• 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
      27·
      2 days ago

      i hate to be the person giving them exposure, but at the point where they went through bbc and nyt, i don’t think that few people on lemmy make a difference…

      https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crwyzj53pl1lo

      Converse pulls ‘deeply upsetting’ advert after backlash

      American footwear brand Converse has pulled an advert that social media users said evoked Ku Klux Klan imagery, saying it recognised “that we got this wrong”.

      The photo, posted to the company’s Instagram account, received backlash online after critics described lighting in the image as looking like a white pointed hood.

      A pair of shoes, dangling in the picture, were also likened to an image of a lynching victim by social media users.

      • Homosexual sapiens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        23·
        20 hours ago

        I gotta say I really don’t see it. I mean it’s obviously a person’s skirt, and their hand is also clearly visible holding the shoes. Are people viewing this image on 1-bit displays?

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      21·
      2 days ago

      I assumed it was about that recent Converse ad that looked like a KKK hood with someone hanging. When I read the headline about that I thought ‘that has to be an exaggeration or a reach’, but then I searched for it and went oh naw, the people that saw that at first glance weren’t reaching. I can see how an office full of marketing people with zero perspective could miss it, but I feel like most normal people would go ‘damn bro that kinda looks like a KKK hood’.

          • LostCarcosan@lemmy.today
            2·
            13 hours ago

            I can certainly see it, but I also really doubt Converse did it on purpose. Like, for what reason could a shoe company want to purposely show a KKK hood, and why would they go for so artful a depiction if they did? Sometimes an ad is just an unfortunate fuck up, and sometimes it’s Sidney Sweeney proudly proclaiming she’s racist. I think this ad is the former

          • Homosexual sapiens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            11·
            15 hours ago

            This is like thinking the clouds are trying to communicate a message to you because you see a face in them. I can see how one could imagine it when primed to, but the idea that it is in any way meant to evoke that imagery is the big stretch. That’s definitely conspiratorial thinking imo.

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              1·
              15 hours ago

              I made no statements anywhere about the intent of the images, and went out of my way to say that I understood how a bunch of out of touch marketers might not see it. That doesn’t make it an appropriate ad that anyone wants associated with their brand.

              • Homosexual sapiens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                11·
                13 hours ago

                That’s fine, I’m not here to defend advertisers. I’m just a little baffled by the idea that people (not you in particular) might be outraged by this ad any more than any other ad for a relatively benign consumer product.

    • Aralakh@lemmy.ca
      8·
      2 days ago

      My first thought was the recent Sydney Sweeney sport betting ad. The fact that we’re having a thread like this, I feel seems to highlight the witty-ness of this comic lol.

    • frog@feddit.uk
      7·
      2 days ago

      Oh… I though the ad was the Roach Poison.

      It’s controversial because roaches don’t share the food, they die and the other roaches cannibalizes each other.

      …

      Um… I might be reading too much in to this. I am probably completely wrong.

      • hypnicjerk@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        2 days ago

        the ad is the roach poison. it’s just saying we poison people in our circle by sharing negative content, and that it’s controversial by design.