Apologize or Explain? What Brands Can Learn from the American Eagle Ad Controversy

by T.J. Winick

The recent controversy surrounding Sydney Sweeney’s collaboration with American Eagle, where critics claimed the campaign was “a nod, either unintentional or deliberate, to eugenics”, offers a timely reminder of a central question in crisis communications: when should a brand issue an apology, and when is an explanation the better response?

It’s a high-stakes decision. A well-crafted apology can rebuild trust, demonstrate accountability, and quiet a backlash. But if used too often, or without cause, it can seem disingenuous or open the door to further scrutiny. On the other hand, issuing only an explanation without acknowledging the emotional impact of a misstep can come across as defensive or out of touch.

So how can brands strike the right balance?

Apologize When the Impact Is Clear

When a campaign causes genuine harm, whether through offensive imagery, exclusionary messaging, or cultural insensitivity, an apology should come swiftly and sincerely. That doesn’t mean groveling. It means taking ownership, acknowledging the impact on the affected audience, and outlining what the brand will do differently moving forward.

A real apology prioritizes those who were hurt, not on protecting the brand. It avoids hedging language like “if anyone was offended” and instead speaks directly, i.e., “We got this wrong, and we’re sorry.”

Apologies are most effective when paired with action. Promising internal reviews, improved oversight, or inclusive partnerships can help demonstrate that the brand is committed to change—not just trying to weather the news cycle.

Explain When There’s a Story to Tell

Not every controversy calls for an apology. Sometimes backlash arises from a misunderstanding or a lack of context. In these cases, an explanation may be more appropriate, especially if the brand acted in good faith but the message was misinterpreted.

Still, explanations should be delivered with care. They should not invalidate real concerns or paint critics as overreacting. A strong explanatory statement leads with empathy, then adds clarity. For example: “Our goal with this campaign was to highlight personal empowerment and creativity, and we regret that some aspects didn’t land as intended.”

This kind of response can help bring audiences back into the fold without escalating tensions or alienating core supporters.

When Both are Appropriate

In some cases, the most effective response may be a combination of apology and explanation. Acknowledge that the campaign may have missed the mark, express genuine regret, and then provide context for your intent. Show that you’re open to learning, willing to listen, and committed to doing better next time.

That kind of transparency fosters credibility and helps shift the conversation from outrage to understanding.

Ultimately, the decision to apologize or explain isn’t about protecting the brand, it’s about protecting trust. Today’s audiences expect accountability, but they also value transparency.

Brands that get this right aren’t the ones that never stumble…they’re the ones that know how to respond when they do.