Contemporary Issues in Marketing Dolce & Gabbana Knifing Ads - Case Study Example

Contemporary Issues in Marketing Dolce & Gabbana 'Knifing' Ads Introduction This short essay explores a contemporary issue in international business marketing, with Dolce & Gabbana, Italian high-end fashion designers being the choice brand of analysis. A few years ago, Dolce & Gabbana launched an international print advertising campaign targeting the stylish youth with novel dressing styles. To market the brand to this market niche across Europe and the USA, Dolce & Gabbana developed a set of print ads featuring young models posing with brandished knife with some of them lying doing seemingly dead after being stabbed (Campblell 2007). These ads came to be known as the ‘knifing ads’ in the resultant media and public uproar about the taste of the ads, specifically in promoting violence and sexual pervasion (i.e. rape) (Taylor 2007). The concern of this paper is in the public relations crises that the poor reception of the knifing ads created and how Dolce & Gabbana, the brand in this case, managed that crisis in respect to ideal marketing protocols in contemporary practice. This is the issue chosen for analysis in this essay, with the objective being exploring what brand caused the issue to spill over public debate forums, how it reacted to the issue versus how it should ideally have acted and reacted. The essay relies heavily on literature reviews to establish a theoretical basis on which the marketing issue identified above can be contextualized, analyzed and evaluated. While also incorporating the criticism published on the issue in various media, marketing and public relations theories as postulated by the available literature will be used to critique the brand’s response to the issue and to recommend how the resultant crises should have been handled. The paper is organized in three progressive and interrelated sections beginning with an explanation and brief review of the issue under analysis as well as the interpolations it triggered from critics. Secondly, the paper will provide a brief review of how Dolce & Gabbana reacted to and managed the Public Relations crises resultant from the knifing ads poor reception. The paper will then provide theoretical analysis of the issue based on the available literature in the contemporary crises management and advertising practices as part of public relations and international business marketing disciplines. Finally the paper will terminate with a viable conclusion and recommendations on the issues raised throughout the paper. The Recall of ‘Knifing' Ads from Dolce & Gabbana Dolce & Gabbana, the Italian high-end fashion house, featured an advertising campaign starting late 2006 to market their youthful and stylish lines (Campbell 2007). The print ad campaign was originally created by one of their staff, Miles Cal Craft Briginshaw Duffy (Campbell 2007). Most of the now famous knifing ads presumably featured the aftermath of knifing scenes and sometimes with naked and bare-chested women being part of the ads (Campbell 2007). The ads had an element of gang violence, gang rape and wanton immorality according to the complaints received from France, Italy, Britain and Spain (Taylor 2007; Payne 2007). Consequently, D&G had to recall all the ads placed across Europe and attempt to repair a soiled brand image. One of the ad featured in Britain depicted a set of four men in D&G designer clothes, two of them brandishing knives aggressively towards the third man and a fourth one lying on the floor after being wounded on his head (Payne 2007). In one version of the ads noted in Spanish print media, D&G depicted a bare-chested man forcefully pinning a barely dressed woman to the ground while several other men dressed in D&G look on but passively (Campbell 2007). This particular ad raised a huge protest across Spain most notably by the Spain’s Woman's Institute and government organizations for glorifying ‘chauvinist violence and sexual violence’ (Campbell 2007). Another version of this ad depicted two men dressed in D&G, supporting a feeble woman who had a knife and a chest wound (Taylor 2007; Campbell 2007). The most memorable of the ads was one featuring a highly stylized scene of a woman holding a vicious forked dagger to the throat of another (Payne 2007). One of the ads featured in Spain, and debatably the most ‘distasteful of the knifing ads’ featured D&G menswear models in a complete war scene (Payne 2007). One man pointing a flintlock pistol over another "dead" man with a bullet hole on his forehead, while grasping a totally naked woman on the other hand, and several other men standing by with poised daggers (Campbell 2007). The knifing ads referred to as here have been attached as appendices to the paper as they appeared in different countries across Europe. The ads were first banned in Spain and then Britain after the advertising watchdog organization received a record 166 complaints by the start of 2007 (Payne 2007). Both The Times and The Daily Telegraph in the UK admitted having received numerous complaints about the ads (Taylor 2007). Major complains across Europe opined that Dolce and Gabbana has used violence and an appeal for violence as well as sexual immorality as an advertising theme. Official complaints were lodged across Europe, Spain’s anti-violence groups being the most vicious, all complaining that D&G had made knives and guns to look glamorous and fashionable (Payne 2007). The notion implied by the ads according to many critics was that the Italian designer had been in bad taste while choosing to parade dead bodies, weaponry, executions and nudity for a winter ad campaign (Payne 2007). The France Advertising Self-Discipline Institute (IAP) banned the ad with a woman pinned on the ground for "offending the dignity of the woman … the feminine figure shown is in a degrading manner… with an alienated expression …and … an absent look" (Campbell 2007). This same complaint led to the banning of the ads in all Italian publications, D&G’s home turf. Dolce & Gabbana’s Reaction Being an international high-end fashion house, D&G explained their marketing goal, after the complaints started being published, as promoting a new line of stylish, youthful, energetic and innovative wear designed from the inspiration of and to reflect the Mediterranean culture (Payne 2007). When the first complaints were published in Spain, D&G called a press conference in which it sought to explain the motivation behind the ads. The company explained that the new collection featured by the ads was primarily designed to evoke a style from the Napoleonic period. Further, they said that the ad campaign had been inspired by the renowned paintings of Delacroix and David (Marketing Week 2007). This was the initial reaction from D&G, one attempting to explain and justify their choice of ads. Secondly, D&G gave out a press released a few days later in Britain, Spain and France, after continued and increasing public complaints, explaining that Northern Europe was not the only region that the ads had been carried. According to D&G, the same ads had been printed severally in the USA, other parts of Europe, Japan, China and Hong Kong. They noted that they had not received a single complaint from these regions and as such were sure that the ads were not poor in taste. Most activists and government agencies took this very negatively and the number of complaints increased (Payne 2007). They were spiked by the fact their own tastes had to conform to other regions, if D&G’s explanation was to be accepted and that D&G had taken them forgranted in publishing such an argument. The media, print and electronic, picked up the story and made it an even more controversial. In reaction to the increasingly spreading crises, especially after Italy joined the countries where complaints were being aired, D&G moved to their third strategy. They held a press conference during which, they argued that those men featured in the knifing ads weren’t brandishing knives aggressively (Payne 2007). D&G argued that the ads didn’t give any impression that they had or were going fight or stab each other. D&G also pointed out that the ads carried no expressions or words or expressions that could suggest violence (Marketing Week 2007). Further, D&G handpicked an aired in Spain showing a woman with a chest would and informed the public that that wound had been made to seem unrealistic (Campbell 2007). Of all the mistakes that D&G had done in handling the crisis, this third strategy is what made matters worse. Many activists noted that their interest was not what D&G thought or intended the ads to mean, but what the average population understood the ads to mean. Complains increased to an all time high following the self-denials and justification stances that D&G had opted for in response to the hostile reception of the knifing ads. Yet despite the increasing public opposition, D&G continued to publish the ads and argued further that the knifing ads were so stylized to cause any offence. Notably, the company had not offered any apology months after the complaints begun emerging (Payne 2007). At this point, the public stopped being about the ads themselves but the arrogance and patronizing attitude of D&G. People across Europe felt that the company was too self-important and confrontation as to determine what was good taste for them and what was offensive. Many other companies have had such controversies in Europe and elsewhere in the globe (Lewis, Watson and White 2010, p. 464). History should have taught D&G that they could never win against a hostile public and that they had everything to lose and nothing to gain from being adamant (Altstiel and Grow 2006, p. 74). In the last few years, many brands have recalled their products and ads from circulation after initial protests/complaints are aired, most notably Toyota and Coca Cola’s Dasani. However, D&G did exactly the opposite. Their worst mistake however came when they personalized the rises and laid the blame on Spain. In their second response to the crises as noted above, D&G had already tried to justify their ads by saying that they had been accepted elsewhere in the globe (Thangham 2007). But in this last step, the company went overboard. They stopped short of calling the Spaniards backward, unstylish and faultfinders. The fashion house called a press conference in Spain and said that they had decided to stop advertising the winter collection in Spain, not because the ads were offensive though, but to protect D&G’s ‘creative freedom’ (Thangham 2007). They said that they had been forced to withdraw the ads and accused Spain of having a "climate censorship" that is hostile to a globalizing market. As noted from the following quote in the statement released by the company, D&G were unrelenting in their quest to justify themselves. The statement said, “Following the ill and harsh criticism that has been leveled by Spanish national authorities against one of our images in the ongoing publicity campaigns, Dolce and Gabbana has decided to withdrawal all its ad campaigns from Spain to protect and preserve a creative freedom that has and will always characterize our brand” (Thangham 2007). Instead of apologizing for offending the consumers of the ads (Kersten, 2005, p. 544-549), D&G sought to create an enemy out of the Spanish authorities and consumers by blaming censorship laws that saw wrong where there was none. That same week, the knifing ads were also banned in Italy, Britain and France (Campbell 2007). D&G had not alternative but to pull down the knifing ads from all the world markets, defeated and leaving a bad taste in every fashion consumer across the globe. D&G Spokesman addressed a global media platform and said that they would look for a new marketing strategy (Thangham 2007). Without a question, D&G’s crises management and Public relations practices had been put to the ultimate test and failed. Theoretical Appreciation of The Failed Marketing Campaign Whether the design of the knifing ads was in good taste or not is a matter of individual taste. Most marketers would be willing to pardon a creative art piece that solicits negative response instead of the advertising impact it is designed for (Lewis, Watson and White 2010, p. 465). Cook (2001) opines that in marketing, advertising is always a gamble in which the message may appeal or repel the target audience (2001, p. 107). The preoccupation of an advertiser lies in trying to deceiver an adverts that has greater chances of appealing rather than repelling (2001, p. 107). Deductively, if an advert fails to solicit the intended reception, then the advertiser can be pardoned and given another chance to create a novel message or to package the same message differently (Mikhailitchenko, Mikhailitchenko and Laroche 2009, 936). In criticizing D&G’s seemingly poor taste of advertising message however, their bane of responsibility lies not in designing the knifing ads perse, but in how they responded to their negative reception (Heath 1998b, p. 157). The four steps analyzed above represent the worst marketing and public relations stunts that a company can take in times of a crisis. First, when a product, and advert or a message offered to the public raises controversy, complaints and opposition, it is not in the place of a PR manager to explain what the public does not understand (Avraham and Ketter 2008, p. 87). An advertising message must always be evaluated from the consumer or recipient perspective and not that of the advertiser. Just because the ads made sense to D&G does not make them ideal ads (Dyer 1999, p. 71). The consumers of an advertising message have the ultimate say in the quality and taste of an advertising message (Dyer 1999, p. 71). A good advertising message should be able to communicate by its own, without the need for the advertiser explaining or elaborating what it means (Dyer 1999, p. 69). Whenever such a message needs to be clarified by the advertiser, it qualifies as a poor advertisement message (Dyer 1999, p. 69). Secondly, one market region is not like any other and a savvy marketer must always appreciate the unique characteristics of each market (Jeon & Beatty 2002, p. 909). Just as one cannot sell pork products in Saudi Arabia by justifying that, the same are in demand in USA (Altstiel & Grow 2006, p. 74), so too should D&G never have expected Europeans to accept what Asia of North America had accepted. Even if they had expected the same, such should not have been voiced to the always-critical public (Heath 1998b, p. 157). A condom ad featured in Canada will have the same message and intent as one featured in Dubai, but the two will necessarily be phrased differently (Altstiel & Grow 2006, p. 74). The one in Canada will use a direct and outright language and semi-nude models will be in good taste in such an ad. However, in the Dubai ad, the condom will most probably be featured being handed over by a doctor or nurse to a man who needs to protect his family or such a context (Altstiel & Grow 2006, p. 74). In advertising, several factors play out in determining a suitable message (Kersten 2005, p. 544-549). The target audience, the communication medium to be used, the item being advertised, the intent of the advertiser and the social context are some of the most important considerations that an advertiser has to bear in mind in designing each and every advert (Jeon & Beatty 2002, p. 911). These factors mean that different regions cannot be served by a singular advertising message as D&G wanted to purport. Ideal marketing is very responsive to the context in which the advertisements are produced and disseminated ((Jeon & Beatty 2002, p. 910; Dyer, 1999, p. 70). That was a vital omission in D&G’s strategic marketing policies as depicted by how they dealt with the knifing ads crisis, i.e. their attempt to justify that the ads had been accepted elsewhere. By suggesting that the public, regulatory bodies and activists understood the ads wrongly or that they did not understand them at all, D&G was in fact criticizing the target ad recipients for being foolish and not too wise. D&G had drawn a battle line with its target consumers and aimed at proving them the lesser. Successful marketing aims at giving the consumer self-esteem and not taking it ways from him (Miller 1998, p. 623 – 635). Consumers buy products and services that elevate their self worth, esteem and respect (Vézina & Paul 2002, p. 177-192; Miller 1998, p. 623 – 635). The intention of an advertiser is to win the approval, consent and support of the consumer and not to reprimand him (Penrose 2000, p. 155-171; Miller, 1998, p. 623 – 635). Good adverts never tell consumers what to do; rather they suggest what the consumer should do to elevate his estate (Miller 1998, p. 623 – 635). D&G failed in their purpose of winning over consumers for their winter collection and instead concentrated in offering statements that came short of belittling and reprimanding the very consumers they were supposed to woo (Preston 2004, p. 61-67). Perhaps more regrettable is that D&G choose to personalize the crises and in so doing win an enemy from almost every Spanish consumer they had or could have had. When dealing with a crisis, it is of utmost importance not to personalize the response to any of the crises manufacturers (Heath 1998a, p. 144). A good public relations practitioner knows how to depersonalize issues and to deal with them from a neutral and overall platform (Avraham and Ketter, 2008, p. 86). Personalizing a crisis only makes the consumers to act in solidarity with the recipient of the negative feedback (Penrose 2000, p. 155-171; Avraham and Ketter 2008, p. 86). It was only after D&G personalized its feedback to French authorities that Italy, Britain and France also announced their bans and D&G was left without an option but to withdraw the global campaign. There is reason to believe that had D&G not personalized the crises to being a Spanish affair, the other European nations would have not gone as far as banning the ads. D&G failed to see a crises boiling, personalized their response and failed to take advantage of the raised publicity, positively. Register (1989) opines that there are times when, with the right approach, a marketer can turn a crises into a successful marketing complain (1989, p. 53). This results from the fact that a crisis always raises publicity and the interest of the consumers (Penrose 2000, p. 155-171; Heath, 1998b, p. 157). As such, if the crisis is dealt with well, the marketer gets a chance to impress and captivate that target market away from, the crises (Regester 1989, p. 54). The theoretical consensus of advertising is as an activity aimed at attracting public attention towards a business, a product, a service or a brand (Kokkinaki & Lunt, 1999, p. 48). The advert is a means to an end and as long as it solicits interest, it has done its work. D&G failed to realize that their ads had already done their work and that it was now upon consecutive marketing strategies to translate that raised interest into the brand (Glover, Hartley & Patti 1989, p. 21). A good marketing strategy would have been to withdrawal the offending ads immediately and replace them with new ads that capitalized on the winter collection, as an explanation to what the public found offending in the knifing ads. Rap musicians have been reputed to be the best crises mangers there is in that they will create a public frenzy by attacking each other and then record tracks bearing their exchanges. Rap musicians rarely go to press to air their grievances, views and complaints. In most cases, they write record selling labels to do exactly that. That is a process of turning a crisis into a marketing opportunity, one of transferring the raised public interest during a crisis into a successful brand sale (Kokkinaki & Lunt 1999, p. 47; Heath 1998a, p. 144). Recommendations and Conclusion There was a chance that the storm could have calmed down it the debate had been allowed to die off naturally. However, D&G neither withdrew the ads nor stopped justifying their ‘stylized ads’. Any marketer always dreams of a moment when his product, service or brand enters a public debate and gunners widespread interest. The only hope is that when such happens, the publicity will not be negative and destructive (Avraham & Ketter 2008, p. 84). But even when the worst happens and a brand becomes the talk of the town in all its weaknesses and shortcomings, a marketer moves in to highlight the good features and traits of the brand that supersede the shortcomings (Glover, Hartley & Patti 1989, p. 23). D&G failed to see the opportunity to market their brand, which was their original intent, and concentrated in justifying their ads. The important thing to the company was not the ads but the brand, yet they lost focus, abandoned the brand and entered the ring to fight for their ads. While thinking about how to justify their ads, they lost an opportunity to turn the aroused consumer interests to what was being advertised and not to how it was being advertised (Glover, Hartley & Patti 1989, p. 21). Advertising is just a technique and practice used by businesses to bring their brands, products, services, causes and opinions to public notice with the purpose of ultimately persuading that same public to respond in a particular way (Dyer 1999, p. 71). In this sense, the knifing ads had actually been god advertising for D&G. they had achieved, and done it well, the original intent of the campaign. What failed the campaign was how D&G responded to the public interest raised by the ads. For instance, a spokesperson for the Mother Against Murder and Aggression, Dee Warner, accompanied by an Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) official held a press conference in which she said, “The ad carries nothing whatsoever, that is to do with fashion, but everything to do with a glorification of knives and guns” (Marketing Week 2007). If D&G had been wise enough, they would have seen an opportunity in such a public expression. The woman did not need D&G to justify that the ad had anything to do with fashionable wear; rather she was already convinced otherwise. What D&G would have capitalized on, was this outspoken realization that D&G ads should feature things fashion. That means any subsequent marketing strategies from the company after withdrawing the knifing ads immediately, would have found a fertile ground, in other words, a marketers dream (Glover, Hartley and Patti 1989, p. 21). D&G needs to revitalize and transform its crises management practices and realize that crises management is not about protecting their company, their ideas and their brands, but to ensure that the brand remains popular with consumers despite the crises (Avraham & Ketter 2008, p. 82). The ideal thing for D&G would have been to withdraw the ads and not to explain them, if not for their offensive content, at least for the ineffectiveness as advertising messages. They should have capitalized on the raised public interest to communicate what was central in their marketing plans, the winter collection. References Altstiel, T. & Grow, J. (2006). Advertising Strategy: Creative Tactics From the Outside/In. California: Sage Publication Inc. ASA reacts to complaints about knives in D&G ads. (2007). Marketing Week. Retrieved on 30 July 2010, from http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/in-depth-analysis/asa-reacts-to-complaints-about-knives-in-dg-ads/2054601.article Avraham, E. & Ketter, E. (2008). Crisis and Communication Management. Media Strategies for Marketing Places in Crisis, 4 (1), 78 – 97. Campblell, A. (2007). Dolce & Gabbana Gang Rape Ad Banned in Italy, as it "offended the dignity of the woman". Five Blogs Before Lunch. Retrieved on 30 July 2010, from http://daveibsen.typepad.com/5_blogs_before_lunch/2007/03/dolce_gabbana_g.html Cook, G. (2001). The Discourse of Advertising. London: Rutledge . Dyer, G. (1999). Advertising as communication. New York: Rutledge . Glover, D., Hartley, S. & Patti, C. (1989). How advertising message strategies are set. Industrial Marketing Management, 18 (1), 19-26. Heath, R. (1998a). Dealing with the complete crisis—the crisis management shell structure. Safety Science, 30 (1-2), 139-150. Heath, R. (1998b). Looking for answers: suggestions for improving how we evaluate crisis management. Safety Science, 30 (1-2), 151-163. Jeon, J. & Beatty, S. (2002). Comparative advertising effectiveness in different national cultures. Journal of Business Research, 55 (11), 907-913. Kersten, A. (2005). Crisis as usual: Organizational dysfunction and public relations. Public Relations Review, 31 (4), 544-549. Kokkinaki, F. & Lunt, P. (1999). The effect of advertising message involvement on brand attitude accessibility. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20 (1), 41-51. Lewis, I., Watson, B. & White, K. (2010). Response efficacy: The key to minimizing rejection and maximizing acceptance of emotion-based anti-speeding messages. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42 (2), 459-467. Megehee, C. (2009). Advertising time expansion, compression, and cognitive processing influences on consumer acceptance of message and brand. Journal of Business Research, 62 (4), 420-431. Mikhailitchenko, A., Mikhailitchenko, G. & Laroche, M. (2009). Cross-cultural advertising communication: Visual imagery, brand familiarity, and brand recall. Journal of Business Research, 62 (10), 931-938. Miller, F. (1998). Bad hair day? Blasphemy, indecency and English advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 17 (3), 623 – 635. Payne, J. (2007). D&G 'knifing' ads banned after 166 complaints. Marketing Magazine. Retrieved on 30 July 2010, from http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/625129/D-G-knifing-ads-banned-166-complaints/ Penrose, J. (2000). The role of perception in crisis planning. Public Relations Review, 26 (2), 155-171. Preston, C. (2004). Advertising to children and social responsibility. Young Consumers, 6 (4), 61-67. Regester, M. (1989). Crisis management : how to turn a crisis into an opportunity. London : Hutchinson Business.. Taylor, C. (2007). D&G's knife-wielding models in bad taste? AdFreak. Retrieved on 30 July 2010, from http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2007/01/in_a_story_that.html Thangham, C. (2007). Dolce and Gabbana Pulls All Advertising in Spain in Protest Over 'Censored' Ad. CNN Digital Journal. Retrieved on 30 July 2010, from http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/139408 Wilkinson, T. (Ed). (1989). The Communications challenge: personnel and PR perspectives. London : Institute of Personnel Management. Vézina, R. & Paul, (2002). Provocation in advertising: A conceptualization and an empirical assessment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14 (2), 177-192. Appendices The Knifing Ads as Printed in Various Print Media Appendix A The Print Version of the Knifing Ads Published in Britain Source:http://daveibsen.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/dolcegabbana_knife_banned_120.jpg Appendix B The Print Version of the Knifing Ads Published in Spain Source: (Marketing Week, 2007) Appendix C The Print Version of the Knifing Ads Published in France and Italy Source: (Marketing Magazine, 2007) Read More