In recent years, fashion marketing had operated as an instrument of cultural and political negotiation. Rather than judging brands solely on style and cost, we measured them on their apparent ideologies and who they catered to. In August of 2025, this was evident with the dual denim campaigns of American Eagle and GAP. While both brands looked to be revitalised, there were polar opposite approaches, the results of which reflected how important it is to have leadership and to understand your audience. By making this comparison, it became clear that the development of marketing campaigns was not simply a matter of aesthetic judgement and artistic creativity but was also closely linked to systems of beliefs and values within the organisation which have very real implications in terms of social and economic impacts. 

American Eagle’s recent campaign, “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans,” centred around actress Sydney Sweeney and the deliberate use of a double entendre meant to attract attention by being vague and controversial. It succeeded. The campaign went viral across social media and mainstream press. Others also widely criticised the messaging: that the tagline promoted an unattainable and exclusionary ideal of beauty, that it gendered a genderless condition, and that it echoed a long and problematic history of language around race. The ‘cool factor’ of being archaic and edgy ended up simply coming across as regressive and tone-deaf. Consequently, American Eagle was put on the defensive and ended up providing explanations and doing some damage control. This case demonstrated the potential downside of controversial marketing and communications in a media age where people are sensitised to subtext, power and history. 

The approach of GAP’s “Better in Denim” campaign was the opposite. Working with the global pop band KATSEYE, GAP utilised music, dance, and togetherness as its platform. From a visual standpoint, the campaign blended a mix of Y2K nostalgia with the promotion of up-and-coming artists, making it resonate across generations. The theme of community and fun fitted with how GAP had positioned itself over the years: a friendly, approachable brand all about casual, daily style. 

Most notably, the campaign asked people to participate with dances, remixes and other ways of using the work. That was the real key to its success. 

American Eagle certainly reaped some financial rewards from the publicity. The company’s stock price rose 25% after the campaign launched, which boosted the company’s market value by hundreds of millions of dollars. Online sales surged, and the denim products in the ads sold out. However, footfall in the stores dropped by 9% after the first two weeks of the campaign. Market share was flat too, which indicated that the campaign did not deliver permanent increases in shoppers. 

Perhaps more importantly, the damage to the brand had the potential to be permanent. Public outcry over exclusive marketing may have irreparably lost the trust of audiences, who were overwhelmingly guided by values and socially responsible practices when making purchasing decisions. A clear lesson from this case was that brand awareness did not translate into brand commitment. 

GAP’s results were less divisive. “Better in Denim” was the brand’s most shared campaign in years, with Instagram views three times greater than any previous campaign. In the first few days, it racked up about $1.7 million in earned media value. Furthermore, the campaign generated non-numerical social media value. Dance challenges, takeovers from social influencers, and artist interpretations all prolonged and rooted the campaign in social media culture among young people. The campaign was not found to receive any negative media attention and had proved once again that GAP was a cultural authority. 

The reason for the contrast between these two campaigns were in the agendas of the leaders. American Eagle’s campaign clearly reflected the agenda of the leader to get maximum likes and shares as soon as possible, regardless of whether it was culturally relevant or not. That leader prioritised short-term results over building a brand that was inclusive and valued in the long-term. On the other hand, it seemed that the GAP executives thought about the alignment of its branding history and modern-day culture. It highlighted authenticity and involvement. GAP gave a lesson to American Eagle that today’s consumers appreciate more being engaged in the conversation instead of offensive advertising. With this, the internal decision-making linked to the external interpretation. By not having reflected on the relationship between the creative strategy and the society it targeted, the credibility of a brand was likely to be jeopardised. 

The contrast between American Eagle and GAP’s marketing strategies provided a valuable case study for brand managers today. One brand aimed for notoriety and found controversy. The other aimed for relevance and found success. 

One way to look at any brand campaign is as an external manifestation of a company’s moral compass and the values of the people running the company. In today’s culture, advertising is viewed not only as a way of speaking about a brand, but as a way of speaking about values. The companies that understand this will ultimately win more trust and build more. And the companies that don’t won’t just get a quick hit, but a long hangover. 

Edited by Robin Smith 

Subedited by Lydia Gallagher