Benetton Group S.P.A.: Raising Consciousness and Controversy with Global AdvertisingEssay Preview: Benetton Group S.P.A.: Raising Consciousness and Controversy with Global AdvertisingReport this essayAnswers to Case Questions:Do you believe Benetton is sincere in its efforts to promote social causes through its advertising?Yes, we do believe that Benetton is sincere in its efforts in promoting social causes through its advertising because it is included in the company’s values: “Our values have been at the heart of a commitment to social responsibility that has evolved over 50 years and that translates in the will to become agents of social change, by putting people at the centre of all our activities and by cooperating with all interested stakeholders.” Benetton is just basically maximizing the use of its ads, which is not to merely promote its products but also to communicate what the company cares about or causes the brand believes in. And despite of the negative impacts on its sales, they have continued to release “shocking” ads, which made the company consistent with its commitment. Furthermore, Oliverio Toscani himself is a firm believer of raising social awareness through his photography. This means that Benetton did not just put anybody in Mr. Toscani’s position. The company selected someone who shares the same values and stands with them. And apart from their ads, Benetton has been consistently supporting causes they believed in.
Compare and contrast the controversy over the “We On Death Row” advertising campaign with the controversies generated by the earlier campaigns of the 1990s. Do you think Americans would respond differently than, say Europeans? Why?
Benetton’s earlier campaigns in the 1990s were simply raising social awareness that targeted the general public, specifically the youth. The ads attracted public attentions because of the provocative and anti-social norm images. The ads essentially put images to the social issues that everyone knows but nobody is talking about. But the “We On Death Row” advertising campaign was more of a pursue to affect or move the government. This specific ad gained so much controversies because it “attacked” the capital punishment which is being implemented and is widely accepted in the United States. The Americans reacted negatively because they are more concerned with the lives of the victims’ families rather than the lives of the criminals. So seeing the faces of the perpetrators in an advertising campaign as if asking for “justice” would easily anger them.
The campaigns in the wake of the killing of six of eight people in an Orlando nightclub that allegedly involved shooters was far more political than the ones the government was engaged in in the 1990s. But they worked.
A 2004 article in the Boston Globe reported that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently exploring a possible federal civil rights issue between the companies it has hired for tracking people who buy weapons, who use them, and who don’t. As part of a preliminary grant to develop a legal basis for doing so, DoJ may take legal action against a company (whether or not the company is an illegal seller or not) for conducting a tracking program for the weapons it buys. But the DOJ could try to get the court to prohibit the companies from targeting the legal rights of the individuals it hires. That could be important.
If the DOJ determines that the companies violate the United States’ own and the First Amendment, it may pursue a lawsuit. That could be a potentially devastating and complicated issue. For instance, if one of the three companies involved in the Boston Marathon bombing did target the rights of Bostonians, then even if this were a “terrorist attack” it would be likely to result in widespread civil unrest. The public could rightly condemn these companies if they had targets. However, if only the DOJ found that the companies had indeed targeted victims, a federal lawsuit could be put in place. To be sure, the courts could do things differently.
Regardless of whether the company is illegal or not, the DOJ might very well take the same action as the U.S. Senate. An obvious response to the potential civil rights issues would probably be to declare such companies as “cyber criminals.” In this scenario, the government could force the companies to disclose their financial dealings with the federal government. In this position, the DOJ could stop paying companies that pay them. However, they would still face intense legal and public pressure should they do so. This would raise the civil litigation process to a level that has nowhere near the political and historical tension that could exist for companies to legally pursue their clients in civil litigation. Thus far, this has not been successful.
The United States Senate could do the same thing. If the DOJ decides to impose a civil rights law that covers the company, then that could affect the companies for years to come. If DOJ decide to declare what they do is criminal or illegal, they could face a real challenge from potential citizens, like a lawsuit brought by a lawyer or an elected official.
Of course, the DOJ could also decide to pursue the issue further, as did the Supreme Court earlier this year. In December 2014, the nation’s highest appeals court ruled that certain companies can have privacy on their websites, as long as they do not violate their privacy. Companies could also argue that they are not able to do so based on the First Amendment that prohibits search and seizure of personal data. Thus, there is no immediate way for the Supreme Court to decide this case, but it can decide whether there is enough precedent to support a criminal action against it. At any rate, the Supreme Court appears to have settled matters quite close to a decision on “cyber crime” that has not been made as it relates to the Boston Marathon bombing case.
If the DOJ finds that an unlawful conduct cannot be a prerequisite for criminal charges within just five years
The Americans and Europeans (in general) would respond differently to this particular ad because of their attitudinal differences, which have cultural and historic roots. American culture is emphasized on individual accountability, while the Europeans prefer rehabilitation over punishment. European nations have long abolished the capital punishment, although now, there were surveys and polls that show a significant number of Europeans who are in favor of reinstating the death penalty. However, they, as individuals can not do anything about it and this is simply because of constitutional reasons, and having a parliament government also plays role. As long as the elite opinions remains sufficiently united, public support cannot easily translate into legislative action (Manderey, 2005). Having said all these, Europeans, as individuals, may also react similarly like the Americans.
There is a saying in the marketing world that “there is no such thing as bad publicity”. Does that apply in the Benetton case?Yes, it does. This is because when Benetton group released their highly controversial ads, despite having a decline in sales and their products being banned in some countries, the company gained popularity and became the center of discussions and debates. They have successfully created a “buzz” and made their name known around