Negative PR: Is it as bad as it seems?

For many companies, the very phrase 'negative PR' conjures panic. In the age of social media, a single scandal or misstep can spread like wildfire, threatening to damage a brand’s reputation overnight. When I first entered the PR field, I assumed negative PR was always an unmitigated disaster and that the role of a PR team was much like that of a firefighter: extinguishing scandals, repairing reputations, and anxiously waiting for the next flare-up. But after two months of my internship at Fair Communications, my perspective has shifted. I’ve come to appreciate that negative PR isn’t always as bad as it seems - in fact, if managed with creativity, discipline, and a clear strategy, it can even become a powerful tool.

One of the clearest examples of this paradox, was the recent American Eagle campaign starring actress Sydney Sweeney. At first glance, the ad seemed innocuous enough: a major fashion retailer teaming up with a rising Hollywood star. But the tagline, “Sydney Sweeney has good genes” - suddenly found itself in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. Was this a clever wordplay on denim? Or did the marketing team miss the mark entirely? And what does this say about the brand's understanding of modern consumer sensitivities? 

What began as a playful pun on genes/jeans quickly struck a nerve. In one clip, Sweeney narrates, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring… My jeans are blue,” as the camera lingers on her denim-clad body. What might have seemed like harmless wordplay to the creative team soon drew criticism for its uncomfortable echoes of eugenics. The phrase “good genes” was seen by some as tone-deaf, even likened to “Nazi propaganda.”Overnight, a quirky gimmick had escalated into a full-blown PR controversy.

The online reaction was sharply divided. Many condemned the campaign as tone-deaf at best and a deliberate “dog whistle” at worst. As one Tik Tok user noted, “the words we use are never unintentional.” Others, however, dismissed the outrage as oversensitivity, with one user celebrating that “Woke advertising is dead, Sydney Sweeney killed it.” A third camp simply shrugged it off: “to me, it’s just an ad for jeans.” The campaign became a cultural Rorschach test - with people projecting their own beliefs onto the message.

Yet what’s often overlooked in these debates is the simplest truth: this was still an advertising campaign, its primary aim to sell more jeans. And in that sense, it worked -  everyone was suddenly talking about American Eagle.

As a newcomer to the industry, I’ve learned to question both sides. It’s difficult to believe the brand intentionally invited accusations of eugenics, yet their handling of the backlash reveals important lessons about modern brand communication. When American Eagle finally addressed the controversy, they reframed rather than apologised, insisting on their inclusive intent: “Her jeans. Her story… Great jeans look good on everyone.” From this angle, the “good genes” pun reads less as coded messaging and more as creative overconfidence - a nostalgic nod to Brooke Shields’ iconic 1980s Calvin Klein ads.

@americaneagle

Still, I can’t ignore the possibility that the provocation was deliberate. Controversy generates the kind of attention money can’t buy. The campaign dominated online discourse, reinforcing American Eagle’s place at the centre of denim culture. In doing so, it almost seemed to mock society’s heightened sensitivity - pushing back against the demand for socially curated messaging. By stripping the ad down to a simple pun, the brand may have been signalling a deliberate return to advertising designed purely to sell, rather than to uphold a political or moral agenda. If that was the case, the “good genes” brouhaha was no accident, but a calculated gamble: a moment of strategic provocation designed to turn outrage into long-term brand buzz.

My time at Fair Communications has given me direct insight into the multifaceted world of strategic communications and the pivotal role PR teams play in shaping brand messaging. I’ve seen how deliberate messaging and careful placement are central to building and protecting a company’s narrative.

The key lesson? When controversy erupts, the response matters more than the uproar itself. American Eagle’s handling of the “good genes” campaign reflected this principle: rather than issuing an outright apology (which might have implied guilt), they clarified their intent and doubled down on inclusivity with the line, “Great jeans look good on everyone.” This subtle but strategic reframing sought to shift public perception from genetics to denim, from exclusion to empowerment.

Working within the Fair Communications team has fundamentally reshaped how I view negative PR. I now approach campaigns with a more critical lens, questioning the strategic decisions behind them and recognising the fine balance between provocation and protection. Sometimes controversy is engineered to spark conversation and generate visibility that money can’t buy; other times, it’s a genuine misstep. Yet in both scenarios, skilled crisis management can transform potential setbacks into opportunities for clarification, resilience, and even growth. That’s the nuance I carry forward: negative PR isn’t always a failure - in the right hands, it can be the catalyst for a stronger brand story.

Charlotte Stonehouse is a PR Intern at Fair Communications. For more information visit: faircommunications.co.uk