Most Gen Z and Millennials would buy from a cancelled brand again, provided it gives a sincere enough apology and takes steps to improve.
A little over a year ago, luxury fashion house Balenciaga was roundly (and rightly) criticised about a controversial marketing campaign, which led many celebrities, including Kim Kardashian, to distance themselves from the brand.
A year later, Balenciaga controversially has a new brand ambassador: Kim Kardashian. So, what changed, and does this mean the designer label is now uncancelled?
In November 2022, Balenciaga caused an uproar when it released images depicting child models holding teddy bears wearing bondage harnesses. Undeterred, in another image released later that month, a handbag from a collaboration with adidas was displayed on an office desk atop copies of a United States Supreme Court case on child pornography.
The images ignited public outrage about their inappropriateness and the implied sexualisation of minors, and sparked conspiracy theories about the brand being involved with child trafficking. The backlash also made its way offline when vandals targeted Balenciaga’s flagship Los Angeles and London stores. Consequently, Balenciaga’s reputation and profits took a hit.
Kardashian, who was closely aligned with Balenciaga, posted a statement saying she was “re-evaluating [her] relationship with the brand” based on whether it was willing “to accept accountability for something that should have never happened to begin with” and “the actions I am expecting to see them take to protect children.”
Balenciaga’s response was mixed. On one hand, it apologised, announced a three-year partnership with the National Children’s Alliance, and its French luxury group owner Kering appointed a “brand safety chief” to review major advertising campaigns. But, in a possible attempt to shift blame, it also filed a lawsuit against the set designer and creative agency behind the handbag shoot – only to quietly drop the case the following week.
The label’s lukewarm response did little to restore its image. As recently as December, Australian actress Nicole Kidman was vilified online for agreeing to be the brand’s newest ambassador. Fans labelled the announcement “creepy”.
That same month, at the Autumn 2024 runway show in LA, rapper Cardi B reportedly lost 133,619 Instagram followers within 24 hours of taking to the Balenciaga catwalk. Kardashian and sister Kendall Jenner, who attended the show, also had a significant drop in followers, losing 300,000 and 500,000 respectively.
Fast-forward a month and Kim Kardashian re-appears. This time, in a statement on Instagram, she emphasises Balenciaga’s “modernity, craftsmanship” and “innovative approach”. There was no reference to the earlier controversy, other than a vague comment about the brand’s “commitment to doing what’s right”.
There’s the argument that Balenciaga should no longer be cancelled, particularly given its apology and the (apparent) tangible efforts it took to do better in the future. The fact that more than a year has passed since the incident could also be seen as enough time for the brand to have learnt its lesson.
Even so, it’s hard to move past the serious lapses – in judgment, oversight and basic ethics – that led to the issue in the first place. Despite the passage of more than a year, the brand’s attempt to deflect blame, and continued negative public opinion, suggests it has yet to fully redeem itself.
This isn’t to say that Balenciaga deserves to be condemned forever. According to YPulse’s “Call Out Culture Trend Report”, 74% of Gen Z and Millennial survey respondents would buy from a cancelled brand again, provided the brand gives a sincere enough apology and takes steps to improve.
Cancel culture is multifaceted, fostering critical dialogue about social justice and promoting fair practices when it is used as a tool for public accountability. Yet, the seemingly effortless recovery of problematic brands or individuals may indicate a growing fatigue with cancel culture.
For example, fashion giant Zara faced a backlash over a controversial ad campaign eerily reminiscent of the Israel-Hamas war, but it is unclear whether its profits have been affected, suggesting consumers are disengaged.
It is also true that if we really want an item, we’ll buy it and look past considerations like plastic packaging or whether a block of chocolate is fair trade. In the case of the luxury consumer purchases – say, a bag upwards of $2500 - research suggests that buyers’ propensity to consider ethics is significantly lower for these compared to commoditised goods.
Kardashian, for her part, appears to be navigating the tightrope between capitalising on her public image and maintaining credibility. Her initial statement left the door open for precisely that, though just how quickly she re-joined the brand raised eyebrows. Yet, as the eighth most-followed person on Instagram worldwide, losing a few hundred thousand followers barely makes a dent in her 364 million-strong following.
The Kardashians have form for this sort of turnaround. Dolce & Gabbana hosted and dressed the family for Kourtney and Travis Barker’s 2022 wedding – despite co-founder Stefano Gabbana having once called the family [sic] “the most cheap people in the world.” Dolce & Gabbana is no stranger to controversy either as the brand has been criticised for a series of instances of racism and homophobia.
Will Kardashian and Balenciaga sidestep enduring backlash? If the outcome is negative, it will serve as a stark reminder of the challenges inherent in recovering from “cancellation” and the risks celebrities face when associating with brands yet to fully atone for past transgressions. If reaction is muted, it will underscore the potential waning power of cancel culture and the way scrutiny of celebrity culture might be changing.
