Corporate Ads Spark ‘Genetics’ Controversy

Recent corporate ads from Dunkin’ and American Eagle have ignited controversy by linking physical traits to “genetics.” Critics argue these campaigns promote racial superiority and echo harmful historical eugenics, alienating diverse consumers.

In the ever-evolving landscape of brand messaging, where authenticity and inclusivity are ostensibly the reigning virtues, a disquieting trend has emerged, casting a shadow over the marketing strategies of major corporations.

The latest casualty in this curious phenomenon is Dunkin’, whose recent advertisement featuring “The Summer I Turned Pretty” star Gavin Casalegno has stirred a fresh wave of public indignation, echoing the furor that engulfed Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle campaign just weeks prior. Dunkin advert controversy

At the heart of the controversy lies an uncomfortable, almost anachronistic, obsession with “genetics.”

Casalegno’s Dunkin’ ad, promoting the Golden Hour Refresher, opens with the actor lounging by a pool, his white shirt unbuttoned to reveal a bronzed physique.

“Look, I didn’t ask to be the king of summer. It just happened,” he intones, before delivering the line that has ignited a firestorm: “This tan? Genetics. I just got my color analysis back. Guess what? Golden summer, literally.”

He continues, “I can’t help it. Every time I drink a Dunkin’ Golden Hour Refresher, it’s like the sun just finds me.”

The implication is clear: his effortless summer glow is an inherent trait, a gift of his DNA, somehow inexplicably linked to a sugary beverage.

The public reaction was swift and unforgiving.

Social media platforms became a sounding board for collective disbelief and anger. Social media reactions to advertising

“Why are ads so obsessed with genetics all of a sudden?” one TikTokker mused, a sentiment widely shared.

Another commenter articulated a particularly pointed criticism, drawing a stark contrast between Dunkin’s diverse operational base and its advertising choices:

“Wtf is wrong with you Dunkin? 90% of your stores are owned and operated by Indian and other Brown people. But you make a commercial about white genetics? Explain the correlation between genes and coffee.”

The accusation of promoting white features as inherently superior, or at least singularly desirable, was unmistakable.

“It’s giving white is right, yeah no,” another user succinctly summarized, capturing the underlying discomfort with the ad’s subtle, yet potent, messaging.

This isn’t an isolated incident.

The Dunkin’ ad’s stumble into the minefield of “genetics” feels eerily similar to the recent debacle surrounding Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle jeans campaign.

In that ill-fated commercial, the “Euphoria” star delivered a monologue that attempted a clever pun on “genes” and “jeans,” but instead landed squarely in a realm many found deeply offensive. Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad backlash

“Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue,” Sweeney stated, seemingly innocuously.

However, the context and historical weight of such language transformed what might have been a clumsy play on words into something far more sinister in the eyes of critics.

The backlash against Sweeney’s ad was vociferous, with accusations ranging from “racialized dog whistle” to “Nazi propaganda.”

One TikTokker articulated the profound historical implications, arguing, “When those traits are consistently uplifted as genetic excellence, we know where this leads. History of eugenics and genetics in advertising This just echoes pseudoscientific language of racial superiority. All throughout history, those traits have been weaponized to uphold a racial hierarchy.”

The very notion of “genetic excellence” carries the chilling echo of eugenics and racial purity theories, ideas that have fueled some of history’s most horrific atrocities.

The widespread public revulsion was perhaps best encapsulated by musician Doja Cat, who famously mocked Sweeney’s monologue in a TikTok video, delivering the lines with an exaggerated, sneering backwoods Southern accent.

“U know its bad when even doja makes fun of it,” a user commented, underscoring the collective cringe these ads had induced.

The critical question, then, is not merely why these ads are being produced, but how.

Are creative agencies so insulated from public sentiment that they fail to grasp the profound implications of words like “genetics” when applied to human appearance in a commercial context?

Is there a deliberate, albeit misguided, attempt to be edgy or provocative, without fully comprehending the historical baggage and contemporary sensitivities surrounding such themes?

It speaks to a troubling disconnect between the marketing world and the increasingly aware and diverse consumer base.

In an era where brands are expected to demonstrate social responsibility and cultural intelligence, these campaigns appear remarkably tone-deaf.

They inadvertently highlight a blind spot within the advertising industry—a failure to rigorously vet concepts for unintended, yet deeply harmful, subtexts.

The idea that a natural tan or specific hair and eye color can be framed as a matter of “genetic superiority” or “excellence,” even implicitly, is not just clumsy; it’s dangerous.

It normalizes a language that has historically been used to marginalize and oppress, reinforcing outdated and harmful notions of racial hierarchy.

For brands like Dunkin’ and American Eagle, the damage extends beyond a mere PR headache.

It erodes trust and alienates vast segments of their potential customer base.

In a world striving for greater equity and understanding, the last thing consumers need are advertisements that subtly, or not so subtly, champion specific physical traits as inherently superior.

The message from the public is clear: it’s time for advertisers to move beyond superficial wordplay and delve into a deeper understanding of the societal implications of their creative choices.

The king of summer should be defined by character, not by a tan attributed to questionable genetics.