AIDS patient David Kirby lays in a hospital bed, his head cradled in his father's arms and his hollow face looks to nowhere as his family comforts him during their final goodbyes, expressions of sorrow and anguish deeply etched onto their faces. On the bottom right corner of the photo, a green box simply states the words 'United Colours of Benetton' in white. This simple use of branding and the addition of colour was enough to transform this already emotive and societally relevant image shot in 1990 during the AIDS endemic, into one of the most controversial ad campaigns in history. Opinions ranged from outrage, with people considering the photo as the monetization of the AIDS issue and the exploitation of the Kirby family, to opinions of support, with those considering the company as a vehicle for AIDS awareness. Whether you agree or disagree, the ad was undeniably impactful and through it's controversy it became known worldwide, cementing United Colours of Benetton as a household name. Personally, seeing the ad in class was invigorating. In today’s society bogged by washed down corporate advertisements like the recent Pepsi ad featuring Kendall Jenner, it’s hard if not impossible, to find any company as willing to associate itself so entirely to ideas and a position unmotivated by simply profitability. Unlike the Pepsi ad’s appropriation of the black lives matter movement through the idealization of protests and it's reduction of the movements significance to the vague words ”join the conversation”, Benetton’s AIDS campaign was unapologetically direct and undiluted.

 

Intrigued I visited Benetton’s website and my anticipation was quickly met with confusion and disappointment. Similar to GAP or H&M, the website resembled any other clothing retailer’s. The site was dominated by slick editorial shots of caucasian men and women with the occasional person of colour and the recent campaigns felt devoid of meaning or any significance and in many ways counter productive to the progressive values I assumed the company would embody. How had a company with a history of addressing controversial issues and creating meaningful adverts such as the AIDS campaign evolve, or rather devolve, into the extremely corporate, consumer minded company they’ve become? To answer this question, I analyzed the progression of ideologies the company has undergone since it’s inception.

 

Originally, the Italian company was founded by the four Benetton siblings in 1963 specializing in hand knit wool sweaters. In 1982 Oliviero Toscani, a photographer, became the artistic director for the Benetton ad campaigns and was the spear head for the majority of Benetton’s controversial campaigns covering subjects such as child labor, race issues, gender issues, cross-cultural issues, world hunger, religion, AIDS and other STDs, mental health, war, violence, environment, immigration, gay and transgender issues, isolation and communication. Toscani’s strong stance on using his work as a means of social commentary flourished under the absence of an outsourced advertising team and his direct communication with, then head of Benetton, Luciano Benetton. During his time there, Toscani’s philosophy became the core of Benetton’s image, his values exemplified in his numerous ad campaigns and his founding of Colors, Benetton’s in house magazine focused on multiculturalism and multiethnicity. He describes himself as a reporter simply communicating his observations and, on being asked about his use of shock as a tactic, Toscani replies,

 

“I didn’t shock with the images, I got shocked by what was surrounding me.”

 

His partnership with Benetton lasted until the year 2000, during which the backlash of his campaign featuring headshots of  death row inmates with the caption “sentenced to death” resulted in a lawsuit, negative feedback and the ending of an 18 year old relationship between the artist and the company.

 

The decade following Toscani’s departure saw Benetton trying to uphold the same ethos in campaigning by the company’s communications center, Fabrika. But with the release of the unHate campaign in 2011 that featured adverse political /  spiritual leaders like the pope and the Egyptian imam kissing one another, the criticism and condemnation of the campaign from the likes of the vatican combined with the Benetton family stepping down from the company's board of directors in the years following, saw the ad as the last of it’s kind. New head of brand and products, John Mollanger has since stated,

 

“We have moved away from pointing a finger at what we thought was wrong and instead we want to actually improve what we think is wrong.”

 

“We are committed to making clothes with a cause. But I don’t think that we want to commit to being shocking. We have matured and the world has matured.”

 

It saddens me to see how little regard there is for the impact of communication and imagery implied within these statements. Yes, the company donates to different charities but what made the previous campaign images so impactful was that it created discussion and presented issues through a widespread format that forced reactions. As Toscani stated, he was not creating “shock imagery” it just so happens the issues he photographed were shocking and rightfully so. Consumer culture is frighteningly numbing and at times when we are the least observant and most numb those images served as a wake up call. John Mollanger’s condescending comparison of the company’s maturity infers the old ads are inferior to those now, but what retail company’s campaign has done as much for advocating for AIDS awareness as that single image of David Kirby pushed onto the world through Benetton’s platform?

​

Imagery without purpose and content is good aesthetics at best and is often forgettable and safe. Rather than taking a strong stance, United Colours of Benetton has decided to blend in and unfortunately when comparing themselves to their past, it becomes obvious the company has fallen into the trap of capitalist politics and ideologies, sacrificing their individuality and value under the fear of crossing the line of what's socially acceptable.