Fashion giant Zara hit with boycott after poorly timed ad campaign

Protestors showed up to Zara stores with bundles of white blankets, dropping them on payment counters. They also spray-painted storefronts with red paint.

On Instagram, tens of thousands of users left comments containing Palestinian flags and typed calls to ‘#BoycottZara’, causing the company to remove the images from both its website and social media channels.

Inditex, which owns Zara, called the campaign a ‘misunderstanding.’ It acknowledged the outcry in a post on its social channels, explaining that the campaign was created in July and photographed in September, a month before the Israel-Hamas conflict erupted.

Still, many viewers of campaign felt it was insensitive to greenlight the campaign, saying ‘It doesn’t matter when it was conceptualised, it takes one person to know that it does not need to go live’.

On top of this negligence, the Internet always keeps receipts – and this is evidently not the first time Zara has landed in hot water with supporters of the Palestinian cause.

The head designer of Zara’s women’s department Vanessa Perilman sent inflammatory messages to Palestinian model Qaher Harhash on Instagram back in July of 2021. When Harhash posted screenshots of the conversation to his story, Zara promptly released a statement condemning ‘any lack of respect to any culture, religion, country, race or belief.’

According to later screenshots posted to the Harhash’s profile, Perilman had messaged him again to retract her statements, saying:

‘I’m sorry if this fight started something more than it should have but now it’s getting out of control,’ wrote Perilman, adding that she felt ‘terrible’ and ‘so bad’. ‘This is not who I am,’ she wrote. ‘I am so so sorry. I really hope you can forgive me.’

Funny how people’s hate can dissolve the moment their income is on the line – which is exactly the point of withholding support for large companies in times like these.

The ongoing boycotts related to what is happening in Gaza are drawing attention to how citizens can incite social change by being conscious of their spending power.

With capitalism reigning over every aspect of our lives – and governments turning a blind eye to humanitarian issues – individuals are realising that withholding their hard-earned money from corporations that don’t align with their values may be the best way to make their voices heard.

Starbuck’s immediate withdrawal from Morocco following a widespread boycott is proof that boycotts are effective in communicating a lack of discontent and consumer interest in certain brands.

However, longevity matters. Many boycotts are often short-lived, meaning their impact does not often result in the collapse of entire economies or businesses. The lasting damage is more often attributed to a brand’s name and image given the media attention boycotts receive.

In today’s society – where our attention spans seem to grow shorter by the day – it has been interesting to see calls for boycotts growing, rather than dwindling. We will have to wait and see what the future brings for these brands once the dust finally (hopefully) settles in Gaza.