Can Campaigns Be Interesting Without Being Inflammatory?
These days, it's not bold... it's negligent
Every couple of months, it seems as if there’s a new company getting flack for an inflammatory ad gone wrong.
‘Adidas apologizes to Bella Hadid after she appeared in campaign criticised by Israel.’
‘Zara pulls controversial ad campaign that critics said evoked Gaza war.’
‘Balenciaga pulls controversial bear ads amid child abuse fears.’
It’s the capitalist machine egging everyone to ACT FAST, or be THE FIRST or MOST CUTTING EDGE, only for them to lose out on loyalty.
You could call it lazy. Creating a campaign from ideation to execution that seeks to get a rise out of viewers through shock value, however, doesn’t feel lazy. You can’t exactly ‘throw together’ a full-blown campaign or shoot anyway; nothing is as slapdash as it seems. So how does it make it to air, only to be taken down within the same breath? Perhaps low-hanging fruit are easier to pick, but you should still check if what you’re picking is rotten.
When placed side-by-side, these campaigns tell a story of exploiting victims, women’s agency and children’s innocence with a casual wave of the hand. It’s all too easy for brands who benefit from an extractive, oppressive market to set a fire and eschew all accountability once they release their apology in a somber text-only Instagram post.
Let’s get into the details. I, for one, have plenty of questions.
THE LOW DOWN
Within a week of setting their SL72 campaign live with Hadid, Adidas took it down. “Connections continue to be made to the terrible tragedy that occurred at the Munich Olympics due to our recent SL72 campaign… We made an unintentional mistake,” referring to the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre when Israeli athletes were taken hostage by the Black September Organization, a Palestinian militant group. One fellow Adidas ambassador, the Palestinian-American author and activist Amani al-Khatahtbeh, posted an email she sent to Adidas on X, in which she said: “Adidas’s disappointing response conflates our Palestinian identity with terrorism.” And Adidas let Hadid, already a recipient of death threats since becoming more of an active voice in Palestine’s anti-occupation protests, pose as the face of this dangerously stereotypical association.
It seems as though Hadid was dragged into something worse than she could have imagined, saying she was unaware of the history of the ‘72 Olympics until after the campaign was live. Her emotional statement expresses some of that bewilderment, and perhaps a dose of shame: “I am shocked, I am upset, and I am disappointed in the lack of sensitivity that went into this campaign. Had I been made aware, from the bottom of my heart, I would never have participated,” Hadid wrote. “I do not believe in hate in any form, including anti-semitism.”
This level of oversight and the gravity in the issue’s many sensitive layers, particularly by using Hadid as the campaign’s model, shows we’ve learned nothing from the Kendall Jenner x Pepsi commercial fiasco. Even models have to do their research for a partnership that is desperate to have their face as a stamp of approval for whatever atrocity they commit next. No one is safe once a campaign gets the green light.
Is there ever a beat where these massive MNCs, with their global value chains and stocks and serious $CHEESE$ in the marketing budget, give themselves the chance to consider the potential impact? Or is the big red button just too tempting to focus on anything other than the immediacy in their profit-churning tunnel vision?
Meanwhile, Bumble’s anti-celibacy billboards came at a time when many heterosexual women are swearing off sex, expressing dating burnout or practicing ‘boysobriety’ with the aim to de-center the role men play in their lives. It’s all in the name of taking back control of what they believe is fulfilling, both in and out of mainstream romantic relationships. There is also an entirely separate facet within this pool of women which focuses on celibacy or giving up dating as a way to heal from domestic abuse and sexual violence — and these are the people a ‘women-friendly’ dating app is chiding for making a bad decision?
We made a mistake," Bumble wrote. "Our ads referencing celibacy were an attempt to lean into a community frustrated by modern dating, and instead of bringing joy and humor, we unintentionally did the opposite."
Their buzzy rebranding hit a wall, almost instantly revealing their lack of insight to women’s experiences in modern dating. I feel like they could have just read a few Substacks on twenty-ish year old women’s dating lives to get the picture! Rather than empowering women with making their move on their terms, Bumble expressed a neediness by attempting to force our hand, playfully begging us to continue to ride the same merry-go-round that was never made to benefit us in the first place.
What if they had given their billboard space to the domestic abuse charities in the first place? Imagine if the brand had prioritized the safety and lived experiences of women practicing celibacy of any sort — what new in-app functions could they provide to establish a stronger connection to this community?
Zara made it clear in their campaign last October that the safety and lived experience of victims in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict weren’t any part of their consideration ahead of posting images of mannequins in body bags amidst a sparse ‘artist’s studio’. Their defense in the wake of over 110 complaints against Zara filed with Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority: the campaign was conceived in July and photographed in September, before the attacks on October 7. Foolproof! How could you ever argue with “We thought of it before all of that stuff, so it doesn’t count”?
Is there ever a beat where these massive MNCs, with their global value chains and stocks and serious $CHEESE$ in the marketing budget, give themselves the chance to consider the potential impact? Or is the big red button just too tempting to focus on anything other than the immediacy in their profit-churning tunnel vision?
Balenciaga stands out in this group as losing out on aspiring shoppers (and maybe some real ones) that looked to its creative director Demna as a source of the future of luxury. As we’ve noticed on this platform with critiques of everything from The Row to Dries and DÔEN, luxury ateliers and brands have many supporters grasping for their coattails and driving conversations that keep them at the forefront of culture. It’s questionable the brands themselves recognize, or remotely respect their power, in light of Balenciaga’s blunder.
Their SS23 advertisements show two young girls posing with wine glasses and teddy bears that appear to be wearing BDSM-style harnesses, with some people on X noticing an excerpt of a US Supreme Court case that upheld a federal child pornography law. They immediately apologized, noting the children shouldn’t have been included in the shoot — but should teddy bears really be wearing bondage of this nature anyway? Celebrities and fashion darlings began to consciously uncouple from the brand and its creative director, much of the world following suit.
Demna stepped back into the shadows (never stepping down, mind you) until reappearing on the runway in LA for Balenciaga’s AW24 show. The world couldn’t possibly freeze every time a fashion house commits a reprehensible offense, though I don’t believe the system as it exists should continue to let it turn. Fostering an industry that effectively focuses on the audience rather than their pockets would look entirely different, especially in the recourse after a mishap.
RECOVERY
It’s doubtful that Adidas will ever learn when there are Sambas yet to be worn. They survived nasty bouts with Yeezy, and seemingly antisemitism slips through the cracks of a brand constantly mucking up their cool, with-the-times image, yet they prevail. Zara and H&M continue their fast fashion exploits, no matter if green regulations or bad press chase after them… come hell or highwater! Are multinational corporations so untouchable?
Bumble’s statement addressed some perspectives the brand heard, such as that celibacy is the only answer when reproductive rights are restricted; celibacy is a choice; and that, for the asexual community, celibacy can have particular importance, which should not be diminished. Of course, they only wanted to learn this after their colossal error hurt their chances of attracting these crowds. I suppose Hinge will still reign supreme as the only dating app that gets redownloaded after getting deleted.
One year out, Demna told Vogue: “I will have a more mature and serious approach to everything I release as an idea or an image. I have decided to go back to my roots in fashion as well as to the roots of Balenciaga, which is making quality clothes – not making image or buzz.” As Hypebeast noted, Balenciaga’s LA show was a buzzy ‘comeback’ (the Erewhon of it all!) lined with celebrities who had previously created distance from the brand in its downfall, celebrating that they could all come together for a check again in the name of Demna. Water can separate into droplets and disperse, but it will fall back into place again if it gets the chance, it seems. Jury is out on if we witness a repeat offense from the brand… I know I will not be hanging around to wait for it.
As consumers, we need to discern for ourselves brands we believe are agents of change and will continue to grow from their ill-conceived setback, and ones that lay low in the weeds only to spring forth once the storm has blown over.
Marketing tells us customers act or engage based on motivating topics. Marmite campaigns work well in that respect: whether you love it or hate it, you’re taking note and engaging with its content. Brands can make distinctive groupings of “in” and “out”, othering whatever it is that you operate against in order to better define your product or identity. The modern Internet (social media in particular) also loves to be a hater, and brands have often found at least a little reward or newsworthy mention when creating something hate-worthy, or engaging in hater tendencies themselves.
How do they get to that point? What in their campaign leads them to enact inflammatory tactics? I would agree with this argument from TIME that companies will only think about their bottom line: “Corporations quickly detach themselves from characters [or campaigns] for the same reason that they became involved in the first place, which is commercial advantage. [They leave anything that becomes] commercially damaging.” They won’t debate on any human element of social impact until the numbers require they do so to increase profit.
Each of the brands I’ve noted here have a future-facing component to their identity. I wouldn’t point to it as what’s steering them wrong, though the upkeep that often aligns with trendsetting brands and visionary creative direction can become misguided if there aren’t other forces within the company that provide a balancing act. There were far too many people signing off on the SL72 shoot that didn’t take into consideration 1) Adidas’ antisemitic origins, 2) the genocide in Palestine and Bella Hadid’s death threats due to her activism, and 3) the Israeli victims in the terrorist attack at the Munich games, full stop. Zara decided they spent too much money on a campaign to worry about any potential backfire amidst devastating, divisive headlines — they had money to make!
Cancel culture (gagging as I cough up those words) is its own toxic wave the Internet chooses to surf. I refuse to believe real people are still choosing exile when most things deserve counsel. As consumers, we need to discern for ourselves brands we believe are agents of change and will continue to grow from their ill-conceived setback, and ones that lay low in the weeds only to spring forth once the storm has blown over. They never learn in the latter, due in no small part to the belief that brands are the sole creators of culture, as opposed to having one ear turned towards the audience and society at large. Perhaps if every marketing team had to launch campaigns with a live audience a la comedy clubs, they would know when pushing the envelope promotes unfortunate ulterior motives. Getting booed — or worse, crickets — may be the constructive criticism they need to get back to the drawing board and create something more meaningful.
So there are lessons to be learned here: never use controversial topics or social issues to promote your products or services. If you want to capitalize on a trending topic, do your research to make sure there is no risk for polarizing your audience and losing customers. Hatred and negligence have no place in clickbait, especially if you’re looking to invite participation and engagement. This requires T-I-M-E to let it simmer in the pan without burning.
Trust-building is a key component of customer favorability, retention and overall value. Tone-deaf marketing will miss the mark every time, and from what I can gather these examples provide a formula for the type of brands we’ll witness making the same mistakes, just with different headlines. They slap a new paint on the merry-go-round and start spinning us again and again. It’s time we jump off and find a new way to play.
ICYMI
“I don’t think pledging allegiance to a designer or cult-favorite product is the virtue signal we think it is.”
De-centering labels and focusing instead on the stories behind my closet.