What To Learn From Benneton’s Advertising Scheme
May 4, 2021.
Frederick R. Barnard once said, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” This quote resonates with many different facets of life, both positive and negative. A photograph can convey a multitude of moods, interpretations, and emotions. It is sometimes difficult to articulate the best way to say something; using words to express the underlying tones of a difficult topic is unmatched to the power a picture can hold. In the last two-hundred years, the camera has allowed photographers to capture a still image of events that are redolent of emotions years after. This is showcased in Therese Frare’s (1958) photograph titled, The Face of AIDS. Frare took this image in 1990, during the beginning years of the AIDS epidemic. The well-known image was of a thirty-two-year-old named David Kirby. Kirby died on May 5th, surrounded by his family. Her photo of Kirby could have been a representation of how AIDS distressed more than the individuals who got infected. The company, Benetton, used Frare’s photo as a money grab, and in doing so, weakened the intended purpose of the image. Throughout this paper, I will discuss the intended purpose of Therese Frare’s, The Face of AIDS, and how the power of the image was diminished by the use of Benetton’s “modern” advertising scheme, by comparing it to the theoretical views of Marshall McLuhan, and reception theory.
Frare was just a student who loved photography and volunteered in her free time.[1] One day at the Pater Noster House in Columbus, Ohio, where she volunteered, she found herself in the corner of the room with a man who was dying.[2] She told him about the photo series she was working on, and he agreed she could take photos of him, but only if it wasn’t for any personal profit.1 Although she didn’t necessarily profit from the image, the image has led to profit being made for many others.1 She snapped approximately ten photos of the scene, these photos captured Kirby wasting away to death, surrounded by his visually upset family.2 She never thought the photos would be seen or published by anyone;1 she put the photos into an envelope and mailed them to LIFE magazine.1 Fast forward a few years to when Benetton, a worldwide fashion brand, reached out to her, requesting to use one of the images from her series for their company’s advertisement.1 The Kirby family had adopted a “they’re not using us: we’re using them” mindset, and wanted her to agree to have photos used.1 This photo is now recognized as one of the one-hundred most influential photos of all time by Time magazine;2 however, the photo is not influential because of the importance of the cause, but for the controversy that stemmed from putting an ad over top of a sensitive photo.
Benetton took a complex photo and made it a part of an advertising campaign. This campaign led to many protests and prohibitions because the ad exploited a tragic well-known disease, AIDS. Frare’s image helped humanize AIDS for a short moment in time, but the controversy made a bigger impact on the public.3 The problem is that the image might have helped the public to understand this misunderstood disease, yet Benetton’s revamped version of Frare’s photo caused an ethical conundrum;3 controversy attached to imagery can simultaneously perpetuate an image’s original purpose. Aristotelian Rhetoric, perfectly explains how Benetton knew what they were doing, by creating an ad with illness at the forefront. Pathos, can be used to convince an audience of an argument by using emotion and feelings. They knew that they could use this image to stir up controversy with the mindset of pathos. With that being said, images have the ability to make an impression on individuals, yet when used in this context the intended meaning behind them disappears.4
The image’s intended meaning is also overlooked, and becomes indistinguishable from the advertisements for other commodities. 4 When sensitive images are used in this context, problems may arise.4 People didn’t seem to be fond of the idea that the company used an autobiography just to sell a sweater. Benetton wanted to be portrayed as though they were creating a visual for individuals, to help deal with hard topics in history;3 however, all it did was question boundaries, and make it prevalent that companies do not really care about the issue.4 This company only cared about creating iconography that pulled on the heart strings of people, which make them remember not only the image, but mostly Benetton.3 The image of David Kirby helped bring a visual representation of AIDS during a time when responsiveness needed to be heightened in order to help save lives, yet Benetton wanted to slap their brand onto a photo that depicted a tragedy.5
Shock ad use is growing in a world where there are few disbeliefs or discreet silences, and where there is a large media attentiveness on discomfort and misery.6 Marshall McLuhan studied the idea that the type of medium one uses changes the way a message will be received. In comparison to this scenario, the medium would be the image of Kirby, and the message would no longer focus on AIDS, but instead the company Benetton. One could assume he would suggest that Benetton caused the image to lose its initial message by attaching their brand onto the image.
Many shocking advertisements seem to sell products by “advancing social causes.” These ads aim to exploit the shock rate by using the typical advertising knowledge which focuses on the message of the product or behavior. Although this marketing ploy is controversial, it doesn’t seem to be going away, which has led to companies receiving backlash even today. Companies are still using this tactic, in hopes that they are representing that “they care” about the cause.7 In 2017, Pepsi ended up pulling one of their ads because they were accused of trivializing the Black Lives Matter movement. The company had Kendall Jenner as the focus of their ad, which included her offering a Pepsi can to a police officer, representing a sign of “unity” and “peace;” however, they missed their mark by trying to showcase a white woman ending the protests against the killings of black people by the police simply, by offering a Pepsi to a cop. This ad trivialized a serious issue, which was not taken well by the public. Alternatively, this scheme worked because it had people talking about the company, and people to this day still drink the product even though the company used a sensitive topic, and diminished the meaning behind it in order to sell their product. Ultimately, the goal was to touch individual’s souls, in order to evoke conversational debates about controversial subjects, and to showcase that humans share a lot of comparable worries.8 This is similar to what happened with Benneton and Therese Frare’s photograph.
Benetton was founded in 1965 in Italy, soon becoming an international distributor of clothing and accessories.6 Benetton believes that its advertising campaigns are fixated on themes of universal importance.6 When thinking about how the interpretation of the image was changed due to the influence of the Benetton ad, Reception Theory is appropriate to help explain it. Hans Robert Jauss conceived this theory which focuses on the reception or interpretation of the individual who is viewing the subject because they are making meaning. In particular, it is important to pay attention to how people respond to a subject because they are the ones who are receiving the message. In terms of the Benetton ad, the original meaning behind the image was diluted, and the typical reception of this ad was in a negative manner. It was meant to bring attention to AIDS, but instead people looked at the ad as taking advantage of the disease to advertise the companies name.
Benetton has globalized their brand awareness by using non-product image advertising;6 this type of advertising paints the company as concerned and socially aware;6 however, most people found themselves appalled at the idea of a company attaching their name to an image with a sense of emotion to it. This is because they use provocative images in order to attract attention, make a statement, and create conversations.6 Logically, there is nothing wrong with bringing attention to a cause; however, Benetton did it in a way that wasn’t focused on the message. It would be a different story if they made a statement about donating money to the Kirby family and AIDS research, but they just used the picture by putting their name on it, and included the number needed to order their clothing.
Benetton’s advertising scheme also acts as a forum to showcase highly emotional social and political issues.9 The company believes that using sensitive images is not a form of exploitation in order to sell sweaters, but instead exploitation of the artistic value the image holds, which is used to raise awareness and create conversation about sensitive social topics.6 They claim that they add their brand name to the photos to demonstrate that they support the “art, controversy, and public dialogue around social issues.”9 Benetton using this image suppressed the history behind the image, which limits and hinders the potential meaning of the photo.9
Lastly, the Benetton ad portrayed people with AIDS as “helpless victims.”9 Adding their logo to the photo encouraged to the viewer to displace any ethical or political understanding of the photo because it creates a “zone of comfort” for the person viewing.9 This example of advertising is done by attaching a company’s product to an artifact, hoping consumers will want to acquire it for themselves. This is done by transforming products into messages, signs, and signifiers.8 The Benetton logo appears to compare human misery and culture in order to position the viewer to not feel intimidated;9 almost as if it’s just an insight of the social issues, which then reduces the issue to a level where only the perceptual social issues are addressed.9
In conclusion, photographs are able to convey many different moods, interpretations, and emotions. Benetton used an image that could have represented AIDS, yet it lost its historical significance by being attached to a controversy. Using words to articulate the underlying tones of a grim topic is unattainable compared to the ability a picture has. This was showcased in Therese Frare’s photograph titled, The Face of AIDS. The photo of David Kirby could have been a representation of how the disease distressed more than the individuals who got infected; however, Benetton’s use of Frare’s photo weakened the intended purpose of the image. As discussed in this paper, I explained the intended purpose of Therese Frare’s, The Face of AIDS, and demonstrated how the power of the image was diminished by the use of Benetton’s “modern” advertising scheme, by comparing it to Marshall McLuhan, and reception theory. It is often said that a picture paints a thousand words, but if that same picture is twisted by greed, those words become distorted. Benetton’s abuse proved this.
[1] Spencer Hurt, "Interview with Therese Frare," Harvard International Review 40, no. 2 (2019): 53-55.
[2] Spencer Hurt, "Snapshot: Communicating Compassion through Photography," Harvard International Review 40, no. 2 (2019): 28-31.
2 Hurt, "Snapshot: Communicating Compassion through Photography." 30.
3 “The face of AIDS | 100 photographs | the most Influential images of all time.” Time. http://100photos.time.com/photos/therese-frare-face-aids#photograph
4 Claudia Stein and Roger Cooter, “Visual Imagery and Epidemics in the Twentieth Century” (University of Minnesota Press (2010), 1-21.
3“The face of AIDS | 100 photographs | the most Influential images of all time.”
4 Stein and Cooter, “Visual Imagery and Epidemics in the Twentieth Century.” 4.
5 Steven J. Hoffman, Annemarie Jones Hou, Annie Woo, and Julia Woo, "Learning from the Role of Art in Political Advocacy on HIV/AIDS," Imaginations 11, no. 2 (2020): 233–258.
6 Rita C. Hubbard, "Shock Advertising: The Benetton Case," Studies in Popular Culture 16, no. 1 (1993): 39-51.
7 Barbara Ehrenreich, "Dirty Laundry: Benetton's ‘We, on Death Row" Campaign,’ Aperture, no. 160 (2000): 20-25.
8 Mark, J., Barela, “Executive Insights: United Colors of Benetton—From Sweaters to Success: An Examination of the Triumphs and Controversies of a Multinational Clothing Company.” Journal of International Marketing 11, no. 4. (2003): 113-128.
6 Hubbard, "Shock Advertising: The Benetton Case," (40)-(46).
8 Barela, “United Colors of Benetton.” Journal of International Marketing 11, 117.
9 Henry A. Giroux, "Consuming Social Change: The United Colors of Benetton.” Cultural Critique, no. 26 (1993): 5-32.