Converse has pulled a promotional social media campaign and issued an apology after social media critics asserted that an advertisement for its Chuck 70 X sneakers featured imagery resembling the Ku Klux Klan and a lynching victim, drawing fierce backlash from public figures.
The controversy centers on an Instagram advertisement featuring K-pop singer Karina, a member of the group aespa, promoting the Chuck 70 X and Run Star Crush sneakers. In the promotional image, the singer stood wearing a calf-length white skirt under a star-shaped spotlight while holding a pair of black high-top shoes by her side with her arm fully extended.
Social media users quickly seized on the visual elements of the composition. Critics argued that shadows and lighting cast a white triangular shape on the singer’s skirt that resembled a Klan hood, while the positioning of the sneakers made them look like the dangling feet of a lynching victim. The campaign triggered an immediate wave of online outrage, with some commenters calling for boycotts and the termination of the staff involved in vetting the concept.
Corporate Apology and Public Outrage Over the Chuck 70 X Campaign
As the backlash mounted across platforms like Instagram and X, Converse issued an apology and confirmed that the promotional material had been stripped from all official channels. The company is a subsidiary of Nike.
“We’re sorry. We understand why this image is deeply upsetting and recognize that 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 spokesperson, via Fox News
Despite the swift removal and the apology issued on Friday, public figures and civil rights advocates argued that the company’s response did not go far enough. Civil rights attorney Lee Merritt criticized the corporate oversight that allowed the imagery to clear marketing and legal reviews.
“We keep having this conversation because corporations keep failing the same test. Do better means catching this before it airs — not after we’re offended.”
Lee Merritt, Civil rights attorney
Political leaders also condemned the campaign. Rep. Troy Carter, D-La., released a strongly worded statement denouncing the promotional choices made by the brand.
“Nike and Converse, what the hell were you thinking? Your campaign shows what looks like a hooded Klansman, framed by what appears to be the dangling feet of a lynching victim. There is nothing creative or artistic about it. It is racist, reckless and deeply offensive.”
Rep. Troy Carter, D-La.
Scrutiny Mounts Amid Broader Brand Struggles for Nike
The controversy arrives at a turbulent time for Converse’s parent company. Nike has faced a series of headwinds, including its upcoming removal from the S&P 100 after nearly 18 years following a drop in market value exceeding $200 billion since 2021. While conservative critics have frequently targeted the athletic giant over progressive marketing partnerships, the company has also drawn fire from various consumer segments over other recent campaigns, such as a Boston Marathon advertisement that critics accused of pace-shaming.
For Converse specifically, the latest misstep follows other recent design controversies. Earlier in the month, the brand faced online criticism over promotional material for its Jack Purcell PDM sneaker collection, which featured a man climbing a ladder while holding sneakers hanging from a tree. Observers online noted unsettling similarities between that composition and historical imagery of lynchings.
Unanswered Questions Regarding Corporate Vetting and Screening Processes
As observers debate whether the imagery was an intentional provocation or a massive oversight by creative teams, Boston-based Converse declined to answer follow-up inquiries regarding how the advertisement was conceived, how internal teams screen marketing campaigns before publication, or who specifically approved the final layout.
Representatives for the singer Karina and her management firm, SM Entertainment Group, did not immediately respond to media inquiries. While some online commenters defended the brand by arguing that the resemblance to hate symbols was purely accidental, consumer trust has taken an immediate hit, leaving the company facing prolonged questions about how such a concept navigated multiple corporate layers without intervention.