THE recent backlash faced by Adidas over its ad campaign featuring Bella Hadid has brought to light significant questions about the brand’s decision-making process. The campaign celebrated the 1972 Munich Olympics with retro sneakers and was criticised for involving Bella, a model known for her vocal support of Palestinian rights.
This connection to the tragic events of the Munich Games, in which 11 Israeli athletes and a German police officer were killed by the Palestinian group Black September, has led to accusations of insensitivity and poor judgement. But was this a simple oversight or a deliberate attempt to generate controversy?
Brief overview
The controversy centres around Adidas’s choice to feature Bella in its campaign for the SL 72 sneakers, originally introduced at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The campaign’s timing coincided with the 52nd anniversary of the Munich massacre, a significant and painful historical event. Given Bella’s Palestinian heritage and outspoken stance on Palestine-Israel conflict, the campaign quickly drew criticism from pro-Israel groups and the public.
Adidas issued multiple apologies, stating the connections to the Munich tragedy were unintentional. It also announced revisions to the campaign to avoid further distress. Despite these apologies, the backlash persisted and Bella reportedly hired lawyers, further fuelling the debate about the campaign’s impact and the company’s responsibility.
Deliberate shock marketing tactics at work?
The planning and executing of high-profile ad campaigns, especially for global brands such as Adidas, involve extensive deliberation and coordination. These campaigns are typically crafted months in advance, with every detail meticulously planned, from the choice of models to the lighting and wardrobe. Given the level of preparation, it seems improbable Adidas was unaware of the potential sensitivities surrounding the 1972 Munich Olympics and Bella’s political stance.
Several factors suggest Adidas might have anticipated some level of controversy.
Historical context awareness: The 1972 Munich Olympics massacre is a well-documented and significant event in both sports and world history. It is unlikely that a company with the resources and experience of Adidas would overlook the potential implications of referencing such an event.
Model’s public persona: Bella is not a neutral figure in the realm of Middle Eastern politics. Her support for Palestinian rights and criticisms of Israeli policies are well-known and frequently covered in the media. Adidas’s marketing team would likely have been aware of this when selecting her for the campaign.
Public relations dynamics: Controversy can drive visibility and engagement, especially in the era of social media. The comparison to the infamous incident between Will Smith and Chris Rock at the Oscars, which generated widespread media coverage and public discourse, is apt. Brands sometimes engage in “shock marketing” to capture attention, even if it risks negative reactions.
Damage limitation
Regardless of whether Adidas intended to provoke controversy, the fallout has been significant. The campaign not only upset many due to the perceived insensitivity but also brought negative attention to the brand and Bella. This highlights a critical point in modern marketing, the fine line between leveraging controversial figures for engagement and causing genuine harm or offence.
Adidas’s response to the backlash has been multifaceted. It quickly issued apologies, removed the controversial elements of the campaign and expressed regret for any distress caused. Its statements emphasised the connections to the tragic events were unintended and it reiterated its commitment to diversity and equality.
However, the effectiveness of these apologies is debatable. Critics argue the initial oversight reflects deeper issues within the company’s vetting processes. The decision to involve Bella in a campaign so closely tied to a sensitive historical event seems, at best, a severe misjudgement and at worst, a deliberate attempt to stir controversy.
Broader implications for brand management
This incident serves as a cautionary tale for other brands. It underscores the importance of historical and cultural awareness when planning marketing campaigns. Moreover, it highlights the potential risks of involving politically active figures in promotional activities, especially when the campaign touches on sensitive or controversial topics.
For Adidas, the long-term implications of this controversy are yet to be seen. While it has taken steps to mitigate the damage, the incident has undoubtedly impacted their public image.
Brands must navigate the delicate balance between leveraging the influence of high-profile figures and respecting historical and cultural sensitivities.
In the end, whether Adidas’s controversial campaign was a result of deliberate planning or an unfortunate oversight remains a topic of much debate. What is clear, however, is that the incident has sparked important conversations about brand responsibility, historical awareness and the ethics of marketing. As global brands continue to operate in an increasingly connected and sensitive world, these considerations will only grow in importance.
