Benetton is widely regarded as the original activist brand. We have been speaking a lot about activism and the difficulties of this approach since brands need to continue to be relevant in order to be effective as tools for social progress.

Over the years, Benetton put some powerful and often challenging images into the market that created headlines around the world. What began as a fun and cheeky poke at authority gradually became a bloody poke in the eye.

Here’s an excerpt from the foundation paper, which is also available for download.

In 1982, Benetton began working with creative director Oliviero Toscani to create new corporate ads for campaigns. Toscani used the brand to promote images considered taboo by wider society. Through Toscani’s vision, Benetton raised the level of conversation around taboos related to race, poverty, religion, refugees, Aids, capital punishment, war, corruption and a few others. He began by offering abstract images that were playful with the topics he addressed. The campaigns were shocking and created a public stir when launched, but the messages did not have an intended recipient, nor did they visualise a realistic situation: they were clever parodies designed to open a dialogue on social justice themes.

Luciano Benetton said ‘The purpose of advertising is not to sell more. It’s to do with institutional publicity, whose aim is to communicate the company’s values…. We need to convey a single strong image which can be shared anywhere in the world.’ Oliviero Toscani, the creative director said ‘I am not here to sell pullovers, but to promote an image… Benetton’s advertising draws public attention to universal themes like racial integration, the protection of the environment, Aids, etc.’

However, during the 90’s, Toscani became more controversial in his choice of topics and the way in which he promoted them. He began employing realism in his photographic style, depicting boatfuls of refugees, bloodied military uniforms and dying Aids sufferers. The market reacted harshly and Benetton began losing sales. The decision to axe Toscani came after images of the electric chair and death-row prisoners were portrayed in ads in America. Many American groups banded together to boycott Benetton shops and sales suffered dramatically. Toscani responded by saying: ‘Some people get angry at my work because actually they get angry at themselves. They don’t want to deal with the image that I proposed.’

Was Benetton being sensationalistic to get more sales? Did they choose to fight for social justice despite sustaining damage to their brand and their bottom line? These were the subjects of much debate as the messages from the clothing brand cut deeper into taboos and provoked stronger and stronger reactions from the market. However, it was clear that the Benetton company had a choice to make: tone the message down or face closing shop.

Of course, brands like Benetton and creative directors like Toscani are rare. No one would want to live in a society where every brand is pushing a message like Benetton chose to promote. Whether one agrees with Toscani’s messages and their medium is not at issue here. Benetton clearly demonstrates that brands can be used to further the debate on society’s values and draw attention to certain issues. But these debates are still regulated by the current norms in society and these norms dictate how far the debate can be pushed. Once a brand steps too far outside these norms, the messages will be rejected by society and the brand will cease to be a viable mouthpiece for any issues. The brand will lose credibility and evoke cynicism from the market.