A few weeks ago, Zara released "The Jacket" campaign, where photographer Tim Walker staged model Kristen McMenamy "in front of a deconstructed workspace of sorts, filled with empty boxes and destroyed walls. Around her, there is dust, drywall, broken stones, rubble, and statues, some of which are missing limbs and others wrapped in white cloth. In one photo, McMenamy is holding a stiff mannequin wrapped in a white shroud. In some shots, other models around her are covered in dust," as The Cut's Danya Issawi described.
The public quickly began drawing similarities between Zara's December 7th campaign and Hamas' October 7th attacks. This is not a political blog, so I don't want to get into much about the war besides simply explaining what happened for those of us who live under a rock: on October 7th, terrorist group Hamas surprise-attacked southern Israel.
Issawi explained that the public started calling the campaign "insensitive," and some people even believed the narrative that this campaign was "intentional." She cites one Tweet saying, "Even if it was a mistake — you're not aware enough of current affairs to be working in marketing."
For days after the campaign launched, Zara released a statement addressing the backlash. The post explained that the concept was conceived in July and shot in September, before the attacks took place, relieving it from drawing any inspiration from the attacks, glamorizing it, or making a political statement by releasing this campaign.
The post goes on to say, "Unfortunately, some customers felt offended by these images… and saw in them something far from what was intended when they were created. Zara regrets that misunderstanding, and we reaffirm our deep respect towards everyone."
Zara has since pulled the campaign entirely.
It appears the last few weeks have been dripping with crisis PR gold, and I am ready to give my opinion on Zara's response. I agree with the Tweet cited by Issawi in The Cut's piece - "Even if it was a mistake — you're not aware enough of current affairs to be working in marketing." While Zara explained that the concept and shoot were all done before the attacks, it baffles me that no matter the number of desks this campaign crosses or how many eyes it had before it went out there, it was still published. The October 7th attacks shook the world. Someone at Zara must've noticed the parallels. Production could've (and should've) been stopped.
Zara's apology was flimsy at best because it is simply not an apology at all. "Sorry" or "apologize" is nowhere to be found in the statement. Just "regret" and "unfortunately." Zara took no responsibility for how this campaign made its consumers feel. The statement covered Zara's ass by sharing the timeline of the campaign and basically said, if you're offended by this, that's on you.
Its only saving grace is that they pulled the campaign.
If I were on Zara's PR team, I would be more sympathetic towards this backlash and validate people's emotions towards the campaign. I would also have the company donate to ActionAid, Anera, Doctors without Borders, The International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Rescue Committee, or any of the amazing humanitarian organizations giving aid to the victims. There is a way to help without taking a stand or making it political. Maybe you have caught on; my PR moves are very "actions speak louder than words" coded.
If you feel so inclined to donate to one of these organizations, I found this article by NPR very informative and helpful.
Comments