I am not inventing gunpowder here, but "terrace shoes" (Samba, Gazelle and the like) are having a major moment worldwide. Adidas, knowing that the Samba craze cannot go on indefinitely is trying to ride the wave launching (or rather solidifying) the next "it" shoe from its archives - the sleek SL 72 which was designed for the 1972 Munich Olympics. Yes, the same Olympics where 11 Israeli athletes lost their lives in a Palestinian operation.
As usual, a hoard of celebrities were used in the campaign - rapper A$AP Nast, footballer Jules Kounde, Chinese model Sabrina Lan, and... Bella Hadid. Hadid, one of the world's literal supermodels (and I admit I much prefer her to her sister Gigi, owing to Bella's charisma), is also a barometer of taste for a whole generation. Sites like hypebeast and highsnobiety have articles dedicated to what Bella Hadid wore for a milkshake stroll in New York - whatever she endorses is bound to be a hit.
But Hadid are also of of Palestinian descent and are very vocal - Bella more than Gigi - about their support of the Palestinian cause. If you link that to a shoe designed for "that" Olympics, and living in a world where everyone and anyone has an opinion, the mismatch is a bit obvious. So Adidas pulled the Hadid ads related to the SL 72.
My opinion? That was a genius move!
No ad - and ergo product - gets more coverage than one that was pulled. When Benetton wanted to exhibit it very sensitive ad for naked crotches in London it hired a gigantic space only for the permission to exhibit it was withdrawn - so everyone kept asking "who was supposed to exhibit here?" and more than ever the ad (which never ran) got more and more people talking about Benetton. Another instance? Zodiac, the pneumatic boat manufacturer wanted to run an ad with the French president Giscard d'Estaing on his Zodiac. The Elysee Palace who gets early editions of Le Monde vetoed the ad. So the space ran blank. Same question "who was supposed to exhibit here?"
Here's a third local story (originally published here):
In 2010, the country woke up to the ads of lingerie and pantyhose brand Marie France being ripped. The first reflex was that a Muslim fundamentalist did so, a while later a person I know told me "did you see what I did to the Marie France ads?" - the man in question was married, educated in Lebanon and Europe and still found it logical for him to to rip the panels for what he called "anti-Christian values". The same day he did what he did, the Marie France agent called Voix du Liban and said "I wish to thank that person what he did, now even men are aware of the brand, so thank you for the free publicity".
Now, in many instances banning an ad is not always positive for the brand. But, Adidas got more ink about pulling the Hadid ads than the original campaign featuring her. SL 72 is bound to be a hit - anyone sympathizing with the Palestinian plight will buy it, those who don't care will too (Adidas is selling its restock of Yeezy - designed by Kanye West and his very public antisemitic views - by the bucket load, and people are buying them not caring for the association).
In Arabic there is a proverb "everything that is banned is desired". And let it be known, Adidas got a tonne of free advertising in the process.