If there was one throughline running through marketing in 2025, it was this: brands no longer get to decide whether they are political. In a year defined by cultural and political polarization, even routine marketing decisions were interpreted as ideological signals.
American Eagle
Few examples captured the complex climate brands find themselves operating in more clearly than American Eagle’s Sydney Sweeney campaign.
What began as a denim push built around the pun “great jeans” quickly escalated into a national flashpoint after critics accused the brand of celebrating “great genes” with a blonde-haired, blue-eyed model. It quickly became one of the year’s most polarizing brand moments and a case study in how quickly corporate branding can be politicized.
The backlash spread rapidly across social media, trade press and mainstream outlets, ultimately drawing in President Donald Trump, who publicly praised both Sweeney and the campaign.
Advertisement
Yet while online discourse framed the work as a cultural misstep, the financial markets told a very different story. In the days following Trump’s endorsement, American Eagle’s share price surged, briefly earning the retailer ‘meme stock’ status. For some industry commentators, the episode became proof that outrage no longer guarantees brand damage and can, in fact, function as a growth channel.
That disconnect between noise and reality became clearer when The Drum, working with Kantar, surveyed 1,000 Americans who were aware of the controversy. We found awareness did not translate into widespread rejection. Overall, 62% of men and 50% of women said they were still likely to consider American Eagle in the future after seeing or hearing about the campaign. Among younger consumers – the brand’s core audience – that figure rose sharply, with nearly three-quarters of 18-24-year-olds saying they would consider shopping with the brand.
In an interview with The Drum after the dust had settled, CMO Craig Brommers made clear that the brand never treated the backlash as a crisis. Instead, it viewed the moment as an opportunity to channel attention back to product. Backed by a supportive board, Brommers resisted the urge to over-correct, issuing a single statement reaffirming that the campaign was “and always was about the jeans,” then letting the outrage cycle burn out.
For Brommers, the lesson wasn’t about provocation for its own sake, but about rejecting an industry culture obsessed with safety. In a media environment where cultural relevance is fleeting and attention is scarce, he argued, “vanilla” marketing is the bigger risk. Whether intentional or not, American Eagle’s experience suggested that politicization is no longer an edge case – it’s a condition brands must be prepared to navigate, absorb or even withstand.
Cracker Barrel’s failed rebrand showed the other side of that equation. When the 56-year-old restaurant chain quietly unveiled a stripped-back logo, removing its iconic ‘Old Timer’ figure and ‘Old Country Store’ tagline, it likely anticipated design debate, not political intervention. Yet backlash was swift and fierce, with critics accusing the brand of erasing its heritage. President Trump again entered the fray, publicly condemning the change and celebrating its reversal just days later.
Unlike American Eagle, Cracker Barrel moved quickly to retreat, scrapping the new logo and reinstating its original identity. Branding expert Wayne Deakin argued the failure wasn’t about execution, but a misreading of the emotional equity tied up in the brand’s symbols. In a hyper-politicized environment, he warned, modernization must feel like evolution, not erasure. Strip away too much context and even design decisions can become ideological flashpoints.
Together, the two cases revealed a defining tension of 2025 marketing. American Eagle leaned into risk and weathered politicisation with commercial success. Cracker Barrel underestimated how deeply its brand assets were woven into cultural identity and paid the price. Both showed that neutrality is no longer a shield, and that brands now operate in a landscape where every message, image or redesign is subject to political interpretation.