Swiss watch brand Swatch recently sparked a huge controversy on Chinese social media platforms due to an advertisement featuring a model posing with “squinted eyes.” Many consumers criticized it as having “racial discrimination connotations,” leading to a swift backlash against the ad. Swatch has removed the related image from its Chinese official website and issued an apology on Weibo. Commentators believe that under the long-term “patriotic education” and media manipulation by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), some netizens react strongly and struggle to differentiate between normal cultural expressions and genuine discrimination, a typical symptom of authoritarian society.
According to mainland Chinese media “First Financial” reported on August 16, the model’s appearance in the Swatch ad has garnered numerous criticisms on Weibo and Xiaohongshu, with consumers accusing the brand of “blatantly making mistakes in the Chinese market.” “21st Century Economic Report” also mentioned that many netizens demanded Swatch to be “blacklisted” and vowed to “never buy” their products. Within a few hours, this wave of resistance dominated public opinion, with emotional accusations leading the discussions.
In response to this, retired professor Zhang Longren (pseudonym) from Guizhou University stated in an interview with Epoch Times that the collective anger in mainland China is not simply due to spontaneous national sentiment but a result of long-term indoctrination. He said, “In China, starting from kindergarten, children are subjected to so-called patriotic education. The classroom walls feature Xi Jinping’s photos, Mao Zedong’s quotes, and songs like ‘I Love Beijing Tiananmen.’ Children are like seedlings; if you keep instilling CCP values in them, they will lack independent thinking ability as they grow up. This is entirely a product of the education system.”
On the Douyin platform, many netizens’ comments are filled with hostility. Some wrote, “Never bought Swatch before, definitely won’t in the future.” Others expanded the issue to foreign investments, claiming, “Global investors should boycott such insulting Chinese ads, cut off funding, either rectify or clear their accounts.” These calls to action not only spread on Weibo and Douyin but were also reposted by some media outlets, further heightening emotions.
Mr. Yang, a current overseas observer of current affairs, believes that these controversies likely have official manipulation behind them. He told Epoch Times, “On the surface, it’s about safeguarding national dignity, but in reality, it incites hostility towards foreign cultures, creating a contrast with Western values. In the Swatch incident, I believe there are ‘officially backed’ public opinion workers fueling the fire, turning an advertising incident into a political issue. They seize the opportunity to emphasize CCP ideology, hinting at the irreconcilability between China and the West.”
Mr. Yang also stated that the CCP manipulating netizens’ discourse through “cyber opinion control workers” is a political warning: “If you favor the West, you will be punished. So, whenever a similar event occurs, there are always people clamoring to ‘resolutely resist, get out of China,’ and the wording is highly consistent. This is not a natural reaction from ordinary netizens.”
Reported by Reuters, Swatch has removed the related advertisement globally and issued an apology on official platforms, expressing deep regret for causing offense.
At the same time, a minority of netizens have questioned this emotional response. Some comments said, “How many domestically produced products are satisfying? Isn’t milk powder, toxic food a bigger harm to the Chinese people?” Others bluntly stated that regarding “small eyes” as “insulting China” is not confidence but a sign of inferiority.
In recent years, similar controversies have been recurring. In 2021, a Mercedes-Benz ad featuring a model with small eyes was criticized for “degrading Chinese people”; at the end of 2021, a Chinese food company’s “Three Squirrels” ad photo also faced scrutiny for the model’s small eyes, being accused of “catering to Western aesthetics.” The female model defended herself on social media, saying, “I naturally have small eyes, don’t understand where I went wrong.” In 2023, an Asian model in Dior’s makeup ad was criticized for pulling her eyelids to create an almond-eye shape, once again labeled as “insulting China.” In the same year, a promotional photo of Apple’s China website customer service personnel featuring small eyes and a queue was questioned for “degrading Chinese people,” and the related topic trended. However, it was later confirmed that the model was an American Indian.
Scholar Lu Ning (pseudonym) from Zhejiang commented that these cases illustrate that the CCP is accustomed to using them to create nationalist fervor, diverting social focus by provoking emotions. “China’s economy is declining, and unemployment is severe, but the CCP officials need new outlets. Whenever an international brand ‘missteps,’ netizens’ emotions are aroused, and public opinion is directed toward ‘national dignity.’ This is actually the result that the authorities are most pleased with.”
Mr. Yang believes that nationalism does not truly enhance the confidence of Chinese society but rather makes the Chinese market increasingly uncertain. “Foreign companies not only have to worry about product quality and prices but also whether an ad, a photo will touch upon the so-called ‘national nerve.’ This risk will inevitably scare off more foreign investment.”
Zhang Longren also emphasized that under the strong control of public opinion by the CCP, international brands once embroiled in “insulting China” controversies will find it difficult to appease the situation with a simple apology. “As control tightens, we will continue to see such incidents in the future. This reflects not cultural sensitivity but how the authoritarian regime uses anti-foreign sentiments to maintain its rule.”