Saturday, November 19, 2011

Benetton does it again

This is the last post you can comment on for the second half of November.

How do you feel about shocking  advertising?  What do you think about using public figures images in this fashion?  Do they have the right to protect themselves, or is this just what one can expect if one becomes famous?  Is the writer correct in her opinion that the public is too jaded to fall for this sort of ad anymore?  Do you like these Benetton ads, or the famous ones the company has made in the past?  What messages are these ads trying to convey?

3 comments:

  1. After reading this article, my views on the topic were quite divided. On one side, I was amazed at the extremes to which a company can take advertisement and what they are ready to do to increase the public’s awareness towards their product. On the other hand, I was a bit shocked at how little respect the advertisers had for the most influential persons of the world and how sardonically they portrayed them. Although this practice isn’t directly illegal, it is in my opinion at least immoral since you are promoting your own business on the account of other very powerful people. Although the people in the ads without doubt knew that they will be famous and have their faces all over the place, this is according to me crossing the line of acceptability. As mentioned in the article, the pope and his supporters were outraged, since the posters touched delicate subjects such as gay policy and Muslim relations and are probably still outraged even now that Benetton has taken the posters down prematurely just because of the immense pressure from the protesters.

    I think that the general public, like me, is not going to be impressed by this form of advertising anymore. Personally, I don’t find it preposterous in any way, but I wouldn’t hesitate to call it lame. By looking at Benetton’s previous advertising campaigns I notice that they have in the past sent out some very strong messages that gave the company the very solid image that it still enjoys today. A particular advert that I liked was an older one featuring three human hearts next to each other with labels underneath them saying: Black, White, Yellow. The company was clearly trying to fight racism, which I found quite noble of it, and at the same time managed to produce a great piece of advertisement. Overall, despite how nice and humanitarian these adverts might look, the main aim is always primarily money and these ads, as stated in the article, work by shocking the targeted person into buying the product and always result in the company’s profits going through the roof. Despite how positive or negative these adverts look they are still just good business.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is nothing like shock advertising, the way some people look at it and how they react to it is always making me laugh. How can't they see that the companies using shocking advertising are just pulling their legs to get some free publicity? On the other hand I am very happy to live in a society where it is possible to try and make an ad like this, even though the real meaning isn't what it seems to be on the first sight.

    On the other hand I don't think they should use public figures without their consent. It isn't just unfair but it is using them against their belief, even though their beliefs are, well, wrong, at least in my eyes. But everybody is entitled to their own opinion, even public figures, and by being public they didn't say “Yes, alright, use my image for whatever you want”. Of course overreacting over an issue like this, when their reputations are not in real danger and, in the end, it really can't hurt anyone isn't the best way to deal with the problem, but that is hard to explain to someone that is overreacting.

    The message behind these ads is simply “Buy our stuff”, and it is, contrary to the journalist's opinion, still working. Some people, as nice and trustful as they are, might believe that by buying their products they are helping the “issue” they are advertising. It isn't a lie very harmful to anything else but the customer's wallet, but the customer's money could have been used in a better way than just to fund another “racy” campaign of a company.

    Benetton made itself popular by their campaigns, but being “extreme” all the time is silencing the one percent of the real message their ads might have. On the other hand by seeing ads like this all around us we can get used to the things they show, like two people of the same sex kissing or children of different races playing together, and we can accept that they are normal parts of our lives, even the people who are fighting against the acceptance the most. Therefore, in the end, I don't really mind them, and it is fun seeing the Pope kissing the Imam.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @samuel suri
    Samuel Suri stated in his comment that it is immoral to promote your own business, in this case the posters, on the account of famous and very powerful people. I disagree with this statement because, in my opinion, the posters wouldn’t be the same without the famous and powerful people. It wouldn’t get the attention of people as if they were not on the posters. Moreover, these figures, whose face was used in these posters, knew what they would expect if they would become famous.

    Another Samuel Suri’s statement, with which I partially disagree, is that the main aim of these posters, created by Beneton, is about the money and good business. I personally think the main aim is not only the money, but to provoke people to start doing something reasonable about these kinds of issues. Two of these issues are discrimination of homosexuals, and the war between the Islam and Christians. Beneton has connected these two issues in one poster of the pope kissing an imam. I am personally amazed by this poster. It shows a lot of courage to create something like this, and at the same time be aware of not only the benefits but also of the problems it can cause to one’s business.

    ReplyDelete