United Colors of Benetton Ad Campaign Ethics
For my advertising course’s major project I am writing a case study on United Colors of Benetton’s ad campaign that began in the 1980s as a way to build their brand image: “united colors of the world.” This fashion label was founded under the name “Benetton” and then adopted the united colors after their slogan “All the colors of the World,” proved to be so strong. In order to express the feelings and opinions behind their new name, the company launched three separate phases of ad campaigns that would help to build their brand image. The three campaigns were:
· The cycle of difference
· The cycle of reality
· The cycle of free speech and the right to express it
Featuring powerful and sometimes graphically disturbing images representing racism, death, world strife, and social taboos, the ads from these campaigns had nothing to do with the clothes that United Colors of Benetton sold. There was much debate over the ethics behind the campaign and many publications did not run the ads.
The company is extremely proud of their campaigns despite all of the criticisms, as you can see from this quote on their website:
“Creating added value for the brand: this is the aim of United Colors of Benetton corporate communication. It contributes to creating the image of a global enterprise that invests in research, is modern and projected towards the future, emphasizing its principal and most important characteristic: uniqueness.”
The question remains whether or not publishing these ads was an ethical decision.
I could use some opinions about the topic if anyone would like to share theirs.
Questions:
1. Does neglecting to include the product when creating an advertisement breach the ethical relationship that a brand should have with their consumer? Or is it merely considered another marketing technique?
2. In your opinion as an ethical expert, do you think that the United Colors of Benetton was using their ad campaigns to create the “unity” that they stress so much, or was it more so used to create hype (whether negative or positive) about the brand?
3. Was Benetton exploiting their power as a major brand by expressing their social and political views rather than their product?
4. The photographs that Benetton chose for their advertisements were graphic and usually offensive to many consumers. Has the line between selling clothes and being a social and political activist been blurred beyond recognition?
The questions are only guidelines of the direction my paper is headed. Anything you have to say about the topic would be much appreciated.
· The cycle of difference
· The cycle of reality
· The cycle of free speech and the right to express it
Featuring powerful and sometimes graphically disturbing images representing racism, death, world strife, and social taboos, the ads from these campaigns had nothing to do with the clothes that United Colors of Benetton sold. There was much debate over the ethics behind the campaign and many publications did not run the ads.
The company is extremely proud of their campaigns despite all of the criticisms, as you can see from this quote on their website:
“Creating added value for the brand: this is the aim of United Colors of Benetton corporate communication. It contributes to creating the image of a global enterprise that invests in research, is modern and projected towards the future, emphasizing its principal and most important characteristic: uniqueness.”
The question remains whether or not publishing these ads was an ethical decision.
I could use some opinions about the topic if anyone would like to share theirs.
Questions:
1. Does neglecting to include the product when creating an advertisement breach the ethical relationship that a brand should have with their consumer? Or is it merely considered another marketing technique?
2. In your opinion as an ethical expert, do you think that the United Colors of Benetton was using their ad campaigns to create the “unity” that they stress so much, or was it more so used to create hype (whether negative or positive) about the brand?
3. Was Benetton exploiting their power as a major brand by expressing their social and political views rather than their product?
4. The photographs that Benetton chose for their advertisements were graphic and usually offensive to many consumers. Has the line between selling clothes and being a social and political activist been blurred beyond recognition?
The questions are only guidelines of the direction my paper is headed. Anything you have to say about the topic would be much appreciated.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by philip chudy on -
The real question is whether or not bullshit gets you what you want better than other means or whether pity/revulsion for displays of 'promotional desperation' help sales.
I think the simple answer is 'sometimes'. Sometimes you will reward a beggar with money even though you suspect he is earning more than you and sometimes you will give him money just to go away. And sometimes you will refrain from giving even when you know that a person is in dire need.
Most people in my circle said they felt dirty post exposure to Benetton ads. I cant be sure whether they would purchase the product to try to deny a sense that a part of the revulsion is for the brand. My guess is - were there 20 ads around at the time (for other products) that made one cringe in the self-same way - - the brain would simply turn off and the campaign would not have even achieved notoriety let alone sold clothes.
I personally dont 'like' clothes, I wear them of course but I dont care for them as design/brand/image objects, never have the slightest urge to fill my mind with thoughts about them or feel that buying them is a pleasure - so, from an experiential point of view, I have no measure as to what those ads did to my attitude to their products.
But as person involved in advertising, I admit have a pretty low view of the craft applied to the brief. It seemed dreary, dowdy, lifeless, souless, shabby and technically uninspired all round (images copy etc) and in retrospect is still seems the same. I never got the impression it achieved a 'getting political' level. The same concept (cringe factor and all) I think could have been done in better more penetrating way. The campaign was like being told a series of jokes, sans the punch line for any of them.
-
Permalink Reply by Yatin on -
THE UCB campaign was aimed at base moral ethic. But I dont agree with Philip's views that it was entirely repulsive. It was a part of a trend of several notably bold though at times misplaced expressions of contemporary events.
By and large the campaign was a thought leader. It aimed to shock. Young people have been doing things to shock and express their rebellion. Body percing, tatooing, underdressing, plaits and braids are all part of the body language. Here was a brand that gave them all.
So it was merely satisfying a need for doing something different. The clothes were pretty straightforward, and I did wear UCB before I outgrew it.
From the marketers perspective, when you choose to take the unbeaten path, you do tend to make mistakes. Discretion was thrown out of the window. That in my opinion was unfortunate but you cant win them all.
-
Permalink Reply by philip chudy on
-
I don’t know whether you feel I meant it was 'repulsive' in a social sense.
I did find it almost bordering on 'repulsive' (if you like) in terms of 'feeling or not feeling in good company' as a fellow traveler in the ad business. But I think it would be more accurate to say I simply felt 'embarrassed'.
There is always a sense that given the advertising resources and a client willing to go 'the whole way' and a brief like that - that one would expect a much more engaging campaign.
I tried to say that terms of general shock value, for me 'as a regular citizen' I found it rather tame/hollow/shallow (pathetic even)
I often change my mind about campaigns of yore but in this case I don’t feel any different now than I did then.
That is just my view but it surely makes a big difference where in the world one was when it was released and what the advertising norms were in that country (and level of political awareness).
I was working in London then, and all it seemed that the posters did, was to add to the existing drearyness of the landscape. I cant say I ever felt shocked or repulsed.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Bricker on -
1. Does neglecting to include the product when creating an advertisement breach the ethical relationship that a brand should have with their consumer? Or is it merely considered another marketing technique?
I believe effective advertising has more to do with the people behind a product than the product itself (and, by reference, their intentions). Obscuring ones affilation with a product might be an ethical breach (many people don't know that Phillip Morris owns Nabisco), but as long as the ad content clearly belongs to those who sponsored it, it is (in my opinion) their valid invitation to form a relationship with that consumer based on their content. It does create the question in the viewer's mind, "why has this company put this image in front of me?" along with the conclusion that there must be some meaning behind it. It's an abstract statement but it is evocative and we feel compelled to respond/react/think/discuss. Certainly, the majority of advertising we see hardly registers, at least on my own EEG (brainwave) graph.
2. In your opinion as an ethical expert, do you think that the United Colors of Benetton was using their ad campaigns to create the “unity” that they stress so much, or was it more so used to create hype (whether negative or positive) about the brand?
I think they made themselves visible… and managed to associate themselves with a "unity" message at the same time. Maybe the shock tactics were there to get through the clutter and into the consciousness of their viewers, at which point (to invert a metaphor) the more positive message was able to "jump out of the trojan horse?"
3. Was Benetton exploiting their power as a major brand by expressing their social and political views rather than their product?
I'm not sold on the fact that they really did express any real social and political views, unless they feel that the public should be exposed to less "sanitized" imagery. But advertisers are not limited to talking solely about their products, nor have they ever been.
I believe that there's a much larger ethical question regarding what anybody can do with public space. A lot of advertising is visual pollution. The conflict lies in that we have Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech on one hand and a lot of tasteless people on the other. As a relationship-marketer, I do think that sponsoring tasteful, beautiful, humorous and meaningful imagery in the public space can be good marketing. In the case of UCB, we get into a deeper quagmire still concerning whether the images they present are commercial attention-grabbers or have some redeeming social or artistic merit. One could argue that the merit lies in the implied question.
4. The photographs that Benetton chose for their advertisements were graphic and usually offensive to many consumers. Has the line between selling clothes and being a social and political activist been blurred beyond recognition?
I think there's a gulf or a spectrum between being an activist and being a retailer, rather than a line. One can be either or both. I believe the answer will be revealed through some investigation intp UCB's corporate citizenship. Have they donated to organizations that facilitate a cause (regardless of whether you or I are sympathetic)? Have they created a mechanism through which consumers can investigate their messages and consequently educate and activate themselves, or does the campaign begin and end with shocking pictures and a fluffy "unity" message that doesn't unify anybody's thinking?
The American Cancer Society thrift shop down the street from me sells clothes as a means through which to pursue a form of activism. I think you'll find your deeper ethics issue in questioning whether UCB actually is an activist company with a valid socio-political focus, or of they just want to look like they're in the trenches and leading the charge.
-
Permalink Reply by joeytomatoes on -
You must understand that sometimes ads attributed to United Colors of Benetton are in fact not actually their ads. We assume because we read or review it on the web its true.
We never reprint a United Colors of Benetton ad unless we first check with them to seek their permission for a reprint. 5 out of 5 times this was not their ad.
-
Permalink Reply by Rob Mortimer on -
1. I think showing the product would have been bad:
- It would have distracted from the messages they were (rightly or wrongly) trying to get across
- No one likes every item of clothing a company makes, the ads were about awareness and getting people into the stores.
2. I think it was a bit of both. Create hype and spread a positive message that we hope will stick with the brand.
3. Beliefs are beliefs, if they are genuinely what UCB believed then it can't be exploitment.
4. Again, it depends what they believe. No one was bothered about the body shop being political; as we understood thats what the company believed in. If a company has no beliefs you end up with soulless monstrosities that people cannot interact with naturally.
-
Permalink Reply by ashley on -
I do not think neglecting to show the product necessarily violates the ethical relationship between the brand and consumer, but feel it is more of a marketing strategy. In my opinion, however, I think it is more effective to show the product or allude to the product in some way, so consumers can connect with it. Vague messages do not always get interpreted in the intended way, and individuals don't always take the time to decipher abstract ideas.
-
Permalink Reply by ken_z on -
1. Does neglecting to include the product when creating an advertisement breach the ethical relationship that a brand should have with their consumer? Or is it merely considered another marketing technique?
what "ethical relationship" would require advertising a "product" as opposed to a "brand?"
2. In your opinion as an ethical expert, do you think that the United Colors of Benetton was using their ad campaigns to create the “unity” that they stress so much, or was it more so used to create hype (whether negative or positive) about the brand?
i doubt that sophisticated human beings investing as much time and money as they truly believed that an ad campaign for clothing was going to magically create some sort of "unity." i also would give them the benefit of the doubt as regards any good intentions they may have tried to manifest.
3. Was Benetton exploiting their power as a major brand by expressing their social and political views rather than their product?
Did they never show products? Is exploitation of power necessarily somehow wrong? isn't any sort of advertising making social and political statements, whether you interpret it that way or completely miss it?
4. The photographs that Benetton chose for their advertisements were graphic and usually offensive to many consumers. Has the line between selling clothes and being a social and political activist been blurred beyond recognition?
anytime you are selling something, you are probably selling something else, as well.
© 2008 Created by Steve Hall
