[Analysis] 2024-11-27 ADOR Statement

This is an analysis of 2024-11-27 ADOR Statement.

Hours before NewJeans' 14-day ultimatum expired at midnight, ADOR issued a public statement appearing to side with Hanni regarding the “Ignore Her” incident.

ADOR’s statement Summary

The statement was framed as a formal clarification “in accordance with measures following the artist's certification of contents,” indicating that it was triggered by legal action.

ADOR publicly affirmed trust in Hanni’s version of events, rejected Belift Lab’s denials, and called for “mutual respect” to avoid further “unnecessary controversy.” The agency claimed it had refrained from speaking earlier out of concern that factual disputes would harm its artists. However, the statement lacked any concrete measures or accountability mechanisms, offering only general regret and appeals for respect.

1. The statement was issued too late to be seen as sincere

Publishing the statement on the final day of NewJeans’ 14-day ultimatum raises questions about ADOR’s sincerity. Rather than showing proactive concern for Hanni, the timing suggests the statement was made to fulfil a legal obligation and mitigate reputational risk.

"This position statement is being issued in accordance with measures following the artist's certification of contents."

The reference to formal legal demands reveals that the agency did not act out of internal conviction or urgency, but in response to external pressure.

2. ADOR admitted it failed to act in order to protect HYBE’s image

ADOR openly admitted that it refrained from speaking out earlier because it did not want to cause “unnecessary controversy.” This shows that the agency was more concerned with maintaining a façade of harmony within the HYBE ecosystem than protecting its own artist.

"ADOR has maintained a cautious stance until now, concerned that disputes over factual matters might cause unnecessary controversy surrounding ADOR's artists. However, despite ADOR's efforts, the related controversy has not been resolved, so we are now clarifying ADOR's position."

This admission indicates that ADOR placed a higher value on inter-label relations and public perception than on timely advocacy for Hanni’s well-being.

3. ADOR offered vague condemnations instead of real solutions

While ADOR expressed regret and affirmed Hanni’s credibility, it did not propose any practical steps to address the harm caused or to prevent similar incidents in the future. There was no mention of internal investigation, disciplinary action, or procedural safeguards.

"ADOR and its staff fully trust our artist's account and sincerely regret the harm that Hanni has experienced."

"We hope that Belift Lab will not take Hanni's distress lightly and will demonstrate mutual respect..."

These statements are emotionally sympathetic but lack the substance necessary for accountability or institutional change. NewJeans members later cited ADOR’s “insufficient and vague” response as a key reason for terminating their contracts.

4. ADOR downplayed the incident as mere 'controversy'

Throughout the statement, ADOR framed the matter as a “controversy” rather than naming it as potential mistreatment or misconduct. This rhetorical choice minimises the seriousness of the incident and shifts attention away from accountability.

"Concerned that disputes over factual matters might cause unnecessary controversy surrounding ADOR's artists."

By describing the situation in terms of controversy management, ADOR focused on public image and not on the harm experienced by their artist

5. ADOR contradicted its own support in court

Despite publicly claiming to support Hanni, ADOR later introduced irrelevant or decontextualised evidence during court proceedings in an apparent effort to undermine her account. This included using unrelated CCTV footage and cherry-picked messages, contradicting the trust they had previously expressed.

"Belift Lab's claims are completely different from NewJeans member Hanni's statement."

"It is an excessively harsh and strict standard to require that Hanni must recall every detail... This places too severe a burden on the victim."

ADOR's later actions in court clearly conflicted with these stated principles, revealing a willingness to prioritise corporate self-defence over artist welfare.

6. A clear conflict of interest undermines ADOR’s independence

The statement’s reluctance to confront Belift Lab also reflects a deeper structural issue: a conflict of interest at the leadership level. Kim Joo-young, ADOR’s new CEO, also holds the role of HYBE’s Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO). This dual appointment creates a built-in tension between advocating for ADOR’s artists and preserving internal harmony across HYBE’s corporate structure.

As CHRO of HYBE, Kim is positioned to manage human resources and inter-label relationships company-wide. As CEO of ADOR, he is supposed to defend and represent the interests of a single artist group—NewJeans. These roles are inherently incompatible. His failure to act assertively on Hanni’s behalf suggests that this conflict of interest was not merely theoretical, but operationally damaging.