![\"Two](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/3c0cc239b66ab229dfc3d43c9893163c.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\nSometimes companies release ad campaigns that simply miss the mark. And while all businesses occasionally have bad ideas, a few of these ads have sparked public outrage after being deemed downright inappropriate or offensive…<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Yuliia Kaveshnikova \/ Getty Images<\/p>\n
From teenage Brooke Shields’s risqu\u00e9 Calvin Klein ads to Sydney Sweeney’s recent American Eagle campaign, there are certain ads or commercials that have sparked backlash for being creepy, crass, or downright cringey. Without further ado, here are 11 times an advertisement massively backfired on a company:<\/p>\n
1.”Sydney Sweeney<\/a> has great jeans” (2025):<\/p>\n In July 2025, American Eagle announced a partnership with Sydney Sweeney\u00a0by releasing a series<\/a> of ads focusing on her body. Despite the provocative nature of this campaign, the commercial that has encountered the most condemnation features the Euphoria\u00a0<\/a>star\u00a0explaining<\/a>, “Genes are passed down from parent to offspring, often determining traits like eye color, personality, and even hair color. My jeans are blue.”<\/p>\n While many claim that the ad is simply reminiscent of Brooke Shields’s infamous 1980 Calvin Klein ad in which the 15-year-old discussed “selective mating,” other social media users have pointed out that in today’s political climate, the ad seems to use eugenicist language by showcasing a young, blonde-haired, blue-eyed white woman as the “pinnacle” of genetics, with some going so far as to deem<\/a> it “Nazi propaganda.”<\/p>\n In one TikTok video,\u00a0Sayantani DasGupta, a lecturer at Columbia University, noted<\/a> that the campaign was\u00a0\u201creally imbued with eugenic messaging\u201d and that\u00a0\u201cIt is both a testament to this political moment, and it\u2019s contributing to and reinforcing this kind of anti-immigrant, anti-people of color, pro-eugenic political moment.”<\/p>\n Related: Here Are 16 Actors Who Saved Their Skin By Turning Down Roles In Movies That People Notoriously Hated<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Others have deemed the sexualization of Sweeney in the ads as particularly odd after American Eagle announced<\/a> that a “A butterfly motif on the back pocket of the jean represents domestic violence awareness, which Sydney is passionate about. In support of the cause, 100% of the purchase price from ‘The Sydney Jean’ will be donated to Crisis Text Line, a nonprofit offering free, 24\/7, confidential mental health support to anyone in need.”<\/p>\n Rachel Tashjian, a fashion writer for the\u00a0Washington Post,\u00a0claimed<\/a>\u00a0the ads are \u201cregressive\u201d and \u201ctethered to the values of another time,” writing, \u201cIt is strange to see a brand like American Eagle go in this direction. Should teenagers be served a vision of sexuality and fashion that feels so regressive?\u201d<\/p>\n Despite the backlash from both the press and the public, American Eagle stock has jumped 20 percent since the campaign was released. Neither the company nor Sweeney has made any public statements regarding the controversy.<\/p>\n 2.Kendall Jenner’s “Jump In” Pepsi ad (2017):<\/p>\n Pepsi, long known for its star-studded commercials, made a major misstep in the public eye on April 4, 2017, when the soda brand released its “Jump In” ad featuring Kendall Jenner<\/a>.<\/p>\n The ad depicted<\/a> the model in the midst of a photoshoot when she notices a protest making its way down the street. The protestors hold signs that seem to signal a peaceful rally when the then-21-year-old decides to join them, fist bumping a fellow protester, and grabbing a Pepsi from an icy bucket. She then spots a police officer and hands him a Pepsi while a woman wearing a hijab looks on and photographs the climactic moment (which many critics noted was eerily similar to a well-publicized photo<\/a> of protester Ieshia Evans standing in front of a police line during a protest against the police killing of a Black man in Baton Rouge).<\/p>\n In a press statement released the day the ad went public, Pepsi stated that the commercial was part of its “Live For Now” campaign and “captures the spirit and actions of those people that jump in to every moment. It features multiple lives, stories, and emotional connections that show passion, joy, unbound and uninhibited moments.”<\/p>\n However, many critics accused the soda company of trivializing and belittling a significant equality movement for profit. Civil rights pioneer Martin Luther King Jr.’s daughter Bernice King<\/a> spoke out by tweeting a photo of her late father being pushed backwards by a police line with the caption<\/a>, “If only Daddy knew about the power of #Pepsi.”<\/p>\n The soda company responded directly to King,\u00a0writing<\/a>, “We at Pepsi believe in the legacy of Dr. King & meant absolutely no disrespect to him & others who fight for justice.”<\/p>\n The ad also faced scrutiny from media outlets with a\u00a0Washington Post\u00a0headline\u00a0proclaiming<\/a>,\u00a0\u201cPepsi Tried Cashing In on Black Lives Matter With a Kendall Jenner Ad. Here\u2019s How That\u2019s Going,” and\u00a0Adweek\u00a0deeming<\/a>\u00a0it “tone-deaf.”<\/p>\n By the following day, at 1:45 p.m., Pepsi officially\u00a0pulled<\/a>\u00a0the commercial and released a statement,\u00a0\u201cPepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace, and understanding. Clearly, we missed the mark, and we apologize. We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are removing the content and halting any further rollout. We also apologize for putting Kendall Jenner in this position.”<\/p>\n Jenner did not address the controversy at the time; however, she\u00a0shared<\/a>\u00a0her reaction during an episode of\u00a0Keeping Up with the Kardashians,\u00a0which aired in October of that year.\u00a0Explaining on camera, “I trusted everyone. I trusted the teams. But after I saw the reaction and I read what people had to say about it, I most definitely saw what went wrong. I was so stuck, and I really didn\u2019t know what to do, that I completely shut down…I would never purposely hurt someone ever, and I would, obviously, if I knew this was gonna be the outcome, like, I would have never done something like this. But you don’t know when you’re in the moment.”<\/p>\n 3.”Peloton Wife” (2019):<\/p>\n In 2019, Peloton faced backlash for alleged sexism after their holiday ad, titled “The Gift That Gives Back<\/a>,” featured a woman’s husband gifting her a Peloton for the holiday season. The ad continued to show the woman documenting her fitness journey over the course of a year, and concluded with her showing her husband the footage the following year, while she states,\u00a0“A year ago, I didn’t realize how much this would change me.”<\/p>\n The criticism online was instantaneous, with tweets like<\/a>\u00a0“Nothing says ‘maybe you should lose a few pounds’ like gifting your already rail thin life partner a Peloton,” and comedians, such as Eva Victor, making<\/a> profanity-laden parodies. Many even noted that the “dystopian” ad was akin to a Black Mirror\u00a0episode<\/p>\n Within a few days, Peloton’s stock had dropped 9% (at one point, the company lost<\/a> $1.5 billion due to the backlash), and rumors spread about the commercial possibly being pulled from the air, however a company spokesperson told<\/a> CNBC, \u201cWe constantly hear from our members how their lives have been meaningfully and positively impacted after purchasing or being gifted a Peloton Bike or Tread, often in ways that surprise them. Our holiday spot was created to celebrate that fitness and wellness journey, while we\u2019re disappointed in how some have misinterpreted this commercial, we are encouraged by \u2014 and grateful for \u2014 the outpouring of support we\u2019ve received from those who understand what we were trying to communicate.”<\/p>\n A few days later, Monica Ruiz, the actor who played the role dubbed “Peloton Wife,” appeared on the Today show to share<\/a> her reaction to the backlash: “Honestly, I think it was just my face. It was my fault. My eyebrows looked worried, I guess. People were like, ‘She looked scared.'” She added that at the end of the day, “I hope people can remember that I’m not actually the ‘Peloton lady’ and let me work other jobs.”<\/p>\n Those other jobs came in the form of Ryan Reynolds<\/a> hiring Ruiz to appear in an ad for his Aviation Gin brand that poked fun at the Peloton ad,\u00a0depicting<\/a>\u00a0Ruiz drinking gin at a bar while friends consoled her. Reynolds shared the ad with the\u00a0caption<\/a>: “Exercise bike not included.”<\/p>\n Related: 18 Times Celebs Called Out Other Celebs Over Wealth And Greed<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n 4.Coca-Cola’s AI-generated holiday ad (2024):<\/p>\n In November 2024, Coca-Cola encountered backlash after releasing their holiday ad, which harkened back to their classic 1985 commercial<\/a> titled “Holidays Are Coming.” The 15-second 2024\u00a0commercial<\/a> featured a fleet of iconically red trucks driving through a snowy and festive town to deliver Coca-Cola. In small print, the ad states<\/a>: \u201ccreated by\u00a0<\/a>Real Magic AI.\u201d<\/p>\n The ad, which was meant to inspire nostalgia, rather invoked outrage from consumers and artists alike, with Gravity Falls\u00a0creator Alex\u00a0Hirsch commenting<\/a>,\u00a0\u201cFUN FACT: @CocaCola is \u2018red\u2019 because it\u2019s made from the blood of out-of-work artists! #HolidayFactz.”<\/p>\n However, this wasn’t Coca-Cola’s first usage of AI in advertisements. In 2023, the brand collaborated with OpenAI to release an AI-generated ad titled “Masterpiece<\/a>” depicting iconic sculptures and paintings coming to life and sharing a bottle of soda.<\/p>\n Neeraj Arora, University of Wisconsin-Madison’s chair of marketing research and education, explained<\/a> why the backlash was more prominent against the holiday ad: “Your holidays are a time of connection, time of community, time to connect with family, and that\u2019s sort of a big part of what the holidays are about. But then you throw AI into the mix that is not a fit, that is not a fit with holiday timing, but also, to some degree, also Coke, what the brand means to people.”<\/p>\n Forbes\u00a0reported<\/a>\u00a0that the ad was made using four generative AI models with the help of three studios. After the backlash, the iconic soda brand released a statement, claiming:\u00a0“The Coca-Cola Company has celebrated a long history of capturing the magic of the holidays in content, film, events and retail activations for decades around the globe. We are always exploring new ways to connect with consumers and experiment with different approaches. This year, we crafted films through a collaboration of human storytellers and the power of generative AI. Coca-Cola will always remain dedicated to creating the highest level of work at the intersection of human creativity and technology.”<\/p>\n 5.Carl’s Jr. “All Natural” Super Bowl commercial (2015):<\/p>\n In 2015, Carl’s Jr. drew backlash for its “scandalous” 42-second Super Bowl commercial titled “All Natural<\/a>.” The ad featured model Charlotte McKinney walking through a farmers market, seemingly nude, having her body parts blocked by multiple items. It was not revealed until more than 30 seconds in that the commercial is about food.<\/p>\n A conversation was sparked<\/a> online, but it certainly wasn’t about hamburgers. Some responded sarcastically, such as,\u00a0“Just saw a preview of Carl’s Jr. commercial for Super Bowl. Now I need a cigarette,” while others pointed out the ad’s objectification of women was “Setting feminism back four decades.”<\/p>\n The fast-food chain, however, was no stranger to using female celebs, such as Paris Hilton, Heidi Klum, and Kate Upton, for provocative ads in the past, so much so that it led social media users to create the hashtag #WomenAreMoreThanMeat.<\/p>\n Lisa Granatstein, an Adweek editor, explained to Good Morning America that no matter what kind of response Carl’s Jr. received to the commercial, all publicity was good publicity: “I think everyone knows what Carl’s Jr. is all about. Those ads aren’t going after women, they’re going after men. They are not afraid of the controversy. The more controversy, the better. They get more clicks on YouTube, they get more social media. It’s a win-win for them. I don’t think they care one way or the other what women think about these ads.” However, she did note that “A lot of advertisers have backed away from sexy, raunchy advertisements.”<\/p>\n At the time, a spokesperson from the parent company of Carl’s Jr. told ABC News that the ads “don\u2019t show anything you wouldn’t see at the beach and that they don’t cross the line, but they like to get right up to it.”<\/p>\n Related: \u201cIt\u2019s Always Fat People”: 28 Times Celebrities Said Some Really, Really Messed-Up Stuff That Just Flew Under The Radar<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n 6.Dove’s model changing soap ad (2017):<\/p>\n Dove \/ Via youtube.com<\/a><\/p>\n In 2017, Dove released a Facebook ad<\/a> promoting body wash that showed a Black woman removing her shirt and becoming a white woman with red hair; the clip also showed the white woman removing her shirt to become another woman with dark hair.<\/p>\n This three-second GIF drew outrage online, as many compared it to the advertisements of the 19th and early 20th centuries, such as one from the N.K. Fairbank Company, in which a white child asked a Black child, \u201cWhy doesn\u2019t your mamma wash you with Fairy soap?\u201d People pointed out that these ads<\/a> of the past advertised that “dirty” blackness should be “cleansed” into whiteness by soap.<\/p>\n Social media users questioned<\/a> how the commercial made it through multiple rounds of approval, making comments<\/a> such as, “Dove marketing execs approving that racist ad.” However, others noted that toward the end of the clip, the white woman did “become” someone else, writing, “The third woman is definitely not white but this was a bad deliverance of the message that all can use the soap.”<\/p>\n A few days later, Dove issued an official apology on Facebook, writing: “Dove is committed to representing the beauty of diversity. In an image we posted this week, we missed the mark in thoughtfully representing women of color and we deeply regret the offense that it has caused.”<\/p>\n The following day, Marissa Solan, a spokesperson for the company, said that the ad “was intended to convey that Dove Body Wash is for every woman and be a celebration of diversity, but we got it wrong and, as a result, offended many people,” and noted that the GIF had been taken down by the company and that they were \u201cre-evaluating our internal processes for creating and reviewing content.\u201d<\/p>\n However, many were unimpressed by the company’s apology, with one Facebook user commenting, \u201cWhat was the mark? I mean anyone with eyes can see how offensive this is. Not one person on your staff objected to this? Wow. Will not be buying your products anymore.”<\/p>\n 7.Bic’s “Look like a girl” Facebook post (2015):<\/p>\n In August 2015, Bic drew ire from social media users for their Facebook message\/ad for South Africa’s National Women’s Day that prompted<\/a> women to: “Look like a girl. Act like a lady. Think like a man. Work like a boss.”<\/p>\n Thousands expressed disgust online with feminist activist Caroline Criado-Perez tweeting, “What fresh hell is this\u201d and \u201csrsly, \u2018think like a man\u2019…*stabs eyes out with bic pen.*” The Sunday Times of Johannesburg reported that one commenter stated, “Look like a girl?\u2019 Because the infantilisation of women and the sexualisation of children is exactly the kind of blurred line we need!”<\/p>\n This wasn’t Bic’s first time facing public outrage, as the company released pink “for her” pens in 2011 that were “designed to fit comfortably in a woman’s hand.” Ellen DeGeneres mocked<\/a> the pens in a monologue, asking, \u201cThey don\u2019t come with any instructions, so like, how do they expect us to learn how to write with them?\u201d and making a spoof commercial where she instructed a young girl to \u201cwrite down a grocery list or even recipes for when you need to feed your man.”<\/p>\n Bic South Africa later apologized on Facebook for the Women’s Day ad, noting that the quote was taken from a blog and was intended to be taken \u201cin the most empowering way possible and in no way derogatory towards women.”<\/p>\n However, that apology failed to appease social media users, prompting the company to release another\u00a0statement<\/a>: \u201cLet\u2019s start out by saying we\u2019re incredibly sorry for offending everybody \u2013 that was never our intention, but we completely understand where we\u2019ve gone wrong. This post should never have gone out. The feedback you have given us will help us ensure that something like this will never happen again, and we appreciate that.”<\/p>\n 8.Nivea’s “White is purity” ad (2017):<\/p>\n NurPhoto \/ NurPhoto via Getty Images<\/p>\n In 2017, German-based personal care company Nivea sparked backlash<\/a> after posting a Facebook ad to promote their “Invisible for Black & White” deodorant, showing the back of a brown-haired, robe-clad woman overlaid with the words: “White is purity.” The post caption stated, “Keep it clean, keep it bright. Don’t let anything ruin it.”<\/p>\n The online backlash was immediate, with many claiming that the ad had overt tones of white supremacy, considering that the post was targeted at the brand’s Middle Eastern following, writing<\/a>, “Come on #Nivea. This is so racist that I do not even know where to begin. Speechless. In future, refer to clothes or products, not colors.”<\/p>\n The ad was also widely shared in alt-right online communities, with one account claiming<\/a>: “#Nivea: the official moisturizer\/anti-perspirant of the #AltRight.”<\/p>\n The ad was removed from the company’s Facebook account after two days, and an apologetic statement was released<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cWe are deeply sorry to anyone who may take offense to this specific post. Diversity and equal opportunity are crucial values of Nivea.\u201d<\/p>\n Speaking to the New York Times, a representative for the company explained<\/a> that the campaign was targeted at Middle Eastern followers who would associate black with strength and white with purity.<\/p>\n Related: 21 Celebrities Who Ruined Their Own Careers<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n 9.Popchips Ashton Kutcher as Raj commercial (2012):<\/p>\n In 2012, Ashton Kutcher appeared in an ad<\/a> for Popchips, where he appeared as four different people: a diva, a biker, a hippie, and a Bollywood producer, named Raj. Kutcher adopted an accent and appeared in brownface to play the character, who discusses his dating preferences, while making no reference to Popchips at any point. (At the time, the That ’70s Show\u00a0star was labeled as the brand’s “president of pop culture.”)<\/p>\n Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash was a major critic, writing<\/a> on his blog that the ad was “a hackneyed, unfunny advertisement featuring Kutcher in brownface talking about his romantic options, with the\u00a0entire punchline\u00a0being that he’s doing it in a fake-Indian outfit and voice. That’s it, there’s seriously no other gag.” He continued, “If you find yourself putting brown makeup on a white person in 2012 so they can do a bad ‘funny’ accent in order to sell potato chips,\u00a0you are on the wrong course. Make some different decisions.” Dash later noted that Keith Belling, CEO of Popchips, called him to extend a “sincere and contrite” apology.<\/p>\n The ad was removed from the snack company’s social media accounts, and a spokesperson issued<\/a> an apology on the company’s behalf, “The new Popchips worldwide dating parody featuring four characters was created to provoke a few laughs and was never intended to stereotype or offend anyone. At Popchips we embrace all types of shapes, flavors and colors, and appreciate all snackers, no matter their race or ethnicity. We hope people can enjoy this in the spirit it was intended.”<\/p>\n Belling also chimed in on the company’s blog, writing,\u00a0“i take full responsibility and apologize to anyone we offended.”<\/p>\n Kutcher remained silent on the controversy.<\/p>\n 10.Burger King’s “Women belong in the kitchen” tweet (2021):<\/p>\n Cheng Xin \/ Getty Images<\/p>\n For International Women’s Day in 2021, Burger King UK made a serious online blunder when they tweeted<\/a>, “Women belong in the kitchen.” Follow-up tweets announced that the statement was simply meant to grab users attention and promote the fast food chain’s new scholarship,\u00a0\u201cIf they want to, of course.\u00a0Yet only 20% of chefs are women.\u00a0We’re on a mission to change the gender ratio,” and “We are proud to be launching a new scholarship programme which will help female Burger King employees pursue their culinary dreams.”<\/p>\n However, many social media users never made it past the sheer shock of seeing “Women belong in the kitchen” appear on their feed. With some writing<\/a>,\u00a0“Please don’t use sexism as clickbait,” and\u00a0“There\u2019s better ways to draw attention to something that don\u2019t including using the most sexist trope ever.”<\/p>\n One commenter pointed out that the “sexist” tweet brought more publicity to the account, stating<\/a>, “The engagement on your original tweet\u2014which, again, is literally just a sexist trope\u2014is 527% *higher* than the tweet announcing the scholarship program. Way more people are seeing you validate sexism on #InternationalWomensDay than are learning about your scholarship program.”<\/p>\n After spending the day issuing explanations, Burger King eventually removed the post and officially apologized, writing<\/a>: “We hear you. We got our initial tweet wrong and we\u2019re sorry. Our aim was to draw attention to the fact that only 20% of professional chefs in UK kitchens are women and to help change that by awarding culinary scholarships. We will do better next time.”<\/p>\n 11.Calvin Klein’s Brooke Shields ad campaign (1980):<\/p>\n When Brooke Shields’s now-infamous Calvin Klein ad first aired in November 1980, it fueled a media frenzy. While there were many ads in the series shot by director Richard Avedon, the one that sparked the most backlash was when the then-15-year-old asked viewers, “Do you know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.”<\/p>\n That line scandalized American viewers, leading to the commercial being banned<\/a> by ABC and CBS in New York, as well as other countries. In a 2021 Vogue interview<\/a>, Shields recalled her reaction to the press’s outrage, “I was away when they came out, and then I started hearing that the commercials were being banned. The paparazzi would scream at me and my mother, \u2018How could you!’ It just struck me as so ridiculous.\u201d<\/p>\n The now-60-year-old noted that she never thought of the line as an innuendo, claiming, \u201cI didn\u2019t think it was about underwear or sexual in nature. I was naive. I think the assumption was that I was much more savvy than I ever really was. I was a virgin, and I was a virgin forever after that.\u201d Despite the controversy, Shields maintains that she is still proud of the ad and its legacy,\u00a0\u201cThe controversy backfired. The campaign was extremely successful, and then the underwear overtook the jeans.\u201d<\/p>\n She doubled down on her support for the campaign in a March 2023 interview<\/a> on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, telling Colbert, “It was a phrase. It wasn’t ‘I’m not wearing underwear’ or ‘come’ wasn’t spelled differently, it was c-o-m-e, I was like, ‘What’s the problem?'” She proceeded to call the ensuing backlash “ludicrous.”<\/p>\n Can you think of any other ad campaigns that encountered backlash from the public? Tell us in the comments below!<\/p>\n Also in Celebrity: Would You Cast A Live-Action “Frozen” The Same Way As Everyone Else?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Also in Celebrity: 21 Celebrity Secrets Spilled By The Celebs Themselves \u2014 Completely By Accident<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Also in Celebrity: This ’90s Icon Is Headed For Divorce After 21 Years Of Marriage<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n![\"Person](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/008f383d33337b516eac514ec4c4a21e.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"Person](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/8f9efc2ea44d22a7645ce85fd2aa0daf.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"Person](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/d1ca694ac16e580f9f8d08867b5c7fd8.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"Trucks](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/86dc858220aec137f44755e49ada1657.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/a2e677b0b5dc6a7a0573125244d3cd6c.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/dcaa7fd12489e2d1ce390206ae7173c0.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"Five](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/1b6adfe43c5cc8433849caa607104b5a.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"Person](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/2e87f7c20c720136473539173b25c2ca.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"Person](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/4e4dacd9f81c3ca3e822f053126dcb2b.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"Person](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/d970e4b2d4f04bae1a0a2f7912b62af5.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n