 |
|
|
|||||
A big American brand partners with a young, beautiful celebrity in what it thinks is a clever and iconic piece of advertising. But as soon as the ad drops, the reaction is exactly the opposite of what the brand was hoping for. There is an immediate backlash against how the ad has casually, and ignorantly, waded into issues like identity politics, societal divisions, and systemic racism. Sound familiar? Of course, it sounds a helluva lot like the swamp of hot takes American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney currently find themselves wandering waist-deep in. But I was actually talking about the infamous Pepsi and Kendall Jenner ad from 2017. So much has changed since then, but oh, how any given brands lack of cultural awareness can remain constant. Sydney Sweeney x American Eagle, oh my god. pic.twitter.com/tDkeGT9R7G— Sydney Sweeney Daily (@sweeneydailyx) July 24, 2025 Last week, American Eagle dropped a new campaign of ads featuring Sweeney. One has her sensually sliding into a pair of jeans while explaining what genes are. Jeans are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color, she said. My jeans are blue. Cut to a male voice-over and tagline: Sydney Sweeney has great jeans. That double entendre between denim and genetic traits immediately raised the ire of the internet, with many pointing to the very blond hair and blue eyes of the campaigns star as a complicated and divisive ideal to be touting in 2025. Accusations hurled at the brand ranged from plain ignorance to full-on Nazi propaganda. On the other end are those finding fresh fodder for their screams against the woke mind virus. Wherever you stand on that spectrum, there is no denying the fact that the campaign has gone much bigger than it ever would have as a result of this outsize negative reaction. No matter what anyone says, this was certainly not the brands intention. Defining moment This was no one-off social post, but a full-throated brand extravaganza. American Eagle chief marketing officer Craig Brommers was hyping its scale on LinkedIn last week, about how it would hit the Sphere in Las Vegas, 3D billboards in Times Square and L.A., a Euphoria partnership with HBO Max, and more. A massive thank-you and CONGRATULATIONS to our internal teams and external partnersand SYDNEY herselffor this defining moment, Brommers wrote. Ashley Schapiro, American Eagles vice president of marketing, media, performance, and engagement, wrote a LinkedIn post outlining part of the process. She said that on a Zoom call with Sweeney, they asked her, How far do you want to push it? Without hesitation, she smirked and said, Lets push it. Im game. Our response? Challenge Accepted, Schapiro wrote. From that moment on, Syds sentiment guided every frame, every stitch and every unexpected twist of the Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeanscampaign. Infusing our own personal cheeky energy and making us as we envisioned how the world would experience the launch. The star power of Sydney and the double meaning behind the campaign has a culture-shaping power beyond anything I could have ever imagined being a part ofjust check your social feeds. There are any number of ways to talk about this ad and campaign overallfrom whether it intentionally or not promotes outdated genetic ideals to whether the intended audience is people who buy jeans or those buying meme stocks. But let’s look at these spots as creative advertising ideas. Reheated ideas The spot featuring Sweeney squeezing into a pair of jeans while lying down and doling out a genetics lesson is a remarkable facsimile of Calvin Kleins 1980 spot with Brooke Shields giving her own breakdown of genetics while … you guessed it … squeezing into a pair of jeans while lying down. Another Sweeney spot has her going all meta, insisting that shes not trying to get you to buy American Eagle jeans at all. This hews incredibly close to a 2017 Sprite ad starring LeBron James, in which the NBA star insists that hes not here to convince you to drink the soda at all. Just like the controversy itself, the ideas here arent new. But there was a very simple way to feature the exact same work without all the negative baggage. Meaning over intent Marcus Collins, a consultant, author, and University of Michigan marketing professor, often writes about brands as vessels for meaning. Meaning is subjective, not objective, and that is something all brand marketers need to keep in mind. On Instagram, Collins said: Despite whatever the intentions the brand had in making this ad, what it communicates to people is that there is a prototypical standard for good genes: white, blonde hair, blue eyes. And of course, especially considering the political and social cultural backdrop that we’re in right now, that could seem like some pretty bad dog whistling. Collins goes on to outline how American Eagle could have done this campaign without the whistle. Why not feature other people, who may still be objectively beautiful, to illustrate a variety of good jeans? Collins points to stars like Idris Elba or Halle Berry, but American Eagle neednt even have looked outside their own brand roster. Last year, the brand launched a collab collection with tennis star Coco Gauff, as well as her second ad campaign for the slogan Live Your Life. The 21-year-old is not only in the brand’s ideal age bracket, she’s also smart, stylish, beautiful, and just happens to have a collection of 19 professional tennis trophies, including the 2023 U.S. Open and 2025 French Open titles. Now, those are some pretty damn good jeans, too.
Category:
E-Commerce
Between 1863 and 1869, the first transcontinental line, known as the Pacific Railroad, was built in the United States. The line ran from Omaha, Nebraska, to Sacramento, California, and carried passengers and goods alike. It was built mostly by the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California and Union Pacific, and marked a turning point in the Industrial Revolution and Americas economy when it came to shipping goods from the West Coast. Now, Union Pacific is looking to expand upon history. Pending approval by the Surface Transportation Board (STB), it says it hopes to acquire Norfolk Southern through a stock and cash transaction by 2027, and create the Union Pacific Transcontinental Railroad. According to a press release, this will involve Norfolk Southern shareholders receiving one Union Pacific common share, and $88.82 in cash for each share of Norfolk Southern. This will represent a $320 value per share, based on Union Pacifics July 16, 2025, closing stock price. Ultimately, it will allow them to buy Norfolk Southern for $85 billion. Norfolk Southern shareholders would represent 27% of ownership in the combined company. If the merger is not approved, the agreement reflects a $2.5 billion termination fee. Their end goal is to connect the West and East coasts across 43 states and link around 100 shipment ports throughout North America. They say it would be the first transcontinental railroad in America, but in reality, it would be the first line to carry freight (not passengers) without needing to transfer shipments between rail lines. This combination is transformational, enhancing the best freight transportation system in the worldit’s a win for the American economy, it’s a win for our customers, and its a win for our people, Union Pacific CEO Jim Vena said in a statement. It builds on President Abraham Lincolns vision of a transcontinental railroad from nearly 165 years ago and advances our Safety, Service, and Operational Excellence Strategy. Who does a transcontinental railroad benefit? Currently, there are seven Class 1 freight railroads operating in the U.S.: BNSF Railway Co., Canadian National Railway (Grand Trunk Corporation), Canadian Pacific (Soo Line Corporation), CSX Transportation, Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific Railroad. Echoing the sentiment of the Trump administrations America First strategy, the statement announcing the merger says this venture would transform the U.S. supply chain, unleash the industrial strength of American manufacturing, and create new sources of economic growth and workforce opportunity that preserve union jobs. Additionally, Union Pacific claims the merging of routes would improve transit times, enhance rail competitionspecifically against the Canadian lines that operate in the U.S.and move more freight via train for a lower consumer and manufacturer cost. The company cites the pros of rail shipping over highway truckers as more cost effective on a per-ton mile basis, faster due to a lack of traffic concerns, and more environmentally fuel efficient. On the flip side, the cons of rail include that it’s less cost-efficient for smaller shipments, the shipping modes inability to reach specific locations all the time, and truckers are likely to have something to say about any transportation that moves from truck to rail. Linking America’s coasts According to the Federal Railroad Administration, 52% of rail freight consists of bulk commodities. These widely include agriculture, energy products, hazardous materials and chemicals, automobiles, food, and other various materials. The other 48% consists of consumer goods and miscellaneous items like clothes, electronics, and producemost of which are considered intermodal, meaning that they are small enough to be transferred for the last mile of shipment via plane, truck, or another transportation mode. And per Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, these goods equal around 1.5 billion tons currently moved via freight railroads every year. What happens next? The STB will review the agreement after the companies file their application to mergesomething they say they plan to do within the next six months. A merger of this capacity will likely raise questions regarding rail regulations and the ethics behind competition in America, as more and more freight rail mergers have taken place over the past few years. As of this afternoon, both Norfolk Southern (NYSE: NSC) and Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP) shares are down nearly 3%.
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trump‘s administration on Tuesday proposed revoking a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule would rescind a 2009 declaration that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The endangerment finding is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the proposed rule change on a podcast ahead of an official announcement set for Tuesday in Indiana. Repealing the endangerment finding will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,” Zeldin said on the Ruthless podcast. There are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country,” Zeldin said. “They created this endangerment finding and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence, in many cases, a lot of segments of our economy. And it cost Americans a lot of money. The EPA proposal must go though a lengthy review process, including public comment, before it is finalized, likely next year. Environmental groups are likely to challenge the rule change in court. Zeldin called for a rewrite of the endangerment finding in March as part of a series of environmental rollbacks announced at the same time in what he said was “the greatest day of deregulation in American history.” A total of 31 key environmental rules on topics from clean air to clean water and climate change would be rolled back or repealed under Zeldin’s plan. He singled out the endangerment finding as the Holy Grail of the climate change religion and said he was thrilled to end it as the EPA does its part to usher in the Golden Age of American success.” Tailpipe emission limits also targeted The EPA also is expected to call for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Environmental groups said Zeldin’s action denies reality as weather disasters exacerbated by climate change continue in the U.S. and around the world. As Americans reel from deadly floods and heat waves, the Trump administration is trying to argue that the emissions turbocharging these disasters are not a threat,” said Christy Goldfuss, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. It boggles the mind and endangers the nations safety and welfare. Under Zeldin and Trump, the EPA wants to shirk its responsibility to protect us from climate pollution, but science and the law say otherwise,” she added. If EPA finalizes this illegal and cynical approach, we will see them in court. Three former EPA leaders have also criticized Zeldin, saying his March announcement targeting the endangerment finding and other rules imperiled the lives of millions of Americans and abandoned the agencys dual mission to protect the environment and human health. If theres an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what theyre doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about, Christine Todd Whitman, who led EPA under Republican President George W. Bush, said after Zeldin’s plan was made public. The EPA proposal follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report on the legality and continuing applicability of the endangerment finding. Conservatives and some congressional Republicans hailed the initial plan, calling it a way to undo economically damaging rules to regulate greenhouse gases. But environmental groups, legal experts and Democrats said any attempt to repeal or roll back the endangerment finding would be an uphill task with slim chance of success. The finding came two years after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling holding that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Passing court muster could be an issue David Doniger, a climate expert at the NRDC, accused Trump’s Republican administration of using potential repeal of the endangerment finding as a kill shot that would allow him to make all climate regulations invalid. If finalized, repeal of the endangerment finding would erase current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources and could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to tackle climate change. “The Endangerment Finding is the legal foundation that underpins vital protections for millions of people from the severe threats of climate change, and the Clean Car and Truck Standards are among the most important and effective protections to address the largest U.S. source of climate-causing pollution,” said Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. Attacking these safeguards is manifestly inconsistent with EPAs responsibility to protect Americans health and well-being,” he said. It is callous, dangerous and a breach of our governments responsibility to protect the American people from this devastating pollution.” Conrad Schneider, a senior director at the Clean Air Task Force, said the Trump administration is using pollution regulations as a scapegoat in its flawed approach to energy affordability” and reliability. He and other advocates “are dismayed that an administration that claims it cares about cleaner, healthier and safer air is seeking to dismantle the very protections that are required for those conditions, Schneider said. Matthew Daly, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||