All ears for tone-deafness
Why the celebrity soft-sell must be scrutinized
By ABHINAYA KASAGANI — akasagani@ucdavis.edu
Almost three months after her “Great Jeans” campaign for American Eagle caused an online stir, Sydney Sweeney responded to the controversy.
“I know who I am,” Sweeney said in a New York Post interview. “I know what I value […] I don’t really let other people define who I am.”
If you’re unfamiliar with the aforementioned controversy, it is important to note that the ad concludes with the line, “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans” — the final word being a homophone for “genes.” While it is possible that the advertisement simply intended to be somewhat humorous, the allusion to severely outdated ideas of pseudoscience and eugenics, followed by Sweeney’s listing of how her “jeans” determine features like “hair color, personality and even eye color,” feels deeply ironic when one considers its blue-eyed, blonde messenger. What is further confusing is that the campaign claims that their proceeds are donated to Crisis Text Line; it is difficult to believe that no creative consideration was given to how pairing social messaging with sexualized bodies (sentiments that could be easily construed as pro-eugenics) would undermine their cause.
The irony of the American Eagle ad and Sweeney’s response becomes clear. To begin, one cannot simultaneously claim to be self-aware and uninformed while attempting to shirk accountability; secondly, one cannot justify this claim after making exorbitant amounts of money promoting outdated ideas of pseudoscience; and finally, one cannot use this attention as an opportunity to commodify their brand image while saying they refuse to be defined by another.
Several sources have attempted to ascribe the extent to which she is complicit. Ingrid Jacques of USA Today noted how everything has become politicized, and that she found reprieve in knowing that “not everything has to be about politics.” Amusingly enough, the controversy was so widespread that even President Donald Trump weighed in: "Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the HOTTEST ad out there […] go get 'em Sydney!"
In the digital age, it’s impossible to be altogether safeguarded from the Internet’s latest flurry of products. The purpose of advertisements has always been to persuade the viewer to purchase the given product.Over time, it becomes difficult to avoid the influence of our carefully curated digital worlds, which do everything save for pressing the purchase button for us — I, like so many, am no exception to the sway of market sentiment. What remains ironic, however, is how our awareness of power dynamics and labor relations is starkly juxtaposed with our desire to one-up each other. Although this awareness should make us less impressionable, celebrities that we trust in positions of power are capable of persuading their audiences almost instantly.
Celebrity endorsements, as of late, have grossly enlightened us to how disconnected celebrities are from reality. Weighing in on the question of celebrity accountability, Jennifer Lawrence recently spoke with The New York Times on “The Interview,” noting how she had little interest in having any influence on public opinion, saying that sharing her views on any controversial topic would only add to the nation’s divisiveness. “I just don’t want to be a part of the problem, I don’t want to make the problem worse,” Lawrence said on the topic. While many perceived this stance as a poor or tone-deaf take, others noted the benefits of allowing for audiences to consume an artist’s work without judgment in order to “protect [the] craft.”
To look at another example, Mariah Carey’s recent Sephora ad for Christmas largely consists of Santa’s elves going on strike, thereby “cancelling Christmas.” In this minute-long clip, Carey dismisses any considerations of exploitative labor, and instead, turns the elf (played by Billy Eichner) into a snowman. While some claim that she meant no harm, what they fail to consider is that it isn’t unreasonable to expect professional writers, such as those behind the advertisement, to avoid the kind of blatant insensitivity present in the video. Even though the narrative is framed in a light-hearted tone, it makes fun of the working class (especially those who can’t afford to prioritize splurging on holiday gifts and luxury products) in a way that feels like an out-of-touch oversight . In a time of such economic precarity — think Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts and federal workers going unpaid during the recent government shutdown — we are yet again handed an out-of-taste messenger who is preoccupied with the product she attempts to sell.
None of this is particularly shocking to those who remember Gavin Casalegno’s Dunkin’ ad (“golden summer […] these refreshers make me king of the summer, guilty as charged”) that followed the American Eagle controversy, or Kendall Jenner’s infamous Pepsi ad (2017) that trivialized several social justice movements, including Black Lives Matter. These advertisement releases intend to capitalize on existing controversy, framing themselves as honest mistakes or trivial ads that needn’t be taken too seriously.
Whether or not the old adage that “all press is good press” is true, the question of whether celebrity advertisements serve as personal endorsements of the product they push is important to consider. The company, being ultimately in charge of its creative and executive decisions, cannot entirely attribute blame to the celebrity. Celebrities, likewise, cannot entirely avoid responsibility for what they choose to publicly endorse. If brands continue to enlist celebrities to endorse products that the celebrities themselves are not particularly enthused about, they risk ruining their credibility altogether.
Currently, these partnerships raise unresolved questions about stardom, consumer culture and commodity fetishism. It remains harmful to discuss celebrity agency as if it doesn’t exist, as endorsers weren’t hired to extend their personal values to the products they’re showcasing to begin with. While celebrity advertisements may be entertaining and occasionally effective, both brands and celebrities must put in the work to ensure their values align; it is only fair that celebrities are also asked to bring something to the table.
Written by: Abhinaya Kasagani— akasagani@ucdavis.edu
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.