In the hyper-connected, endlessly scrolling world of modern media, attention is the ultimate currency. Brands will go to extraordinary lengths to capture it, but the line between a viral hit and a PR disaster has never been thinner. Two recent, and vastly different, advertising campaigns have thrown this reality into sharp relief, sparking furious debate about the risks of courting controversy. One involved a celebrated actress and a seemingly innocuous pun; the other, a graphic depiction of animal cruelty. Together, they paint a vivid picture of a marketing landscape where one wrong step can ignite a cultural firestorm.

At the heart of the storm is Sydney Sweeney, the 27-year-old actress who has become one of Hollywood’s most sought-after stars. Her recent partnership with clothing giant American Eagle was meant to be a slam dunk. The campaign, built around the tagline “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans,” was designed to be cheeky and memorable. In the now-infamous video, Sweeney looks directly into the camera, delivering a line that playfully blurs genetics with denim: “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue.”

On the surface, it’s a simple, lighthearted play on words. To many, that’s all it was. But in the charged atmosphere of online discourse, the ad landed very differently. Almost immediately, a wave of criticism swelled, accusing the campaign of being profoundly tone-deaf. The issue wasn’t with the jeans, but with the “genes.” Critics, including writers at publications like Salon, were quick to point out that the phrase “great genes” has a dark and troubled history. For decades, it has been tied to eugenics and problematic ideals of whiteness, thinness, and a narrow, exclusionary standard of beauty. In this context, they argued, the ad wasn’t just a pun; it was a dog whistle, a subtle nod to outdated and offensive ideologies.

The backlash was swift and unforgiving. Social media platforms became a battleground where users dissected the ad’s subtext. The controversy quickly expanded beyond the commercial, with online sleuths digging into Sweeney’s personal life and unearthing her rumored political affiliations. The actress, who has maintained a deliberate silence on her political views, found herself at the center of a politically charged debate she likely never intended to join.

As the outrage grew, some voices rose in her defense. Comedian and actor Michael Rapaport launched into a fiery tirade on his Instagram account, blasting what he saw as a baseless and vicious pile-on. “This is a young 27-year-old girl that’s being bullied and harassed,” he declared, his voice thick with frustration. He questioned the logic of the attacks, arguing that a major campaign like this would have been meticulously vetted. “You don’t think her team of powerful agents and lawyers vetted everything before doing that campaign?”

Rapaport reserved special ire for those fixated on Sweeney’s supposed political leanings. “Who cares who anybody is registered to vote for? Republican, Democrat, Independent—who gives a [expletive]?” he demanded. He framed the situation as part of a toxic trend of building up celebrities, particularly young women, only to tear them down with gleeful abandon. “You wanna build these people up and then run them into the ground,” he lamented. “Leave Sydney Sweeney the [expletive] alone.”

But the digital furor was already spilling into the real world. As Sweeney attended a screening for her film Americana, she was confronted by a heckler. In a moment captured by TMZ, a person off-camera shouted, “Stop the ad, that is being racist!” It was a stark illustration of how quickly online sentiment can manifest in direct, personal confrontations.

Caught in the crossfire, American Eagle attempted a delicate balancing act. The brand issued a statement reaffirming its support for the actress. “‘Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans’ is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story,” the statement read. “We’ll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way.” Yet, while the words projected confidence, the brand’s actions told a different story. Without any announcement, the controversial video was quietly scrubbed from the company’s official social media channels. It was a move that satisfied no one, appearing to critics as an admission of guilt and to supporters as a capitulation to mob pressure.

The Sweeney saga doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s part of a much larger conversation about the role of shock and controversy in advertising. For a different perspective, one need only look across the Atlantic to a campaign from the UK vegan charity, Viva!. The organization invested £40,000 in a cinema ad starring Scottish actor Nolan Willis. But this was no lighthearted pun. The ad featured a haunting, ghoulish character in a deeply disturbing scene meant to represent the cruelty of the dairy industry.

The ad certainly got attention, but not the kind the charity had hoped for. Following a flood of complaints from shaken moviegoers, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) banned the ad, ruling it was likely to cause “distress and widespread offence.” Viva! defended its creation as a necessary evil, a wake-up call to an indifferent public. But advertising experts wonder if they did more harm than good to their own cause.

Ian Greenhill, founder of the creative agency Studio Something, believes the Viva! ad is a prime example of shock tactics backfiring. “It’s raised awareness of calves getting taken away from their mothers. But I think a lot of people already knew that,” he explained in a recent interview. The more important question, he says, is whether it won anyone over. “Has it got people on side with the cause? I’d argue it’s done the opposite.”

According to Greenhill, for an ad to be truly successful, it can’t just make people angry or uncomfortable. “A good ad needs to be memorable. It needs to sell something, change people’s minds or inspire them to do something,” he stated. Shock can be a powerful tool, but only when it serves a deeper, emotionally resonant purpose. He points to a campaign from CALM, a mental health charity, as a gold standard. The charity placed a collection of balloons in a London mall, each one representing a person who had died by suicide. “It was shocking,” Greenhill admitted, “but there was a deeper message behind it.” The initial shock gave way to a profound and moving statement about loss.

Applying this logic to the American Eagle ad, Greenhill emphasized the critical importance of perspective. In today’s globalized digital world, an ad is never just for one audience. “It might be for one audience, but everyone can see an ad. So you’ve got to think about the brand perception.” The creative team behind the “Great Jeans” campaign may have only seen a clever pun, but they failed to consider how that same phrase could land with people who were aware of its historical baggage.

This is the new reality for advertisers. The age of glossy, one-way communication through television commercials is over. “Often now, advertising is down to people—content creators and influencers changing minds,” Greenhill noted. This shift helps explain the recent rise in shock tactics; it’s a shortcut to getting headlines and generating buzz in a crowded market. But as the Sweeney and Viva! cases show, that buzz can easily become a deafening roar of negativity. Controversy might get you noticed, but as Greenhill cautioned, “It doesn’t necessarily change minds about the brand.”

So what is the future of marketing? If provocative campaigns are a minefield, where should brands turn? The answer may lie in authenticity. Greenhill highlights the new venture by actor Tom Holland as a potential model. Holland isn’t just the face of a new non-alcoholic beer; he’s a founder, deeply involved in building the brand from the ground up. “That’s what the younger generation wants,” Greenhill argues. “They want a founder story, not just a product.”

In the end, the stories of Sydney Sweeney’s jeans and Viva!’s banned ad serve as potent cautionary tales. They demonstrate that in the relentless pursuit of public attention, the line between bold and offensive, between clever and careless, is perilously thin. When that line is crossed, the damage can be immense, not just to a brand’s reputation, but to the very people they enlist to carry their message. The lesson is clear: in the court of public opinion, a fleeting moment of viral controversy is no substitute for genuine connection and trust.