From American Eagle to Swatch, brands appear to be making a lot of blunders lately.

When actress Sydney Sweeney’s jeans campaign came out last month, critics lambasted the wordplay of good “jeans” and “genes” as tone deaf with nefarious undertones.

More recently, an advert from Swiss watchmaker Swatch sparked backlash for featuring an Asian model pulling the corners of his eyes, in an offensive gesture.

Colgate-Palmolive’s ad for Sanex shower gel was banned in the U.K. for problematic suggestions about Black and white skin tones. And consumers derided Cracker Barrel’s decision to ditch its overalls-clad character for a more simplistic text-based logo as “sterile,” “soulless,” and “woke.”

Meanwhile, recent product launches from Adidas and Prada have raised allegations of cultural appropriation.

That has reignited the debate about when an ad campaign is effective and when it’s just plain offensive, as companies confront increased consumer scrutiny.

“Each brand had its own blind spot,” David Brier, brand specialist and author of “Brand intervention” and “Rich brand, poor brand” told CNBC via email.

He noted, however, that too many brands are attempting to respond to consumers with an outdated playbook.

“Modern brands are trying to navigate cultural complexity with corporate simplicity. They’re using 1950s boardroom thinking to solve 2025 human problems,” he continued.

“These aren’t sensitivity failures. They’re empathy failures. They viewed culture as something to navigate around rather than understand deeply.”

Some companies have had success in tapping into the zeitgeist — and, in some cases, seizing on other brands’ shortcomings.

Gap, for instance, this week sought to counter backlash against Sweeney’s advertisement with a campaign in which pop group Katseye lead a diverse group of dancers performing in denim against a white backdrop.

Brier said companies should consider how they can genuinely connect with consumers and be representative, rather than simply trying to avoid offense.

“No brand can afford to fake understanding. No brand can ‘committee its way’ to connection. No brand can focus-group its way to authenticity. In 2025, customers can smell the difference from a mile away,” he added.

Nevertheless, ads are meant to spark conversation, and at a time when grabbing and maintaining consumers’ attention — and share of wallet — is increasingly difficult, brands have a fine balance to tread.

“Brands live and die by standing out and grabbing attention. On top of that, iconic and culturally relevant brands want to stand for something and be recognized for it. Those are tough asks,” Jonathan A.J. Wilson, professor of brand strategy and culture at Regent’s University London.

In an age of social media and with ever more divided public opinions, landing one universal message can be difficult, Wilson noted. For as long as that remains the case, some brands may still see value in taking a calculated risk.

“It’s hard to land one universal message, and even if you try and tailor your message to various groups, others are watching,” he said.

“Controversy grabs attention and puts you at the front of people’s minds. It splits crowds and forces people to have a decision when otherwise they probably wouldn’t care. That can lead to disproportionate publicity, which could be converted into sales.”

Summer camp: It’s for munching on s’mores, seizing victory in tug-of-war and making lifelong friends.

For this group of successful businesswomen, though, it’s also about trading tactical advice about managing boards of directors and selling companies. And fighting to get a piece of an investment world dominated by men.

Welcome to Camp Female Founders Fund, a coastal oasis in Montauk, New York, on eastern Long Island, where female business leaders broaden their networks, share their struggles and triumphs and have some fun.

Cracker Barrel tried to reassure customers Monday that its values have remained the same after it received criticism following a new logo reveal and general brand refresh.

The company promised customers in a statement that while its logo may be different, its values — “hard work, family, and scratch-cooked food made with care’ — are not.

“You’ve shown us that we could’ve done a better job sharing who we are and who we’ll always be,” the statement read, adding that Cracker Barrel will remain “a place where everyone feels at home, no matter where you’re from or where you’re headed.”

Last week, the company unveiled a new logo that no longer features a man leaning against a barrel or the words ‘Old Country Store.’ Instead, it featured the company’s name, in a color scheme that it said was inspired by the chain’s scrambled eggs and biscuits.

The change was part of a ‘strategic transformation’ that aimed to update the chain’s visual elements, spaces, food and retail offerings. The company’s shares are down about 8.5% since the reveal ignited criticism, especially from those in conservative circles.

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, amplified a post Wednesday suggesting that the logo change was intended to erase the American traditions aspect of the branding and make it more general and lean into diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

On Monday, the chain also shared an update on the man in the original logo, Uncle Herschel, who is said is still featured on menus and road signs and in stores.

‘He’s not going anywhere — he’s family,’ the company said in the statement.

Cracker Barrel said its focuses remain country hospitality and generous portions of food at fair prices. The refresh, it said, was to ensure the restaurant will be there for the next generation.

‘That means showing up on new platforms and in new ways, but always with our heritage at the heart,’ it said.

‘We know we won’t always get everything right the first time, but we’ll keep testing, learning, and listening to our guests and employees.’

The U.S. government could take equity stakes in more companies, potentially through an American sovereign wealth fund, according to one of President Donald Trump’s top economic advisers.

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett made the comments Monday, days after the United States took a nearly 10% stake in Intel. The government secured a piece of the semiconductor maker with money intended for grants as part of the CHIPS and Science Act, passed during the Biden administration.

Speaking about the new Intel position, Hassett told CNBC: “It’s like a down payment on a sovereign wealth fund, which many countries have.” Governments throughout Europe, Asia and the Middle East use such funds to invest in companies and other financial assets.

The federal government has taken ownership stakes in private companies before, but only under extraordinary circumstances, such as during the global financial crisis of 2008.

Hassett said the Intel investment was a ‘very, very special circumstance because of the massive amount of CHIPS Act spending that was coming Intel’s way.’

He added: “So I’m sure that at some point there’ll be more transactions, if not in this industry, in other industries.’

The CHIPS Act was established as a way for the government to provide financing and capital to foreign and domestic companies that manufactured semiconductors and related products in the United States.

Americans and the American economy received the benefit of more than $200 billion in private capital investments since the act was signed into law, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Many companies also announced plans to create new U.S. manufacturing and construction jobs.

Hassett has said the money was ‘going out and disappearing into the ether.’

He has also said, ‘We’re absolutely not in the business of picking winners and losers.’ However, the United States is now Intel’s largest single shareholder. The administration has also taken a ‘golden share’ in U.S. Steel as part of approving its merger with Japan’s Nippon Steel. Trump also said he negotiated with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang to take a 15% cut of the chipmaker’s revenue from some chips sold in China. He also has a similar deal with rival chipmaker AMD.

Later Monday, Trump said, ‘I want them to do well anyway, but I want them to do well in particular now.’

He added, ‘I hope I’m going to have many more cases like’ the Intel stake. Asked whether taking equity stakes in private companies was the new way of doing business in the United States, Trump responded: ‘So are tariffs.’

After Hassett’s interview, Trump said on Truth Social: ‘I PAID ZERO FOR INTEL, IT IS WORTH APPROXIMATELY 11 BILLION DOLLARS. All goes to the USA.’ He also said he would ‘help those companies that make such lucrative deals with the United States.’

It was unclear why Trump said the United States did not pay anything for the stake. The government purchased 433.3 million Intel shares at $20.47 each, which equates to $8.9 billion.

Trump has also pushed companies to change course on key products, such as when he pre-emptively announced that Coca-Cola would add cane sugar to an American version of its namesake product.

Trump has also threatened firms such as Amazon, Mattel, Hasbro and Walmart with retaliation for hiking prices as a result of his sweeping global tariff regime.

Trump intervention in private industry has sparked widespread criticism, some of it from Republicans. Trump’s former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, a former Boeing board member, said on X: ‘Intel will become a test case of what not to do.’

After the CNBC interview, NBC News asked Hassett about setting up a sovereign wealth fund.

‘As we acquire things like Intel, then there’s sort of a question of where it goes and it’s held by the U.S. Treasury. And if the U.S. Treasury has more of that stuff, that is starting to look like [a] sovereign wealth fund, whether an official sovereign wealth fund is established is another question,’ he said.

‘But it’s not unprecedented for the U.S. to own equity’ in private companies, he added.

The United States took equity stakes in private companies during the global financial meltdown of 2008 and 2009.

Then, it bought troubled assets and took equity stakes in the likes of JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG and other systemically important firms to stabilize the global financial system.

Trump has expanded his power over the business world, fueled by his view that the U.S. economy is like ‘a department store, and we set the price.’

‘I meet with the companies, and then I set a fair price, what I consider to be a fair price, and they can pay it, or they don’t have to pay it,’ Trump said in an April interview.

Keurig Dr Pepper said Monday it will buy Peet’s Coffee owner JDE Peet’s in a deal worth about $18 billion (15.7 billion euro).

When the acquisition is complete, the company plans to split into two separate companies, one focused on coffee and the other focused on beverages including Dr Pepper, Canada Dry, 7Up and energy drinks.

The coffee business will have about $16 billion in combined sales and the beverage business about $11 billion.

“Through the complementary combination of Keurig and JDE Peet’s, we are seizing an exceptional opportunity to create a global coffee giant,” said Tim Cofer, Keurig Dr Pepper’s CEO.

In addition to Peet’s, Amsterdam-based JDE Peet’s brands include L’OR, Jacobs, Douwe Egberts, Kenco, Pilao, OldTown, Super and Moccona.

Once the two companies are separated, Cofer will become CEO of the beverage business, which will be based in Frisco, Texas, and Keurig Dr Pepper CFO Sudhanshu Priyadarshi will lead the coffee business, which will be located in Burlington, Mass., with its international headquarters in Amsterdam.

The Trump administration said Friday that it had taken a 10% stake in Intel, the president’s latest extraordinary move to exert federal government control over private business.

The United States will not seek direct representation on Intel’s board and pledged to vote with the current Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, ‘with limited exceptions,’ according to a joint release from the Trump administration and Intel. The move also comes as the United States vies with China in the race to dominate the artificial intelligence industry.

President Donald Trump announced the deal on his Truth Social platform Friday, praising the company’s CEO just two weeks after he called on the executive to resign over alleged China ties.

‘It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future,’ he wrote. ‘I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation.’

While the U.S. held temporary stakes in firms at the center of the 2008-2009 global financial meltdown as part of a bailout, this move is unusual since the economy is not embroiled in a crisis. Congress published a study in 2003 that examined the impact of the federal government taking direct stakes in public companies, concluding that doing so would “not offer a free lunch” and expose taxpayers to “greater risk” alongside the upside potential.

The stake will be paid for through $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded to Intel under the 2022 U.S. CHIPS and Science Act, plus $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of a program called Secure Enclave. It’s a formerly classified initiative that Congress appropriated funds for in 2024 after lobbying by Intel, Politico reported in 2024.

Including $2.2 billion in CHIPs grants Intel has received so far, the total investment is $11.1 billion, or 9.9%. Intel is valued at about $108 billion on the stock market.

Trump continues to bulldoze through long-held norms regarding government and business, departing from the free-market ethos that has long prevailed in both major U.S. political parties.

This month, Trump persuaded the chipmakers Nvidia and AMD to pay the U.S. government 15% of their revenues from some sales to China in return for securing export licenses there.

While those firms have seen their fortunes rise amid the larger artificial intelligence boom, a windfall from any of them is no sure thing. In the case of California-based Intel, the company has struggled to keep up with rivals in recent years, with its shares down some 60% from the highs seen during the pandemic.

But amid the ongoing artificial intelligence arms race — and the goal of making computer chips a national security priority — Trump officials zeroed in on Intel as a means of leveling up U.S. control over semiconductor production.

Earlier this week, Japan’s SoftBank also announced it would invest $2 billion in Intel to “deepen their commitment to investing in advanced technology and semiconductor innovation in the United States.’

Some Democrats signaled they were on board with the move.

‘U.S. leadership is critical for both our economy and national security,’ U.S. Senator Mark Warner, D-Virginia, said in a statement Friday evening.

‘Taking an equity stake in Intel may or may not be the right approach, but one thing is clear: allowing cutting-edge chips to flow to China without restraint will erode the value of any investment we make here at home. We need a strategy that protects American innovation, strengthens our workforce, and keeps the technologies of the future firmly in American hands.’