Benetton: UNHATE Campaign

This Benetton advert, focusing on intimate moments between diverse individuals, aimed to promote tolerance and challenge prejudice. However, its use of staged intimacy, including same-sex and interfaith couples, sparked controversy and accusations of exploiting sensitive themes for commercial gain. Does the advert’s message of unity get lost in the controversy, or does the provocation ultimately serve its purpose?

OBJECTIVES

• Challenge societal norms and taboos: Surrounding intimacy and relationships.
• Provoke discussion and debate: About diversity, acceptance, and prejudice.
• Reinforce Benetton’s brand identity: As a bold and unconventional company.

THE HOOK

• Staged Intimacy and Provocation: The depiction of various couples, including same-sex and interfaith pairings, in intimate embraces immediately grabs attention. This deliberate provocation serves as the hook, challenging viewers’ comfort zones and prompting them to confront their own biases.
• Visual Contrast and Juxtaposition: The rapid montage of diverse individuals and relationships creates visual contrast and juxtaposition. This visual dynamism keeps the viewer engaged, demanding attention and further exploration of the underlying message.
• Emotional Ambiguity: The intimate scenes evoke a spectrum of emotions, ranging from warmth and acceptance to discomfort or disapproval. This emotional ambiguity adds another layer to the hook, compelling viewers to process their reactions and engage more deeply with the advert’s message.

WHY IT WORKS (AND DOESN’T)

• Controversy as a Double-Edged Sword: The controversy generated by the advert undoubtedly amplified its reach and sparked widespread discussion about social issues. However, it also risked alienating some viewers and overshadowing the intended message of tolerance.
• Brand Alignment and History: Benetton’s history of provocative advertising campaigns provided a context for this advert. While some viewed it as a continuation of their socially conscious approach, others criticized it as a cynical ploy for attention.
• Impact vs. Intent: While the advert aimed to challenge prejudice, its impact was arguably mixed. It succeeded in raising awareness of important issues but also faced accusations of trivializing sensitive themes and exploiting diversity for commercial gain.

TAKEAWAYS

• Understanding Your Audience: Provocative advertising requires a deep understanding of your target audience and their values. Misjudging this can lead to significant backlash.
• Balancing Provocation with Purpose: While controversy can be a powerful tool, it must be balanced with a clear and authentic purpose. The message should not get lost in the provocation.
• Measuring Impact Beyond Reach: The success of a provocative campaign should not be measured solely by its reach or media attention. It’s crucial to assess its impact on attitudes and behaviours.

KEY ELEMENTS

• Introduction (hook): Montage of diverse couples in intimate embraces.
• Problem statement: Implicit – the existence of prejudice and intolerance.
• Solution (product/service): Implicit – embracing diversity and UNHATE.
• Benefits and features: Promoting acceptance, understanding, and unity.
• Call to action (CTA): Implicit – to reject prejudice and embrace tolerance.

Framework: The advert leverages a Problem-Agitate-Solution (PAS) framework, although subtly. The problem (prejudice) is implied. The agitation arises from the provocative imagery and the ensuing controversy. The solution (UNHATE and acceptance) is presented as an antidote, albeit implicitly through the visuals and brand association. It also incorporates elements of AIDA, capturing Attention with the intimate scenes, generating Interest through the controversy, evoking a Desire for tolerance (though potentially mixed), and an implicit Action to reject prejudice.