The Ethics of Benetton's Advertising

From supposedly sexually active Catholic officials to intimate glimpses of death row prisoners, United Colors of Benetton has been quick to confront polarizing issues through commercial media. Over the past twenty years, Benetton advertisements have become one of the most enduringly controversial topics in communications, and with good reason. The evocative ads play with the boundaries of ethical photography and question the very nature of advertising. Is it ever ethical for corporations to create image-inspired social discourse to sell products? Or is it always acceptable?

Surely the images Benetton uses, however heart-breaking or horrifying, are validated as creative expressions. But the use of an image alone determines it’s ethics, and this is where Benetton finds itself on shaky ground. Company officials, including the man behind the photo advertisements, claim that they desired to foster dialogue and confront difficult issues. In a free speech (or free image, as the case may be) society, the value of debate is not only guaranteed but prized, and rightly so. Freedom doesn’t always yield responsibility, however, and it is a lack of responsibility that led Benetton from engaging, challenging photographs to well deserved public outrage. Photographs possess immense power. A well-chosen subject cleverly lit and shot from the right angle doesn’t just produce an image, it produces an idea. When the photo is published, that idea creates discussion and then, if the photographer is both skilled and a little lucky, the discussion creates action. The pattern is natural, but Benetton has managed to distort it, marrying symbolic photography to consumerism. The moment the copy of Benetton’s logo is transposed on the photograph, the nature of the photograph is sacrificed to marketing. In this age, social activism is trendy amongst young people, making an activist photograph a more distinguishing mark for a company than merely a shirt. Benetton does not happen to be engaging in social dialogue while selling clothes, they are engaging in social dialogue in order to sell clothes. The former might have maintained the integrity of the image; the latter certainly does not. Instead of making tangible the intangible values of racial equality or social justice, Benetton has used images to make consumerism attractively tangible.

Is it ever ethical for corporations to photographically create social dialogue to sell product? I would argue that it isn’t. Such advertisements trivialize the photographs and demean the issues presented. They capitalize on the real experiences and struggles of others for capital gain. Photography tells a story. It shouldn’t be one about consumerism. It should be one worth hearing.