In promoting World AIDS Day, we have collected a few of the iconic ads that we have seen over the years that are provocative, funny and scary – sometimes all at the same time. Here are some websites where we and all our clients can get more involved:
Given the choice between asking for permission or begging for forgiveness, Dov Charney would probably do neither. As a reaction to being sued for using Woody Allen’s image on billboards, without permission, the American Apparel CEO was planning on rebutting in court with the argument that Woody Allen has no reputation left to tarnish or exploit due to the affair with his adopted child.
Charney certainly has pluck and his persona is intrinsically tangled up in the American Apparel brand. The brand is at once a social champion, paying its garment workers twice the minimum wage in its Los Angeles factory and a pariah accused of sex exploitation in its advertising.
In an open letter posted on the American Apparel website, Charney has this to say about the Woody Allen affair: “The billboards were designed to inspire dialogue. They were certainly never intended to sell clothes. This was not the first time we used a billboard for something other than to promote our products. Before and since we’ve used them to express social messages — including, for example, our support of immigration reform.
The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.”
PR Week describes Dov Charney as “a mixture of Cesar Chavez and Jerry Lewis — a visionary committed to labor rights, and a gregarious, loudmouthed entertainer full of heart and good humor.”
Certainly Charney runs a very unconventional company. Doing things differently is what he seems to do best. But he is far from a myopic activist or showman. Charney knows that the only thing that sells better than sex in fashion, is sex with controversy. But controversy is a difficult animal to manage, as companies like Benetton can attest. American Apparel seems to be running the gauntlet well so far.
This may be thanks in large part to its genuine engagement with social issues. Most notably, its ’sweatshop-free vertical integration’ model that enables the company to pay workers fair wages and react quickly to market conditions.
From a Civil Branding point of view, we think it is incredible that this retailer has captured so much attention in so little time. In less than 10 years, American Apparel has over 250 retail shops in 19 countries and they design and manufacture everything they sell. Their communications have created dialogue around human rights issues as diverse as immigration, fair wages, gay rights, racial integration and domestic violence.
American Apparel take an unconventional approach to communicating social causes that is more stylistic than activist. The brand surrounds the issues with a cool factor that tends not to alienate, but engage opinion leaders in the community since it speaks their language. The brash, gritty and often naughty nature of the style does not sit well with the establishment or with conservative audiences. So the brand does not engage everyone and will not act to unite liberal and conservative views. But, it is captivating and does create debate.
American Apparel is a brand to watch since it promotes Americana more successfully than GAP and is able to open dialogues about social justice topics with less risk to the brand than Benetton. Lessons are to be learned from both a conventional branding point of view and in creating a more civil society through raising tough issues needed for progress. They are as abrasive as sandpaper to some audiences, but are capable of creating positive change with their actions and their messages.
When challenged about carrying the explicit gay magazine, BUTT, Dove wrote an open letter. In it, he says, “BUTT is an important art magazine that I support. No question, that it is going to offend people and it is my feeling that that is the nature of provocative art. At times, to make progress, you end up offending people. And people were offended by many things I have done over the years. But I did what I felt was right, especially from an art and creative point of view.”
Why do we see so many not-for-profit organisations use shock advertising to get their message across? Is it that they want to make us as passionate as they are about their cause? Is it that they feel we are not paying attention to (insert cause here)? Is it because they feel shock advertising draws attention to the issue and helps donation drives?
People who run philanthropic organisations are passionate. More passionate than most. When we work on pro-bono projects we always hear the tearful story upfront. Sometimes, if the issue really touches us, we cannot help but get pulled in. When we do, we run the risk of taking up a position that is far removed from the public’s position. Worse yet, if this pattern continues, we can take up an adversarial or activist approach with the general public – not caring if we offend, so long as we get them to pay attention.
I am sure there are contributing factors to that made the highly controversial WWF 911 ads possible. Brazil is a long way away and chances are that Brazilians are not as sensitive to the 911 attacks as North Americans and Europeans, who are the primary target for Al Qaeda. Ads of the World report that the spot even won an award in Brazil.
But the WWF is not the organisation to use shock advertising in this fashion. So why do we have so many of them? There is not a huge body of evidence on the effectiveness of shock advertising. Studies report that shocking ads are more likely to be remembered, but I have not seen any correlation to behaviour (please send in sources that say otherwise). What I suspect is that there needs to be a value fit between the message and the individual before behaviour is effected. Otherwise, the ad will remain memorable, but no action will be taken.
If shock ads were so effective as a genre, why don’t all brands use them all the time? I also suspect there is a pattern present in philanthropic organisations for activism and taking a strong oppositional stance for a cause.
From a Civil Branding perspective, we see no value in shock ads that offend groups of people. I personally suspect that these ads are the result of passion overcoming a sense of respect for the audiences sensitivities. Commercially, Benetton demonstrates that shock ads which take on an activists role and depict realistic (versus abstract) images do more harm than good to the cause they are promoting. I am of the belief that the same applies to the charity sector.
Minor shocks that Benetton (seeprevious post) used in the early campaigns and the French Connection uses in FCUK campaigns walk this line skillfully. These campaigns do not overstep the norms of the audience they are targeting and leave enough room for ambiguity.
Creating shocking ads can be a very rewarding experience for the agency and the client. But in order to remain effective, a brand needs to manage the balance between shock/surprise and reality/ambiguity much more carefully than WWF Brazil has done.
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.
The paper that outlines our civil branding effort and explains a technique for creating more civil brands is now ready for download. Inside, you will find the following:
[1] Synopsis of the civil branding idea and its importance to marketers and society.
[2] Step-by-step process for creating more differentiated, more civil brands.
[3] Case studies from Citibank, Dove, Benetton, HSBC and others.
You need to admire a company that tries to bring down warmongering governments with ratty old underwear. Björn Borg, the Swedish apparel retailer founded by the famous tennis player namesake has launched three campaigns that tackle social issues head on. One campaign sends old ‘un-sexy’ underwear to war-promoting politicians like George Bush and Kim Jong-Il. Another gives a glimpse of the future to a time when (male) Catholic priests can get married to each other.
Not since Benetton has a brand been so bold with the taboos of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately for Benetton, their creative direction led them down an ever-increasing sensationalistic critique of various institutions, governments and deeply held ideas. In the end, the Benetton family had to turn their back on the creative director who had produced the ads responsible for the brand’s meteoric rise.
Of course, humour is one of the most powerful devices we have for diffusing serious subjects and tackling them from a slightly adjacent trajectory. Björn Borg can probably stay relevant and continue to tackle important social issues if they are able to keep their sense of humour. Benetton were not able to resist the temptation of becoming ever more sensationalist and increasingly serious. Björn Borg has the opportunity to avoid this slippery slope and remain relevant to customers while taking up the differentiating role of humanitarian leadership.
The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty began in 2004 and has created an unforeseen level of interest and sales by playing on our homogeneous and often superficial notions of beauty. Since launch, Dove has been active in advertising, with a website that promotes self esteem in young women, research into body image, the Dove ‘Self Esteem Fund‘ and the hugely effective viral movies like ‘Evolution‘.
The Dove Evolution video is rumoured to have received more eyeballs than a Super Bowl ad so it was only logical to follow up this massively successful viral with another. The sequel, named ‘Onslaught’, is a montage of clips depicting the ridiculous and harmful nature of beauty industry narratives that are broadcast to young women.
Greenpeace responded with a spoof video of their own depicting rain forest depletion resulting from the supply of Palm Oil for Dove products. Independent film maker Rye Clifton also responded with his video mash up of AXE spots that makes public the connection between the Dove and AXE brands under Unilever ownership.
Original Dove ‘Onslaught’ video
Greenpeace parody
AXE mash up from director Rye Clifton
Dissent and controversy are the main themes of an activist approach to political and social change. The original ‘Onslaught’ video certainly adopts an activist approach clearly aimed at separating Dove from ‘the rest’ of the (overtly image conscious) beauty industry. The parody responses are clearly intended to depict Dove as hypocritical on two fronts.
Taking an activist approach seems to be a difficult position for brands to maintain. Benetton, the Italian clothing retailer, found themselves in the same difficult territory back in the late 1990s. Their approach to advertising began as poking fun at at hypocrisy using images of race, religion and sexuality. But the approach evolved into a more serious and directed form of criticism on several more issues like capital punishment, refugees and the AIDS epidemic.
The Campaign for Real Beauty has made a tremendous impact on the social issues raised and on the business at Unilever, so it is unlikely that these responses will make much of a difference toward the overall positioning. But it does raise some interesting questions like:
1. Are activist approaches a slippery slope?
2. Is an activist position a credible role for any brand?
3. Do we need to take an activist approach in order to raise important social issues?
There are examples of brands that have adopted an activist position successfully. However, the examples that come to mind like the Body Shop and the Co-op Bank have an ethical promise at the very heart of their company. Ultimately, Dove has a purely functional benefit (¼ moisturising cream) as its core proposition and is making a bold transition into a deeper sphere of meaning. I believe they are real leaders in the promotion of important ideas and I am sure management at Dove and Unilever will want to continue along this path in the future.
Civil Branding is about harnessing the power of brands to create social influence,
change the wider social agenda and increase brand difference. We're on a mission
to encourage marketing professionals to consider their brands' impact on society
to help us progress and to help create ever more worthy brands.
