United Colors of Wtf?

I recently stumbled upon these ads by an American company named “United Colors of Benetton”.

 According to Benetton the ads are “symbolic images of reconciliation - with a touch of ironic hope and constructive provocation - to stimulate reflection on how politics, faith and ideas, even when they are divergent and mutually opposed, must still lead to dialogue and mediation."

So what is Benetton? Not being from the US, I had no idea and the ads, while they are certainly attention grabbing, don’t really tell you much. It seemed to me like a campaign that would be run by an organisation like Amnesty International or Greenpeace. With that being my line of thought, I was rather stunned when the Benetton website loaded and I discovered what they sell: clothing.

A bit of research revealed Benetton have a history of relying on this odd advertising technique of presenting shocking images sans anything relevant to their actual products.

The ads form part of a campaign for the unhate foundation launched by Benetton which claims to have a presence in the international community with the aim of spreading a message of tolerance, hope and peace. All of the ads bear Benetton's logo but many do not bear the unhate logo. Whether you like it or not, the tactic certainly garners attention and, when their ads hit the news, millions of dollars’ worth of free advertising. They even scored some attention from the Vatican: 

"We must express the firmest protest for this absolutely unacceptable use of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated and exploited in a publicity campaign with commercial ends," he said. "This shows a grave lack of respect for the Pope, an offence to the feelings of believers, a clear demonstration of how publicity can violate the basic rules of respect for people by attracting attention with provocation."

Not a particularly positive shout out from the Pope, but in advertising that hardly seems to matter.

This Film is not yet Rated

I just wanted to make a quick post about a documentary I watched recently called, This Film is not yet Rated. I was reminded of it in our recent ethics lecture when Bruce mentioned the restricted rating that was given to the ad about not throwing fuel on fires. It had a good ethical message, trying to show people the potential consequences of dangerous behaviour, yet it was restricted from reaching its audience.

This Film is not yet Rated focusses on the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) rating board. A number of film makers are interviewed in the documentary, discussing the disparity in ratings, the fact that simple homosexual intimacy will be given a harsher rating than heterosexual sex and that gratuitous violence seems to be more acceptable than sex in any form. 

On reflection, the film is highly relevant to the exercise we did in the ethics lecture to establish the difference between ethical issues and personal aesthetics. It seems the ratings board in the US is unable to disambiguate ethics from aesthetics. So, for example, if you have a film which depicts an intimate homosexual relationship with an overall message of respect and acceptance, you will receive a more restrictive rating than an action film with excessive violence which carries no ethically justifiable message. There is no room to consider the film within its ethical context to determine whether the contentious scenes are justifiable. This closed-mindedness places heavy restrictions on the creative freedom of film makers. If they are stuck with a restrictive rating their ability to promote their film and the audience they will be able to reach are both greatly reduced. 

An Interesting Ethical Dilemma

Talk of ethics in last week’s lecture reminded me of a case I looked at while studying criminology. A man had been staying in a private room in a hostel in Scotland for just under a year. On the day in question he had his door locked but two maids unlocked it with a master key to clean his room. When they opened the door they found him engaged in an intimate moment with a bicycle (if you want a less ambiguous picture, he had the seat removed and there was a lot of hip thrusting going on). The maids called the police, the man was arrested and charged with a breach of the peace, and he was later found guilty and sentenced to three years’ probation. Due to the nature of his crime he was also added to the sex offender list. 

Obviously most people would find what this guy was doing gross but is there anything intrinsically unethical about it? He was in a private room behind a closed and locked door. Was it perhaps more unethical of the maids to call the police after stumbling into the scene? Couldn’t they simply have shut the door and left him in peace? 

And how ethical were the actions of the presiding judge? The man’s placement on the sex offenders list carriers with it a great burden ofconsequences. Those on the list can be barred from certain activities, areas and forms of employment. They have to re-register each year and must inform the police of any travel intentions and if they relocate. Failure to keep the police updated is an offense which carries a prison term. Based on his sentence, the man will be on the list for 7 years. His details are recorded alongside violent offenders and those who pose a danger to small children, yet his “crime” was committed alone and he had no intention of even allowing anyone to be present. 

This case is an interesting example of how murky the area of ethics is and how important it is to separate your personal aesthetics from ethical considerations.