How’d Adidas handle the situation?

Here’s their
initial response, and the follow up that put a halt to
the issue, from a PRDaily article by Michael
Sebastian:

First, Adidas weighed in with this comment (to Fox

News):

“The JS Roundhouse Mid is part of the Fall/Winter

2012 design collaboration between Adidas Originals
and Jeremy Scott. The design of the JS Roundhouse
Mid is nothing more than the designer Jeremy
Scott’s outrageous and unique take on fashion and
has nothing to do with slavery.

“Jeremy Scott is renowned as a designer whose

style is quirky and lighthearted and his previous
shoe designs for Adidas Originals have, for
example, included panda heads and Mickey Mouse.
Any suggestion that this is linked to slavery is
untruthful.”

Notice the company stopped short of apologizing; it

didn’t even issue one of those “we’re sorry if
someone was offended” non-apologies.
Shortly after issuing that statement, Adidas chimed
in again, saying it won’t release the controversial
sneakers in August and, in fact, issuing the “we’re
sorry if you’re offended” apology. To wit (via New
York Daily News ):

“Since the shoe debuted on our Facebook page

ahead of its market release in August, Adidas has
received both favorable and critical feedback. We
apologize if people are offended by the design and
we are withdrawing our plans to make them
available in the marketplace.”

Although Adidas did miss what should have been a

fairly obvious fact, that placing shackles on a shoe
marketed strongly to an African-American
demographic would create loads of ill will, the
athletic shoe giant did a solid job of stopping the
crisis before it got out of control. The initial
response shared facts and explained very clearly
that the shoe absolutely was not meant in any way
to be associated with slavery. When public opinion
continued to spiral downhill, Adidas decided to
apologize and pull the plug on the shoe altogether.
Although it undoubtedly lost them money in the
short term to do so, the reputation saved will be
worth infinitely more in the long run.
A spokesperson for Nivea's owners Beiersdorf said: "There have been concerns
risen about ethnic discrimination due to a post about Nivea Deodorant Invisible for
Black & White on our Nivea Middle East Facebook page.
"We are deeply sorry to anyone who may take offence to this specific post. After
realizing that the post is misleading, it was immediately withdrawn.
"Diversity and equal opportunity are crucial values of Nivea: the brand represents
diversity, tolerance, and equal opportunity.
"We value difference. Direct or indirect discrimination must be ruled out in all
decisions by, and in all areas of our activities."
c cuffs and chains to be strapped around the ankles of
the wearer, have been referred to as "shackle" shoes
and have elicited comparisons to chains worn by slaves.
The designer and Adidas both claim that the shoes were
not intended to depict slave shackles, but the decision
was made to abandon the design when many
consumers made that very connection after seeing
pictures of the new design online.