Converse has removed a sneaker advertisement featuring K-pop star Karina after the campaign triggered intense online backlash over imagery that critics said evoked the Ku Klux Klan and the history of lynching.
The advertisement, part of a campaign for the Chuck 70 X, showed Karina of aespa wearing a white skirt and holding a pair of black Converse sneakers. Critics focused on the lighting and composition of the image, saying a triangular white shape resembled a pointed KKK hood while the position of the shoes appeared to evoke the dangling feet of a lynching victim.
Converse, which is owned by Nike, apologized and acknowledged the concerns. The company said it understood why the image was deeply upsetting, accepted that it had made a mistake and confirmed that the advertisement was being removed from its channels and elsewhere it had appeared.
The backlash spread rapidly across social media, with some users calling for employees involved in the campaign to be held accountable and others calling for a boycott of the brand. At the same time, some commenters argued that the imagery was not intentionally designed to reference racist symbols.
Converse has not publicly said how the advertisement passed its internal review process. The company also declined to provide additional details about how its advertising is screened before publication.
The controversy has also drawn attention to the role of visual context in global advertising. Images that may appear to be fashion or artistic concepts can carry very different meanings depending on historical and cultural context, particularly when they resemble symbols associated with racial violence.
Karina and her management company, SM Entertainment, had not publicly commented on the controversy in the reports available.
The incident comes as major brands continue to face scrutiny over advertising and marketing campaigns that consumers believe contain culturally insensitive imagery. In this case, Converse moved quickly to remove the campaign and issue an apology, but the episode has left a larger question hanging over the brand: how did an image that triggered such a strong reaction make it through the approval process in the first place?
