How Fashion Is Navigating Its Summer of Scandal

This summer, fashion’s marketing machine has had an unusual number of misfires.

In just the span of a month, we’ve had:

• American Eagle’s “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” campaign, where the denim-clad actress’s ad nodding to her appearance was called out for having racist undertones. The brand defended its campaign, stating it “is and always was about the jeans.”
• Adidas and Willy Chavarria were chided by fans – and threatened by the Mexcian government with litigation – for their “Oaxacan Slip-On” shoe collaboration, inspired by traditional huaraches but not actually involving the Indigenous Yalálag who make them. Both apologised, and Adidas executives recently traveled to Mexico to meet with Yalálag community leaders.
• E.l.f.’s ad starring Matt Rife didn’t sit well with many of the beauty brand’s customers, who noted the comedian previously made jokes about domestic violence. The brand released a statement saying it “missed the mark” with the campaign, though it didn’t take it off its socials.
• Swatch, on the other hand, took down an ad featuring an Asian model pulling his eyes back, a gesture that has been used historically in racist caricatures of Asian people. The company apologised for any “distress or misunderstanding this may have caused.”

Each of those controversies touched on different issues, and the underlying problems were of varying levels of severity. Each brand responded in different ways, which, in turn, received different responses from consumers. The question that unites them all is how do brands avoid these pitfalls? And, when they inevitably trip up, how do they respond?

BoF spoke with crisis management experts to find some answers.

The Root of the Controversy

Fashion has a long history of these sort of scandals. A big reason why is the industry’s historic lack of diversity. Even on major marketing campaigns and product launches, there may be no one involved who will understand how that work will be perceived by people with different backgrounds.

“In corporate America, we need to remember that having different eyes in the room and different voices, more importantly, in the room can keep us out of trouble in these areas,” said Susan Scafidi, the founder of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham Law School.

In the last decade, many companies vowed to do better, making promises to improve the diversity of their workforce and step up training on cultural sensitivities. These programmes came under attack in the 2024 election, and the Trump administration has pressured corporations to dismantle internal DEI programs.

“Diversity, as a value, is under attack in America at the federal level,” Scafidi said.

But even as diversity has become a lower priority internally, that isn’t the case with many consumers, who notice when a brand does something that goes against their stated values. Chavarria, for instance, has built a reputation for interweaving his political beliefs into his work, and supporting the rights of immigrants in particular. With the Oaxacan Slip-On, Chavarria seemed to be paying homage to his Mexican roots, which made the lack of inclusion of the Oaxacan community in the development or marketing process more glaring.

“There was a lot of young brown people who look up to that work,” Victor Vegas, the creator and designer behind the independent brand Primer Rebelde De America. Like Chavarria, Vegas often includes his indigenous roots in his work. “To see them completely left out of it is very disappointing.”

When consumers are offended, they can easily find plenty of support on social media. Controversies flare up quickly, and can attract the attention of prominent voices – at first, it was TikTok creators expressing outrage about American Eagle’s ad, but soon enough, President Donald Trump was weighing in.

How to Respond to Controversy

There are a few ways brands typically respond when a marketing campaign or product launch goes wrong.

Adidas apologised directly to the communities they offended. “We offer a public apology and reaffirm our commitment to collaborate with Yalálag in a respectful dialogue that honors their cultural legacy,” Adidas said, and pledged to start a conversation with the Indigenous artisans it had previously ignored.

American Eagle offered more of an explanation than an apology – by the time it put out its statement, many were already questioning whether the outrage over “good jeans” had been overblown.

E.l.f. landed somewhere in between, acknowledging that including Rife in the ad had offended some viewers, but stopping short of apologising. It explained that the ad “aimed to humorously spotlight beauty injustice” and teased that the brand would “continue to make the case against overpriced beauty.”

Then there was Swatch, which said “we sincerely apologise for any distress or misunderstanding this may have caused.” While the company’s stock recovered, the comments under its Instagram posts show a consumer base that wasn’t satisfied with a variation on “sorry if you were offended.”

When responding to a communications crisis, speed matters; all four brands put out statements within days of the first negative comments appearing on social media. The longer they wait, the greater the chances the response time itself becomes part of the criticism, said Lori Ruggiero, a managing partner at 5W Public Relations, which works with E.l.f. and other brands. Companies therefore need a crisis preparedness plan before a situation arises, she said.

In many cases, less can be more, according to Ruggiero.

“The more you overexplain or try to give that level of detail, the more the trolls have to pick apart,” she said.

The most important thing is for the response to come across as authentic.

While many consumers quickly move on, there are always some who look to see if a brand follows through on a promise to make amends. If they do nothing – and especially if they release another offensive ad – trust may be permanently broken.

Some brands have managed to do this well. Scafidi pointed to Ralph Lauren as an example.

“Ralph Lauren has a long history of borrowing — particularly from Native American culture,” she said. “After being called out, they really committed to doing the right thing. That means, of course, training. But that also means partnering with Native American artisans to do capsule collections, repeatedly, with different designers.”

Adidas has begun a similar process with its visit to Oaxaca.

The Consequences of Controversy

Most controversies around a brand’s choice of celebrity ambassador, or an offensive campaign image, blow over.

That can happen quickly – Google searches for American Eagle were back at their pre-Sweeney levels less than two weeks after the ad controversy heated up. In the most serious instances, it can take years and hundreds of millions of dollars to fully undo the damage, as was the case with the implosion of Adidas’ partnership with Ye, for instance, which left the brand with massive stockpiles of unsold shoes as well as questions about what executives knew about the rapper’s conduct.

Adidas and Chavarria are extremely unlikely to face consequences of that magnitude this time. But there’s work to be done if they’re going to salvage their collaboration – and avoid legal consequences in Mexico.

Mexico established a law protecting the cultural heritage of its indigenous people in 2022. Scafidi said it’s one of the staunchest laws against cultural appropriation in the world and comes with harsh penalties, from hefty fines to as many as 20 years in prison (unlikely in this case, Scafidi says).

But then, what might be a more difficult challenge for a brand is earning the consumer’s trust again.