Sydney Sweeney’s recent advertising campaign for American Eagle, dubbed the “great jeans” campaign, has emerged as a surprising success, generating significant buzz and boosting the brand’s stock by as much as 16% amid a wave of meme stock fervor. The campaign, centered on the tagline “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” with its playful pun on “great genes,” has capitalized on her image as a blonde, blue-eyed actress to create a polarizing yet effective marketing strategy. Despite the controversy surrounding accusations of racial undertones and eugenics references, the campaign’s bold approach has resonated with a segment of consumers, driving sales and visibility, particularly through viral social media engagement and high-profile 3D billboards in Times Square and Las Vegas. This success underscores a calculated risk that paid off, leveraging Sweeney’s mainstream appeal and unapologetic persona.

The campaign has, however, left some people of color visibly discombobulated, as they struggle to reconcile Sweeney’s striking beauty and self-assured nature with their own experiences and perceptions. Critics, particularly on platforms like TikTok and X, have pointed to the campaign’s focus on her Eurocentric features—blonde hair, blue eyes, and slender frame—as reinforcing outdated beauty standards that exclude diverse representations. This has sparked a sense of bewilderment and frustration, with some expressing that her innate confidence and the campaign’s celebration of her “genetic traits” feel alienating, as if her appeal is an unattainable ideal rooted in historical notions of racial superiority. The disconnect has fueled heated debates, with many questioning why a brand would double down on such imagery in an era pushing for inclusivity.

This disarray among people of color highlights a deeper cultural clash, where Sweeney’s natural charisma and the campaign’s unapologetic embrace of her attributes—seen by some as an inherent gift—clash with efforts to broaden beauty norms. The media frenzy has amplified this tension, with some defending the campaign as a playful nod to classic advertising tropes, while others see it as a throwback to exclusionary ideals that disorient those who don’t fit the mold. Despite the backlash, the campaign’s financial and cultural impact suggests that Sweeney’s self-assured presence, whether innate or cultivated, has struck a chord, leaving a complex legacy of admiration and critique that continues to unfold.