Oh look, a domestic violence victim who is fashionably dressed.

Colour me unimpressed.

#1   Posted by MadMan on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:23:47

The matching purple part was a bit unsettling. That aside must say it is a bold statement. At least a few people will glance twice at the ad. Won’t make any dent in DV stats tho’.

#2   Posted by Shampa on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:29:18

I find it hard to be as cynical as MadMan.

It’s an ad that makes a statement. And it gets people to take note by virtue of it’s association with the “Brand”.

Make a difference? I don’t think so. Get people to think? Quite possibly.

#3   Posted by blr bytes on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:06:18

It is a typical UCB ad with the girl possibly a victim of Domestic or other violence.
But they why would UCB create such an ad?
Whenever you create an ad you associate your brand with the explicit or implicit things in the ad. Here the violence/exploitation is more prominent then anything. The only positive thing about the ad is that it is eye catching, it guarantees you a second look.
But it ll not serve the purpose of the advertiser as the violence thing completely eclipses the UCB Brand name. For first few mins i even failed to recognize UCB.

#4   Posted by Vishal on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:46:08

First thing that comes to my mind.
‘Anything sells.’

Now if a see a woman colleague of mine wearing that color....cant help chuckling.

So much UCB has done to destroy the beauty of a good color.

#5   Posted by Sanjay on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 1:49:26

What public interest is this ad serving? Giving the information that you may get battered at home but you don’t have to hide yourself in a nylon sari but can find nice looking clothes to wear—even some that’ll match your bruises—at your neighbourhood Benetton store? I find it in pretty bad taste.

#6   Posted by Shrabonti on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 1:51:08

Though the ad does not directly help in offering a solution the problem.. it helps to show that domestic violence is a more widespread phenomenon. I am sure many of us are aware of this and may find it silly.. but I am not so sure about the abused woman (If she would have been that aware, she would have already raised her voice, or done something about it by asking for help from some organization)… this is similar to how parents need to be educated about child abuse..

What it does to the brand: If one thinks like I have done, then a very positive image of the brand will be registered. But, there is also a possibility that a majority is not so rational (like me :D) and so, will associate a negative image with some screwed-up reasoning. 

PS: Amit, please inform in your post that non-brown models have also posed for this ad. This will help in having a better, focussed discussion. I already read something about a sari in the comment above.

#7   Posted by Prasanth on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 2:44:19

Some of the other issues that UCB has addressed through their advertising:

Racism
Female foeticide
Gay rights awareness

These ads are global in their scope, and they have been brave enough to use them globally as well, within the bounds of local law, of course.

These ads are not meant to draw attention to the brand, but to the issues they address.  The brand only intends to leverage the positive association it could get from drawing attention towards these social issues.

It’s a brave and powerful statement, one worth thinking about, rather than reacting to the visual impulsively.

#8   Posted by Sumant on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 2:59:33

I am not sure about the brave and powerful, but if it is exploitative, then whom or what does it exploit? It brings attention to a pervasive and important problem.

#9   Posted by curious cat on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 4:56:08

ah a rare moment in history when one can leave a comment on the india uncut blog..as one rallies one’s wits around for a thought provoking (yet humourous) comment, one realises that one has no opinion in the matter except to say benetton makes really bad clothes and maybe they should use the creativity they employ in their ads in creating better clothes…

one also wonders if the good lady has infact walked into a door, a doubt that creeps into one’s mind due to the lady’s interesting way of wearing that sweater.

#10   Posted by Rabin on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 5:39:00

Exploitative? No.

Attention Catching? Yes.

Brave? Definitely: For the brand to associate its own product with the theme of domestic violence. And to play the devil’s advocate here - perhaps, in that sense - also a trifle stupid.

Powerful: Depends. On who the audience is and how the subjective conditioning of the audience makes it perceive the message that the ad’s trying to send out. In several cases, I suspect, it’s going to backfire on UCB.

#11   Posted by Shilpa on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 6:39:38

Oh and btw, on a few very unrelated but already-talked-about-in-your-comment-section notes: IMHO, UCB makes good clothes. Especially woolens. And, that cardigan *is meant to be* worn that way...just not so off-shouldered. Plus, if someone somewhere associates, say, the colour yellow with poop in their ads, would you stop wearing it/laugh at other people who wear it?

Sorry Amit, couldn’t resist. Feel free to delete this one:)

#12   Posted by Shilpa on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 6:45:33

There is nothing wrong with poop!

I’m enjoying this thread, especially since I can’t make up my own mind on this, so thank you all for commenting. Keep ‘em coming…

#13   Posted by Amit Varma on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 7:31:05

Can’t make up your mind, huh.  You’re just rousing rabble to gain eaten-first points, I wager!

On a more serious note:

Shilpa: I thought I’d elaborated a little bit on UCB’s branding strategy in this campaign, but to reprise, they’re looking for brownie points by bringing the issue to public attention.

Several years of this kind of public-awareness advertising have shown that UCB won’t suffer in any way as a result of this round.  The reason is their target audience - young, educated, well-off urban men and women who are capable of looking beneath the surface of such a message.

Arun Venugopal talks about their AIDS-related campaign in his blog.  I recommend some more research before you dismiss this as a one-time practical joke or shock advertising.  UCB has done it for years, and I expect it will be a recurring feature of their advertising in the future as well.

#14   Posted by Sumant on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 7:49:35

Thanks for the additional information Sumant.
But then I never rubbished the campaign as a one-time stunt/joke/shock-advert...did I?
Lemme check.
No I didn’t.
:)

#15   Posted by Shilpa on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 7:52:55

All its doing is showing (a bit baldly, I agree) something that exists.. It can’t possibly be in better taste to keep domestic violence behind closed doors.

And considering their track record, this is one isn’t shocking at all. (Or am I just hopelessly jaded from a Quentin Tarantino addiction?)

Bah.

#16   Posted by devi on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 8:16:50

The fine print reads:

Issued in public interest by United Colors of Benetton.

Public interest? lol…

And the ad is named: Colors of Domestic Violence. Cheapness exudes.

Possible interpretations of the ad:

1) There is nothing to be ashamed in being a victim of DV.

2) Hiding your wounds won’t make them go away. That won’t bring about a societal change, but being upfront about it will surely make people reflect on DV’s ugliness.

3) Even if you get thrashed, get thrashed in style; wear Benetton.

4) Color coordinate your wardrobe. Always. It doesn’t matter if being a victim of DV is being a victim of male abuse/chauvinism. A woman must still be vain & dress well because that’s what is expected out of women.

5) It’s just an ad. I don’t buy designer shit anyway.

But no matter what your interpretation is, the fact remains that this is an advertisement for UBC, & it aims to persuade people to buy its clothes & strengthen its brand name.

Every corporation is profit driven & advertising is a tool to aid that. It’s deceitful of UBC to say it’s an ad issued in public interest even if it provokes/humors/disgusts the audience while serving its own cause.

More importantly, this particualar ad perpetuates (significantly true) stereotypes of brown women being DV victims, DV victims being exclusively women, & DV victims being fashion-slaves, like most other women. It reduces a DV victim to being a corporate instrument of product awareness; a mere mannequin.

Also, if you notice, the make up is poorly done. Anyone who has gotten a black eye before will know that the swelling is much greater than shown. Furthermore, both eyes of the model are symmetrical, something unlikely if you get a black eye. These are just designer bruises, DV made palatable.

Overall, another cheap campaign along with Dove’s Real Beauty campaign.

#17   Posted by berserk on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 8:26:41

Shilpa: You only indicated that this campaign would backfire on them because their audience isn’t equipped to take their message.

devi: No, this is not shocking at all.  Their World AIDS Day campaign from a couple of years ago was a lot more disturbing, as was their foeticide campaign.

berserk: I don’t know how they’re driving the stereotype of the battered brown woman with three reasonably diverse images.  Take a look.  The truth is that women and children are the majority of DV victims.  The truth is also that women do want to dress well and look even when they look like last night’s steak.  You make that sound so horrible!

#18   Posted by Sumant on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 8:57:40

Not only women, even men like to look good. Everyone does. And yes, DV victims are mostly women & children. We all know that.

So when the truth is already known, why put out an ad and say it’s issued in public interest?

That’s just cheap marketing masquerading as social cause championing. Shock value. I can imagine the copy writer’s smile as he/she must have come up with this.

The well-heeled, intellectuals, and potential customers of UBC, are most likely to be aware of the ‘truth’. And perhaps only they will be able to read between the lines from this ad, which would be in sync with their own beliefs (or their interpretation of the ad would be in sync with their own belief). This would create a feel-good moment & a postive impression of Benetton in the eyes of its targeted market, and the ad would be a success.

And as for: I don’t know how they’re driving the stereotype of the battered brown woman with three reasonably diverse images. Take a look.

I had taken a look prior to your comment and I had noticed that only the ad put up by Amit has ‘color coordination’ & a reasonably brown woman. That’s why I said: ...this particular ad perpetuates (significantly true) stereotypes…

I was only referring to this particular ad when I put forth my opinion.

One more thing: How does the society’s being aware of DV (which the society already is, apparently) helps fight it?

Are women supposed to buy Benetton clothes and wait for the abuse to stop? Or are we supposed to ponder over it and decide not to abuse our spouse/kid the next time we feel like it?

To someone it may also seem that the woman did need a good thrashing by her beau; maybe she blew off her entire pay check shopping for clothes when she should have been paying off her student loan/credit card bills. Not that I condone that, of course.

#19   Posted by berserk on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 9:30:18

The ads are not by Benetton. Some has been busy photoshopping, perhaps?

#20   Posted by Quizman on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:51:54

Maybe McCann-Ericson didn’t do it, either.

One more thing: How does the society’s being aware of DV (which the society already is, apparently) helps fight it?

Surely you’re not serious!

#21   Posted by Sumant on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:47:09

What will u notice more in that ad - Domestic Violence or UCB?

I think UCB...case of brand spoiling the message

#22   Posted by Amogh on Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:50:27

I posted <a href=http://writeslikeshetalks.blogspot.com/2007/05/colors-of-domestic-violencefake-not.html">here </a> about a phone call I had with the Benetton PR person in NYC. It’s a fake and the HQ of Benetton in Italy is handling the matter. Read the link to understand more.

#23   Posted by Jill on Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:37:07

Quizman, Sumant, thanks, posted an update.

Jill, saw your comment after updating the post, have linked to you, thanks for the sterling work!

#24   Posted by Amit Varma on Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:44:02

Amit, you bet. Finding blogs like yours is part of what I love about the Internet. Even though a fake, it’s provocative and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

#25   Posted by Jill on Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:45:36

Can I clarify that!!? Not that your blog is a fake, ugh - no I didn’t mean that!

I meant, that even though the DV ad is a fake, it’s still provocative. :)

#26   Posted by Jill on Thu, May 31, 2007 at 1:24:28

For a moment I wondered what poor ol’ me had done! :)

#27   Posted by Amit Varma on Thu, May 31, 2007 at 1:34:45

haha..

So much for that. Good one, Jill. Keep it up, Amit.

#28   Posted by berserk on Thu, May 31, 2007 at 1:53:19

What fun.

#29   Posted by Shilpa on Thu, May 31, 2007 at 3:34:17

most people dont agree with his adverts but why is this one any different

#30   Posted by rae booth on Tue, October 09, 2007 at 8:11:18

obshuwst http://nyfpxuow.com vrkhjmom vpkzmgnk ckxhpvvk eyuibstw

#31   Posted by hkmnvbnb on Tue, October 30, 2007 at 3:45:50