Converse recently released a sneaker campaign meant to draw attention to a new shoe, advertised by Karina from the K-pop group aespa. What should’ve been a fun commercial intended to lure customers into buying the product ended up becoming a widespread issue after viewers pointed out the campaign’s visuals had a striking resemblance to symbols of the Ku Klux Klan and lynching.
Converse has since taken down the image and posted a public apology. Yet, the question remains. How did the campaign get approved in the first place, and why did they have to wait until the public called them out?
The image that raised these questions showed Karina holding the black Chuck 70 X sneakers with a white skirt on. The camera focused on the skirt, and the lighting formed a triangle shape that viewers immediately criticized as appearing to be a Klan hood. Some viewers also commented that the shoes hanging from her hand resembled those of a lynching victim.
People immediately jumped online to criticize the photograph, questioning how and why it got approved, and even going so far as to call for a boycott of Converse. Other people were defending the company, saying that it probably wasn’t intentional. While there isn’t evidence that Converse deliberately chose to associate campaign pictures with the assumptions made online, intent doesn’t erase the public’s image of the finished product.
The reaction is rooted in a history that is far more serious than an advertisement made in bad taste. The Equal Justice Initiative describes racial terror lynching as a means of enforcing segregation and racial subordination in the United States. The public that recognized the history hidden in the campaign understood an image couldn’t just be dismissed as an accident.
Converse removed the ad and posted an apology, stating they understood why the image was “upsetting” and what they had gotten wrong. The company claimed they would delete the photo wherever it appeared and promised to do better. However, taking down an image is an easy step. Apologizing does very little to explain how a campaign involving photographers, marketers, and company approval could’ve reached the public’s doorstep without anyone stopping to question the image. According to the Associated Press, Converse didn’t answer questions about how they screen ads or how the photograph was approved.
While Karina is a recognizable figure who is connected to the campaign, her involvement in the photo does not mean she provided any creative input. Those decisions are Converse’s responsibility.
The controversy shows why reviewing an advertisement requires more than just asking whether the intent was to offend. It also requires considering what an audience might see, especially when a visual resembles symbols tied to a violent history.
Civil rights attorney Lee Merritt argued that the problem should have been caught before the ad was published. His criticism reflects the larger concern behind the backlash: viewers shouldn’t have to serve as the final check on a major company’s campaign.
Converse has acknowledged the problem and removed the image. What remains unclear is whether the company will explain the ad approval or make changes to prevent a similar mistake.