Balenciaga Controversy
All press is good press – until it’s not.
Just ask Balenciaga, which is reeling after a series of advertising missteps. First, they released images for their holiday campaign that featured children modeling bondage-inspired products. Next came the inclusion of printed documents from a US Supreme Court ruling on child pornography that appeared in their Spring 23 product campaign. Finally, the Spring 23 campaign also featured French actress Isabelle Huppert holding a book featuring Belgian artist Michaël Borremans whose work includes depictions of naked and sometimes castrated toddlers.
The campaigns were shot by photographers Gabriele Galimberti (holiday) Joshua Bright (Spring 23) and Chris Maggio (Spring 23 still life) with set design by Nicholas Des Jardins and produced by North Six. The three photographers, none of whom are “fashion” photographers, as well as Borremans, are well-known for their work.
Using art or subversive material to sell product is nothing new, and fashion has a long history of seeking to push the boundaries of acceptability. In the 1990’s, we had Calvin Klein’s “Kiddie Porn” ads, which were banned for their blatantly creepy off-camera adult interviewer. And don’t forget when French Vogue came under fire after a layout in its December 2010 issue featured sexualized child models. The guest editor was Tom Ford and the Editor-in-Chief was Carine Roitfield. Of course, the problem in all these examples is that somehow adults thought it was acceptable to use children to sell fashion products; beyond simply exploiting kids, I am still trying to figure out how using child models to sell product to adults – particularly adult women - makes any sense.
Regardless, enough professionals were engaged in this Balenciaga project that the brand felt comfortable releasing the images as a global advertising campaign. And there is no way these images were concepted, planned, and executed without the express consent of the house. No brand spends budget on producing advertising images without knowing exactly what product they are promoting, the release date of the images and what media outlets they will be seen in.
After a widespread public backlash, Balenciaga said it was suing the set designers and production company over the images, which – to me – is misplacing the blame. According to the Fashion Network, a lawyer for Des Jardins, pointed out that "representatives from Balenciaga were present at the shoot, overseeing it and handling papers and props, and Des Jardins as a set designer was not responsible for image selection from the shoot". As of yesterday, Balenciaga seems to be taking full responsibility for both campaigns per their Instagram account.
Which brings me to my point: Who thought this was a good idea and that it aligned with the brand? Where was the CBO or whoever has that function within the Balenciaga organization? If this was supposed to be a commentary on children in society or consumerism – and I have no idea what that would be – why wasn’t the brand prepared with a statement regarding the images or at least supply some kind of context?
As much as Balenciaga has courted controversy under creative director Demna – the infamous “Ikea” bag, the $600 a pair Crocs collaboration, and using cracked iPhones for its Autumn/Winter 2022 show invite - this feels like one too many marketing stunts. I realize it’s difficult to stay on consumer radar – indeed every brand I speak to talks about their visibility challenges – but there has always been a high degree of competition in the fashion industry. I also understand that brands want to produce more than “pretty” pictures because the public sees hundreds of images a day through its interaction with social media. But we’ve seen this kind of marketing tactic - sexualizing children or seemingly promoting child exploitation - backfire before and someone inside the organization should have been protecting the Balenciaga brand. Imagery is a communication device, and a global brand must understand what story its images are telling to a worldwide audience.
Image: Eric Petschek
