Balenciaga is seuing the agency that ran the ad! Is the backlash they've gotten unfair?

[Telekinetic-Potato]

So for anyone who doesn't know, Balenciaga, is a fashion brand owned by the same family that owns Saint laurent, Alexander McQueen, Gucci and Puma just to name a few.

They got in hot water after an ad was released which showed small children with teddy bears in bondage gear and in one of the photos was a court ruling that essentially decided that depicting sexual scenes with minors is protected under free speech as long as it never actually involves the real thing.

Many people are attacking this brand for supporting this however they don't fully understand how advertising for a company of this size typically works.

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/balenciaga-lawsuit-controversial-campaign/index.html

Balanciaga actually ended up seuing the company that they hired to create and run the campaign. Presumably after years of successful ads prior. This ad agency is already fighting another cimilar court battle.

The reason I find this so interesting is because as people rush to blame Balenciaga and bash then and say they're a terrible brand (in my opinion they're one of the more artistic, tasteful and interesting fashion brands today) and they're supporting child porn, I know they probably don't understand that anyone important is so disconnected from these ad campaigns it's not even funny.

Like the designers probably didn't even know about this until after the backlash.

I think the reaction is understandable but rather unfair. What do you think?

[USLegionary]

Suing to down play it but I suspect they got what they wanted and approved the adverts

[Telekinetic-Potato]

It's a whole campaign, as in they hired an ad agency, and their job is to run hundreds of campaigns and send back info on how well the ads are doing. Calling this a coincidence would be like going to a kitchen display at home depot and saying it's a coincidence that the cabinates above the sink match with the ones below the counter. The only thing Balenciaga is guilty of is being sloppy with their ad agency.

[USLegionary]

Yeah but Balenciaga still approved the ads. Like the Jenner Pepsi ad, Pepsi saw it and approved it.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

OK, but when you said Balenciaga approved it, who? It's not usually a decision that's left up to more than one person for something that small. And the agency which is currently being sued for doing the same thing to another company was likely on some kind of retainer. Also for the record the Pepsi ad is a bad comparison. That was people taking the message out of context because of a politically charged time. This is an ad agency following a trend in the fashion marketing world. Also, it's worth pointing out that the Pepsi ad is a major commercial that was supposed to be used as a flagship campaign across the world using a big name. Not some cheap photoshoots with a nobody photographer that were probably meant to end up in a place most people were probably unlikely to see.

[USLegionary]

The point is the ad company approved it to the board of balenciaga and they approved it, if that's not the case the board should be fired.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

Yea, that ad absolutely did not get shown to the board of Balenciaga. That's not how small ads in a major fashion brand work. If it was approved at all which it probably wasn't, it was probably done by a single person whos less than 30. Like they literally do hundreds of these. They're cheapie shoots

[purplepoppy]

Someone from balenciaga must have seen and approved the ad. Anyone with half a brain should know anything connecting kids with a sexual fetish is a no go. It was dumb to make it and dumber to approve it.

[Guy13]

Unseen spiritual realm and warfare expressed through the total depravity of fallen man... that's all that is.

[joeldalton]

Lol, they knew. Don’t be that naive.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

How long have you worked in advertising?

[joeldalton]

how long have you?

[Telekinetic-Potato]

About 5 years, I've owned a production company right up until the pandemic and have ran multiple campaigns that have generated millions of dollars. My clients ranging from non-profit, to product work and yes, even some fashion. I was very lucky to have impressed the right people while I was in college and was offered a partnership with a mentor and so I dropped out to start my career. The fashion industry is easily the most anything goes one and even though I can kinda understand why people think these situations aren't mistakes. I think it's important for people to have a little more realistic of an understanding for how this stuff works. Because it's incredibly complex and there are many different ways this situation can happen and similar things has happened throuought the history of advertising.

[joeldalton]

And do you know who Lotta Volkova is?

[Telekinetic-Potato]

She's a young artist who belongs to the punk underground of the fashion and art world. While a lot of her art style is disturbing, it's unlikely that she supports actual abuse of children. While the whole idea was misguided and should never have been done in the way it was, it was probably meant to spark a conversation about something. Again, she's young and has been very successful. If I didn't have good people around me I would have passed some pretty terrible ideas. I don't support what she's doing, but mostly because I don't understand it and I'm not really sure under what context those kids were brought in. I know that the whole young kids thing is probably a russian trope in high art, I've seen things that have lead me to believe that in Russia this would be looked at much differently than here in the states. Lotta has made a name for herself doing the shock stuff and the shoots largely match her art style. And again, it's pretty understandable that Balenciaga would get involved with her as someone they've worked with in the past and feel they can trust, and let her just run the campaign with the agency without formal approval. Especially since she's a celebrity in that space. I personally hate the ad by the way. I will be paying very close attention to what Balenciaga does next because while they're in a very difficult spot right now, they're going to have to make this right somehow or at least do some other campaign that goes against exploitation of minors in a sexual setting.

[joeldalton]

At what point do people stop being pretentious and pretending it's "art that's too sophisticated for you rubes" and "wow, this bitch is fucking evil and a pedo"

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I mean, this one is a little more obvious you can tell it's about kids free will being taken away from them. It feels like there's supposed to be some kind of weird humor that only a certain small group of people could understand here. But yes I very largely agree with you. This kind of stuff belongs stuffed away in some weird art gallery somewhere away from the general public. And I really hope they weren't using random kids from a modeling agency for this. But that's what these types do, they do something that could only be interperated correctly by a tiny fraction of the population and then try to show it to as many people as possible and what (I really hope) they don't realize they're doing is projecting a wildly different message to the public than intended. Maybe part of the reason I'm doing this is because I never associated Balenciaga with this shit. It's kind of out of nowhere and this comes from a trend that other more prominent brands have been practicing where they take kids in pubescent stages and do stuff like beach shoots or other scenes and the shots will be selatious in nature. Like the camera will pan up from the waist and extentuate parts of the body that are sexual. Like the thighs, butt and chest. These shots linger and then the shits of the faces last a second or two. And then they take the ad and put it on a video billboard in NYC it's sickening.

[joeldalton]

But that's my point. "interpreted correctly" is that these are pedophiles trying to pass off their perversion as "art".

[Telekinetic-Potato]

That's how you or I would normally interperated it. But these aren't normal people, they really are pretty weird. As much as I would prefer to live in a version of reality where I never saw this, it's pretty unclear what the meaning was supposed to be. And in the spirit of being fair, most artists remembered through history have unusual sexual desires, mental illness and are just plain strange. Van gogh spent many years in a hospital for the insane and cut off his own ear. Da vinci wrote in reverse and enjoyed dissecting human corpses So I don't know. There's more to it than you or I or even a psychologist could understand. I just hope Balenciaga responds appropriately. At least for the thousands of people who work there and have nothing to do with any of this.

[joeldalton]

It's 100% clear what the meaning was supposed to be. You don't pose a child in bondage gear and strew about child pornography court documents and then go 'he he he those wacky artists'.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

No, but it could have been them trying to speak out against something. It could be a continuation of an idea that's getting kicked around already between artists. That's how these circles work. Someone makes a work, people interperate it and then other people imatate or do their own version, then eventually someone like Lotta shows up and adds something new that turns everything on its head. In this case it would probably have been better for everyone if she didn't. And I don't think she expected people to go "he he" I think she probably expected people to have a different interpretation of what the court decision meant in juxtaposition with the rest of the shoots. Based on what we know it could be interperated as an attack on what these other brands have been doing with kids. Would you consider what she did art if this whole shit show got other brands who exploit children on a regular basis to stop?

[joeldalton]

Yes, but it won't do as much to stop child exploitation as say... releasing Epstein and Maxwell's client list. But these elites like to cover for each other.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

It would be nice to have that, but it I feel like until we as a society say enough is enough, these problems are going to continue. Maybe art is the language needed. I guess if you think about it, because of this campaign here's two people talking right now about the disgusting exploitation of minors and how these elites think they're bigger than God. Maybe there's more people having the same conversation as us.

[joeldalton]

yes, but you're calling them misunderstood artists, and I'm calling them satanic pedophiles. There's a difference,

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I'm not calling them anything, I'm just trying to say it's not fair to assume from these pictures that someone very high up in the company is using these ads to spread their sick idiology across the world. You want to talk about elites controlling everything? What better way than to control ad agencies that somehow have managed to blame this on everyone except management. Everyone this has been blamed on is either poor or basically a kid themself. Those photographers don't get paid that much for these shoots. Less than what they would get paid to take a picture of a product for a website. But somehow you want to boycott Balenciaga, a brand that has mostly stayed away from this trend until an ad agency sanctioned this on their behalf and none of the management there, none of the copywriters or creative directors or anybody who makes big bucks is being named. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

[joeldalton]

Their head stylist is a huge fan of pedo art. You can't act like they didn't know what was going on.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

She's not their head stylist. She's someone who used to work for Balenciaga who may or may not have taken part in the shoot in a freelancing capacity. And again it is extremely likely they didn't.

[joeldalton]

you're incredibly naive to believe they didn't.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I just know how the field works. I'm telling you this campaign was not a big one. They have so many of these running at the same time it's not even funny. There's no time to have a million people look at the ads. There's a ceo, who hires an hr staff who hires a creative staff who hires creative directors and interns and producers and everyone is trying to keep up and not make a single wrong move because these jobs are incredibly difficult to get. There's no meeting with the board of directors where a bunch of old people sit around a table and discuss the pictures. Thy hire people to do that for them and it doesn't always work out the way we all want it to. It happens.

[joeldalton]

I guarantee there was more than one person that approved it. Quit the bullshit.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

Not on a small ad. If thy had Kim Kardashian, and the scenes were lit properly and the photos didn't look generic as all hell, I would be agreeing with you. But this is a very insignificant shoot. It's some small shit that was done because these companies spend around 40% (or more for a fashion brand) of their profits on advertising. So a little 30k shoot means nothing to them. Once you see adds with more production value and it's something that will be shown more like if it were an expensive campaign, now everyone's actions are going to be held under a higher level of scrutiny.

[joeldalton]

lmao. bro. Be serious. This didn't just slip by.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

Even my ads I did for some of the non profits, they sent me a treatment, I came up with some concepts, told them the jist of what I was going to do, nothing too specific, shot it and sent it to their marketing team. It was posted the same day as the deadline.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

And most of my projects were like that too. I had one that aired on TV and the clients first time seeing it was on air. And I was doing comparably small stuff. Balenciaga is investing a much smaller percentage of their capital

[joeldalton]

And their marketing team approved it. Was this non-profit trying to get people to buy $800 t-shirts? This wasn't dollar general advertising minons t-shirts.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

No, they were trying to get people to give them tens of thousands of dollars out of the kindness of their hearts. Ironically their image is just as important to what they were trying to do. This whole industry is already very casual in this sense and the fashion world takes it to another level. I have a friend who did a video for a company, put me in it and this place used it in the front page of their website. What do you think people would say if they found my gag account? 😂

[Telekinetic-Potato]

It doesn't work the way you think it does. There's two things people care about in the creative field, artists care about art, business people care about the money. That's why it's the greatest industry ever

[joeldalton]

lmao. It doesn't work the way YOU think it does. For someone to claim to be an industry insider, how can you be so ignorant? Is James Woods just as incorrect?

[Telekinetic-Potato]

That's James woods 😂 exactly my point. Unless it's a huge production, nobody's combing through the photos like that and chances are the person looking at the photos is not really the most qualified person to be making a decision about the content of the ad itself.

[joeldalton]

Right, someone who probably knows a bit more about advertising than you. You're full of shit if you think no one approved this. Millions are at stake.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

Millions are at stake every time an intern decides what race an extra in the shoot should be. Those are the stakes

[joeldalton]

which is why it would have oversight by balenciaga