From Bad to Worse: Balenciaga’s Misguided Attempt to Court a Younger Audience
Even bad PR is still PR, right? Or at least that’s what Balenciaga must have thought before unveiling their campaign which, instead of promoting the brand, had their audience wondering if the brand supports child molestation (that’s the best explanation I can come up with for what I think is the most stupid attention-grabbing stunt ever by a luxury fashion brand).
The Campaign:
In November 2021, Balenciaga released an advertising campaign featuring children holding teddy bears that wore clothing resembling bondage gear, including harnesses and collars. Much criticism was leveled at the campaign for sexualizing and abusing young children (humanity isn’t completely dead I guess because people at least recognized this to be messed up. Thank God).
Many people spoke out against the campaign, including child protection services and industry advocates, claiming that it was improper and damaging to exploit children in this way. As soon as the story broke out of the widespread backlash, Balenciaga took the pictures down from their website and apologized for any offense they may have caused (as if objectifying women wasn’t enough, Balenciaga now had to objectify children).
Could It Have Been Avoided:
Could Balenciaga have avoided coming off as a supporter of child molestation? YES OF COURSE! (No shiz! I really wanna know what genius came up with this campaign idea).
There are so many levels for an ad campaign to get approved especially at a company the size of Balenciaga that I refuse to believe it slipped through the funnel and the brand did not realize it until it was already posted online (If you are going to make a public apology at least come up with a better excuse other than “it was a giant mistake”).
Balenciaga could have chosen not to use children in their advertising campaign, or they could have used adult models to convey the same message. Alternatively, the brand could have created a campaign that was less controversial and less likely to generate criticism. The fact that from the inception of this campaign idea to the photographer, to the marketing team, to the creative team, and all the way to the CMO, nobody once thought that this is messed up is just beyond understandable (or maybe they did think it was messed up but they knew it would get them trending and it was all planned).
Crisis Management:
Balenciaga took several steps to manage this crisis such as:
- It was proactive in removing controversial images from its website and social media channels.
- Then they issued a statement apologizing for any offense caused and acknowledged that the campaign was a mistake (although I don’t know how much I believe the mistake part).
- Balenciaga engaged with stakeholders such as child protection advocates and industry professionals to address their concerns. It also signed a deal with the National Children’s Alliance (NCA) for the next three years to work to spread awareness about child protection.
- The brand committed to putting in place new editorial checks and educational initiatives to make sure this doesn’t happen again
This strategic crisis management and the transparency of the brand throughout the process were effective in managing the negative publicity and restoring some public trust in the brand. By acknowledging the mistake and taking steps to address the concerns of stakeholders, the brand demonstrated a willingness to take responsibility for its actions and to listen to feedback.
Conclusion:
I think this ad blunder could have been avoided entirely and I still don’t truly believe it was “a mistake” but I do have to admit that their crisis management was very effective. Overall, the crisis management strategy helped to mitigate some of the damage caused by the controversy, but the incident is likely to have a lasting impact on the brand’s reputation and public perception. As a result, consumers may in the future hold Balenciaga in lower regard, especially those who care about social responsibility and moral company conduct.
What do you guys think? Do you think it was a genuine mistake or a marketing stunt?
