Related Posts
Visual Storyteller
Conversation Starter
We didn’t listen!!!
Additional Posts in Advertising
What’s the best agency to work at?
Pros and cons of working on an auto brand?
Rising Star
give this man a raise.
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Anyone with that take has a room temperature IQ (we’re talking celsius), which honestly leads me to believe we may actually need eugenics.
Oh boy, heard an even more ridiculous take today. Apparently people are mad about the proceeds going to a DV charity for victims of abuse. They’re mad because this ad looks like Brooke Shields Calvin Klein ad and it could be disrespectful to the abuse she faced… So many jean ads look like this. We’ve truly lost the plot.
“In biology, "good genes" refers to a set of genes that are believed to increase the survival and reproductive success of offspring. It's a concept often discussed in the context of sexual selection, where individuals with these "good genes" are more likely to be chosen as mates. These genes are thought to code for traits that are beneficial to offspring, such as physical attractiveness, health, and disease resistance.” Guys, it means you’re hot. That’s all it’s ever meant. No one has ever told an ugly white person they have “good genes.”
This goes beyond advertising. The issue isn’t that bold creative isn’t getting approved. It’s that no one in these rooms recognized how this could be perceived by Americans living in a different reality.
Of course the agency wasn’t promoting eugenics. But putting a blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl in an ad and calling her “good genes” in a political climate where DEI is being actively rolled back carries serious weight. I hear you on learning to take a joke, but this is bigger than a copy line. It’s about how we as marketers are choosing to interact in this climate
Like I said in my original comment I doubt anyone in the day to day of making this ad had truly malicious intent and I don’t think any of these attacks should be at the agency, Sweeney, or one individual person or be presented in a way that doesn’t offer room for conversation.
But truly evil ideals are upheld in the day to day minutia so calling them out matters.
They’re not “promoting eugenics” but at the very least it’s irresponsible writing. It also doesn’t help that’s she’s been hawking things for months now with the same creepy voyeuristic tone. I’ve never seen someone squander good will for a career as fast as she has.
Gotta make hay while the sun shines. Plus I feel like her star is only rising
Idk. If this many people see it as about eugenics, that likely came up in concepting/pitching/testing… and they ran it anyway. Feels pretty intentional. At my agency, this would’ve been killed in the first round (with a big eye side-eye).
Friends don't let friends present ideas like this even once 😬
These comments do not pass the basic human empathy check, yikes.
Do I think American Eagle is trying to promote a eugenics agenda? No.
Do I think someone in the room should have pointed out how the ad might be culturally insensitive way, way before it saw the light of day? Absolutely.
People in this country are scared right now. People are literally being detained without due process, all because of their genes. It's tone-deaf at absolute best.
But hey. Clothing brands have been defining who they want wearing their product and who they don't want wearing their product for decades. I think AE has made their position pretty clear. Who's surprised though, really?
No towards the consumers who see the ad
You don’t second things if you have an MBA
It’s tone deaf, I’ll give it that.
Indeed. An idiot can see this has nothing to do with eugenics. People just want social media rage bait to boost engagement and virtue signal. We had a religious group say one of our client’s commercials was satanic because we featured the planet Saturn in a way they felt was occultic 🤷♂️
ACD2, please define for us what "conventional attractiveness" is. Not trying to be combative I'm just curious how you'd define it.
This is emotional hypochondria in action. Overly sensitive people need to touch grass. I’d love it if this was the first of a series that has Gal Gadot and Halle Berry as the next examples of good jeans. Oh but wait. Is that all too normative beauty?
No wonder our industry is shrinking.
But the eugenics double entendre is right there in a fashy climate. This is not the example to use for your point my guy.
1000%. I’ve had clients recently kill stuff based on another brand’s work getting twitter backlash. And you almost can’t blame em. The general public has somehow become so soft and chronically pissed off at the same time. That said, this one feels like a reach even for 2025
And it’s also the rabbis and gurus of marketing that need their weekly “Here’s a lesson on that” post in LinkedIn.
who did it?
Anyone else think the “eugenics” blowback was a calculated PR move, paid for by agencies delivered across platforms to boost attention for the campaign, reap organic social, and drive sales? It’s the same damn story every time.
I like your brand of tinfoil.
I hear you. Would any of you all approve creative like this though?
Chief
@ECD This was done in-house. Many times, things work differently client side. People are obligated to drink the kool-aid and not encouraged to question ideas. This is the reason why clients need an agency, even if they have in-house creative departments. They NEED outside perspective.
But they put it out there.
Do ad agencies intend the racism when they miss it?
Also it basically tells women who don’t look like her that they are losers at a genetic level.
Going to guess men love the ad and women don’t, mostly
Chief
You’d be surprised. Internalized misogyny is a thing. I’m sure the Mean Girls love it.
Hear, hear
Pay a bunch of low-level left-leaning influencers to crash out over a provocative campaign, claiming it’s a dog whistle for far right tactics, see the Real America respond in indignation. Brand gets eyes, clicks, dollars. Ref: Sabrina Carpenter cover art. C’mon guys.
I mostly thought the campaign was fine - maybe a little lazy since it just repurposed an old Brooke Shields campaign. The jump to the “eugenics” critique is wild though and hard to take seriously.
It makes it that much harder to share valid critiques of ads that are *actually* problematic when people get this dramatic about something like this.
Maybe that’s karma coming around for their ripping off a 45-year-old and very famous Calvin Klein spot.