In partnership with
{{rh_onboarding_line}}
Welcome Back to TWISM’s Autopsy Series!
In this series, we examine the biggest actual marketing deaths worldwide. While others made expensive mistakes, you, along with 70,000+ professional TWISM readers, are learning from their failures for free.
Keep in mind that these weekly autopsies could save your career.
Sponsored - 🤝 Don’t waste the upcoming Black Friday.
CTV ads made easy: Black Friday edition
As with any digital ad campaign, the important thing is to reach streaming audiences who will convert. Roku’s self-service Ads Manager stands ready with powerful segmentation and targeting — plus creative upscaling tools that transform existing assets into CTV-ready video ads. Bonus: we’re gifting you $5K in ad credits when you spend your first $5K on Roku Ads Manager. Just sign up and use code GET5K. Terms apply.
🔬 The Main Autopsy: American Eagle Outfitters’s “Great Jeans” Pun-Campaign Implosion
Patient Details
Brand: American Eagle Outfitters (AEO)
Campaign: “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans”
Budget: Not publicly disclosed, but assumed as the retailer’s most expensive campaign to date.
Cause of Death: Tone-deaf word-play (“genes” → “jeans”) paired with a blonde, blue-eyed female model perceived to evoke eugenic/white-supremacist messaging.
Time of Death: Backlash peaked in early August 2025
What They Intended
The campaign was designed to drive Gen Z denim sales by linking styling icon Sydney Sweeney to a playful pun: “Great Jeans / Great Genes”. According to AEO, it aimed to highlight how the jeans fit and make the wearer feel confident.
What Actually Happened
One ad begins with Sweeney stating, “My body’s composition is determined by my genes. Genes are passed down… My jeans are blue.” Then the brand line appears: “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans.”
Social media users and commentators argued the “genes” → “jeans” shift, paired with the model’s appearance (white, blonde, blue-eyed), evoked eugenics or white-supremacist undertones.
The brand initially defended the campaign: “is and always was about the jeans”, but that response was seen by many as dismissive.
While the campaign generated high engagement and even a stock uptick, reports suggest foot traffic in stores fell two weeks after launch.
The Numbers
Launched 23 July 2025.
Initially, the stock rose ~26% in a month, but the brand reported being down 23% year-to-date.
The campaign reportedly achieved “unprecedented new customer acquisition,” according to the CMO.
Store foot traffic dropped two straight weeks post-campaign launch.
Timeline of Destruction
23 July 2025: Campaign launches.
30 July 2025: Media begin calling the campaign “tone-deaf” and referencing Nazi/eugenics undertones.
1 Aug 2025: AEO issues public statement defending campaign as denim-focused.
4 Aug 2025: Former Gap CEO publicly criticizes the brand’s handling.
12 Aug 2025: Analysis shows foot traffic dropped; critics say brand ignored warning signs.
Sponsored - 🤝 Talk to your customers on WhatsApp with AI voice agents.
A Framework for Smarter Voice AI Decisions
Deploying Voice AI doesn’t have to rely on guesswork.
This guide introduces the BELL Framework — a structured approach used by enterprises to reduce risk, validate logic, optimize latency, and ensure reliable performance across every call flow.
Learn how a lifecycle approach helps teams deploy faster, improve accuracy, and maintain predictable operations at scale.
✨ Want to advertise in TWISM?
Reach 70K+ social media pros who read TWISM
✨ Monetize Your Social Media Audience
Earn 30% Recurring Revenue with the Post Planner Affiliate Program
🧬 Failure DNA Analysis
The Root Cause: Linguistic Shortcut → Cultural Time-Bomb
Cognitive Bias #1: Confirmation Bias
The campaign’s pun triggered existing cultural anxieties (about beauty standards, genetics, purity), so critics selectively interpreted the “genes/jeans” phrase as supporting eugenics. Once that interpretation appeared, people looked for support and amplified it. (See: people reinforcing their prior beliefs)
Cognitive Bias #2: Overconfidence Bias
The brand appears to have overestimated its understanding of Gen Z discourse, believing a clever pun would land as slick rather than risky. They assumed cultural fluency, but didn’t fully test it.
Warning Signs They Ignored:
The superficial word-play (“genes” → “jeans”) already carries cultural baggage (e.g., “good genes” = good birth/heritage), and should have been flagged.
Use of a very specific model archetype (white, blonde, blue-eyed) with genetic reference in the key line creates optics that reinforce the stereotype.
Lack of pre-launch focus-group testing on social media interpretation, especially in diverse segments, such as Gen Z, who are hyper-sensitive to identity & equity issues.
Over-reliance on engagement metrics as “success” signals (views, clicks) without monitoring store foot traffic or brand sentiment early.
Why Smart People Made This Dumb Decision:
The marketing team likely believed the pun would create memorable brand recall and resonate with humor (‘everyone loves word-play’). They ignored the fact that aesthetic/word associations around “genes” tap deeply into racial-heritage histories, especially in Western culture. The team assumed consumers would read “jeans” and move on; they failed to anticipate what cultural lenses Gen Z would apply.
🎭 Myth Busted: “A clever pun = engagement gold”
The Myth: Marketers often assume that a clever pun in campaign copy automatically increases shareability and memorability, so go ahead and “make the copy witty and the audience will spread the word.”
The Reality: A light-hearted pun can backfire if it touches on sensitive cultural or identity layers. Word-play is not neutral; it carries associative baggage. In this case, the “genes” → “jeans” shift tapped into heritage, appearance, and purity cues.
Data Points:
Marketing errors show that many brands that fail in 2025 arise from “filters were weak or cultural nuance was ignored”.
Social media fails often stem from “ignoring audience sensitivities” and “rushing content ahead of proper review”.
Research shows that when brands use directive or ambiguous language without context, consumers may feel a mismatch, harming engagement.
Why This Myth Persists: Because marketers are measured on viral metrics (views, impressions) and word-play seems low-risk/high-yield. Also, in-house teams often operate in echo-chambers that over-value creativity over cultural safety.
What to Do Instead:
Replace pun-first thinking with meaning-first thinking: ask “what message does this word-play trigger beyond novelty?”
Pre-test copy with multicultural and identity-diverse focus groups, especially Gen Z.
Monitor early signals (sentiment, foot traffic, store visits) not only digital metrics.
Have a crisis-ready fallback: if the pun triggers unexpected associations, be ready to pause/adjust quickly.
🛡️ Failure Prevention Toolkit: The “PUN Check” Checklist
Before launching a campaign with word-play or double meaning:
✓ Cultural Audit
Run copy and creative through a diverse internal/external panel: does any word-play have unintended heritage, race, body-image, identity associations?
Map possible alternative readings of key words (e.g., “genes”, “lines”, “perfect”, “heritage”).
✓ Real-World Testing
Soft launch to control audience (small region, micro-influencers) and monitor sentiment, not only likes.
Ask focus test: “What are the first 5 words people remember? What’s the second meaning they assign?”
✓ Cross-Channel Signal Tracking
Set up dashboards for: social sentiment (use keywords + negative flags); foot-traffic/store visitors; search term spikes; mentions in press.
If negative sentiment spikes above threshold within 24h → pull or pause creative.
✓ Crisis Readiness
Prepare holding statement: brand’s underlying value, understanding, and intention.
Identify spokesperson, approval workflow for response.
Pre-define threshold for when to withdraw campaign (e.g., % of negative sentiment + drop in store visits > X%).
Red Flags to Watch For:
Word-play referencing body, genes, lineage, heritage, purity.
Use of narrow model archetype (e.g., one demographic) with statements about “everyone” or “best”.
Copy that can be misread as boasting about traits rather than product (“great genes” vs “great jeans”).
Channel bias: content created for Instagram/TikTok but repurposed elsewhere without adaptation (cultural norms differ).
Screenshots save careers. Which failure lesson are you bookmarking?
Forward this to someone who needs to see it.
P.S. - Have a social media disaster story to share anonymously? Reply with "AUTOPSY" and I'll send you our submission guidelines.
That’s all for today. Thanks for reading. Now…
Go BIG or go home!
~ Josh from “This Week in Social Media”
Disclaimer: Some links may be affiliate links that pay us commissions.
Was this newsletter forwarded to you?