The H&M hoodie controversy began on January 8, 2018, when H&M's UK website showed a young Black boy modeling a hoodie reading "Coolest Monkey in the Jungle." H&M removed the image and apologized the same day, but protesters vandalized its South African stores on January 13 and the company temporarily closed them. On January 16 it appointed a global leader for diversity and inclusiveness.
What happened in the H&M hoodie controversy?
The H&M hoodie controversy ran over about a week, and each step added pressure.
| Date (2018) | Event | Why it mattered |
|---|
| January 8 | The image of a Black child in a hoodie reading "Coolest Monkey in the Jungle" draws backlash. H&M apologizes and removes the image. The Weeknd announces he will stop working with H&M | A celebrity partner ended the relationship on day one |
| January 9 | H&M issues a stronger statement and says the hoodie will be recycled | The brand moved from regret over offense to withdrawing the product |
| January 13 | Protesters from South Africa's Economic Freedom Fighters vandalize H&M stores in Johannesburg-area malls. H&M temporarily closes its South African stores | The crisis moved from screens to physical stores and staff safety |
| January 15 | At least two South African stores reopen, according to Bloomberg | Closures were short, though H&M said it would reopen stores only when safe |
| January 16 | H&M appoints Annie Wu as global leader for diversity and inclusiveness | The first structural response, eight days after the image |
The word "monkey" has a documented history as a racist trope against people of African descent, which is why critics read the pairing of slogan and model as offensive. CBS News reported that artists including Diddy and Questlove joined The Weeknd in expressing outrage, and consumers vowed to stop shopping at the chain. NBC News reported that LeBron James was also among those who criticized the image.
Who was involved in the case?
Six named parties shaped the H&M case, from the company to the party whose supporters entered its stores.
| Party | Role | Part in the case |
|---|
| H&M | Swedish fashion retailer headquartered in Stockholm | Published the image, apologized and closed its South African stores |
| Karl-Johan Persson | H&M chief executive | Led the company when it reported its first-quarter 2018 results |
| The Weeknd | Canadian artist who had appeared in H&M campaigns since 2017 | Said he would not work with the brand again |
| G-Eazy | American rapper | Cancelled a partnership with H&M, according to NBC News |
| Economic Freedom Fighters | South African political party | Its supporters vandalized stores, and its leader said the stores were targeted because of the hoodie |
| Annie Wu | H&M employee since 2012 and global manager for employee relations | Appointed global leader for diversity and inclusiveness on January 16 |
How did H&M respond, stage by stage?
H&M responded in four stages: a first apology, a stronger second statement, a safety-led closure in South Africa and a structural fix.
The first statement, reported by Fox News, apologized for offending people, said the image had been removed from all online channels and said H&M would review its internal policies. Critics argued that the statement apologized for the offense and not for publishing the image. CBS reported that the hoodie was still available on the website on Monday morning, even after the image came down.
The following day H&M said it had "got this wrong," that passive or casual racism needs to be eradicated wherever it exists, and that the hoodie would be removed from sale and recycled, according to NBC News.
On January 13, H&M said it had temporarily closed its stores in South Africa out of concern for the safety of employees and customers, and stressed that its store staff had nothing to do with the product or image, according to Business Day's report of the Bloomberg story.
On January 16, H&M posted a longer statement that said the position was simple: it had got things wrong and was deeply sorry. It also said it was reaching out to staff, critics, experts, influencers and business partners for feedback, according to News24's report on the statement. The same day it named Annie Wu to the new diversity role, a post based at its Stockholm head office, according to FashionUnited's report on the appointment.
What did the backlash cost H&M?
The backlash cost H&M partnerships, a short period of store closures in South Africa and a management-time burden, but the company's reported profit fall that quarter was attributed to other causes.
| Measure | Result | Source |
|---|
| Partnerships | The Weeknd and G-Eazy ended or cancelled collaborations | NBC News |
| South African stores | Temporarily closed, with at least two reopened by January 15 | Bloomberg, via Business Day |
| South Africa's weight in revenue | 0.3% of H&M's total revenue in the third quarter of 2017 | Bloomberg, via Business Day |
| Operating profit, three months to February 2018 | Down 62% to 1.2 billion kronor, the lowest first-quarter profit in 16 years | Business of Fashion, citing Bloomberg |
Several outlets linked the first-quarter profit fall to the hoodie. The Bloomberg and Business of Fashion reporting attributes it to unseasonable weather swings and a record pile of unsold garments, according to Fin24's republication of the Bloomberg report, and the stock slumped to its lowest level since 2005 on that inventory news, according to Business Standard's version of the same report. The reporting does not attribute the profit fall to the controversy.
The cost that is clear from the sources is the loss of partners and the disruption in South Africa. Fox News reported that Economic Freedom Fighters supporters stormed H&M stores in Johannesburg, including the Sandton flagship. The same report said the child's mother defended H&M, a reminder that families can be pulled into a brand crisis they did not choose.
What went wrong in the H&M response?
The H&M response had four weaknesses, and the first is the one that made the case a study. Each one has a fix that costs far less than the crisis.
| What went wrong | What to do instead |
|---|
| The first apology addressed offense, not the decision to publish | Apologize for the act and name what was wrong with it |
| Removal was incomplete: the product and image lingered on some channels | Pull every asset in every market at once and confirm it |
| No accountable owner was named in the first statement | Announce a named owner and a concrete fix in the first response |
| Local exposure was underestimated in markets such as South Africa | Map store, staff and market risk before the first statement |
The deeper failure came before the crisis. The image cleared an internal creative and approval chain without anyone flagging the slogan and model pairing. Brands that review creative with people able to spot culturally loaded combinations catch these problems before they ship.
The timing also matters. H&M named its accountable owner eight days after the image, after the stores had already been vandalized. A brand that names the owner in the first statement gives audiences someone to hold responsible before the protest moves to the shop floor.
How does the H&M case compare with other brand creative crises?
The H&M case follows a pattern seen in other creative crises: a decision passes internal review and fails an outside cultural read. See the Pepsi Kendall Jenner ad, the Balenciaga ad scandal case study and Anheuser-Busch and Bud Light. For the foundational playbook, see EPR's crisis communications pillar, the Tylenol crisis of 1982 and its fashion coverage.
What is the lesson of the H&M case in one sentence?
The H&M case shows that the first statement sets the length of a crisis: a brand that names the mistake, pulls every asset and names an accountable owner on day one limits the damage, and a brand that does these in sequence over eight days does not. A team can use the table above as a launch check: if the creative has not been reviewed by someone able to read it as an outsider would, it is not ready.
