The fashion world has faced some backlash of late. Most notably, clothing brand American Eagle received some heavy criticism for its latest campaign starring actress Sydney Sweeney.
“Sydney Sweeney has great jeans” stirred up controversy for two reasons. First, some viewers noticed its script played into the theme of eugenics, suggesting that Sweeney’s blue eyes and blonde hair combination is the ideal look, plus the ad bears similarity to a Calvin Klein campaign that aired in the 1980s starring actor Brooke Shields, who was 15 years old at the time. These ads were not run by some TV networks due to the sexualisation of Shields.
US President Donald Trump responded to “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans,” stating: “If Sydney Sweeney is a registered Republican, I think her ad is fantastic.”
American Eagle’s stocks then went up following the controversy.
Clothing company Guess, meanwhile, unintentionally demonstrated how AI has its biases when it ran an ad in Vogue featuring a white, blonde model, created by AI. This has raised questions about what this means for diverse model casting and how younger people may view themselves when being faced with flawless AI models.
In addition, two ads by fashion retailer Zara and another by Marks & Spencer have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority over the last few weeks for featuring models who appeared "unhealthily thin".
With the backlash and controversy of the several fashion ads, and the current political attitudes around DEI efforts, do recent controversial fashion ads signal a decline in representation?
Leila Siddiqi
Director of D&I, IPA
Representation means that everyone can and should be allowed to shine and have their moment – including the quintessential blonde beauty. Having said that, it’s clear many would have preferred to see the American Eagle and the M&S campaigns feature a more inclusive, diverse range of models.
The Guess campaign featuring an AI model is concerning and could be the beginning of a worrying trend if clients and agencies aren’t careful. It’s imperative that the people involved in building the technology apply diversity of thought and experience to ensure that AI models (a) don’t replace real life models but work with them in an ethical, mutually beneficial way and (b) don’t put one type of beauty on a pedestal so as to avoid women and young girls feeling more pressured to look a certain way.
Zehra Chatoo
Founder, Code for Good Now
Is it intentional? Perhaps. Is it inevitable? Absolutely. The artist formerly known as DEI is under attack — renamed, reframed, and in many cases, deprioritised. What we’re witnessing is the direct result of what happens when representation
is no longer a priority.
Representation isn’t a polite offer or a “woke” demand – it’s a growth driver. Research by the UN Stereotype Alliance, Oxford University, and Kantar shows that ads with strong representation increase sales by 16%. This is not a side issue. It’s a brand imperative.
Much of the recent misfiring work may not be intentional, but it reflects a lack of representative decision-makers, brave conversation, and inclusive conditions. But in the case of the Sydney Sweeney campaign, it feels a little too close to the line to be accidental. So the real question becomes: If advertising shapes culture – what culture are we choosing to create?
Laura Winson
Chief executive, ZBD
Brands are failing when it comes to authentic and diverse representation in fashion, and recent critiques of M&S and American Eagle only make this conversation more urgent.
We launched ZBD in 2017, at a time when it was the norm for fashion advertisers to exclude disabled, visibly different and trans or non-binary people. Since then, we’ve worked hard to inform brands and agencies of the ethical and commercial case for inclusion, and we have seen real progress.
With the political pushback on DEI efforts, coupled with the rise of unrepresentative generative AI, it’s created a perfect storm to put recent progress under threat.
Brand and marketing leaders must take responsibility and act now. Advertising is powerful: inclusive imagery can and will have a positive impact on a brand's performance and wider society, and we cannot afford it to be neglected.
Shona Needham
Client services director, Dinosaur
The resurgence of hyper-narrow beauty ideals in recent fashion ads isn’t just a creative choice, it’s a cultural regression.
The recent American Eagle’s Sydney Sweeney campaign to Guess and M&S, we’re seeing a polished return to the 1990s fantasy: slim, conventionally attractive, stereotypically "mainstream", and now AI-enhanced and retouched into digital perfection. As someone who came of age during the "heroin chic" and Baywatch era, this isn’t new, but it is more dangerous, cloaked in tech and turbocharged by algorithms.
But we were making progress. Inclusive sizing, body positivity and authentic representation were becoming the norm. But the rise of right-wing rhetoric, from Andrew Tate to certain political leaders glorifying genetic "superiority", is fueling a backlash, and fashion is falling in line. This isn’t nostalgia; it’s exclusion.
Representation isn’t about tokenism, it’s about values. Brands need to ask themselves: are they shaping a future that reflects the real, diverse world we live in, or clinging to outdated ideals that harm the very people they claim to serve?
Elliott Millard
Chief strategy officer, Thinkbox
It’s always dangerous to infer trends from a few data points so whether these ads represent a shift or are outliers is hard to determine. What is unquestionable is that DEI is under threat today and we need to fight to keep representation front of mind.
The industry should focus on why representation matters for business growth and on how credible, authentic representation can be delivered. Commercially, representative advertising delivers better outcomes for all parts of society so this is a commercial decision not an ethical one. And operationally, brands need professional creation in regulated environments because trust in advertising increases when content appeals to all while avoiding the bombardment that breeds backlash.
Shannie Mears
Co-founder and head of talent, The Elephant Room
I don’t think there is a decline in representation in fashion specifically, but we do have a shift happening in the industry right now in response to what is happening amongst the world and politics.
There has been a decline in focus on things like DEI and roles that have a specific target to make sure representation is protected across the board. I think when we see ads that portray a very western view of the world or a European picture, particularly when it comes to a white gaze it can feel like there is a dismissal of all the work that has been done in spaces that are for those that don’t adhere to that view, image or perspective.
Siobhan Simpson
Strategy director, Motel
Unfortunately this doesn’t just feel like a decline, it feels like a step backwards.
The cultural resonance of this is hard to ignore, but there are also very real commercial implications. Put simply, are we talking enough about the long-term fallout of failing to represent your core consumers?
All our audience research at Motel for fashion retailer JD Williams, shows that when people see themselves represented, they’re more likely to invest themselves – literally and emotionally. This is what fuels brand growth and it’s all that will really matter for American Eagle et al once the dust has settled.
Ndu Uchea
Chief executive and co-founder, Word on the Curb
These ‘controversies’ aren’t so much about a decline in representation as they are about the market’s appetite to move away from playing it ‘safe’. I always say that diversity is a reality and inclusion is a choice. The moment you reduce beauty to a singular aesthetic, no matter how clever the line might feel, you choose to exclude – and I wouldn’t say this is a new phenomenon.
Dove’s positive impact in this space came from rejecting that singularity and leaning into humanity. AI-generated campaigns go completely against that and, whilst AI adds a new layer to the conversation, showcases the same bias that society has always dealt with.
Jane Cunningham
Co-founder, PLHresearch
We have been interrogating marketing to women for 20 years and we have seen progress. However, with all feminist waves there is an equal and opposite force – one that aims to put women back into ’their place’ and we are seeing it in marketing right now. These recent campaigns epitomise a slide backwards to the place where "Good Girls" are thin, passive, vacant and more often than not yes, white and blue-eyed. The American Eagle ad regresses even further with its voiceover, acting as male arbiter of what good looks like for women, what qualifies as "good genes". What is even more disappointing is the compliance by industry leaders, suggesting that a negative reaction is an overreaction. This stuff damages girls and women. It is proven and it is documented. It’s time to push back rather than comply.
