To be honest, I'm kind of relieved that Benetton has taken this on. I really don't think the goal was to match bruises to the colors in the clothing line. The only thing that is strange, or least kind of nagging at the corner of my brain, is how they've used their own trademark/logo to subvert and comment? I guess I am used to seeing this style of public commentary art used by artists who are commenting on the company itself (e.g. if Benetton owned maquiladoras).

I guess, kudos for bringing up the topic, but I'm not sure I'm sold. Not because it isn't important or that it isn't good that this was brought up, but just because there's something unsettling for me.

It personally bothers me. I don't like the ads, but I'm sure their hearts were in the right place.

It personally bothers me. I don't like the ads, but I'm sure their hearts were in the right place.

Part of me can't decide if it's cruel to echo the bruise's coloring with the sweater, but I agree-- heart in the right place. Maybe they wanted maximum impact? The jarring effect of all that purple does make me pause and most ads don't, so mission accomplished, I guess.

Thanks for posting this ,Anna

I saw it on the news tab but it really left me cold.

What is the message here : if you are a victim of DV, dress up well, arrange your hair to show your bruises?

It seemed exploitative but maybe I am seeing things?

What is the message here : if you are a victim of DV, dress up well, arrange your hair to show your bruises?

I don't know if that's the message...but that's kind of what she does.

There is something empowering about wearing your wounds vs. hiding them. For me (and only me, I'm not judging others) it's a truth-over-shame thing, but I don't think that's right for everyone and I don't judge anyone for how they handle such awfulness. I hate invalidating other people, so if this makes some of us uncomfortable, I am sympathetic and I respect that. I didn't hide when my lip was split because I didn't do anything wrong and I had nothing to be ashamed of, especially since I immediately walked away...this image reminds me of that incident.

I guess my own feelings will evolve as I ruminate over this more and analyze it in my head. However, my initial reaction is 'Eeeks'. At the moment on a first look this seems to be bothering me and the thought of using the shock value of something as grave and serious as DM to create brand awareness disturbs me. The people behind the ad will obviously show it as a 'win win' situation (or more possibly a Win situation for DM) and we will hear a lot of talk of how Benetton being a 'socially conscious' company is doing this etc etc. However, maybe due to my own prejudiced perceptions of how profit centric ads should be, I am ok with a NPO using ads and shock value to spread it's message but I don't feel comfortable with a commercial campaign piggybacking on a issue such as this.

That does not mean I was not a big fan of their United colors campaign - I guess while that used something socially relevant too, it was more of a positive spin and thus did not evoke the same emotions.

didn't hide when my lip was split because I didn't do anything wrong and I had nothing to be ashamed of, especially since I immediately walked away...this image reminds me of that incident

Kudos ,Anna, you are really brave!

Not that I was suggesting that there is something shameful about wounds inflicted by the heartless ...

more that the idea of Benetton using DV to sell their products( thats what it came across to me !) was unsettling in some way

The true colours of Benetton.

Hmmmm. Interesting ad. It seems that they got there point across if so many people have reacted with a comment. DV victims are afraid to speak out. Are we also afraid to listen?

However, maybe due to my own prejudiced perceptions of how profit centric ads should be, I am ok with a NPO using ads and shock value to spread it's message but I don't feel comfortable with a commercial campaign piggybacking on a issue such as this.

I'm with Ardy. The point of a Benetton ad is to sell clothes and make money. They have to use domestic violence to do that? It gives me the creeps. I don't think it sends a messsage of empowerment at all; to me, it's completely tasteless.

I don’t think their heart’s in right place. It’s just one more in a long line of exploitative ads. Their sales exploded after they started pimping social issues.
Old numbers from Economist: Link">http://www.athabascau.ca/courses/cmns/301/comment5.htm">Link
In 1990 sales rose by 25% to 2 trillion lire ($1.7 billion); in 1991 they are thought to have increased 15%.

Perhaps the UCoB ad should be juxtaposed with the Dolce & Gabbana billboards. They're all in it for the shock value and money as far as I can tell.

One more time w/ feeling. Link.

Regardless of its taste, the ad certainly makes you sit and think, which makes it successful. I'm not sure whether it was stated in one of the links or not, but I am assuming these are "real effects". If so, that's pretty brave of these women and kudos to them.

Forgot to mention that I loved their Colours cologne back in the '80s!

"Regardless of its taste, the ad certainly makes you sit and think, which makes it successful"

If that's all it's making you do, then I don't think Benetton would consider it one bit successful!

I would love to know what other DV-survivors think of the ad. I hate to try and out-cynic some of you, but I think this has less to do with dismissing a company as profit-seeking and more to do with your discomfort at looking at a woman with a black eye. Maybe there's shame involved too, since this violence is over-associated with our community. Also, resentment that it isn't a blonde model, since they get battered as well.

I just think it's a little too simple to say "It's like, so tasteless!" Do you really think someone is going to look at a woman's broken face and feel inspired to go buy a sweater? Come on.

Thanks for the links, Shodan. I was first made aware of this company after their highly controversial use of death row inmates back in 2000. (Read the VP's lame cop-out about the ads being solely about "building brand awareness." Unbelievable.) If there's any doubt that the latest ad campaign is a continuation of the ignominious exploitation Benetton is infamous for, read this.

Benetton's so-called public awareness ads, rather like Kenneth Cole's, are a self-conscious, and self-indulgent attempt at branding, similar to those silly names for expensive jeans and clothing lines, like "Citizens of Humanity" and "Anthropology" and so forth. It's an attempt to tug BoBo heartstrings. If they actually do donate money to domestic violence advocacy, I can respect them for that. Though even that, like fashion designers taking on a "cause" that allows them to have high-society "benefit" events, has more to do with them and their desire to project a certain image to the world and hob-nob with fellow noblessse-oblige types than with any serious commitment to the cause (remember the SATC episode when Samantha takes on the Javier designer guy's memorial foundation)?

Thanks for the link, Shodan. I hadn't realized that Benetton capitalizes on "social issues" in this way.

interesting how there's a lot of the holier than-thou attitude coming across here in this benetton-bashing. as far as i can see (which, i will admit, is probably not too far), benetton's only crime so far is capitalism. i didn't think there were that many socialists around any more. guess i was wrong.

Slate had an article about the man behind Benetton's campaigns.

An excerpt from this article...

This is because ad execs fancy themselves to be gifted artists trapped by the mundanities of commerce. Some of Toscani's ads really do enter the realm of pure art—totally divorced from the stink of any marketing imperatives—but he got away with using such provocative and stylish shots only because he linked the Benetton brand itself to shocking imagery not tethered to any product. Good luck to the modern ad guy who puts mating horses in his next toothpaste commercial. Anyway, one can go only so far down the Toscani path before the trail peters out. It's no surprise to learn that one of Toscani's most notable post-Benetton accomplishments is Cacas: a coffee-table tome containing his photographs of human and animal excrement. "Nine-color printing," Toscani enthused this weekend, discussing the book. "Shit is something we never copy from anyone else. We do it every day, and it is true creativity. Learn from this!" he exhorted the assembled ad workers.

DNA, where on earth did you get the impression that this was capitalism-bashing? It's hypocrisy-bashing. There are companies that take their social responsibility campaigns seriously, and donate part of their profits to hunger relief (Calphalon used to) or a range of liberal causes (like the long-distance company Working Assets). And then there are those that use "socially conscious" advertising for no other purpose than to brand themselves. That's the difference. Truth in advertising, in a sense.

Anna,
if DV means your husband beats you up, the solution is pretty simple.watch WWF. WARN him that you are watching wwf and that you will beat him back. next time he tries to hit you, give him 2.i punched him twice.plus its nice if you have a neice around who will convey the message to his mother.
i was ready for the consequences
1. i had a job(that means i was financially stable)
2. I had taken my dad into confidence
3. i was emotionally ready to leave the marriage if this didn't work.

hubby has never touched me after that. We have a difficult marriage, but we are working on it.
to all the victims out there. we encourage DV by not reacting.
React. Stand up for yourself. stand outside the lines sometimes

This is not the first time Benetton has come up with something controversial.

This reminds me of a Dolce and Gabbana ad which they had to pull down.
The first place I read about that ad said: you gotta hand it to the Italians, they sure know how to make gang rape look sexy.

Now, note that I'm not saying that there isn't considerable domestic violence in the South Asian community, but is there a particular reason why this series of ads seems to feature only women who are not white?

My initial reaction is disgust with this ad campaign. This is the first time I'm seeing it. I've loved Benetton clothes forever and loved their Colors magazine that highlighted social issues.

But this ad seems to look like her bruises are a fashionable accessory to her clothes.
I think this is a distasteful way of highlighting the problem of DV and I think the end result could be negative.

Another DV organization to add to the list, that provides linguistic and cultural competent services for survivors ----

API - DVRP (Asian Pacific Islander Domestic Violence Resource Project)
http://www.dvrp.org/

Years ago, Benetton did an ad that was criticized for somewhat glorifying members of death row, To me, Benetton has put themselves in a win win situation. If people like the ad, they get a rep for being "dangerous, and unafraid to tackle subjects that are taboo", if people don't like the ad and cause a stink, they get more attention, and media publicity. Each of which translates into higher sales.

i wonder if benetton "shares" any of their "capital gains" with organizations that do anti-domestic violence work.

#5

"I didn't hide when my lip was split because I didn't do anything wrong and I had nothing to be ashamed of, especially since I immediately walked away...this image reminds me of that incident."

there is definitely nothing to be shamed of. a little concerned with the clarifier "especially since i immediately walked away" -- i worry that some people might take this to mean that there is nothing to be ashamed of as long as the victim/survivor leaves the relationship. there are many similar reasons why survivors of domestic violence may stay in or leave a relationship (and the risks of leaving or staying in a relationship are similar too).

#24 - DV is definitely more than physical violence. beating someone back would not solve DV, which is about people maintaining power and control over someone else by using emotional, verbal, physical, sexual and economic tactics. "to all the victims out there. we encourage DV by not reacting.React. Stand up for yourself. stand outside the lines sometimes" -- only the perpetrator can stop the actual tactics of DV, the responsibilty of the violence falls on them. but as a community members, we could and should stand up against DV, support survivors and hold abusers accountable.

Re: Cynicism / socialism / whateverism.
Nobody’s going to rush to stores after seeing broken faces and death row inmates. Excuse my marketing-speak, but let’s look at, uh, big picture.

How many people remember Banana Republic ads? How many people remember Benetton ads -- say five years after the release? I’m sure the good samaritans at Benetton never think of vulgar terms like mind share.

I have no issues w/ people making zillions, nor do I want to get on moral high-horse. But let’s not confuse clever marketing w/ altruism.

So I guess this proves the old adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity?

Nobody’s going to rush to stores after seeing broken faces and death row inmates. Excuse my marketing-speak, but let’s look at, uh, big picture.

No. but that's not what they want right away. All they want is your attention. I'd imagine they'd rather have someone "boycotting" their stores, rather than be indifferent. Because at that point, they have your attention - and opinions and beliefs can always be reversed. It may be rare, but I'd say in fact, a reversed opinion is likely to be 10x stronger than one reached lackadaisically.

if Benetton truly issued this ad "in the public interest", we'd see the victim, but not the branded, $120 sweater. but where's the capitalism in that??

At the least, the picture brings back memories!

Life begins as a narcissist, supremely egotistic grandiose self. She can never match up to your *intelligence*. You are munificent - didn't you condescend to marry her? She has simple dreams - chinna chinna aasai. You transplant her from her comfort zone and teach her the difference between salad fork and dessert fork, changing lanes and wearing stockings to interviews. You enjoy the repartees when she is possessive as you flirt with the blonde colleague at christmas parties. You lay down the rules of the house - she is a housekeeper, cook and pleasure device. You notice that she is watching Sleeping with the Enemy yet again.

There are arguments and you think you are ceding too much simply by engaging. You threaten. She cries. Verbal escalation - you hit the nuke button and slap. She cries more. She leaves you for a few months. You stalk her and call her numerous times to convince her it will never happen again. She returns.

She wants to feel useful - she sends $49.99 to some unknown address in Florida to get a kit to start home-based business. You know its all a rip-off but indulge nevertheless. She goes to her first interview in Manhattan in a Polka-dot below-knee length skirt and unmatched top - she has no suits and convinces them to pay her $25000 a year. She is lapped up by the anonymous crowds of the City and she wisens up.

The next time there is an argument and it escalates, she brings out the kitchen knife. You retreat.

Fast forward - She now makes much more than you and leads a busy life. You are in awe of the transformation.

I'm falling into the camp that doesn't like this ad. It seems awkward and uncomfortable because she's wearing the cute clothes. They're mixing their altruistic promotions with brand marketing. It doesn't jive. They could have approached this a number of ways. For example, we don't know if this model is a survivor or not. Photograph a real person with a snapshot of her history and HOW Bennetton helped (e.g., supported XYZ women's shelter).

Also, it reminds me of some weird runway fad in the early 90's where models were going for 'bruised' looks.

I am in a situation now and although educated, I am far from my family and confused. What is wwf?

I might be one of the few who feels this way, but I don't think altruism is really at play here. That is, Benetton is using DV to be provocative and get their ads (and indirectly, their products) noticed in a big way...I don't think there's any intent to bring attention to domestic violence, or help DV victims.

It's all $$$ in the bank for Benetton either way.

I don't think there's any intent to bring attention to domestic violence

I think that's wrong, for obvious reasons. They intended to create this ad and they are bringing domestic violence to our attention-- we are discussing it. Anyone who sees this ad/the altered logo is going to pay attention to domestic violence, even if only for a split-second. I'm not saying Benetton is altruistic or that this wasn't motivated by profit/market-share/mind-share.

What is wwf?

I think they are referring to what is now known as WWE.

people, look up the definition of altruism (I mean the technical definition); to qualify as altruism any act must come at a cost to the actor performing it with no expectation of benefits (beyond psychological satisfaction). Now corporations by law cannot perform acts of altruism. Any "social services" they perform are(indeed have to be) justified as increasing stockholder value in some way (customer goodwill, image etc.). So to talk about "corporate altruism" is an oxymoron. Therefore it is even more of a stretch to expect marketing campaigns (of all things!!)to be motivated by a desire to perform social services without an expectation of monetary benefit. So Shodan et al. are obviously absolutely correct in their stance.

There is a very important Desi women's organization called Manavi who do wonders for South Asian ladies.

check it:

Manavi was founded in 1985 by six South Asian women. It is a non-profit organization for women who trace their cultural heritage to Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Manavi's goal is to increase awareness of women's rights in society and encourage social change to end all violence against them. Its approach is nonjudgmental, nonreligious , and nonsectarian. Manavi is committed to the empowerment of South Asian women and thereby, dedicates its major efforts to facilitating women's quest for self-reliance and autonomy everywhere.

There are many others, certainly. But Manavi is very involved with our community in New Jersey.

brownie, wwf (actually WWE referring to a wrestling show on TV) was presumably a tongue-in-cheek remark made by a poster; her other comments though are spot-on. I suspect some of the other posters here will be more helpful regarding your situation, but here's a link that might be of some assistance: http://www.domesticviolence.org/plan.html

By the way the above does not include individual business people in their individual capacities (Tatas,Rockefeller) donating money etc for various causes (through charitable institutions specifically set up for such purposes). Also "law" refers specifically to U.S. corporate law.

No. but that's not what they want right away. All they want is your attention. I'd imagine they'd rather have someone "boycotting" their stores, rather than be indifferent.

This is evil in it's most sophisticated form.. There is no way that those bruises are real, I doubt any marketing company would be that evil as to use a real victim, I think they used make up on her to make it look like that..

ANNA means elephant in malayalam.

Many issues are brushed under the carpet in the media-frenzied world unless there is a celebrity index case. Benetton is to be commended for buying your mind-share to think about DV. The symbolism of Benetton sweater draped and comforting an apparent DV survivor is a strong message on where the firm stands on the issue. The question is do you think it is an issue and on which side do you fall in supporting it?

Take-away from this customer segmentation marketing case study - "Decent Brand".

Oh my god, Honey. That so matches my bruise. Can you cut me on the cheek with the kitchen knife so the blood matches my red Benetton pants!

ANNA means elephant in malayalam.

What is your point?

On a lighter note, I wouldn't pay even $1 for that hideous sweater and the unfashionable white turtleneck (mock neck???) underneath.

Hey, it's the "anonymous tipster" here.

26 · Shaad on May 30, 2007 07:15 AM · Direct link

Now, note that I'm not saying that there isn't considerable domestic violence in the South Asian community, but is there a particular reason why this series of ads seems to feature only women who are not white?

The "colors" of dv -- ie, women of color who have survived DV. But it's also a nice play on the company's slogan, the colors of Benetton. And it's this conjuncture between branding (in marketing terms) and branding (in the sense of the bruises on the women's faces) that so troubles me.

After doing some follow-up reading at other blogs (e.g. Feministing), I don't think these women are actual survivors. They are models. So, now I have this image in my head of makeup artists patiently applying "bruises" as a fashion accessory, along with mascara and eyeliner. In one regard, the message here is, You are beautiful even with bruises. The second part of this sentence is supposed to be, because it wasn't your fault, bu because of the model's stances and outfits and the context of the image, it could just as easily be, because you're wearing Benetton clothes, and once again, it's this substitutability -- of the socially conscious with commercially canny -- that bothers me. Shifting signifieds, oh my!

ANNA means elephant in malayalam.

I call BS. "Aana" means elephant in Malayalam, not "Anna". Spelling, it's not just for Bees.

They intended to create this ad and they are bringing domestic violence to our attention-- we are discussing it

But that's an indirect (and IMO, not necessarily intended) consequence of the ad. If people look at the ad, and say "wow, check out the shiner" and then "cool sweater", Benetton gets exactly what it wants, and DV victims are no better off, really.

I guess what I'm saying is I doubt the abilities of these sort of campaigns to really draw attention to DV. Or else, the non-profits struggling to address this problem would have done it ages ago.

I call BS. "Aana" means elephant in Malayalam, not "Anna". Spelling, it's not just for Bees.

And I second Hema's correct interpretation. So stop attempting to be clever with your nowhere-near-veiled insults about Anna and her weight, troll. Final warning.

Where is Floridan, our resident ad expert. After seeing rest of their ads, this ad makes me queasy about the companys motives. The ad itself is ok.

The point of a Benetton ad is to sell clothes and make money. They have to use domestic violence to do that? It gives me the creeps. I don't think it sends a messsage of empowerment at all; to me, it's completely tasteless.

The interesting difference between this and Benetton's previous cacophonous ads, is the other ads really had nothing to do with clothing, there was no attempt to place the product in the picture. This is very similar to Apple's "Think different." campaign.

But this one breaks from that by having the product in the ad, that I think is contradictory to the entire "We're different, we go after the real subjects no one else dares to touch.." sentiment. Because the ad to me says, "look how horrible this is, it's such a problem, oh by the way this purple sweater is just fabulous" It's confusing. but not in a good way.

I'm falling into the camp that doesn't like this ad. It seems awkward and uncomfortable because she's wearing the cute clothes.

Hey I have previously used the handle "anonamit" on SM before and just dont want to be confused for or hated on for this troll who has used it here!!!

On the topic at hand...I really find this ad distasteful 'cause I believe that the intention here was to generate revenue/publicity for Bennetton and to use DV for it is something that I have a problem with...

I think it's all the more powerful because she's wearing cute clothes.

I don't know if powerful is the right word. It's attention grabbing, a big part of advertising is taking seemingly opposite worlds and putting them together. It would be powerful if a third party that didn't have a vested interest in the cute clothes released a similar ad, then one could claim they're making an objective statement on the perceived correlation between poverty and domestic violence.

I'd rather they use their cash towards a public service message

Sure, I totally agree -- but a clothing advertisement is not a public service message. That's not to say it can't convey a positive message, but, there are plenty of other ways for Benetton to put its cash to use without piggybacking on a social issue. Of course, that wouldn't be in the best interest of the company (i.e. making money). Generating publicity is not necessarily great for Benetton. It is not the equivalent of Stern haters joining his message board in droves. People dissing Benetton does not sell sweaters. While the ad may draw our attention to DV, then what? Is the ad offering us information? Next steps? Real opportunities to help? Do part of the sales go towards DV?

“Because the ad to me says, "look how horrible this is, it's such a problem, oh by the way this purple sweater is just fabulous" It's confusing. but not in a good way”.

Completely agree. Its good that people are made aware of the problem. but like HMF said above it’s confusing and not in a good way. the link below is an BBC report on amnesty internationals posters for domestic violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/3976807.stm

@Anna #3 " Part of me can't decide if it's cruel to echo the bruise's coloring with the sweater "

The three women in the other ads of Benetton for DV have purple bruises as well but have different sweaters/clothing on(Striped, White, Orange.. ) ... Purple being a popular UCB color for a sweater, imho I think it was a harmless coincidence, and we are diverting attention from the bigger issues.

@Others who disapprove of the ad

I think the Ad is good.. it *does* bring attention to DV , which was it's purpose. As for the image of UCOB, I don't think one would feel like running into a store and buying their clothes when they see this ad, so I don't think the *marketing* has worked that well, if that was the intention... which is why i'm convinced the ad was in earnest. Most of the comments here seem to be saying that 'UCOB is profiting out of a social evil' ... I really don't think so - if that were the case, why just target UCOB ? Every company that has ever given money to charity or society , or has raised awareness about cancer, etc. is doing so for two reasons (1) Help the society... (2) Improve the image of the company (by making it less 'corporate' and more 'human').

Companies have helped immensely in funding social projects, raising awareness and so on ... I feel it is unfair to call them out by saying 'You're just doing this for money and gaining out of a social evil' .

I don't think Kraft/Nabisco or Yum! Brands would slide under the radar if they produced an ad featuring a pot-bellied third-world child with flies buzzing about it's head and holding a cracker or taco.

Nor would any of the generic AIDS-drug manufacturers in India get away with an advertising campaign featuring AIDS patients too destitute to pay name-brand prices for the cocktails.

UCOB gets away with this because they have made progressive noises in the past

which is not to say that the 'consciousness-raising,' regarding DV, performed by the ad is unwelcome. Every such act should be celebrated somewhat. I just wonder how much of an effect it actually has, though.

I think the Ad is good.. it *does* bring attention to DV , which was it's purpose.

I disagree. I don't think the purpose of the ad was to bring attention to DV. The purpose of the ad was to sell clothes, while provoking reaction about DV. The point is, any attention it brings to domestic violence issues is secondary to Benetton's primary purpose or selling products. Plus, it's my view that ads like this provoke commentary about the advertiser rather than the issue itself...so, in the end, there's no real benefit to the DV community.

It's allegedly not even Benetton behind the ads:

To Accent Bruises, Try This Top in Aubergine? [from Salon]

I think the Ad is good.. it *does* bring attention to DV , which was it's purpose. As for the image of UCOB, I don't think one would feel like running into a store and buying their clothes when they see this ad, so I don't think the *marketing* has worked that well,

This is the same reasoning the conservative right uses to exonerate the government's ulterior motives for going into Iraq. They say, "Look, see how gas prices have climbed? We didn't go in for the oil, and if we did, we're doing a bad job at it" It's an extremely myopic view.

When Barnes and Noble set up coffee shops and chairs and tables and encouraged people to read in their stores - the other book stores thought they were crazy. "We're not a library" they said, "if you want to read it, buy it first." They didn't take into account long term association. In the short term, people went to these stores just to read books, their sales didn't go up at all. But B&N wanted was a long term association, for people to think: book store = barnes and noble. Now who's on top?

UCOB purpose is clear - to *GET YOUR ATTENTION* If they can't do it by having half-naked women running on beaches, they'll do it in other ways, by being "edgy" As for comparing it to donations to charities etc.. Sure, those donations cannot be taken as fully altruistic, but it's the visual juxtaposition of these extremes that's out of place, in a negative way.

@hema - " The purpose of the ad was to sell clothes, while provoking reaction about DV. "

The first thing I noticed about all the women were their bruises and not their clothes... I'm not sure if the general public will look at the ad and go 'oh what a pretty sweater that bruised up woman is wearing, i need to get myself one of those' ... I think the general reaction will be 'gee, such a pretty woman , if only she wasn't beaten and bruised :( ..domestic violence sucks'

... once you notice the bruises, the clothing become irrelevant .... at least they became irrelevant to me.

Bordering on "borrowed interest" advertising, not clearly a public service announcement. The purple bruise providing a visual cue to the purple sweater is definitely inappropriate, if not exploitative. Very clever to latch on to DV, but as an advertising person, I don't think I would have done it. But who knows! A lot of decisions one makes in the heat of business seem perfectly sane at the time.

Of course, if this campaign benefits the DV issue in any way, the end result would be worthwhile. If it sells a lot of purple sweaters, I wouldn't know what to think.

The first thing I noticed about all the women were their bruises and not their clothes

Proving that the advert will be effective in having people establish a psychological connection to them in the long term, because they are a clothing company "that doesn't care about silly things like clothes but really cares about human issues"

Just curious as to if this was the whole ad? Was there a message at the bottom as to X% of proceeds will be donated to X or that this ad is running for X reason?

@HMF - "This is the same reasoning the conservative right uses to exonerate the government's ulterior motives for going into Iraq. They say, "Look, see how gas prices have climbed? We didn't go in for the oil, and if we did, we're doing a bad job at it" It's an extremely myopic view."

- Firstly, lets not even compare this to Iraq. Iraq is waaay more complicated, and reducing it to oil would be exactly the 'extremely myopic view' you speak about.

The ads will bring more awareness to DV, simply because it is the FIRST thing you notice about the women ! How does that translate to actual help for DV victims ? - In the same way that wearing a yellow wrist band helps Cancer. Awareness is not the end, but the means to an end, and any publicity on DV is more than welcome.

All the opposers should ask themselves : If the women were NOT wearing UCB clothes, but maybe regular t-shirts , wouldn't you still be saying exactly the same things - that they are using 'shock' to bring attention to their company?

IMHO Benetton is simply cashing in by sensationalising an issue and selling their mediocre wares. I doubt if Benetton has done any significant contribution towards any deserving causes.

On a lighter note, ANNA could be "Annamma" and "Annakutty" in malayalam, right?

I haven't read all the other comments yet, so this was probably addressed, but my initial reaction is: If a corporation is concerned about these things, then maybe it should just FUND some public service announcements/ads that don't include a plug for themselves at the same time. I know, business is business, bottom line, "all philanthropy is self-serving", blah blah blah... But don't the PR wings of most big corporations have a "charity" arm where they decide how to fund/sponsor certain projects?

What if Starbucks did some kind of anti-DV campaign that just showed bruised models drinking out of paper Starbucks cups? I know the Benneton thing visually matches their other ads, so Starbucks is not a great analogy, but... something just seems weird about this. Then again, I could shift my thinking and say, yeah, it's really risky and innovative and will get people talking and thinking, so it's great.

yellow wrist band helps Cancer
Dont the proceeds from buying the wrist band go directly for cancer research? So does benneton intend to make a certain percet of sales from those clothing to help people affected by dv? If not, its just a marketing ploy to take advantage of a very sad thing. If it brings awareness to ppl great. But lets call a spade a spade, its just a company trying to use an issue to sell more clothes.

Benetton has denied any connection to the "ads"; this post was updated accordingly. Anyone know what the hell is going on?

Firstly, lets not even compare this to Iraq. Iraq is waaay more complicated, and reducing it to oil would be exactly the 'extremely myopic view' you speak about.

I wasn't reducing it to oil. I was saying the conservative response to the progressive parties claim that oil was indeed a large factor, is "Where's the oil? we're still paying for gas through the nose, so oil had nothing to do with it, it was about freeing Iraqis!"

And that is a myopic view.

How does that translate to actual help for DV victims ?

Hema answered this claim and I agree with her answer, in #67.

If the women were NOT wearing UCB clothes, but maybe regular t-shirts , wouldn't you still be saying exactly the same things

It's the UCB label that matters most, not so much what clothes they're wearing, other than the purple connection, and coming from a clothing company, it does come off as eerily manipulative. If a third party produced the picture, I think the juxtaposition would be more powerful.

Benetton has denied any connection to the "ads"; this post was updated accordingly. Anyone know what the hell is going on?

Possibly a student project or Adbusters-like spoof?
I still don’t like the in-this-case-blameless company’s older exploitative ads.

"objective statement on the perceived correlation between poverty and domestic violence."

HMF why does a statement about poverty and domestic violence have to be objective...A useful example might be A Jolie...her human rights efforts have gained her an incredible amount of publicity and as a result over the last 2 years her acting fees have risen 3X. So one could argue that she is using the poverty stricken to fuel her own monetary agenda. Or she could be a true saint...or she is something in between. Or she could be a saint and her PR director/agents etc have a monetary agenda. But the end result is that the jaded press are
forced to give coverage to issues that might otherwise be neglected...seems to me you take the good with the bad..

But the end result is that the jaded press are
forced to give coverage to issues that might otherwise be neglected.

See, this is my problem. I don't see that any real good came out of Angelina Jolie's efforts in various parts of the world. The media/press seemed entirely focused on her (and Madonna's) attempts to adopt foreign-born children, and hardly at all on the very real problems faced by children in Angola, SE Asia, Ethiopia, etc.

Not enough good comes out of these sort of campaigns, and Angelina Jolie could have done a lot more good by just donating money to relief efforts in those countries, than by going on these "publicity tours."

@HMF - "It's the UCB label that matters most, not so much what clothes they're wearing "

The UCB connection is now officially defunct due to #78 , but lets just imagine it was *still* UCB's doing.

So if a company X or a person X wants to do something good for the society, are you suggesting that they don't reveal to the public they are behind this good deed ? If you donated 1 million dollars to the AIDS foundation, wouldn't you like to tell people about it ... maybe have your name on the list of 'top donors' ? If your good dead increases your social standing, people think 'hey now that guy's got a gem of a heart' why must you be the 'secret donor' ?

If Google or Microsoft contribute 1 Billion US $ to Katrina victims - don't they deserve credit ? If Google ran those 'Domestic Violence' ads instead of UCB , would you be crying foul at them too ? Calling them evil, greedy machines who used domestic violence to further their goals ... According to you, what must a company do to 'give back' to society and not be pelted with accusations like the ones on this board ?

Purple being a popular UCB color for a sweater

It's the UCB label that matters most

I keep seeing UCB and thinking Berkeley. Folks, can you please use the term FOB ad, for Formerly Offensive Benetton ad? Or DBD is fine too, if you prefer Did Benetton Do this ad.

Zing!

Rahul strikes again!

@Hema - I don't see that any real good came out of Angelina Jolie's efforts in various parts of the world.

Now that is very disputable. Most of the public idolize their celebrities ... and when celebrities act like good role models, doing things for charity, raising multi-ethnic families, and so on, our 'Awareness' is increased. This does not mean I will pack my bags to Africa next week. This means that I am aware that there is a movement or a charity I can contribute to that will help these kids.

We all know that Sting supports conservation of Rainforests. I would never have known of such a movement if it wasn't for him. Tommorrow when I'm feeling generous, and I think, hey let me give back, its time .. I might contribute to the Conservation of rainforests .

'Raising Awareness' is AS IMPORTANT as actual money.

I keep seeing UCB and thinking Berkeley. Folks, can you please use the term FOB ad, for Formerly Offensive Benetton ad?

Not to drain all that pretty aquamarine water from your humor pool, Rahul, but wouldn't it be FBO Ad, as the "Formerly" applies more closely to the "Benetton" part of the phrase?

"Not enough good comes out of these sort of campaigns,"

See Hema I disagree...we can never fully know the good that can come out of any situation..the fact is that Jolie's involvement brought coverage to matters that would otherwise have been neglected......even if stars begin to give $$$ trying to one up her...that would be sweet :) money would flow to causes; and though motivated by ego would bring positive results

'Raising Awareness' is AS IMPORTANT as actual money.

I would say it's important, but not as important. For example, Race for the Cure does a lot to raise awareness, but a large part of the money raised by the race ends up underwriting the cost of the race. You're better off just pulling out your checkbook and sending money to an organization than signing up to run 5K.

I applaud the efforts of celebrities to bring attention to problems, but I think the media isn't interested in the problems, just in the celebrities themselves. While we're certainly a celebrity-obsessed culture, most people just want to wear what Jolie is wearing, they don't want to trek down to Africa and see what it's really like. I'm not even sure that admiring a celebrity makes people give money to the celebrity's favorite cause.

So if a company X or a person X wants to do something good for the society, are you suggesting that they don't reveal to the public they are behind this good deed ?

No, I've already answered your comparison to charitable donations.

But understand, those comparisons do not hold. It's an advert in a magazine, do they provide links to DV organisations? Do they donate proceeds from sales to DV organisations? Showing a picture of a purple bruise juxtaposed with a purple sweater is not tantamount to donating to worthy causes.

You repeatedly fail to understand the psychological/subliminal effect these types of advertising campaigns have, after I've given repeated examples: B&N, Think Different, etc.. Now, it seems to me you're diligently trying to out-Prema Prema.

What UCB is doing is attempting to piggyback off a volatile issue.

you're diligently trying to out-Prema Prema.

That is a misguided, naive, elitist statement, you dolt!

You forgot "casteist" in #91, Rahul.

That is a misguided, naive, elitist statement, you dolt!

Tell me something I don't know

i just saw a pretty girl in a pretty dress that got beaten. maybe im not reading into this enough.

@89 Hema - "I would say it's important, but not as important."

Ok I agree. Raising awareness is important - perhaps not as important, but important nevertheless.

@90 HMF -

"do they provide links to DV organisations?"

And if they don't, there's always a search engine that can take us there pretty easily

"Do they donate proceeds from sales to DV organisations? "

Maybe they do. Even if they didn't, the fact that they bring an 'in the closet issue' like DV out in the open is good nevertheless. In charity, even a little good is ok... isn't it?

"Showing a picture of a purple bruise juxtaposed with a purple sweater "

I addressed this in #64, there were three other women with purple bruises and different colors for their sweater. This correlation is intentionally misleading.

"Now, it seems to me you're diligently trying to out-Prema Prema."

I'm grateful you didn't pull out the old 'that's like Hitler during the Nazi era' argument. Thankyou for not using that one.

My point is that there will always be people who look at a noble deed and accuse the giver of 'piggy-backing'. It doesn't seem we are going to agree with anything today, especially after your last comment, so lets just agree to disagree.

"While we're certainly a celebrity-obsessed culture, most people just want to wear what Jolie is wearing, they don't want to trek down to Africa and see what it's really like"

Hema if anything the level of celebrity worship increases every year....John Lennon was a prophet in this regard. But I think the alternative is that crucial causes will go utterly neglected and if that is the case with Angelina's involvement it would be much worse without...Global warming has been spoken of for over 30 years but it took a spiffy powerpoint presentation by a media savvy politician to make it a cause celeb...

And if they don't, there's always a search engine that can take us there pretty easily

So maybe it's google you should be defending so valiantly.

I addressed this in #64, there were three other women with purple bruises and different colors for their sweater.

What do you expect? people to bruise in orange and perfect vertical stripes? Advertising is done in metaphors. The idea is the rich colors of the bruises and the color of these cool new clothes - they want you to be aware of both, and even better, remind you who made you aware of being aware of DV.

My point is that there will always be people who look at a noble deed and accuse the giver of 'piggy-backing'.

This does not qualify as a noble deed.

If this ad campaign is a hoax, I say it's the work of Banksy or maybe the commando artist who put up the billboard of Charles Manson with the apple logo "Think Different"

If this ad campaign is a hoax,

That's the thing, if it is a satire, it's a pretty bad one. Because it's something that Benetton would most certainly do. Satires are meant to take a certain behavior to an extreme, but are readily identifiable as satire.

I know I sent in the tip about it being a hoax, but I have my suspicions that Benetton is secretly behind this, and that they were inspired by the furor around the "Splasher" in NYC, especially when the Splasher's sprays got vandalized by covering them with American Apparel posters, and the company (although not responsible, allegedly) came under fire for the whole thing.

Benetton's done edgier ad campaigns before, such as their own line of condoms, so who's to say this isn't a new breed of consciousness-raising--guerilla philanthropy, if you will?

Rahul, please stick around :) I had the same UCB/UCOB problem.

If this ad is not connected to Benetton, then I actually like it more. Maybe because it is more inline with the link I posted at the beginning? It's social commentary, which I like. I don't know how I feel about companies using the same techniques to comment on things for profit, but I like when ad-buster types do it to raise social consciousness or make you feel uncomfortable.

Weird how the difference in who created it changes how I feel about it so dramatically.

Brownie

You said you were in a situation....please check our www.maitri.org.

There is a resource section on the left hand side which lists agencies in the US, Canada, the UK, and South Asia that can help you.

Sonya

an apt description:

a hoax is often perpetrated as a practical joke, to cause embarrassment, or to provoke social change by making people aware of something

Rahul: Folks, can you please use the term FOB ad, for Formerly Offensive Benetton ad? Or DBD is fine too, if you prefer Did Benetton Do this ad.

NA: Not to drain all that pretty aquamarine water from your humor pool, Rahul, but wouldn't it be FBO Ad, as the "Formerly" applies more closely to the "Benetton" part of the phrase?

You must be one of those ABCDs, you know, that Accuracy before Convenience Demographic? Although, "Formerly, Offensive Benetton Ad" fits (not it's just Offensive Ad, you see).

NA#100: Benetton's done edgier ad campaigns before, such as their own line of condoms

That has to be a hoax for sure, they look like they're both the same race! Even their horse ad promoted miscegenation.

My previous comment was meant for HMF (whose commentary I appreciate)

#104: Although, "Formerly, Offensive Benetton Ad" fits (not it's just Offensive Ad, you see).

That should read: Although, "Formerly, Offensive Benetton Ad" fits (NOW it's just "Offensive Ad", you see).

Even their horse ad promoted miscegenation.

I agree. I am just not cultured enough to get these ads. Some of them are pretty images, but they definitely don't make me want to run to a store and get me one of their shirts (doesn't inspire aversion in me either). Maybe if they put that horse picture on one of their shirts...

'Raising Awareness' is AS IMPORTANT as actual money.

So my question is, who needs to be made aware of DV most, and what is the demographic that will actually see and pay attention to this ad?

a hoax is often perpetrated as a practical joke, to cause embarrassment, or to provoke social change by making people aware of something

Yeah, but if it's a hoax, where's the satirical aspect? I understand hoax's must have verisimilitude in order to be convincing, but they are readily identifiable as hoaxes. If they were trying to mock benettons repeated attempts to "break the mold" and "raise awareness" they'd exaggerate it to an unreasonable extreme. For example, having bruised teddy bears wearing benneton clothes and fake bruises, then call it "Stop Plush Animal Violence" or something like that. That's satirical.

Maybe if they put that horse picture on one of their shirts...

That way everyone can be evocative. Now that's art for the people, yo!

I meant to link to the urban dictionary for the def. of "Italian stallion", but I'm now thinking it's well known what that phrase means.

"Stop Plush Animal Violence" or something like that. That's satirical

It wouldn't be as effective, in other words it wouldn't have been a post on SM if it had been even brown teddies.

You said it exactly, it can be seen as commentary about the fashion company's use of provocative images to sell clothes (ugly sweaters and the like) and it's possibly asking Benetton if that's how far they'll go to sell clothes, under the guise of creating awareness.

I think of satire differently from hoax.
Satire = a Moliere play lambasting royalty/the gentry
hoax = Banksy defacing Paris Hilton cds

Brownie
Please email me. Happy to give info.
swapnavora@hotmail.com

You said it exactly, it can be seen as commentary about the fashion company's use of provocative images to sell clothes (ugly sweaters and the like) and it's possibly asking Benetton if that's how far they'll go to sell clothes, under the guise of creating awareness.

But we know Benetton will go this far, even farther. In fact, there are people on this board vehemently defending them. The Banksy thing is an example of satire.. no one would ever mistake those for actual paris hilton songs, rather the implied meaning in the act is, "These aren't really paris hilton songs, but in essence she's doing the same thing" And I think that message is clear. But with these ads, it's not clear, as all of us believed them as true ads.

Honestly if Benetton does denounce these ads, I don't see how they can do it on the grounds of "poor taste" when they've done similar, if not more intense ones themselves. If anything, it's a denouncement from a point of regret. As in, "Damn it, we should have thought of that!"

It's kind of like when the Onion published an article about Gilette razors, titled, "Fuck it, we're doing five blades".. the story was hysterical, until Gilette actually did release a 5 blade razor. It was no longer funny, it was reporting. It was more of a surprise reaction rather than funny.

Almost simultaneously with Salon.com, I also contacted Benetton. Read what they had to say here:

http://writeslikeshetalks.blogspot.com/2007/05/colors-of-domestic-violencefake-not.html

It looks like "Everything Comes from India" uncle was right about this one too.

i traced a pic of horses mating

maychen tyler age 10

Im a college student,17 years old. i was reading about the benetton campaign in my italian lesson,and i have to writte my opinion about what Toscani has created by displaying this images as a bublicity campaign, and personally i am disgusted. I dont see how using tragedies such as this can be accepted to sell products which, rumours say,are involved in child labour etc. I dont think this is a good way of making people realise of the problems that surround them,i dont buy benetton's clothes and this just makes me want to buy them even less. I think the marketing group at Benetton should stick to their old pictures, where you see the bright side of life, and leave the horrors to the politics and the news presentors,because at the moment we have enough to worry about, apart from another massive business taking advantages of the daily problems that society confronts.
Horrors like this should be taken into account and helped by people arround the world,instead of being an excuse to buy expensive clothes.

I dont understand how the colors of the cloths are offence to people at all. It draws the picture together and emphasizes the point, the severity of DV.