Adidas & Ye: Better Late Than Never?
What we can learn from adidas’ response to Ye’s antisemitic rampage
By Amelia Fogg
Director
adidas’ silence following antisemitic hate speech by Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, was the subject of significant and protracted media attention, snarky memes, and public scrutiny. By the time adidas issued its long-awaited statement and severed ties with Ye, the company had already suffered meaningful damage to its brand, reputation, and value, making for an instructive case study on why timing is crucial and every word matters.
What Happened?
On October 6, adidas put its Yeezy partnership on review just days following Ye’s use of “White Lives Matter” shirts during Paris Fashion Week, affirming that it would “continue to comanage the current product during this period.”
Days later, the company was notably silent when Ye began to spread antisemitic hate on social media and in media interviews. In an October 16th podcast interview, the rapper even boasted: "I can say anti-Semitic things, and Adidas can't drop me. Now what? Now what?” (this episode has since been taken down). For more than a week, adidas proved him right.
Despite the ongoing controversy, the company released a new color-way for a sneaker in Ye’s eponymous Yeezy shoe line on October 23, two days before the company formally terminated the partnership, signaling – at best – a lack of coordination and alignment within the business and – at worst – intentional indifference to Ye’s hateful and dangerous statements.
Legal, operational, and financial considerations likely constrained the speed at which adidas took action – particularly given the company’s tenuous financial situation; however, the significant delay suggests that the company did not have contingency plans in place for executing and communicating a separation from Ye – which is surprising and arguably irresponsible given the importance of the partnership to adidas’ business and Ye’s demonstrated volatility and penchant for unhinged, often offensive, public statements.
It’s worth noting that the company faced uniquely high expectations to decry antisemitism immediately and unconditionally given its historical links to the Nazi Party. The company’s troubled past gave it all the more reason to affirm its values and attempt to undermine residual association between the company and antisemitism.
More than two weeks after Ye began his antisemitic tirade, adidas finally took a stand – but only after:
Prominent organizations like JPMorgan Chase, Gap, Footlocker, Balenciaga, Vogue, and others denounced Ye’s actions and terminated their relationships with Ye and/or their affiliations with Yeezy
The Anti-Defamation league published a letter to adidas, highlighting the harm Ye’s comments are causing and calling for adidas to cut ties with Ye
Its stock price fell 23% in the course of a month (as reported by DealBook)
Politicians, activists, celebrities, adidas employees, and hundreds of thousands of members of the public rebuked adidas’ inaction and called for the company to condemn Ye’s actions and end the relationship
Too Little Too Late?
The company released the following statement on October 25th:
By waiting so long to comment or take action, and despite whatever careful consideration and “thorough review” adidas claims to have undertaken, the company unintentionally put itself in an unwinnable situation. The damage was done long before it made a statement, and even a world class response couldn’t have completely undone the reputational harm the company had already incurred by delaying comment for such an extended period.
That said, a credible and authentic statement that took ownership of its missteps could have helped adidas save face and lay the groundwork necessary to begin repairing its image. Unfortunately, their statement fell short in a few key ways.
What Didn’t Work
“Immediately”
The headline and body of the response state that the partnership was terminated “immediately,” an ironic framing for a company who was so widely criticized for its weeks-long silence. Instead of writing what was likely meant here, “effective immediately,” adidas made a glaring misstatement that signaled a lack of contextual awareness.
“Does not tolerate”
adidas also claimed that it “does not tolerate antisemitism and any other sort of hate speech,” and this is a strong and compelling message – if it’s true. But what do the company’s more than two weeks of silence represent, if not toleration of West’s behavior?
When an organization states its values and claims to have zero tolerance policies for violations of those values, it must be prepared to follow through on its promises swiftly and decisively to maintain its credibility.
The company also cited a “thorough review” that informed its decision to cut ties with Ye. But why – if Ye publicly, flagrantly, and repeatedly violated the company’s stated values of “diversity and inclusion, mutual respect and fairness” – did this decision require a thorough review And how does one reconcile this with the fact that the company “does not tolerate” hateful language or antisemitism? Conducting a “thorough review” is admittedly commonplace and typically considered a best practice when a company is determining how to respond to a crisis, but when an individual’s transgressions are so public and hateful – to the degree that almost no amount of context could possibly justify them – the benefits of acting quickly far outweigh anything that a detailed review might yield.
Since there shouldn’t have been much else for the company to consider with regards to Ye’s actions, adidas’ “thorough review” language – taken together with its reference to its decision’s supposedly limited financial impact – suggests that the adidas team probably wasn’t just closely reviewing the rapper’s conduct during that period. We can only speculate, but the way the statement is framed makes it sound as though adidas may have been waiting to see the full extent of the blowback so it could more accurately weigh the business cost of severing ties with Ye against the ethical costs – raising significant questions about the authenticity of its supposed commitment to its stated values.
As a whole, the statement leaves us wondering:
Why did the company wait so long to cut ties?
Did adidas terminate the relationship because of what Ye did or because of the financial and reputational repercussions of its silence?
Does adidas value profit over doing what’s right?
Does adidas truly stand by its stated values?
What We Can Learn
While it remains to be seen whether the damage to adidas’ reputation will endure, there are a number of lessons that other organizations can learn from this situation:
When crafting a statement or response to controversy, every word counts. Ensure that the response is accurate and is something the organization can credibly say.
Timing and consistency are important – don’t wait too long to respond and confirm that your organization is in alignment to avoid potentially tone deaf actions that may conflict with the organization’s position.
Backlash on social media should not be discounted and can quickly snowball into a national story with meaningful ramifications for reputation and value.
Don’t shy away from opportunities to re-frame a narrative by putting action behind your organization’s stated values.
Be prepared – establish a framework for how your organization will handle and communicate around scenarios in which a high-profile partner does something that goes against the organization’s values. If designed correctly, this framework can be used to accelerate the decision-making process and help ensure your company is able to respond quickly and authentically when a situation arises.
A number of companies and organizations still have yet to cut ties with Ye – namely, major music streaming services – and are facing mounting pressure to do so. While some have commented on the situation or taken limited action, they should bear the above recommendations in mind when charting their paths forward.