‍American Eagle’s campaign has been debated from every angle, except one: the design of the ad itself. Despite all the fuss, from a visual design-standpoint it breaks almost all principles of the attention economy, relying instead on borrowed attention from controversy and celebrity, a paradox that poses a challenge for brands seeking lasting equity.

Headlines and surveys show that, despite the backlash, American Eagle’s much-discussed campaign drove purchase intent. Yet beyond the hype, the case exposes a fundamental question: how ads capture, guide and convert attention.

The modern advertising landscape is dominated by what academics like Karen Nelson-Field call the "Attention Economy"; a relentless fight where success is typically determined by a simple question: does your creative capture attention and intuitively anchor your brand and message?

By this modern standard, American Eagle's success is a fascinating anomaly: they didn't win by fighting the visual arms race. Instead, they bypassed these principles by deploying a much older marketing philosophy: activating the public square. And activate it they did. The campaign got tongues wagging like no advert has since Benetton, sparking a debate that was intense and layered. While some bemoaned it as a lazy slip back into 'sex sells', the broader public outcry went much deeper, touching upon a raw nerve of sensitive cultural topics, from eugenics and racial coding to body standards.

What makes this case study remarkable for anyone in the business of advertising is that when applying a clinical, neuroscientific lens to the ads’ designs, the data is unequivocal: all of the creatives in the campaign fail the fundamental principles of the attention economy.

This reveals the central paradox of the campaign. The strategic brilliance was obvious; the visual mediocrity, as the data will show, was equally stark. The question is what it means for our industry when a design that is, at best, dime a dozen can so thoroughly rewrite the rules of visual engagement.

The Visual Autopsy: An Ad Not Optimized for Attention

Judged by the established rules of the visual attention economy, the creatives are fundamentally flawed. Brainsight's predictive eye-tracking case-study of AE’s ad-design confirms this paradox: the creatives are not particularly effective at either grabbing initial attention or clearly, and do not directly communicate its core message.  Without the controversy, and judged against predictive attention benchmarks, the American Eagle creative is average, at best.

Neuroscience and psychology tell us faces and exposed skin automatically capture the eye first. Brainsight's Predictive eye-tracking data confirms this: attention is instantly drawn to Sydney Sweeney 's face, followed by a quick scan of brand name. When only having a one to two second glance -the average attention advertising gets- there is hardly any time left to read the one-liner, let alone interpret the "JEANS" pun. That wordplay requires extra visual and cognitive processing, taking time most exposures don't last. The result: a lot of Sydney Sweeney, weak processing of the brand, no brand asset linkage (and why did they leave out the logo?), and interestingly with all the genes-discussions, a key message that is missed by many, if not most. Insights from other ad-variants of the campaign show similar data.

The video version takes the visual shortcomings to a whole new level. Best practices show that effective video creatives bring the brand cue into the first couple of seconds or at least prime viewers with distinctive brand assets. Here, American Eagle waits until the very last frames with a fraction of those brand-anchoring elements, a decision that means that any of those are statistically invisible to most viewers.

But all these best practices can be waived for this campaign; American Eagle wasn't bothered to optimize the ad for visual attention, because visual effectiveness was never their strategy. A high-performance visual engine isn't required when you're pulling an old marketing philosophy from the shelf: get people talking. One ad, with a coin toss’s ability to get noticed, was sufficient to ignite that strategy.

American Eagle is not the new Benetton

Instead of fighting for visual attention, American Eagle leveraged a timeless truth that attention can be captured in conversation. This reminds us of a much-talked about brand a few decades ago: Benetton.

Benetton shot to fame for its controversial adverts in the 90s, but their strategy was fundamentally different. Benetton's ads were born from a deep-seated brand philosophy: 'United Colors'. Their shocking imagery was a meticulously crafted, high-concept expression of their core DNA. Perhaps it was idealism, perhaps an attention-strategy at the time, but it definitely aimed at building a long-term brand identity.

In contrast, American Eagle opted for a short-term cultural tactic. There seems to be no underlying brand philosophy guiding this approach. They strategized on a volatile cultural subject, a perfectly cast celebrity, and an edgy pun, to fuel a conversation. This approach redefines the role of the ad-design, that only needed to ignite a 'critical mass'—the hyper-aware and media commentators who are primed to spot and amplify cultural signals. This is a masterclass in modern marketing: understanding cultural conversations and knowing how to activate them.

This, however, is a privilege reserved for the established brands. The entire mechanism relies on two essential fuels a challenger brand simply does not possess: the salience of a major brand and the cultural gravity of a celebrity who embodies the intended controversy. The ad wouldn't be a 'cultural signal' when one of those were out of the equation; it would just be another ad from a brand nobody is talking about, featuring a face that carries no weight. The fire would never start.

What reinforces American Eagle's short-term tactic, and differentiate with Benetton’s branding strategy, is what came next. As reported by Forbes, American Eagle's collaboration with Travis Kelce was perfectly timed to tap into the cultural behemoth of Taylor Swift. This pivot reveals a masterful, two-step strategy: first kick down the door with controversy to violently claim attention, follow up by de-escalating the conflict and invite the now-attentive mainstream back into a safe, 'likeable', feel-good space. Does that help long-term identity building? For marketers who love the eternal debate between long- and short-term: was this a Marketing or Branding triumph?

The success American Eagle has had in becoming a talked-about household name shows their gamble has, for now, paid off. But while the mission to gain attention was accomplished, it leaves American Eagle with a difficult strategic question: what's their next move? A strategy of controversy without a guiding brand compass is a dangerous game. By chasing hype-cycles, what does a brand stand for, beyond simply being talked about? It their next move another ‘sex sells ad’, but ticking a different cultural box, or the wholesome Kelce/Swift route? Both options seem plausible, revealing the core issue: when you focus on short-term cultural tactics you may risk long-term brand identity. It’s a high-wire act that leaves consumers knowing of the brand, but perhaps no longer knowing what it truly stands for.

American Eagle has proven that cultural controversy can generate explosive attention, bypassing the established rules of visual effectiveness. But it is a high-stakes game, viable only for brands with scale and access to cultural icons. For challengers it risks irrelevance, and for all brands one lesson is clear: attention borrowed without anchoring in brand meaning is unlikely to sustain equity over time.

‍

Note: This article was also published on Marketinfacts, the leading Marketing & Innovation platform of The Benelux.