Is this exploitation of the poor? A saavy marketing campaign? A political statement? Or just plain cruel?
In the August 2008 issue of Vogue India, there is a controversial 16 page advertising campaign that uses the countries poor to sell products meant for the countries rich.
In the image below, you see a picture of a poor husband and wife marketing a $200 Burberry umbrella and an Etro handbag.
Perhaps the editors were hoping to send this type of message to its customers – “If they look so good with these products, and they are part of the low class, how much better will you look with these products?” I don’t really know why the editors would explicitly “use” or “exploit” the poor to advertise products that only rich people can buy. Maybe they thought that they were being generous by giving money to the poor in exchange for their photos (if they even did that) or maybe they were just doing this for shock value and media attention (of which they got bang on).
Either way, it seems pretty ironic that Vogue India used the poor to advertise their products for the rich. I guess they weren’t satisfied to just use slave labor to make the products…they just had to go one more step and make those slaves advertise the products they made.
If you want to read more check out CBC’s coverage and the NY Times coverage of this story.
. . . speechless. . .
I don’t think the editors/publishers at Vogue India are THAT insensitive or THAT naieve. At least, I hope not.
In the end, bad publicity is still publicity. If an uproar arises, then they get publicity worldwide. Have I ever looked at Vogue India before this date? Nope. . .
So . . . what are they really trying to accomplish?
Exactly. It’s publicity.
It’s just really distasteful.
Here are a few quotes from the NY Times article:
“How does one sell something like a $1,000 handbag in a country where most people will never amass that sum of money in their lives, and many are starving?”
and
“Not taking a close enough look at the “real people” is drawing criticism for Vogue, too. “The magazine does not even bother to identify the subjects” of the photos, said Ms. Gahlaut, the columnist. Instead, Vogue names the brands of the accessories in the captions, and says they are worn by a lady or a man.”
People are okay with poverty and the division between the rich and the poor…they are okay with it when it’s not personal. But once we start telling their life stories and making it personal, that’s when people get uncomfortable. Perhaps that’s why Vogue India chose not to write the names of the models?
You’re right it’s about the publicity Daniel. It makes them look good to have the poor in the magazine, and then again they are taking a risk to identify them.
In my opinion, it’s sick to treat any person as if they are an object, and that’s exactly what they did to this couple. Who wants to be treated like an object that can be thrown around? And it makes me sad that when people see someone on the street all they do is walk around them and avoid eye contact they are hurting just like you and I are, this couple they are hurting just like you and I, and India Vogue didn’t help show that.
Have i ever looked in the magazine? No.
Do i want to? Not after this