Unpacking the Balenciaga Scandal
Why the Paris based luxury fashion brand’s apology strains credulity
The iconic luxury fashion house, Balenciaga, is facing harsh criticism for its advertising campaigns – the “Gift Collection” campaign featuring children with bondage-clad teddy bears and their Spring 2023 “office” themed campaign which included legal papers from a Supreme Court case on child porn. Balenciaga issued an apology for both campaigns on Instagram, notably disabling comments. With the “Gift Collection” campaign, they admitted failures in “assessing and validating images,” and on the Spring 2023 campaign they blamed the third party who provided props for the photo shoot.
Balenciaga’s apology and the reasons cited for its “grievous errors” are laughable to everyone especially anyone familiar with developing an advertising campaign. Here’s why.
Anytime a brand begins developing a new advertising campaign they usually start by briefing an advertising agency. This briefing includes the featured product(s), the target audience, and any relevant marketplace research insights. The campaign goals are clearly articulated in the briefing and can typically range from driving brand awareness to product purchase or, in the case of Balenciaga, press.
From there, a creative agency will usually present several high-level concepts that offer different approaches for the campaign. Each concept might include a sample tagline (e.g., “Just Do It” from Nike) and initial thoughts on the visual style. It can take several rounds of refinement for a client to land on a concept it likes. It’s possible that Balenciaga did not employ an advertising agency, in which case they had a very distinct campaign concept in mind. Either way, the process of determining the creative direction for an advertising campaign is deliberate. In the case of a luxury fashion brand known for pushing boundaries, it is unthinkable that Balenciaga’s creative director, Demna Gvasalia, was not intimately involved in setting the campaign strategy.
Once landing on an overall concept, the advertising agency develops the ad content including the copy and visuals. For heavily visual ads like Balenciaga, the focus would be on the photography and selection of a photographer. Once selected, the photographer receives a brief articulating the campaign goals, desired photographic style, and, a shot list. An excruciating amount of detail goes into determining exactly what product would be featured in each shot along with the setting, props, and specific placement of those props. Detailed conversations would have occurred in selecting models (including the children) to ensure their “look” aligned with the overall campaign vibe. The clothes each model wore would have been thoughtfully chosen. In case it’s not clear, this is a lengthy process where every detail is considered.
Following a photo shoot, the client will review the photographs and select those to be included in the campaign. Each selection is scrutinized to ensure every aspect aligns with the campaign’s intended goal. At Balenciaga, the ultimate decision-maker in this process would be its creative director, Demna Gvasalia. There is no chance this task was outsourced to the photographer or an underling.
This takes me back to Balenciaga’s apology. While they admit featuring children with sexualized teddy bear purses in their “Gift Collection” campaign was wrong (no kidding!), there is zero question that the overall concept and details of the campaign were a conscious choice. It was not a failure in “assessing and validating images.” The only images to assess and validate were those they painstakingly planned and featured in the campaign.
On the 2023 Spring campaign, Balenciaga is suing the production company North Six and set designer Nicholas Des Jardins for $25M saying it was confirmed in writing that fake office documents would be used as props in the photo shoot and that real legal documents, supposedly from a TV drama, were used instead. If the child porn thread were isolated to this campaign only, it might be believable. But, together with the subject matter in the “Gift Collection” campaign, it seems more than a coincidence.
Very few of Balenciaga’s celebrity brand ambassadors such as Nicole Kidman have commented on the controversy. Kim Kardashian, a notable exception, condemned the “disturbing images,” and said she is “reevaluating” her relationship with the brand. Notable too is that she did not immediately walk away. Media outlets like the New York Times and The Cut are dismissing the fuss as "conservative talking points" with linkages to QAnon conspiracy theories. No leader at any renowned advertising agency has spoken out on the absurdity of the excuses offered in Balenciaga's apology.
These facts leave me with a very sad takeaway – the protection of children against sexual deviancy is no longer sacred.