Swatch Apologizes for Eye Gesture Ad as China Backlash Adds to Sales Pressure

A withdrawn advertisement puts a crucial market at risk

Swatch has apologized and removed advertising worldwide after an image for its Essentials collection showed an Asian male model pulling the corners of his eyes up and back. The gesture, widely recognized as a racist taunt against people of East Asian descent, triggered outrage in China, calls for a boycott and fresh pressure on a watch business already facing falling sales.

By August 19, 2025, the controversy had spread across Chinese social media, where millions of Weibo users criticized the image. Some accused the Swiss watchmaker of deliberate racism. Others asked how a company with years of experience in China could have approved it.

Swatch shares fell by as much as 4% before partially recovering. The reaction came at a difficult moment: China, Hong Kong and Macau account for approximately 27% of revenue at the group, which also owns Omega, Longines and Tissot.

Swatch issued an apology in Chinese and English through its Weibo and Instagram accounts and said it had immediately removed the material globally. Its response addressed the image's distribution, while consumers continued to challenge both the advertisement and the decisions that allowed it to appear.

The dispute brings together two pressures on international brands in China: the need to treat customers with respect and the commercial importance of retaining their trust. For Swatch, an offensive image has become a business problem just as weaker Chinese demand, a broader luxury slowdown and American tariffs are making trading conditions harder.

Why the gesture caused anger

The Essentials advertisement featured a model using his hands to pull the outer corners of his eyes upward and backward. The movement imitates an almond eye shape and has long been used in Western countries to mock and dehumanize people of East Asian descent.

Many Asian communities associate the gesture with racism, exclusion and disrespect. Its use in advertising or public imagery is widely condemned. In China, sensitivity to foreign portrayals of Chinese people and strong national pride contributed to the force of the response.

The offensive eye gesture is widely recognized in East Asia as a racist insult. Seeing it in a campaign from an established international company heightened the anger and disbelief among consumers.

Criticism focused on the pose, its history and the decision to publish it. A global advertising campaign passes through people responsible for selecting images and approving their release. Consumers wanted to know how a gesture with such an association had survived those checks.

What Swatch said in its apology

Swatch said it had "taken note of the recent concerns regarding the portrayal of a model" and confirmed that related advertising had been removed from all platforms worldwide. The company published its response on both Weibo and Instagram, addressing audiences in China and outside it.

In its public apology, Swatch acknowledged the reaction and described the action it had taken:

We sincerely apologize for any distress or misunderstanding this may have caused. We treat this matter with the utmost importance and have immediately removed all related materials worldwide.

The use of Chinese and English reflected the international reach of the controversy. Removing the material globally also extended the response beyond the Chinese market where the backlash had gathered strength.

Swatch's statement did not satisfy all of its critics. Some consumers accused the company of apologizing to protect its profits, while others said they would continue to boycott the brand. The speed of the response became part of the debate about whether the damage would fade or persist.

Consumers question the approval process

Justin Zhao, a student in China aged 23, expressed surprise that a brand familiar to Chinese shoppers could have released the advertisement. His reaction captured a recurring concern: Swatch's long presence in the country should have helped it recognize the problem before publication.

Zhao described his response to the image and questioned the approvals behind it:

When I saw this news, I was quite shocked. Swatch has been in the Chinese market for many years, and I feel like most people are familiar with the brand. I don't know why they did it. They were able to somehow release this after going through numerous approvals.

The backlash and apology drew attention to how international campaigns are reviewed. Advertising can pass through several layers of approval and still reach the public with content that customers find offensive. Online critics called for Swatch to investigate its internal processes and hold those responsible accountable.

One Weibo user, whose comment went viral, rejected the idea that an apology could repair the injury:

The damage is done. No apology can erase the insult.

Another Weibo user connected the perceived insult directly to demands for a boycott:

They make money from us and still dare to discriminate against Chinese people. We would be spineless if we don't boycott it out of China.

Those responses show why removing an advertisement may leave a company with further work. Consumers were asking about respect, responsibility and the decisions behind the campaign, as well as whether the image remained online.

Weibo turns criticism into a national controversy

Weibo, China's largest social media platform, has more than 580 million users. Its scale allows criticism of an advertisement to spread from individual posts into a national debate within hours.

Hashtags about Swatch quickly trended, and boycott calls circulated across platforms. Millions of users criticized the advertisement, giving the company little time to assess the reaction before responding publicly.

For a brand, this creates a practical problem: an image may be removed from official accounts while discussion of it continues among consumers. Swatch faced pressure to act immediately because the advertisement had already become the subject of a much wider conversation.

The anger also carried a demand for action from shoppers themselves. Some users wanted others to stop buying Swatch products, turning criticism of a marketing decision into a potential threat to sales.

Two assessments of the damage

Mark Borkowski, a public relations consultant based in London, described the advertisement as "a fundamental mistake" by a company of Swatch's size. His criticism focused on the care expected from an established global brand.

Borkowski said the campaign represented a serious failure:

It is very significant for a brand of that scale to misfire in this way. This carelessness is really quite a fundamental mistake.

Peter Xu, a Chinese fashion influencer with more than seven million followers on Weibo, also criticized the decision to release the images. He expected the controversy to affect Swatch's business in China, while suggesting that the quick apology might limit lasting damage.

Xu linked his assessment of the likely duration of the backlash to the company's response:

It was pretty stupid to release images like those ones, but given the speed of the apology, the fallout is likely to be short-lived.

The two assessments identify different parts of the same problem. Borkowski focused on the failure that allowed the campaign to appear. Xu focused on whether a rapid response could keep that failure from developing into a prolonged commercial crisis.

Why China matters so much to Swatch

China, Hong Kong and Macau generate approximately 27% of Swatch Group's global revenue, slightly more than a quarter. That concentration makes a loss of consumer confidence in these markets especially costly for a group already struggling with weaker demand.

Swatch's revenue fell 14.6% in 2024 to 6.74 billion Swiss francs, about $8.4 billion. Weak demand in China was a major factor. Revenue then fell a further 11.2% in the first half of 2025.

The Chinese revenue exposure helps explain investor concern about a prolonged boycott. Swatch is both the name of the watch brand at the center of the controversy and part of the wider group whose portfolio includes Omega, Longines and Tissot.

The share price decline of as much as 4%, followed by a partial recovery, reflected concern that the dispute could add to pressure on sales. As of August 19, the eventual duration of the boycott calls and the resulting sales impact were not yet known.

The group also faced a 39% tariff on exports to the United States and a global slowdown in demand for luxury goods. A tariff is a tax on goods entering a country. Together, these pressures left Swatch confronting challenges in major markets while trying to contain an advertising crisis in China.

A timeline of earlier brand disputes

Swatch's controversy follows several disputes involving international brands and Chinese consumers. The earlier cases involved different subjects, including advertising imagery and positions on cotton sourcing and alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

• 2018: Dolce & Gabbana faced a boycott after a campaign showed a Chinese model struggling to eat Italian food with chopsticks. Many viewers saw the advertisement as mocking Chinese women.
• 2021: H&M, Nike and Adidas faced boycotts after expressing concerns about alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang province.
• 2023: Dior was accused of racism over a campaign featuring a similar eye gesture.
• 2024: Japanese retailer Uniqlo was targeted after stating that it did not source cotton from Xinjiang.
• By August 19, 2025: Swatch had apologized and withdrawn the advertising worldwide following anger over the Essentials image.

Earlier controversies involving Dolce & Gabbana, Dior and other brands have shown the commercial consequences of such disputes, including products being removed from online shopping platforms, canceled events and reputational damage lasting years.

China offers international brands a large market and accounts for a substantial share of global luxury sales. Chinese consumers have also become increasingly vocal and organized in defending their cultural identity and demanding respect from foreign companies.

For Swatch, the earlier disputes supplied a familiar context for the public reaction. The particular offense centered on the eye gesture, while the wider concern was whether an international company understood and respected the people buying its products.

What campaign reviews need to address

Swatch's experience puts attention on who reviews international advertising and whether those people can stop an image before publication. Multiple approvals are useful only when the reviewers recognize the problem and have the authority to act on it.

Local knowledge and a range of perspectives can help a company identify imagery that customers will find offensive. A campaign that seems acceptable to one team can carry a painful meaning for the people it depicts or hopes to reach.

The controversy also shows why a response needs to address consumer concerns directly. Swatch apologized quickly and removed the material worldwide, but some critics regarded the apology as financially motivated. Speed mattered to Xu's assessment; sincerity and accountability mattered to consumers who remained angry.

Monitoring social media is another practical part of that work. Weibo's reach and the movement of boycott calls across platforms allowed the reaction to develop within hours. Companies operating in the market need the ability to identify a developing controversy and respond promptly.

Trust is the remaining business challenge

Swatch has taken the immediate step of withdrawing the advertisement. Rebuilding trust requires attention to the approval failures consumers questioned and to the cultural understanding expected of a company with decades of experience in China.

The financial risk is concrete. A market representing approximately 27% of group revenue was already contributing to weaker sales before the advertisement appeared. Continued consumer anger could add pressure at a time when the company also faces American tariffs and softer demand for luxury goods.

Xu's assessment leaves room for the controversy to fade following the rapid apology. The continuing boycott calls show that some consumers expect more than removal of the image. Swatch's challenge is to respond to that demand for respect while addressing the business pressures already weighing on the group.

Key Points

• Swatch withdrew advertising worldwide after an Essentials image showed an Asian male model making an eye gesture widely recognized as racist.
• The company apologized in Chinese and English on Weibo and Instagram, but some consumers continued calling for a boycott.
• Shares fell by as much as 4% before partially recovering.
• China, Hong Kong and Macau account for approximately 27% of group revenue.
• Revenue fell 14.6% in 2024 to 6.74 billion Swiss francs, followed by an 11.2% decline in the first half of 2025.
• The group also faced a 39% tariff on exports to the United States and a slowdown in global luxury demand.
• Criticism focused on the offensive gesture, the campaign's approval process and whether a rapid apology would be enough to restore trust.