Advertisement
Andrea Javor

Sydney Sweeney isn’t bringing back sexist advertising — women are

An ad from sports betting site Novig featuring Sydney Sweeney
An ad from sports betting site Novig featuring Sydney Sweeney is displayed in Times Square.
(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)
0:00 0:00

This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here.

See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred

We seem to be missing the point of Novig’s latest campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney pushing the sports betting app while posing nude atop a basketball hoop.

As a marketing executive who’s run campaigns for some of the biggest brands on the planet, I’m confident this strategy is using an age-old playbook very well: The brand knows who it’s actually targeting — it’s not men — and is meeting a cultural moment.

Like it or not — and to be clear, I hate that any part of me likes what Novig is doing — this campaign has been a runaway success. I realized that a couple of days ago when it had entered one of my most sacred spaces in a text thread with five other feminist journalists in my women’s writing group, none of whom are big fans of sports or Sweeney.

Advertisement

A basic rule of advertising: You don’t just want people to see the ad, you want them to talk about it. And it seems Novig knew that getting women talking would be a better bet than offering free parlays to men already signed up for FanDuel and DraftKings.

The sports betting market is perhaps not as male as one might think: According to the American Gaming Assn., women now comprise 26% of the U.S. market, and many predict those numbers will continue to grow. Instead of targeting the 74% male majority, Novig triggered female-led cultural commentary, leveraging debate and outrage to achieve viral reach within the fastest-growing sports betting demographic.

At its most basic level, that is very smart marketing.

The conversation additionally has been buzzing for days among prominent women in sports. When backlash hit, Sweeney defended the campaign by sharing screenshots of women athletes who once graced ESPN The Magazine’s “Body Issue,” implying that her photos were no different than stars like Serena Williams or Ronda Rousey posing bare-skinned.

In response, athletes including boxer Skye Nicolson and track star Amy Hunt immediately pointed out that looking powerful because of your athletic frame and craft is not the same as using nudity as clickbait to launch a betting product. Former UCLA gymnast Gracie Kramer posted a video of her routines on social media with the caption, “idk what Sydney Sweeney was doing, but this is what a woman in sports looks like.”

Twenty years ago, as I started my career, I learned that conversation was the ultimate currency. We used words like “breakthrough” and “virality” to measure attention in a fragmented media economy. In a boardroom presenting marketing ideas for the new Axe Bodyspray campaign, our agency planned to tell consumers they would “get the girl” using images of scantily clad women eagerly draping themselves over guys doused in aerosol (which incidentally smelled like a blend of patchouli and pit odor).

The early 2000s were a different time, surely, and as we’ve progressed as a culture more inclusive to women since #MeToo, I am confident those Novig ads would have been dismissed had they hit the airwaves in, let’s say, 2022.

Advertisement

But the second part of Novig’s playbook worked because they met the moment.

Today, Sweeney’s skin-forward video is working because we don’t know which side owns sex appeal. And because we don’t, the ad is fodder for more conversation. The political left is caught in a paradox, torn between the sex-positive agency of women and calling out corporate exploitation of the male gaze. Meanwhile, the right has weaponized classic, unabashed glamour as an anti-woke middle finger to modern feminist aesthetics.

Novig’s campaign brilliantly exploits this fault line, using sex to monetize political tribalism.

Sweeney’s involvement is further nuanced as she’s an equity partner in Novig, making it even more complicated to evaluate whether she’s being exploited by the male gaze or monetizing it. But getting a cut of the profits doesn’t negate the cultural regression of the tactic. When women’s empowerment gets reduced to “but at least I got a big slice of the pie,” we sanitize the fact that the underlying product is still women selling women’s bodies back to us as clickbait.

Shortly after my time working with Axe, I was assigned a media buying role on the Dove “Campaign for Real Beauty” — a groundbreaking moment that proved brands could empower women, reject hyper-sexualization and still drive massive equity and revenue by featuring real women’s bodies in white bras and panties on billboards hanging over the expressway.

Over the course of my career, I moved on to lead marketing in regulated industries such as alcoholic beverages and cannabis. These sectors were once notorious for using women as decorative props to sell sex, beer and rock and roll in boardrooms that felt like fraternity houses.

But even these industries have evolved toward inclusion with strong women in key roles. In 2018, Constellation Brands, which distributes beer brands including Corona and Modelo, announced a $100-million fund to invest in women-founded businesses over the next decade. In 2014, General Motors hired Mary Barra, their first woman chief executive who aggressively shifted its marketing to highlight women as engineers, as well as electric vehicle innovation and safety, while committing $50 million to support diverse and women-owned media businesses.

Advertisement

Bro culture began to dissolve, replaced by strong women in leadership who understood that tactful craft and community built far more sustainable brand value than a scantily clad model splayed across a billboard. It was as though, over the course of a quarter-century, we were able to come oh so far in tasteful representation.

Whatever way I analyze it, as I look at Sweeney posing with football gear barely covering her nipples, it feels as though I’m right back in a boardroom 20 years ago flipping through a copy of Maxim. Even at age 23, as I was convincing my clients that our strategy would work, I remember hoping that the times I was living in — when the ridiculousness of a closing line like a girlfriend asking her boyfriend “do you want some money for a lap dance?” — would pass.

Of course, here I am talking about it. As a marketer, I give credit to the strategy. But as a woman who spent two decades fighting to move the industry past a sexist era, it’s depressing to watch the door we worked so hard to open get kicked shut by the very gender it was meant to liberate.

The only way the times will change is if we stop taking the bait. Until then, I’ve fallen prey to the exact trap I spent my whole career trying to dismantle.

Andrea Javor is a Chicago-based freelance writer and marketing executive working on her memoir about poker and love.

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis

Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The article argues that Novig’s nude Sydney Sweeney campaign revives an “age-old playbook” in which women’s bodies are used as sexualized props, yet does so with sharp strategic intent by chasing conversation rather than simple impressions in a fragmented media landscape.
  • The piece suggests that the campaign’s success lies in targeting women, not the presumed male sports-betting majority, by provoking feminist debate and outrage within a fast-growing female betting demographic, thereby turning women’s cultural commentary itself into a marketing asset.
  • The article observes that the ad has infiltrated even feminist circles and women’s writing groups, underscoring that the true advertising goal is not just visibility but sustained talk, a dynamic echoed in coverage describing the spot’s viral spread and massive view counts[3][8].
  • The piece frames the backlash from female athletes and commentators as evidence that the ad collapses hard-won distinctions between empowering depictions of strong, working bodies and hypersexualized imagery that treats women as ornamental; this criticism closely parallels athletes’ public statements that the campaign sexualizes and demeans women’s sport[3][10].
  • The article argues that Sweeney’s comparison of the Novig imagery to ESPN’s “Body Issue” misses the point, because those shoots celebrate athletic craft and physical power, whereas the betting ad uses nudity as clickbait; experts similarly note the disconnect between the joy and mastery of sport and an image in which the woman exists solely as a decorative reward[2].
  • The piece situates the controversy against two decades of industry change, recounting a shift from Axe-style “bro culture” campaigns to efforts like Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty,” corporate funds for women-founded businesses and more women-led marketing strategies that treat tactful craft and community-building as more sustainable than sexualized billboards.
  • The article contends that Novig deftly exploits current ideological fault lines: the left’s tension between sex-positive feminism and calling out corporate exploitation, and the right’s embrace of glamorous, hyper-feminine aesthetics as an anti‑woke gesture, effectively monetizing political tribalism through sex appeal.
  • The piece suggests that Sweeney’s role as an equity partner complicates judgments about exploitation versus agency; even if the star participates willingly and profits from the campaign, the author argues that this “slice of the pie” framing risks sanitizing the fact that women are again selling women’s bodies back to women as clickbait[1][8].
  • The article ultimately concludes that, for all the clever strategy, the campaign represents a depressing regression that feels indistinguishable from early‑2000s lad-mag culture, and maintains that meaningful change will only come if audiences refuse to “take the bait” of outrage-driven, sexist advertising—even as the author acknowledges being pulled into the very discourse the ad was designed to spark.

Different views on the topic

  • Some reporting highlights Novig’s chief executive stating that Sweeney “was driving a lot of the visuals and the messaging,” presenting the campaign as a collaborative project shaped by the actor’s own creative vision rather than strictly imposed by a male-led brand[1][8].
  • Novig and Sweeney describe the ads as a “bold” and “fun” concept meant to “cut through the noise” and emphasize that the platform focuses solely on sports predictions, not wagers on war, politics or death; supporters interpret this positioning as playful, self-aware marketing rather than exploitative objectification[2][5][6][9].
  • Sweeney’s public statement that the campaign brings the idea to life with “confidence, humor and a playful edge” is echoed by coverage noting that some viewers see the star as an empowered worker unashamed of nudity, exercising bodily autonomy and capitalizing on star power in a competitive media environment[4][5][6].
  • Business and marketing analyses point out that the stunt has substantially raised Novig’s profile, with social media mentions spiking manyfold and sentiment skews showing nearly half of posts as neutral and more favorable than unfavorable, suggesting that large segments of the audience either approve of or are unbothered by the provocative imagery[3][8].
  • Some cultural commentary emphasizes that contemporary feminism includes space for glamour and erotic self-presentation, and warns that equating all sexualized media with sexism can slide into policing women’s choices; in this view, consenting participation in a high‑paid, high‑visibility campaign can itself be read as a form of agency and sex‑positive expression[4][6][9].
  • Defenders of the ad argue that Sweeney’s history of controversy in advertising shows a willingness to test boundaries, and contend that the backlash over a tongue‑in‑cheek betting spot risks overstating its influence on women’s sports, given that fans are capable of distinguishing between promotional spectacle and serious athletic representation[4][7][8].

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

Advertisement