In an age of increasing social awareness and accountability, with ever growing demands for inclusive and innovative marketing strategies, brands are under more scrutiny than ever. One poorly thought campaign can ruin a brand’s image they spent decades building. Welcome to the Age of Receipts. One of the best examples of this is when Dove released an advertisement implying a Black woman was “cleaned” into a white one. Definitely not their brightest moment. Yet, despite the odds, Dove, as a brand, did recover. How, you might ask? Simply by owning up to their mistake, issuing a public apology, and doubling down on campaigns that centered real representation and aligned more with their brand identity. A great example is Dove’s later “Real Beauty” campaign, which became a staple in inclusive marketing. 

​​

Conversely, other brands have been less fortunate in their path to success after PR disasters. To this day, Dolce & Gabbana’s promotional scandal in 2018 has left the brand unable to make profits in China, one of the world’s largest and most profitable luxury markets. The advertisement, portraying a Chinese model struggling to eat Italian food with chopsticks, with stereotypical Chinese music in the background, alongside leaked private messages of co-founder Stefano Gabbana making derogatory remarks about Chinese people, saw immediate backlash, with consumers so enraged they burned their Dolce & Gabbana products. While public apologies were made, and allegations denied, the brand’s image was completely damaged and defeated. 

​

In this day and age, apologies are a currency, but accountability is the whole economy. 

 

While there are countless cases of successful and unsuccessful brand recovery, ranging from popular brands like H&M, and Zara, to luxury brands such as Dolce & Gabbana, Dior, and Gucci, for this particular publication, the brands H&M and Nike have been chosen as cases to delve into and examine. Being both large and global brands in the fashion industry, their various scandals have equally taken a toll on the brand’s public image. It is interesting to note, however, the similarities in their method to contain the impact of such an event, yet the rather contrasting outcomes that followed. So, is it possible to recover from such disasters? How do global brands, such as H&M and Nike, successfully or unsuccessfully, try to ensure that their marketing campaigns continue to innovate and appeal to the masses? 

 

The Case of H&M

 

The Problematic Product Launch

When H&M released an advertisement on its UK website at the beginning of 2018, it soon became one of the most infamous fashion-related PR nightmares. The advertisement focused on an image showing a little boy of African American descent in a green hoodie that read, “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle.” A clothing item intended for children soon became a global controversy, impacting and outraging millions. For numerous people, especially those in the Black community, seeing a Black child with the word “monkey” printed on a jumper only made them remember the historical racism that they had to endure: dehumanisation, and colonial pseudo science. People were outraged, not only by the image itself, but also by the fact that it exposed a severe lack of cultural sensitivity within the marketing orientation and decision-making of a global brand with extreme influence in fashion.

​

The backlash was immediate and intense. H&M became the target of criticism from consumers, journalists, and even celebrities. The public demanded to know how the image, caption, and the campaign idea itself – being so blatantly problematic – had made it through all of H&M’s internal checks without a single person questioning or flagging it. In the days that followed, worldwide artists such as The Weeknd and G-Eazy openly severed their ties with the company, announcing on Twitter and Instagram that they were “deeply offended” and that they would no longer continue their collaborations with H&M. 

The backlash extended far beyond digital outrage, sparking real-world protests and tangible consequences for the brand and its profitability. Notably, in South Africa, several cities witnessed protests as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) members took over H&M stores to show their uproar and disdain for the complete lack of racial sensitivity portrayed by the brand. Stores were ransacked, merchandise was destroyed, and some locations even had to temporarily close due to safety concerns.

​

H&M knew they had to act fast in order to protect the brand’s image; the pressure from the public was skyrocketing, and sales were plummeting. The advertisement was removed from all the platforms and the company apologised for their mistake, stating that the offence was unfortunate and that they “apologise to anyone this may have offended”. However, the problem at hand was prominent and required immediate action. Many critics were not satisfied with a simple statement and requested evidence of substantial change in H&M’s marketing strategies moving forward. 

​

Yet, the underlying question still remained: Is it just damage control, or a step towards genuine change? 

​

Ingenuine Change and Unsuccessful Damage Control?

To show that the brand was committed to reprimanding and learning from their mistake, H&M hired Annie Wu as the Global Leader for Diversity and Inclusiveness. This was the first position within the company to guarantee diversity as more than just an afterthought, but rather a fundamental principle throughout H&M’s management in the projected future. Wu previously held the position of employment relations manager, and was given the mandate to polish the firm’s policies on inclusiveness and diversity. In her words, this meant doing a deep review and overhaul, hoping to “bring both awareness of the topic of inclusiveness and diversity and to help disrupt ourselves in this area.” Internally, H&M vowed to increase the number of people of colour within their teams, particularly the marketing, branding, and product development departments. They also vowed to audit and revise all their global campaigns with a panel through a more inclusive and culturally sensitive viewpoint.

​

Despite these alterations at the executive level, the damage to H&M’s reputation remained irreversible. The public was outraged and unwilling to trust the brand once again. Morning Consult reported that unfavourability of H&M amongst African American adults surged from a baseline of 9% pre-incident to 26% post-incident. This dramatic jump underscored the major consequences that arose as a result of the controversy within significant demographics for the brand.

​

From a financial standpoint, H&M faced challenges as well. Although it is tricky to connect all financial downturns to the hoodie ordeal, in March 2018, the firm reported a 61% dip in quarterly profits and stated that they had accumulated $4.3 billion in unsold inventory. Even if a combination of factors contributed to the financial slump, the negative controversy surrounding the brand likely hurt consumer loyalty and sales the most.

​

The “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle” scandal epitomises the lack of attention to cultural diversity and sensitivity in global firms. It illuminates the fact that brands in the world today must deal with continuous scrutiny from the prying eyes of the public, which is oftentimes a recipe for disaster. H&M took some measures to control the immediate damage caused, but the process of regaining trust, primarily from the alienated groups, continues. 

​

Moving Forward​

There are strategies which can be derived from H&M's experience, which may have quickened the brand’s recovery from such a disaster. This includes, but are not limited to: 

​

1. Proactive Cultural Competency Training: Conducting routine staff training throughout the year, particularly in marketing and product development units, can counter sensitive cultural blunders in firm decision-making. 

2. Diverse Decision-Making Teams: To incorporate diverse and innovative methods, perspectives, and strategies within the company’s management. 

3. Transparent communication: In order to incorporate other ways of thinking into policy making, the teams need to be provided with diverse members.

​

Acting promptly and with unreserved honesty, taking decisive steps when necessary after a blunder, can help mitigate the damage while proving the organisation's willingness to genuinely change. Despite seeing some recovery from the 2018 incident, H&M’s image still remains damaged, especially following limited innovation and improvements in following marketing campaigns. This case serves as a reminder to global corporations about the need to cultivate cultural and operational awareness at every level of the organisation. There is no simple solution, as overcoming the backlash elicited by such behavior takes sustained effort, full accountability, and deeply affected communities' involvement. 
 

The Case of Nike

​

Sole-Crushing Disaster for the Brand

February 20, 2019, was a sole-crushing moment for Nike as it made breaking news – literally –  when basketball star Zion Williamson’s PG 2.5 sneaker broke less than a minute into Duke’s game against North Carolina. Not only did Williamson’s sneaker rip in half, but he also sprained his right knee during his fall into an awkward middle split on court. 

​

Williamson wasn’t falling alone—Nike’s share price dropped by 1% the next day, costing the company approximately AUD $1.5 billion in market value. While Williamson took a walk of shame back to the stands with his destroyed shoe in hand, so did Nike, with the Apex Marketing Group estimating that the broken shoe attracted so much public scrutiny that the company faced AUD $12 million in negative publicity.

​

To make matters worse, former President Barack Obama was seen in a video pointing at Williamson’s fall and appearing to comment on the shoe. However, this was only the beginning of its extensive coverage on social media and news outlets. Nike was kicked to the curb by competitors like Puma, which publicly mocked the brand in a since-deleted tweet claiming Williamson’s fall "wouldn't have happened in the Pumas.” Skechers also had a field day, releasing a facetious ad featuring a split sneaker with the caption “Just Blew It.”

​

The public didn’t respond favourably either, with most of their criticism being directed towards Nike’s product quality and its implications for player safety. One of Nike’s most concerned target segments was those who had also purchased the PG 2.5. Online reviews ranged from disappointed to furious: "I wore these only on a basketball court for maybe a month, and the traction area on the sole busted through the bottom," one customer posted. Another customer stated, "I bought these shoes about a month ago and use them for basketball. The shoe inserts are falling out already. This is unsatisfactory! Shoes [that] are supposed to be for basketball shouldn't fall apart after a couple of games." 

​

Marketers must understand how post-purchase dissonance (the regret or doubt consumers feel about their purchase decision) can severely erode both brand perception and, consequently, customer loyalty. When a product of a company as widely used as Nike fails to meet expectations —especially in high-performance categories such as the NBA— the consumer’s trust in the brand can be compromised. As seen through the flood of negative feedback online, this can result in negative word-of-mouth, returns, and even a shift towards competitors. Thus, it is crucial for companies to maximise this window of when consumers are open to communication and reaffirm trust before dissonance turns into brand rejection.

​

Successful Crisis Management​

Nike did not settle for silence and wait for the crisis to blow over on its own. Instead, Nike owned their shortfall and used the incident as an opportunity to reinforce their commitment to improving the quality of their products. The reason why this approach was so effective was due to Nike’s fleet-footed media response. Just two days later, Nike issued a public apology to Williamson. “We are obviously concerned and want to wish Zion a speedy recovery,” it said. “The quality and performance of our products are of utmost importance. While this is an isolated occurrence, we are working to identify the issue.” However, The Wall Street Journal proved otherwise, reminding the public that Williamson wasn’t the only athlete to break through one of Nike’s shoes. “In 2016, the Orlando Magic’s Aaron Gordon’s Nike shoe tore open. NBA players Manu Ginobili and Andrew Bogut have also experienced similar malfunctions.”

​

Nonetheless, acknowledging the problem is the first key step in crisis management. Nike understood the importance of an open dialogue with the public, and actively worked to prepare a timely response while showing empathy for the situation. Although companies often have limited information following a crisis, Nike proved its commitment to stepping up its game as company officials met with Duke personnel face-to-face the next day. As sports journalist Jeff Gravley noted, “There was no way Nike was going to let one of their top clients chew on just a statement.”

​

Nike’s combination of both in-person and online apologies demonstrated their commitment to identifying the issue and taking measures to rectify it. This allows companies to restore public trust, as a well-crafted apology can display the contrition necessary to diffuse the situation. Their case is a classic example of crisis management, as the shoe company focussed on taking accountability by acknowledging the problem, apologising, and then discussing solutions to appease the concerned customers at home.

​

Strategies to Further Bolster Recovery

Ideally, Nike should have responded more promptly – within 24 hours – to establish control of the narrative. A company that fails to respond with urgency risks the situation escalating as misinformation spreads. Instead, timely information accompanied by the specific steps they would take to prioritise customer safety and product quality can mitigate the crisis by positioning Nike as a more proactive and transparent brand. This is significant given the reliance on dependable footwear in the basketball industry. 

​

Furthermore, Nike may have strengthened its response by publicly releasing a detailed investigation report outlining what caused the PG 2.5 malfunction. This would align with increasing customer expectations around corporate accountability, as customers are more likely to favour brands displaying openness and responsibility. By involving external professionals or sports scientists to review the cause of the product failure, Nike could have more openly discussed their improvement strategies to communicate their concern for safety. As a result, Nike would have more expertly signalled their willingness to hold itself accountable not just to the public, but to industry standards. 

​

Overall, the Williamson case is a valuable example for companies navigating PR scandals, as it showcases the importance of a timely response and transparency in communication. Without this approach, it is unlikely that Nike could have portrayed their genuine commitment to prioritising athlete safety and high-quality production. They continue to hold contracts with numerous sports teams and leagues, remaining one of the most loved athletic brands in the world. Nike put their best foot forward by handling the crisis quickly and transparently, while Zion made a speedy recovery and returned to the court wearing none other than Nike. 

​

While Nike did not come out unscathed, it may still be declared a winner in this PR feud, living up to the name of the Greek goddess of victory.​
 

Final Remarks

​

While many factors impact a company's success during a PR crisis, perhaps one of the most prominent factors causing H&M’s PR failure may be attributed to the nature of their apology. Despite their swift reaction, H&M’s generalised apology to “anyone this may have offended” may be perceived as insincere and dismissive by its stakeholders. An apology that should have been targeted and empathetic instead appeared hasty, as H&M seemingly treated the crisis as a minor PR hiccup rather than an issue rooted in racial history. The action they took was primarily behind-the-scenes, and for the public, this change was not enough to recover from such a large-scale communication crisis. In contrast, Nike’s approach was more balanced between their internal and external improvements. They apologised by acknowledging the issue directly, expressing concern for the injured athlete and following up in-person, ensuring that the affected stakeholders felt like they were being heard. Thus, the contrasting public reactions to H&M and Nike’s PR crises illustrate that in today’s digital age, an apology’s success is not only dependent on the speed of the response – but also whether the company’s actions reflect the weight of the issue.