In the summer of 2025, American Eagle and Gap offered audiences jeans. What people ended up discussing, however, was genetics, beauty, diversity, and who gets to represent modern America.
For the fashion industry, this is a convenient situation: people argue, while brands get mentioned. The problem begins when marketers mistake the volume of the debate for commercial success.
On July 23, American Eagle launched its “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” campaign. The wordplay between “jeans” and “genes” turned an advertisement featuring Sydney Sweeney into a controversy over appearance and heredity. Some users saw racist undertones, while others defended the actress. Political commentators joined the debate. The jeans received far more attention than jeans usually do. (finance.yahoo.com, politifact.com)
But the story is more complicated than the convenient narrative that a brand angered everyone and got rich.
In the third quarter of 2025, American Eagle Outfitters’ revenue rose 6% to $1.36 billion. Comparable sales at American Eagle itself increased by 1%, while those at another brand in the group, Aerie, rose by 11%. Attributing the company’s entire growth to the Sweeney campaign would make for a compelling marketing story. The financial results do not support that conclusion. (investors.ae.com)
The controversy generated attention. But the figures do not reveal how many additional purchases that outrage actually drove.
Gap had a different set of tools that same season.
On August 19, the brand released “Better in Denim,” featuring the girl group KATSEYE and Kelis’s song “Milkshake.” The campaign brought together several recognizable trends: the return of low-rise jeans, Y2K aesthetics, musical nostalgia, and fan culture. The jeans were shown in motion, on different performers, as part of a performance people wanted to watch again. (gapinc.com)
The video gave viewers several reasons to become interested in the clothes: a favorite artist, familiar music, an appealing fit, or the desire to recreate a look.
In the third quarter, comparable sales at Gap rose by 7%. This was already the brand’s eighth consecutive quarter of growth, so crediting a single video with its success would also be misleading. But the example shows how much more meaningful the discussion becomes when views are considered alongside sales and the brand’s broader performance. (gapinc.com)
Balenciaga, meanwhile, is a reminder that controversy can work in the opposite direction.
In November 2022, a campaign featuring children and teddy-bear bags styled with BDSM accessories triggered a scandal. The brand issued apologies. In February 2023, Kering acknowledged that the backlash against the campaign had hurt Balenciaga’s sales in the final weeks of the previous year. The group also announced the creation of a role responsible for brand image and safety at the group level. (vogue.com, investing.com)
The attention came at the cost of rebuilding trust.
This is where the crucial distinction lies. Provocation can make people want to examine a garment, try a look, or support their favorite model. It can also make them close the website. A comment counter does a poor job of distinguishing between these reactions.
LookBerry is part of this equation, too.
Fashion Battles combines fashion, competition, and a quick-choice mechanic familiar from dating apps. Viewers look at contestants, choose their favorites, and influence the outcome. This alone raises a provocative question: what exactly is someone judging when they vote for a model wearing a particular look?
Do they like the clothes? The way they are presented? The woman herself? Would they want to buy the item if it were shown on someone else?
These questions are fundamental to LookBerry. It would be far too convenient to treat votes as proof that the clothing is in demand. A model’s appeal can attract votes while leaving the product without a buyer.
That is why Fashion Battles should be evaluated by how viewers move from liking a contestant to taking an interest in the garment and making a purchase. Votes, product clicks, and sales measure different outcomes. One cannot stand in for another.
American Eagle, Gap, Balenciaga, and LookBerry use different ways to provoke a reaction. None of these formats guarantees that emotional engagement will translate into demand.
Fashion can afford to be provocative.
But if, after a campaign, everyone remembers the controversy, the model’s face, or the dance, while nobody wants the clothes, a brand should ask itself an uncomfortable question:
Did you sell a collection, or did you pay for someone else’s entertainment?
