Who Was In The Room?

The Converse Contoversy and the Blind Spots in Advertising

When I first saw the controversial advertisement, I didn't need someone to explain why people were upset. I saw it immediately. The image reminded me of the Ku Klux Klan, a symbol of racial hatred, intimidation and violence that has haunted American history for generations. And then I saw the dangling shoes. My first question wasn't who created this advertisement. It was, who approved this advertisement?

I have spent much of my professional life working in public relations, marketing, advertising and communications. I have spent hours in meetings, reviewed creative concepts, worked with decision makers and watched ideas move from initial presentations to finished campaigns. I have also witnessed racism in the advertising industry, including among people in senior management positions. Those experiences contributed to my decision to move away from advertising, where racism and discrimination were practised against staff of colour. When I saw the Converse advertisement, I wasn't simply looking at a photograph promoting a pair of sneakers. I was thinking about the people sitting around the conference table. For many years in the field, I asked the same question I did 20 years ago: Was anyone in the room seeing what I saw? Or, as in most companies/agencies today, did someone see it but feel unable to speak up for fear of losing their job or being targeted by management?

In September 2026, Converse, the footwear brand owned by Nike, faced criticism over an advertising image promoting its Chuck 70 sneakers. The image featured K-pop singer Karina in a white outfit, holding a pair of black sneakers. The lighting created a triangular white shape that some viewers said resembled the pointed hood of a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) member. The position of the dangling shoes also reminded critics of imagery associated with America’s history of lynching and racial terror. For many people, particularly those familiar with the history of racial violence in America, those associations were deeply disturbing. Others defended the creative concept, arguing that the lighting was intended to reference Converse's star logo and the resemblance was unintentional. Like all companies do when they are called out, Converse apologised, acknowledged the harm the image caused, and removed it from its channels.

The controversy subsequently attracted wider attention, including criticism from the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) led by Chair Yvette D. Clarke and representing 62 members. The CBC expressed deep disturbance and disappointment over the insensitive imagery. They have requested an urgent meeting with Executives from Nike, Converse's parent company. In addition to Chair Clarke, individual lawmakers like Congressman Troy Carter criticised the campaign as racist, reckless, and deeply offensive. As of late October 2026, Nike has not issued a public statement confirming or accepting the meeting with the CBC. However, the company's public response left an important question unanswered. How did the advertisement reach the public in the first place?

Intent vs. Impact

One of the first lessons I learned in communications was that the message you intend to send is not necessarily the message your audience receives. An advertising team might believe it has created something artistic, clever, or visually striking. But the audience brings its own history, cultural knowledge, memories and experiences to that image. The creators may have intended to celebrate a new sneaker design. Some viewers saw something entirely different. Just to be clear, the absence of proven intent doesn't erase the impact. From a communications perspective, the possibility of an unintended interpretation is precisely why creative work should be examined from more than one perspective before publication. More than you may think, ethnic or diverse communities are seldom asked about their opinion. Life has taught me to connect with different communities to get genuine feedback. For every promotional campaign, it's essential to listen to what priority audiences are saying and to hear what they aren't verbalising by observing their body language. Good intentions are not a substitute for good judgment.

Who Has a Seat at the Table? Representation & Decision-Making Authority

In my experience, some creative teams have lacked diversity at the management and decision-making levels. Even when people from different backgrounds were present, they were not always comfortable expressing disagreement. Companies frequently talk about diversity. They publish statements about inclusion. They feature people from different backgrounds in advertising campaigns to sell certain products but hardly speak directly to those communities. They celebrate cultural awareness and the importance of reaching ethnic or diverse audiences. What happens when those diverse voices aren't present when decisions are made? And what happens when they are present, but their concerns carry little weight? Working in the corporate and not-for-profit world, people of colour are often afraid to share their ideas or opinions for fear of losing their jobs or being locked out. So many staff will sit quietly, smile and pretend to agree. I learned a long time ago that the loudest voice in the room isn’t necessarily the wisest. Confidence and authority should never be mistaken for good judgment.

In my own career, I encountered racism within the advertising industry. It wasn't always expressed openly or in ways that were easy to document. Sometimes it showed up in who received opportunities, whose ideas were valued, who held decision-making authority, and whose experiences were dismissed. Those experiences stayed with me and still help me assess any room I walk into for business meetings or a restaurant where I meet friends and colleagues for a meal. As a result, those experiences shaped my decision to move away from advertising. That's why the Converse controversy raised a much larger issue for me. An organisation can employ people from many backgrounds and still have a culture in which only certain perspectives influence the final decision. Diversity is about who is in the room. Inclusion is about whose voice matters once they're there. And neither accomplishes much if people are afraid to question authority or voice their opinion. Often, many staff are afraid to speak up because their ideas are stolen.

The Danger of Groupthink: Why Do Teams Fail to Challenge an Idea?

Anyone who has worked in advertising or marketing knows how a creative presentation can develop momentum. An idea is introduced. The creative team loves it. The account executives are enthusiastic. Senior management approves it. The client is excited. Before long, everyone focuses on bringing the campaign to market. What happens when someone notices a problem, and do they feel comfortable saying so? Or do they worry about being labelled difficult, negative, not a good team member, or someone who doesn't understand the creative vision? This is where groupthink becomes dangerous. What is Groupthink? Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon where people in a group prioritise harmony and agreement over critical thinking. Instead of sharing doubts, analysing risks, or offering different ideas, members go along with the majority to avoid conflict or fit in, which often leads to poor decisions. Still, we don't know whether groupthink played a role in the Converse campaign. The company has not publicly provided a detailed account of its internal approval process. Nevertheless, the case illustrates why advertising agencies need a culture that encourages people to challenge ideas before the public does. Do you think it will ever happen?

Cultural Awareness Should Not Be Optional: Why Historical Knowledge Matters

Advertising is more than creating an attractive image or a memorable slogan. It involves understanding people and their histories, experiences, and beliefs. It's essential to learn the meanings they attach to words, colours, images and symbols. For many Black Americans, the Ku Klux Klan is not simply a reference in a history book. Its imagery is associated with racial terror, hatred, intimidation, murder and the long struggle for civil rights. Lynching imagery carries its own devastating historical significance. That history doesn't disappear because an advertising team intended to create something fashionable or artistic. Cultural awareness can't be viewed as an optional final check before an advertisement goes live. It must be a part of the creative process from the beginning.

The Apology is Only the Beginning: What Accountability Looks Like

Converse removed the advertisement and apologised. That was an important first response. But anyone who has worked in crisis communications, as we have at Promotions West Public Relations, understands that an apology is not the same as accountability. An effective response should also involve examining how the problem occurred and what changes are needed to prevent a similar incident. Did people with different cultural perspectives review the campaign? Were concerns raised in the meeting? Was there an opportunity to challenge the creative concept? Did senior management encourage questions and feedback? What procedures will change? These are questions worth asking, not accusations about what happened behind closed doors. A company can't always anticipate every possible interpretation of its advertising, but it can create systems that make avoidable mistakes less likely. It can also show that it has learned from mistakes through meaningful actions, not promises alone.

What Don't They Teach You in Advertising: The Leadership Lessons You Learned

In advertising and marketing, we spend enormous amounts of time discussing priority or target audiences, consumer behaviours, brand positioning, creative strategies and return on investment (ROI). All of those things matter, but another skill deserves equal attention. The ability to see beyond your own experience is essential. You can't understand every audience simply by studying demographics or assuming you know them better than they know themselves. You need people who can challenge your assumptions. Listen when someone points out a problem you may have missed. Leaders need to understand that being questioned is not the same as being disrespected. Often, the most valuable person in a creative meeting is not the one who says, "That's brilliant." It's the one who asks, "Have we considered how this might be interpreted?" This question could save a campaign, protect a brand and prevent unnecessary harm. At Promotions West, our staff and consultants were encouraged to be honest, share their opinions, speak up in a safe environment, and help to make every marketing and media campaign a success.

A Lesson Worth Remembering

The Converse controversy should encourage the advertising industry to look beyond its creative approval procedures. It should encourage a conversation about leadership, representation and the willingness to be an active listener. An organisation does not become culturally aware simply by using diversity language. Many companies promote diversity, equity and inclusion on their websites or in conversations, but they never seem to walk the talk. Cultural awareness requires curiosity, humility, education and a willingness to accept what we don't know. It also means giving people the confidence to speak up when something doesn't feel right. If everyone in the room agrees, perhaps the most important question is whether everyone feels free to disagree with the majority. Every day, I am grateful to have worked with intelligent, thoughtful leaders who pushed each of us to feel confident expressing our opinions and ideas to better reach our priority audiences. Every day, I sit smiling when I think of those incredible leaders and laugh at the idiotic ones who often responded, "We've been doing it the same way for years; why should we change?" I would always ask, "Was it ever successful?" Dead silence, because everyone knew the answer.

When I saw the Converse advertisement, I immediately recognised imagery that troubled me. Perhaps others saw it differently. That is precisely why diverse perspectives matter. We all bring different experiences to the images and messages we encounter. Those experiences shape what we notice, what we question, and what we understand. Advertising has immense power to influence how people see the world. With that power comes responsibility. And that responsibility can't begin only after an advertisement has caused public outrage. It must begin in the creative meeting, during the brainstorming process, throughout the review and with the people who have the authority to approve what the world will eventually see. My years in advertising, marketing, and public relations have taught me that having a seat at the table means very little if people are afraid to speak, their concerns are dismissed, or their experience is undervalued. A successful campaign should never depend solely on who has the most authority in the room. It should benefit from the knowledge, judgment and perspectives of everyone involved. So, I return to the question I asked when I first saw the Converse advertisement. Who was in the room? And more importantly, who was being listened to?