How do you make Converses controversial? Reference the KKK and lynching

The world is outraged with the latest ad for Converse sneakers because of its imagery which references lynching by the KKK.

Feet that seem to be hanging appears as a depiction of suicide… until you notice the silhouette of a white hood. Then the ad hits a new low.

It's shocking, and the world is disgusted.

No matter what Converse's reasons, which has been hotly debated online - ragebait, outright racism, sheer stupidity - the result is an ad that is jarring upon first glance, and sickening upon closer inspection.

Upon reflection and a millionth viewing, they were most likely trying to be too cool with the staging, and lighting, and the Converse star.

But it's still a death knell for the brand because they failed to see what millions noticed immediately.

It is clear that no one objective signed off on the final ad. It is clear that no one traumatised by suicide, nor the violence of black history, was involved in the design.

That's the real problem - the utter failure to consider the audience by including diverse perspectives. Because how else do you explain the ad being approved?

The Ausse marketing experts we spoke to below have tried.

READ MORE: CBA allows anti-Muslim comments on Instagram ad: "terrorist buddies"

READ MORE: Is Pauline Hanson to 'blame' for this attack against a Chinese restaurant?

To its credit, Converse apologised swiftly for the controversial ad. In response to the viral backlash, the company deleted all posts they were in control of.

“We’re sorry. We understand why this image is deeply upsetting and recognize that we got this wrong,” their statement read.

“This should not have happened and we will do better.”

@donlemon

Converse is facing backlash over a photoshoot that resembles a lynching.

♬ original sound - Don Lemon

"They just saw the star because they were looking for the star"

Adam Ferrier, Founder / Consumer Psychologist at Thinkerbell, agrees that Converse didn't look at the ad objectively.

“It probably happened because everyone involved knew what the image was supposed to be, Karina (the K-pop singer who was in the ad), Converses and the star," Ferrier told Mediaweek.

"In behavioural science this is called top-down processing, once your brain knows what it expects to see, you don’t see anything else. A simpler way to say this is no one internally looked at the work with ‘a fresh pair of eyes’! They just saw the star because they were looking for the star. 

“This is partially a function of an in-house agency being too close to the brand and not close enough to culture. Ie all they saw was a star - and no other interpretations."

Ferrier added that there seemed to be no collective review of the campaign.

"Another interesting thing that can happen is that everyone focuses on their own executional thing. The photographer was looks at lighting, the stylist at the clothes, the brand team looks at the star. Nobody stood back. 

“Everyone inside the process saw the intention and what it was trying to communicate, whilst the population just responded to the image.”

Amber Groves, Creative Strategy Director, Weave, was shocked by Converse's choices in the campaign. She told Mediaweek:

"It’s inconceivable that in a global business, with myriad layers of approvals and accountability, that something this loaded could make its way into the light of day. 

"At some point, you have to ask whether all those layers, all those eyeballs, were representing diverse perspectives… or simply looking through a single myopic cultural lens. Because when imagery is this overt, it’s less dog-whistle territory… and more klaxon.

“Doesn’t help that Converse’s response feels like another rote iteration of the classic Notes App apology: pull the work, say sorry, promise to do better. Yet another toothless, approach from the brand-in-trouble-playbook of battening down the hatches and hoping the storm blows over.”

Finally, Rhian Mason, co-founder of REALMS, told Mediaweek of the Converse controversy:

"We obviously can’t speak to Converse’s internal process, but this is a good reminder that having lots of eyes on work isn’t necessarily the same as having the right perspectives in the room. 

"Cultural understanding needs to sit upstream, shaping the work alongside strategy and creative, rather than being a sense-check at the end. 

"Particularly when you’re working with imagery, symbols or references that can carry very different meanings in different cultural contexts.

Mason also shared her thoughts about cancelling the brand.

"We’d be cautious about judging the brand without knowing the full context. What matters now is listening to how the work has been received, understanding the cultural context behind that response and acting accordingly. 

"For us, the bigger lesson is about process. Brands are increasingly expected to move at the speed of culture, but speed can’t come at the expense of cultural understanding. 

“That means bringing different perspectives and specialist expertise into the process early, and pressure-testing not only “what are we trying to say?” but “what else could this say?” before work enters the world.”

Can Converse recover from this as a brand?

The marketing experts are not sure.

“Converse can’t communicate their way back to trust… they’ll have to prove their way back,” Groves said.

“The real test is what they do next. Key word: DO. Brand proof is becoming the next wave of cultural currency. 

"People don’t just want to hear what brands believe; they want to see tangible evidence that those beliefs shape how they behave in the real world.”

Ferrier added, "It was a mistake and no harm will be done from this alone. The issue is however, Nike has lost its marketing way a bit and this will be another story that could be part of a larger narrative that Nike is on the nose.

“These types of narratives, with enough proof points, can be hard to turn around.”