From American Eagle to Swatch, why brands seem to keep getting it so wrong

Santiago | Getty ImagesFrom American Eagle to Swatch, brands appear to be making a lot of blunders lately.When actress Sydney Sweeney's jeans campaign came out last month, critics lambasted the wordplay of good "jeans" and "genes" as tone deaf with nefarious undertones.More recently, an advert from Swiss watchmaker Swatch sparked backlash for featuring an Asian model pulling the corners of his eyes, in an offensive gesture.Colgate-Palmo's ad for Sanex shower gel was banned in the U.K. for blematic suggestions Black and white skin tones

And consumers derided Cracker Barrel's decision to ditch its overalls-clad character for a more simplistic text-based logo as "sterile," "soulless," and "woke."Meanwhile, recent duct launches from Adidas and Prada have raised allegations of cultural appriation.That has reignited the debate when an ad campaign is effective and when it's just plain offensive, as companies confront increased consumer scrutiny.Outdated playbooks"Each brand had its own blind spot," David Brier, brand specialist and author of "Brand intervention" and "Rich brand, poor brand" told CNBC via .He noted, however, that too many brands are attempting to respond to consumers with an outdated playbook."Modern brands are trying to navigate cultural complexity with corporate simplicity

They're using 1950s boardroom thinking to solve 2025 human blems," he continued."These aren't sensitivity failures

They're empathy failures

They viewed culture as something to navigate around rather than understand deeply."The new Cracker Barrel logo is seen on a inside the restaurant on Aug. 21, 2025 in stead, Florida.Joe Raedle | Getty ImagesSome companies have had success in tapping into the zeitgeist — and, in some cases, seizing on other brands' shortcomings.Gap, for instance, this week sought to counter backlash against Sweeney's advertisement with a campaign in which pop group Katseye lead a diverse group of dancers performing in denim against a white backdrop.Brier said companies should consider how they can genuinely connect with consumers and be representative, rather than simply trying to avoid offense."No brand can afford to fake understanding

No brand can 'committee its way' to connection

No brand can focus-group its way to authenticity

In 2025, customers can smell the difference from a mile away," he added.Balancing the riskNevertheless, ads are meant to spark conversation, and at a time when grabbing and maintaining consumers' attention — and of wallet — is increasingly difficult, brands have a fine balance to tread."Brands and die by standing out and grabbing attention

On top of that, iconic and culturally relevant brands want to stand for something and be recognized for it

Those are tough asks," Jonathan A.J

Wilson, fessor of brand strategy and culture at Regent's University London.In an age of social media and with ever more divided public opinions, landing one universal message can be difficult, Wilson noted

For as long as that remains the case, some brands may still see value in taking a calculated risk."It's hard to land one universal message, and even if you try and tailor your message to various groups, others are watching," he said."Controversy grabs attention and puts you at the front of people's minds

It splits crowds and forces people to have a decision when otherwise they bably wouldn't care

That can lead to disportionate publicity, which could be converted into sales."