campaign. Whether intentional or not, the buzz surrounding the advertisement significantly amplified AE’s brand visibility and product reach, raising broader implications for the marketing landscape—most notably, a potential rise in provocative messaging as a new form of “shockvertising.”(3)
Despite the initial backlash, the Sydney Sweeney jeans sold out within a week of their release, and American Eagle reported earnings per share rose to 45 cents, which proved to be a 15 percent increase from the year before.(4) However, the quarter ended just shortly after the ad, so the financial success can’t be directly attributed to Sweeney’s advertisement. Although the campaign faltered socially, and likely tarnished the company’s brand image, the impressive revenue growth demonstrates that it remained a financial success. As noted earlier, this raises the question of whether the controversy was a deliberate act of “shockvertising,” as major brands increasingly operate on the assumption that heightened attention and engagement—positive or negative—can translate directly into revenue growth.
Gap: Nostalgia Meets Inclusivity
About a week and a half later, on August 3, 2025, Gap launched its soon-to-be historic “Better in Denim” campaign, featuring the newly famous six-member international girl group Katseye. The ad, featuring striking choreography by celebrity choreographer Robbie Blue and performed to the 2003 hit song, “Milkshake”, by Kelis, is rooted in Y2K nostalgia— focusing equally on the energetic pop group as the inspiration and story behind the jeans. However, unlike pop groups of the early 2000s, which were scarcely diverse, the Katseye members' backgrounds range from all around the world, making them relatable to a wide audience of viewers.
While diversity amongst the group was a key factor in the success of the denim campaign, it did not generate engagement on its own. The backlash against American Eagle, combined with Gap’s strategic decision to present its campaign as positive refinement to the missteps in the Sydney Sweeney launch, positioned “Better in Denim” as both timely and culturally attuned. This conclusion is further supported by the numbers: the campaign generated over 400 million total views and 8 billion impressions, while second-quarter sales rose by 4%. (5)
This campaign—being one of several positive viral moments for the brand in the past two years—has helped propel Gap back into cultural relevance, and a heritage label of its size needs this kind of spotlight every so often. With its impeccable timing, and relatable representation, the brand has shown not only the marketing sphere, but also the whole of social media, how to make a successful campaign respectfully and profitably.
Virality does NOT always mean Predictability
In the end, both campaigns were “successful” in unique ways, but they also revealed that high engagement and financial gain do not always translate into a favorable brand image. Is it worth damaging a brand’s reputation for short-term profit and a fleeting viral moment, or is it better to build loyalty, trust, and lasting support through consistent, inclusive campaigns? Gap showed that a brand can benefit from the cultural halo of inclusivity, while American Eagle’s campaign demonstrated that clarity of message is essential—without it, a brand risks being pulled into unintended and controversial territory. Ultimately, once a campaign enters social media’s increasingly polarized ecosystem, its meaning is up for interpretation and no longer fully under the brand’s control. So is it really about jeans—or are they simply a metaphor for cultural change and brand positioning in today’s volatile, socially driven world?
Sources:
(1) https://irp.nih.gov/catalyst/29/4/unfit-to-breed-americas-dark-tale-of-eugenics
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/07/business/sydney-sweeney-ad-right-wing-media.html
(3) https://camphouse.io/blog/shock-advertising Shock advertising, often referred to as “shockvertising”, is a communication method brands and companies use to capture viewers’ attention by evoking strong positive or negative feelings.
(4) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/business/american-eagle-sydney-sweeney-ad-earnings.html
When Marketing Brings in More Than Just Money:
How a series of jean ads became an arena for cultural and political shifts in 2025
