September 27, 2026
Converse’s Latest Controversy Shows Why Cultural Competency Is A Business Imperative
The sneaker giant’s apology offers a lesson for every company investing in branding, marketing, and consumer trust.
By Caleb L. Green, Esq.
Reflect for a moment on the Converse ad and the image that circulated.
At first glance, it appears to be nothing more than a sneaker advertisement. Yet for many consumers, the imagery evokes something far more troubling.
Converse found itself at the center of a growing controversy after consumers criticized an advertisement from its Chuck 70 X campaign, pictured above, arguing that the image evoked symbolism associated with the Ku Klux Klan and the lynching of Black Americans. The company ultimately removed the advertisement and issued a public apology, acknowledging that it understood why many people found the image upsetting.
As a trademark and branding attorney, my immediate reaction was not whether the advertisement violated any law. It almost certainly did not. My question was much simpler:
“How did this make it through review?”
That question matters because the Converse controversy is not really about sneakers. It is about something much bigger: the growing gap between legal approval and cultural awareness.
Intent Does Not Eliminate Impact
To be clear, there is currently no evidence that Converse intentionally incorporated racist imagery into its campaign. In all likelihood, this was an unfortunate combination of lighting, shadows, wardrobe choices, and composition.
But intent is only part of the equation. Consumers do not experience branding through internal company discussions, creative briefs, or marketing meetings. Consumers experience branding through what they see.
And what many consumers saw was a pointed white shape resembling a Klan hood, accompanied by hanging shoes that some interpreted as evoking lynching imagery. Whether that interpretation was intended is ultimately less important than the fact that thousands of people arrived at the same conclusion almost immediately.
That should concern every brand and marketing leader.
Every Brand Needs Cultural Due Diligence
Businesses routinely conduct legal due diligence. They clear trademarks, review advertising claims, assess regulatory compliance, and evaluate intellectual property risks. But very few organizations perform what I call cultural due diligence.
Cultural due diligence asks a different set of questions:
• How might this imagery be interpreted outside the conference room?
• Does this symbol carry historical meaning for particular communities?
• Are there cultural references we are overlooking?
• How could this campaign be perceived by the consumers we hope to reach?
Those questions are not about politics. Nor are they about being “woke.” They are about competent risk management, consumer perception, and brand stewardship. Companies spend millions of dollars building brands and cultivating goodwill. All of that investment can be undermined when an organization fails to recognize how a message, image, or symbol may be received by the public.
This Isn’t the First Time
The Converse controversy joins a growing list of branding decisions that generated backlash not because they were legally problematic, but because they revealed a lack of cultural awareness.
We saw similar reactions when Walmart introduced Juneteenth-themed products. We saw it when Michael B. Jordan’s rum brand adopted the name “J’Ouvert,” a culturally significant Caribbean tradition. We have also seen public controversy arise from attempts to commercialize social justice movements, like #MeToo.
In each instance, the legal analysis was only part of the story. The larger question was whether the organization had taken the time to understand how the communities connected to those symbols, traditions, and histories might react.
Diversity is a Competitive Advantage
One of the most effective ways to avoid these situations is surprisingly straightforward: include diverse perspectives in the decision-making process and ensure those voices are genuinely empowered to be heard.
A marketing team composed of individuals with different experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives is far more likely to identify potential concerns before a campaign ever reaches the public. The question is not whether every concern ultimately proves valid. The question is whether someone felt empowered to raise the concern in the first place.
Had someone looked at the Converse advertisement and asked, “Does anyone else think this resembles a Klan hood?” the company may have avoided a national controversy altogether.
Brand Protection is About More Than Legal Considerations
What makes the Converse controversy particularly instructive is that it illustrates a type of risk that cannot be identified through a trademark search, copyright review, or legal compliance check. The campaign may have passed every traditional legal review. Yet it still generated the very outcome brands work so hard to avoid: negative publicity, consumer distrust, and damage to goodwill.
For companies investing significant resources into building brand equity, that should be a sobering reminder that legal review and cultural review serve different, but equally important, functions. For decades, trademark lawyers have helped businesses protect valuable brand assets. Traditionally, that meant securing registrations, enforcing intellectual property rights, and preventing consumer confusion.
Today, however, some of the greatest threats to brand value have nothing to do with infringement. They come from reputational harm.
Brand equity is built on trust.
Trust is built on understanding.
And understanding requires cultural awareness.
Consumers increasingly expect companies to recognize the historical and cultural significance of the messages they place into the marketplace. Businesses that fail to meet those expectations face consequences that can be every bit as damaging as a lawsuit or trademark dispute.
The Real Lesson for Corporate America
The most important takeaway from the Converse controversy is not whether the advertisement was intentionally offensive. The more important question is whether companies are equipped to identify cultural risks before consumers do.
Too often, the answer appears to be no.
For business leaders, marketers, entrepreneurs, and the professionals who advise them, the lesson is straightforward: legal review alone is no longer enough. Brands must evaluate campaigns through cultural, historical, and social lenses before they launch. Organizations that embrace cultural competency as part of their brand strategy will be better positioned to build trust, avoid preventable controversies, and create deeper connections with the communities they serve.
The reality is that consumers do not evaluate brands exclusively through legal frameworks. They evaluate them through lived experiences, cultural memory, and historical context. A campaign can be legally compliant and still fail in the marketplace if it ignores those realities.
That is why cultural competency should not be viewed as a public relations exercise or a diversity initiative. It is a core component of modern brand stewardship.
In today’s marketplace, cultural competency is not simply a matter of corporate citizenship. It is a matter of brand protection. And increasingly, it may be one of the most valuable forms of risk management a company can invest in.
Bio: Caleb L. Green is a Partner at Howard & Howard PLLC, an adjunct professor at the William S. Boyd School of Law, and the 2026-2027 Chair of the Young Lawyers Division of the National Bar Association. His practice focuses on trademarks, branding, intellectual property litigation, and brand protection.
