S
SamTheNewfie
Guest
Just go over to Banana Republic, and you can find the same thing you’re looking for.
Vatican criticizes Benetton picture of Pope kissing world leader [Guardian]
- Status
S
Serap
Guest
I never said anything other than the add promotes peace and love.
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
Ya, the kind of love you clean up with a mop and bucket. French kissing someone isn’t exactly the most perfect expression of agape.
S
Serap
Guest
I doubt sales will go down. not many Catholics in America compared to it’s population.
A
A_G
Guest
I will never buy from benetton again.
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
Yeah, I get that. However, its insulting insofar as it suggests that hate exists between our Holy Father and the Muslim cleric (and, by extension Islam); or that our HF is somehow the polar opposite of the cleric.
Pope Benedict XVI is spearheading interfaith dialogue with Islam in an unprecedented way. However, the ad casts him in a series alongside bitter political rivals–at least two of whom have engaged in warfare or political maneuvering against their ‘beau’.
That is the really outrageous thing about this ad. The horrible photo shop job is only insult to injury.
Another absurdity is the Sarkozy-Merkel duo–with all the meeting the two have been doing, they may as well be married. Not that it would save the EU…
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I’m not sure whether advocating an email bombardment campaign is within CAF rules. Regardless, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of Benetton’s investor relations office. They are not getting paid to pass your opinions on to Benetton’s investors. They are getting paid to make the investors happy, and put a positive spin on anything investors think makes the company look bad. If you own stock in Benetton and are unhappy about this campaign, they want to know. If you don’t own stock in Benetton, investor relations doesn’t care that you even exist.
You’re obviously exaggerating a bit, but your point about Benedict’s dialogue with Muslims is well-taken, as to the facts. But Benetton isn’t engaging in photojournalism, it’s creating a provocative ad campaign. What provokes people in these campaigns is seeing erstwhile enemies kissing, and clearly the public perception is that Benedict and a generic Muslim leader fit the roles. While Benetton may be capitalizing on it, the existence of this public perception is the fault of the Vatican’s abysmal public relations efforts under Benedict’s pontificate, especially around the time of his Regensburg speech.
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
I didn’t state anything that would lead a reader to believe that I thought it was photo-journalistic.
**
Think about it**: its only provocative if you have a certain assumptions about the couples pictured. You don’t see Gandhi locking lips with Einstein. You don’t see John Lennon puckering up for Nelson Mandela. This is because we are conditioned to think of these figures as benevolent, peaceful, and conciliar.
Benetton just perpetuates this theme, and the people whose chief objection with this ad is the sexual activity are missing the point. Those who think its a necessarily acceptable message for the Church (‘peace’ is always in season, right?) are similarly wrong.
When you try to mitigate Benetton’s culpability, you’re making two errors, imo:
(1) You’re assuming that Benetton is powerless to add to the public feeling about the Benedict XVI’s papacy and the relationship between religions.
Its not, and the fact that a lot of people are paying attention to these ‘controversial’ ads is evidence.
(2) You’re assuming that Benedict XVI’s own performance had a role in the generally negative aura that surrounds the papacy in public feeling.
The ‘abysmal public relations’ that we, the entire RCC, have suffered with Benedict XVI for during his pontificate are not entirely due to the actions and inaction of the Holy See and its servants. Its a two-way street. You can’t fully blame the batter, if the pitcher is constantly throwing nasty pitches. The fact of the matter is that there is a popular movement to reject religion as backwards–the more traditional, the more backwards–and that it is the source of division and hate in something the enlightened call, ‘Humanity.’
Anywho, you can scream ‘Regensburg, Regensburg, Regensburg’ until you’re blue in the face but more bold interfaith initiatives have taken place under this man’s short pontificate than nearly any pope before him. Which is why the ad is another brick in a wall that obscures the true face of this pontificate’s irreligious policy.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I didn’t say you did. My point was that your objection to the facts implied by the Benetton images would be relevant if this were journalism. It’s not. Benetton doesn’t care what the actual facts are, they care what people think they are.
I make no such assumption. Benetton could surely cast light on very positive things the Church does (or negative things, for that matter), and if done in as bold a manner as their usual ad campaigns this could have a profound influence on the public’s perception of the Church in their target audience. I don’t think they have any particular responsibility to do this, and it doesn’t surprise me that they haven’t. They have a responsibility to get people talking about Benetton, a task which they’ve done quite well.
quote=LiveCatholic You’re assuming that Benedict XVI’s own performance had a role in the generally negative aura that surrounds the papacy in public feeling.
[/quote]
From your following paragraph, it sounds like perhaps you agree. I think it would be naive to suggest that Benedict had no role in the perception of his pontificate.
Nonetheless, the Vatican capably turned events that looked like they would come off in a negative light, with considerable initial hostility, into largely positive stories. The two that come to my mind right off are the release of Summorum Pontificum and the visit to the UK. Sadly, the occasions where this sort of PR talent has been displayed are few and far between.
I have no idea what you mean by that phrase.
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
I didn’t say you did. My point was that your objection to the facts implied by the Benetton images would be relevant if this were journalism. It’s not. Benetton doesn’t care what the actual facts are, they care what people think they are.
**Sure, but is this discussion focused on how best for Benetton to maximize its profits or to promote its image campaign? Is the thread called, ‘Why would Benetton do such a thing? What were they thinking?’–no, almost everyone here has a general understanding of why this is the case. I think this question, if any, is the irrelevant perspective.
Regardless, fashion is art, and art can be a vessel for ‘messages.’ The ‘message’ that this series sends is something that I can object to as much as photojournalism. My objection remains relevant.**
I make no such assumption. Benetton could surely *cast light *on very positive things the Church does (or negative things, for that matter), and if done in as bold a manner as their usual ad campaigns this could have a profound influence on the public’s perception of the Church in their target audience. I don’t think they have any particular responsibility to do this, and it doesn’t surprise me that they haven’t. They have a responsibility to get people talking about Benetton, a task which they’ve done quite well.
** Two things:
(1) Your use of the phrase, ‘cast light’, seems to suggest the photo-journalistic endeavor that you were emphatically asserting their campaign was not**.
(2) My claim solely concerned their ability to affect public opinion. It did not admit of any considerations of responsibility–only culpability. Media and controversies like this shape public opinion, at least more so than the reverse. Seeing our HF kissing a Muslim cleric, alongside a row of bitter enemies locking lips, conditions people to think of the HF and Islam (because surely we cannot be arsed to know this single cleric and what he represents as an individual) as bitter enemies.
From your following paragraph, it sounds like perhaps you agree.
Sorry, what I meant to say was ‘entirely due to.’ I suppose an intelligent person could infer this from the structure of my argument, but thanks for pointing this out.
I think it would be naive to suggest that Benedict had no role in the perception of his pontificate.Nonetheless, the Vatican capably turned events that looked like they would come off in a negative light, with considerable initial hostility, into largely positive stories. The two that come to my mind right off are the release of Summorum Pontificum and the visit to the UK. Sadly, the occasions where this sort of PR talent has been displayed are few and far between.
**You seem to dole out too much weight to the strictly top-level PR influence on these events. I think you’re giving too much praise/blame to Fr. Lombardi and Dr. Navarro-Valls, ignoring the unique problem in each story.
For instance, that the Vatican had perfectly legitimate reasons for the UK visit balanced against the noise created by the fact that the Isles are historically dominated by Anglicans, atheists, and anti-Catholics. Not a terribly difficult feat to pull off: that is, not looking like the bad guy when attacked by a bunch of irrational bigots–nevertheless much noise was generated, and this visit will be remembered for its controversy, rather than the good-will created by it. **
I have no idea what you mean by that phrase.
Interfaith dialogue; excuse me, again.*
- Status