Got an ecommerce challenge? Awin has you covered. With Awin’s affiliate platform, brands of all sizes can unlock endless marketing opportunities, reach consumers everywhere, and choose partners that fit their goals. Control costs, customize programs, and drive real results. Learn more at awin.com/emarketer.

Suzy Davidkhanian (00:00):

Unlock more growth with Awin, tackle acquisition, conversions, and retention by tapping into a network of over a million affiliate partners. With everything from partner management to reporting and payments in one easy dashboard, Awin helps brands drive real scalable results. Visit awin.com/emarketer to learn more.

(00:24):

Hello, listeners. Today is Wednesday, August 13th. Welcome to Reimagining Retail, an eMarketer podcast made possible by Awin. This is the show where we talk about how retail collides with every part of our lives. I'm your guest host, Suzy Davidkhanian. On today's episode, we're going to talk about marketing campaigns that missed the mark.

(00:51):

But before we get to that, let's meet today's guests. Joining me for today's episode we have analyst Arielle Feger joining me from our studios in New York City. Hey, Arielle.

Arielle Feger (01:01):

Hey, Suzy. Happy to be here.

Suzy Davidkhanian (01:03):

Thanks so much for joining me. And principal analyst Sky Canaves joining us virtually from Texas. Hey, Sky.

Sky Canaves (01:09):

Hey, Suzy. Good to be back.

Suzy Davidkhanian (01:10):

Thanks for joining us. I'm very excited to have you both here to talk about a topic we debate often, especially since our job is about watching what brands are doing closely. The conversation was reignited by the latest American Eagle Jeans campaign. Headlines like Vanity Fair's Sydney Sweeney Under Fire After Controversial American Eagle Ad Campaign, and more recently, People.com wrote, "American Eagle Stock Rises After Trump Praises the Ad Amid Backlash." This just shows us how quickly every situation can evolve and how there are so many different mixed reactions and headlines.

(01:48):

So with that, it got us thinking. Sometimes a brand puts out a campaign and the internet goes wild, but it's not always in the way that the brand had hoped. And this isn't just a 2025 thing. Think back to Peloton's 2019 gift from a husband ad, or last year when Apple did the iPad flattening creativity ad campaign, or Dove's real beauty ad campaign in 2017. Even merch can stir backlash.

(02:16):

Remember when H&M did the coolest monkey in the jungle hoodie? Anyways, these moments happen more often than we realize, and the truth is what feels tone-deaf to one person might actually seem bold and cheeky and maybe even empowering for someone else. So, in today's episode, we're asking what does it really mean for a campaign to miss the mark and what can brands actually do about it? Okay, so let's get started From the top. Sky, Arielle, how are we even thinking about defining miss the mark? What does that actually mean?

Sky Canaves (02:50):

Well, it can mean a lot of things. It can fall flat and not generate the attention or buzz or sales that it was ultimately aiming for. That's one end of the spectrum. And on the other you have campaign like American Eagle's, which generates a huge amount of controversy. There's backlash and then there's backlash to the backlash, but it may ultimately result in higher sales, more attention. And then that raises a question of whether all of it is good for the brand in the long run or whether it's detrimental to the brand and alienating them from their core customer.

Arielle Feger (03:25):

Yeah, I kind of think about it in two ways. One being how are consumers responding in terms of social media and all of that. And then also, how are consumers responding in terms of what they're actually purchasing and buying? I think a lot of times we see brands called out by consumers, but there doesn't seem to really be an impact on their bottom line, so I think you can kind of look at it in a couple different ways. And really, it depends on what the goal of the campaign was and the long-term effects, which can be hard to measure.

Suzy Davidkhanian (04:02):

Yeah, and I heard you both saying it slightly differently about alienating your core customer and thinking about the brand and messaging. So what happens if you are doing something that hits with the core, but then there are all these ripple effects of the alienated just consumer, maybe not your customer? What do you do about that? Is that still missing the mark?

Arielle Feger (04:24):

I think it depends. I think you can't make everybody happy and that's something we've talked about quite a lot when we've been having these discussions. And I think as long as you're keeping your core consumer in mind and your core consumer is happy, then I think that that's doing your job. Of course, every brand wants to appeal to as many people as possible, but I think alienating your core consumer would be kind of the top of the list of brand sins, and then alienating other people might be a little further down the list.

Sky Canaves (04:57):

I think campaigns typically want to create positive associations with the brand and foster brand equity, create a sense of brand affinity with customers. Typically, there's a core audience that brands are going for and a core customer that can become the brand's fans. If you attract customers because of a controversy, maybe those customers aren't going to be that loyal. Are they going to really be brand fans or are they just latching onto a brand out of opposition rather than out of true affinity with the brand?

Suzy Davidkhanian (05:32):

Yeah. And then how long will they last?

Sky Canaves (05:33):

Yeah.

Suzy Davidkhanian (05:33):

And it's not even just merch and actual marketing campaigns in this sort of context, but it's also, if you guys remember JCPenney had the new president who came and said like, "I want to change the story layouts and I want to change the everyday low price situation versus promotions and coupons," and that alienated a bunch of people and then they had to claw back to their core customer. So it feels like you can have misses that happen when you don't understand your core customer that have lasting impacts as well.

Arielle Feger (06:03):

Absolutely, it all kind of drills down to understanding who your audience is, understanding what motivates them, and understanding what then would alienate them or make them turn to another brand.

Suzy Davidkhanian (06:15):

And do we feel like in today's world of many different channels, the message that you deliver and the channel coming together matter?

Sky Canaves (06:24):

Oh, absolutely, because particularly with younger consumers, they want to engage in a two-way dialogue or conversation with brands. I think a big lesson from this American Eagle controversy is that brands don't control the narrative of their campaigns as much as they might try to. And trying to stick to that and take the kind of old-fashioned or traditional approach of one-way messaging really seems to fall flat with a lot of younger consumers. And it's sparking controversy, but the long-term, the engagement by American Eagle on their social platforms on different channels, a lot of this campaign is on Instagram, but it's very much in the traditional kind of one-way message. They're telling us what the message is and consumers are, at least from a lot of the comments, are not responding that positively to it.

Arielle Feger (07:21):

Following their response to consumer's response to the ad, it seems like yeah, they're not necessarily very interested in creating a conversation with consumers. And I kind of want to say that's a little bit of a miss. I think younger consumers, especially as Sky said, really want to be heard by brands. I think they want to know that they're having an impact. So if you have a very social-heavy presence, I think you really have to take that into account where you're going to get a lot of comments. You might get dragged a little bit for not really participating in that two-way conversation.

Suzy Davidkhanian (07:57):

And what I'm hearing you say is that also brings us to this point around a real miss versus sparking a conversation. And for American Eagle, they maybe thought that they were being super cheeky and fun and hoping to spark a conversation, but it sounds like they're not exactly engaging. So is there a world where you can be cheeky and spark a conversation, maybe be a little bit controversial, but still it not be a total miss?

Arielle Feger (08:27):

Absolutely, I definitely think that that is possible. I think, again, it really does go back to knowing your audience. I think that people can be very playful with brands. I see a lot on TikTok, on social media brands having a lot of fun with the comments, and it's really fun to see the back and forth between just regular TikTok users and brands. And I think that you have to be true to your brand's vision, your mission, and you also have to just be wary about the hot sensitive topics that are happening currently with consumers.

Suzy Davidkhanian (09:06):

It's that current environment too that, and the reason why we picked some examples from beyond 2025 is because this happens all the time, it's just that right now it feels a little bit more charged. And I think some of that also has to do with the different social channels and how quickly a message can go viral and spiral. Do you guys think that when a message goes viral like this, there is such a thing as bad press or is any kind of press good?

Sky Canaves (09:36):

So, I think it comes down to the brand associations that come out of a campaign. We see that if people are talking about a brand in a negative way, but it's generating some buzz on one side, again, how long is that going to support the brand or how is that going to translate into sales? We'll hear a little more, I guess, at the end of this month when American Eagle reports its results, there won't be much from this campaign directly in the last quarter's results, but I expect that there will be questions about it and we'll see how deep they go into their responses and how much they can say about the overall impact.

Arielle Feger (10:16):

Yeah, I agree with Sky. I think in general, I do think there is such a thing as bad PR or bad press, but I also think that it's not as common. And I think we have to in this specific situation, kind of wait to see if we could categorize this as bad press or not specifically talking about the American Eagle campaign.

Suzy Davidkhanian (10:38):

Right. So, I mean, I'm going to play devil's advocate and say even if their sales were amazing, it could still leave a little tint. Although I know we want it to be as objective as possible and talk through, "What do you do as a brand if something goes wrong?" There is a chance, I mean, right now we're seeing their market cap went up a little bit, there is a chance that their sales will also skyrocket, but it might be tainted. And I think in particular for this campaign, it feels like they tried so hard to do some nostalgia with it and thinking that the Gen Z population would be super interested in reliving some of the '80s ads for jeans, and maybe that didn't quite work out. It was like a hot mess kind of in some ways, but it might actually have a positive impact on their sales. So does that mean it was a miss?

Arielle Feger (11:24):

Again, it all goes back to how you're defining a miss and what you hope to achieve. For me, I definitely think differently of American Eagle at this point. I'm not their core consumer anyway. I'm a 35-year-old. I'm a little older than their core consumer, but for me, I definitely would think twice about shopping with them. And I think that anecdotally that is true among a lot of people I know. But again, sales numbers, we'll see if there's really an impact. I think it's hard to say. It's really difficult to say.

Suzy Davidkhanian (11:58):

Yeah. And, Sky, when you think about this whole American Eagle, I'm going to call it a debacle, maybe it's too big of a word, I'm not really sure.

Arielle Feger (12:05):

I think it works.

Suzy Davidkhanian (12:06):

But when you think about what happened, obviously we're not in their offices, but do you feel like it was intentional provocative that went bad or intentional provocative that they knew this was going to maybe not land quite as well as they had, in fact, they had hoped that it would not maybe land quite as well?

Sky Canaves (12:24):

I think that they were so caught up in the whole Sidney Sweeney sexy selling jeans aspect of it being potentially controversial, which frankly isn't that controversial because a lot of her public persona, the characters she plays are very sexy in a traditional or conventional way. So I think they were so caught up in that that they didn't really think about the impact of what's kind of a poor joke or pun. It's kind of like a dad joke. And the delivery of it with that middle-aged man voice saying, "Sidney Sweeney has great jeans" is a little creepy to me. And I think it did give a lot of their younger female consumers kind of the ick sentiment in the sense that that's not really what they're looking for or interested in.

(13:16):

But in terms of the genetics part or the eugenics part, I don't think that was really on their radar. I think they were so caught up in the sex controversy or the sexiness selling jeans part of it that that wasn't really considered. And a lot of people who saw the campaign outside of American Eagle in advance also didn't register that potential for controversy, so it did kind of come out of consumers or TikTok users, younger audiences seizing on that and connecting it to broader cultural flashpoints that are concerning to them and bringing that out.

(13:55):

And then I think the part is the response was very much traditional and not in tune with how consumers expect brands to show up and respond. They kind of didn't say anything, they engaged a PR crisis firm, they put out a bland statement. It looks like they pulled the part of the ad campaign that featured Sydney Sweeney talking about her jeans, the genetic genes pun and inherited genes, but they haven't said much else. And I was trying to find out which agency created the ad, and it looks like it was an in-house ad, which may also explain why it's not altogether that creative or exciting from an ad perspective.

Suzy Davidkhanian (14:45):

Right, because it was like nostalgia coming back, like the GUESS jean ads, the Calvin Klein jean ads. It felt like they were maybe trying to replicate that.

Sky Canaves (14:54):

Yeah, a little of that and a not-very-good tagline.

Suzy Davidkhanian (14:58):

No.

Arielle Feger (14:58):

I think that's really interesting, Sky, that this was in-house. And I wonder if having an agency, an outside agency, helps brands maybe see outside of themselves. I think as a writer, as a creator, sometimes it can be very hard for me to kind of see outside of the thing that I'm creating, and then someone comes in and says, "Oh, well, what about this, this, and this?" And so I wonder sometimes with these campaigns that are worked on in-house, there's no outside perspective to kind of reflect maybe the consumer's point of view. So maybe that's something that brands could consider just thinking about, I'm not going to say you should always have an agency, but maybe consider having those outside perspectives.

Sky Canaves (15:45):

Sure. And might've provided better options to begin with for a more interesting or exciting campaign that would've made better use of Sydney Sweeney and her diverse talents besides just being sexy. I think she has a pretty good sense of humor. I've seen her on SNL and she even sent up her sexiness on the show. And so I think that could have provided better angles. I think what really resonates with younger consumers, Gen Z, the TikTok generation, is humor in advertising. And that can just be the weird meme humor that some brands have really successfully use. I think of Nutter Butter is one brand that's really weird on TikTok. And I think Wendy's also does some creative campaigns or videos and using user-generated content as well.

Suzy Davidkhanian (16:38):

Yeah. And if you have, whether it's an agency or not, if you have an extra layer or two of people that are not so close to the campaign, potentially they would've. Or if you ran a little bit of consumer ads around consumer sentiment research around the ads, you would get a better sense. Although we don't know what they did exactly.

Arielle Feger (16:57):

Yeah, exactly.

Suzy Davidkhanian (16:58):

But as brands, as you're thinking about your ads, once one doesn't land, you both started touching on this, what do you do? Can you recover? How do you manage this?

Arielle Feger (17:11):

I think number one is to listen. I think consumers want to be listened to. I know I do. And so I think that that's the first thing is kind of really digging into some social listening, just really kind of taking stock of what people are saying and thinking about why before you craft any kind of response. I would say for me, that would be a good place to start.

Sky Canaves (17:39):

Yeah. And then they have to respond too in some way, and I think part of the challenges in the current political environment, brands are becoming more afraid of coming out and standing up for the values that they previously espoused. American Eagle didn't come out and say, "No, this isn't about eugenics and we're against that, and the extreme implications that some people are seeing in the ads." And they didn't come out and start a conversation. Instead, they kind of retreated into their shell and took the traditional route of saying as little as possible for as long as possible, and then made some bland gestures' appeasement.

Suzy Davidkhanian (18:20):

So be authentic in your response.

Arielle Feger (18:22):

Yeah. I would also say something that I think is important in any kind of response or apology to something where people have been hurt or upset is to kind of focus on a future-looking thing, thinking about next steps, thinking about how you would do something differently in the future. And again, it has to be navigated with authenticity. You don't want to be like, "Well, of course we're going to be perfect in the future." But I think giving consumers some kind of action plan to say, "This is how we will move forward," I think could be a good thing and gives consumers again like, "Okay, they're trying to remedy this or trying to be better in the future."

Sky Canaves (19:08):

And it's tough because it was, I think, their most expensive campaign or they spent a lot of money on this just on getting Sidney Sweeney to be in their ad, so there's a hesitation around completely pulling that or reversing course. But I think brands need to nowadays and always, I think, with the impact of social and consumers wanting to have more of a voice, they need to be prepared for backlash and backlash to backlash, and have some processes in place to be agile in their responses and make moves and not just thinking that they have a campaign and are going to put it out there and that's done, that's it.

Suzy Davidkhanian (19:53):

And even with the best intentions, I think if I think about the iPad last year, the controversy around the dad and the child and to use the iPad to help with her homework or whatever it was so that he had more time with her, got a very large cohort of artists very upset about how AI is going to replace them, which was obviously not the intention. So even when you have the best intentions as a brand, what are some things you should be doing to just make sure you're not going to have backlash or that you're ready for it and that you have some sort of explanation?

Arielle Feger (20:27):

I mean, I think Sky just touched on just being kind of prepared. As I said, you're not going to make everyone happy. There's probably going to be some small or large subset of consumers who are not enjoying your campaign for whatever reason. So kind of, A, just be prepared for, that's the baseline. And then I think it's hard to say, I think every situation is different, but it all goes back to authenticity, be authentic, address concerns authentically.

Suzy Davidkhanian (20:57):

As an ad, you're going to do your best to showcase your brand ethos. And if you're prepared for the potential backlash that may come, and then I didn't even think about the backlash to the backlash, and you respond to it in an authentic way, in a two-way communication where it's viable, then you may be able to come out on top.

Arielle Feger (21:19):

Yeah, I think consumers are smart. I think they know when a brand is trying to be to level with them and treat them on a one-to-one basis, so I think that's... And good intentions will always win out.

Sky Canaves (21:32):

And I think brands have to increasingly accept that they don't control their narratives or their campaigns in the way that they used to because of social and the influence of that. And maybe they're better served not creating these one-way ad campaigns and instead engaging users in their campaigns using more user-generated content influencers, strategies that really will speak to their audiences and keep them engaged and create more of that two-way conversation rather than the one-way brand messaging.

Arielle Feger (22:04):

Yeah, that's a really good point actually. We definitely have seen consumers say they're more interested in seeing people like them in campaigns, seeing regular people. And I think know Sidney Sweeney obviously is a celebrity. She's highly aspirational. I mean, obviously she's gorgeous. So I think maybe that putting people who are real, who are more representative of the actual consumers is just a great way to safeguard against controversy.

Suzy Davidkhanian (22:34):

Right. And it sounds to me like as we wrap that what we once used to do in marketing may not work anymore regardless of the undertones or the confluence of events. And to make sure that you have a multi-strategy in place, which could include a big billboard, but also other channels to engage with your consumer and to make sure that if something does go awry, whether it's a product or an ad or a tagline, that you have a way to manage that that is authentic to your core.

(23:06):

I think it's a great place to end because that's all the time we have for today. Thanks so much, Arielle, for joining me in the office.

Arielle Feger (23:12):

Oh, this was such a fun discussion. Thank you.

Suzy Davidkhanian (23:14):

And thank you, Sky, for making time to join us today.

Sky Canaves (23:17):

Oh, thanks for having me back, Suzy. Always a pleasure.

Suzy Davidkhanian (23:20):

Always a pleasure. And thank you to our listeners and to our team that edits the podcast, please leave a rating or review and remember to subscribe to the Behind the Numbers podcast. We'll be back next Wednesday with another episode of Reimagining Retail. And on Friday, join Marcus for another episode of Behind the Numbers, an eMarketer podcast made possible by Awin.