By Isabella Lupano
Boston University News Service
A recent ad campaign for Converse drew criticism for resembling Ku Klux Klan imagery. The ad, released on Sept. 3, has been pulled from all of their social media accounts and websites following the uproar that it sent across the internet.
One image has Karina, a K-pop artist and a member of the girl group Aespa, in a white dress, holding her high top on her side with a star-shaped spotlight on her. Individuals say that the star cutout mimics the image of a KKK cloak, with the shadows imitating the hood. To some, the shoes look like they are dangling from the ceiling, imitating someone being lynched.
Many debates broke out online, with some stating that it was obvious right away while others believe this was only noticed due to some dissecting the photo. Sophomore Ella Baker originally did not see the resemblance but still felt uncomfortable when she saw the image for the first time.
“Something felt off about the photo right away,” Baker said. “I didn’t really understand what Converse was getting at, but the whole setup just seemed eerie.”
Sophomore Macy Curran saw the controversy online first before seeing the advertisement. Her main question as an advertising student was how the shoes were not even in the center of the photo.
“They’re many different angles, yet this is the only one that creates this image of a hood and lynching,” Curran said. “The shoes, which are supposed to be the main focus, are the shadow, with the main point of attention directly at the dress.”
Converse issued an apology to major media outlets by email on Friday, Sept. 18.
“We are sorry,” Converse wrote. “We understand why this image might be deeply upsetting and recognize we got this wrong. We removed it from our channels and are working to remove it everywhere it appeared. This should not have happened, and we will do better.”
Converse, a Boston-based company, has declined to make any other statements. Multiple news outlets have inquired into their process of ad testing and their review process.
According to a senior director in marketing, who asked to remain anonymous, Converse said all that needs to be said. In crisis management, the senior director said they have witnessed firsthand how overstating is the downfall of most apologies.
“The most important thing is to keep it to the point and factual,” they said. “If they were to say anything more or go into specifics, it would just trigger other responses, causing a cascading effect.”
For others the biggest question is what Converse will do next; if they will wait out the silence or take action.
At the same time, a marketing professional for over 30 years who also asked to remain anonymous, explained the process of advertisements being released to the public and said they believe Converse must take a larger action than a simple apology.
“Somebody has to get fired, plain and simple,” they said. “It may sound harsh, but I think it’s a lesson to everybody in the industry, quite honestly. These are the kinds of missteps the organization says they don’t agree with, but if they don’t fire somebody, the morals are worth being questioned.”
They continued to discuss the amount of effort it takes with creative preparation, photographers, audience analysts, legal teams, and executives involved in releasing a campaign. Their view was that, throughout the entire process, with having so many individuals involved, a mishap of this scale should have been noticed.
“We used to say not all press is good press,” they said. “But in this day and age, companies can just issue an apology, and everyone moves on. I do believe that this was an intentional move on their part.”
Retail companies being in headlines for constantly issuing apologies for insensitive or inappropriate controversies has been an increasing issue in past years. In the past two months, four companies have retracted their ads and issued apologies to their consumers.
Good Good Golf apologized in August for a promotional video having a male golfer shoving a female golfer to the ground, after many raised concerns the company was promoting violence against women.
Neutrogena apologized for their treatment of late actress Hayden Panettiere during their partnership in 2015. According to the actress in her memoir, “This is Me: A Reckoning”, Neutrogena ended her contract after she discussed her struggle with depression on television.
Target apologized for a kids’ costume that people believe evoked racist imagery. The costume was black and orange, having a mesh face with a wide grin, with people arguing the outfit had similarities with Jim Crow-era caricatures.
All these companies have faced backlash and released similar apologies, all stating they will “do better.”
Nekima Levry Armstrong, founder of the Racial Justice Network and the National Target Boycott, a civil rights attorney and scholar-activist, believes this is a systemic issue rather than that simple statement.
“Corporations routinely apologize after racially offensive products or advertisements generate public outrage,” Armstrong said. “At some point, we have to move beyond apologies and examine the systems and decision-making processes that allow these incidents to happen in the first place.”
Armstrong said how this leads to a larger question about the environment created for Black Americans. She also said she believes this isn’t a reach as many dissected the photo, and this depiction has come up repeatedly time and time again.
“The concern is the normalization and desensitization that can occur when dehumanizing imagery is repeatedly introduced into mainstream culture,” Armstrong said. “Black people should not have to repeatedly explain why images associated with lynching, minstrelsy, racial terror, and our historical degradation are dangerous and unacceptable.”
Converse has remained silent on all platforms for the past month. While addressing their actions initially and apologizing, Armstrong said that some circumstances can’t be undone.
“Intent does not erase impact,” she said.
