A clothing company that uses highly controversial photos to create news seems is nothing out of the ordinary now a days but the company Benetton crosses the line from being provocative, like the Calvin Klein commercial with Brooke Shields, to morally wrong. The way the photos are perceived by the viewer can be seen as mocking the people and what they stand for. They explain it best in the text. “They cite the use of the picture as another example of a large corporation exploiting a personal tragedy to sell a product” (71). I agree with this point of view. Although they bring awareness of the cause and in many ways endorse it, they are using politically charged images, like a nun kissing a priest for the sole purpose to create controversy. It is just as morally wrong to exploit Chinese kids to work in sweatshops and pay them just enough to stay alive so our clothes can be cheap. This is a textbook example, of capitalism at it’s finest. It not only says a lot of the company but also of the consumer. The consumer is to naïve to see the full repercussions of these advertisements but instead deems them “cool” and “hip”. By them buying their clothes they are saying it is alright to mock the minorities in society and acceptable for society to function in this manner.
For the company to achieve this it takes a lot of persuasion and tactful advertisement to create buzz that states how awful the company is but in the process create a counter-culture that finds it interesting. I wouldn’t say its propaganda because it’s main goal isn’t to hurt a person or a group’s reputation but the campaign does result in this or walks that fine line between controversial and acceptable but morally wrong. In other words they leave room for interpretation resulting in someone going either way on the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment