Bears repeating!
Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.
Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.
Last edited:
What do y'all think about the Balenciaga SS23 & Adidas collab "teddy" controversy?
- Thread starter MooMooVT
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
If any PFers want to excommunicate their Ghesquiere-era Balenciaga bags to me, I am happy to take the weight off your shoulders.
Thank you for injecting some light-hearted humour. ❤️If any PFers want to excommunicate their Ghesquiere-era Balenciaga bags to me, I am happy to take the weight off your shoulders.
This thread is heavy and emotional but appreciate the open discussion about this seriously wrong Bal campaign.
". Again, if all you do is go to the mall and enjoy the wonderful life that was given to you, bless you!"
As a professional as you say you are, don't you think this comment was unnecessary? You don't know if the person you are talking to was sexually abused as a child? I was, but I still wasn't aware of many of the examples posted in this thread.
I'm so sorry you had to go through that.
I was just going to post about the expression on that little girl's face. Not even fear, just hopeless resignation.
I didn’t notice that before.. I looked it up, that artist’s paintings are shocking! There’s a lot of hidden messages in this ad.
I looked at those pics and almost threw up this morning.
Some people are sick. Please, don't call them artists.
Saw the various photos, the campaign, the ones from Lotta Volkova that had posted on her IG, etc. basically this is not art or creativity. This is a sick attempt to normalize sadistic pedofilia so that the public will became gradually immune to it. All pedophiles belong in jail and never forgiven by humanity. Hope that Balenciaga will suffer extreme financial trouble and become forgotten
Thank you so much. And yes, unfortunately that is exactly what that little girl is telling us, how hopeless she feels
Editing to add: child abuse and sex trafficking have been in the spotlight recently due to high profile scandals but parents: this crap very much happens at closer environments: home, schools, etc and abuse is usually done by family members or close people; stay vigilant, trust your child and your gut; protect them from everybody!
I have been following this unfolding, and I am just appalled. I am appalled that any company would allow these images and campaign to be come up with, produced, and then published. As others have echoed, such a campaign must have gone through many levels of scrutiny and approvals.
For these images to have been published, there seems to be a clear issue in the governance of Balenciaga and Kering as a group. Administratively, Kering and Balenciaga are housed together in Paris. After Gucci, the rise of Balenciaga in popular culture and social media was the brainchild of the group. Kering has been very successful in taking underperforming brands and transforming them into leaders and the hottest brands to a certain degree more successfully than LVMH. As such, Kering in my eyes is quite the master of publicity and creating trends, so this choice of them is truly bizarre to me.
I have mostly observed Balenciaga from afar through pictures of their shows in the news or by walking past their headquarters in the 7eme arrondissement. Also, I personally don’t own any Balenciaga pieces, but we have been a long term customer of Brioni. Additionally, I have friends who went to school with the Pinault. As such, I have spoken to and hear of the family in the Parisian circle, and I find this very shocking that they would allow this to happen. So while this is my first time in the Balenciaga forum and unfamiliar with its universe, I am greatly shocked by Kering as the parent company. I would like to see more accountability from not only Balenciaga but also Kering as a group. The same way Balenciaga used their platform to support and help Ukraine, I hope the platform will be used to create a positive change to truly take account and make a change.
Sustainability has been a fundamental issue for Kering, and sustainability is not simply about the environment. Rather the social and governance aspects are just as important if not more. These campaigns completely go against these principles. Beyond the stakeholder and customer dissent, I hope shareholders also react to this and hold Balenciaga and Kering accountable.
For these images to have been published, there seems to be a clear issue in the governance of Balenciaga and Kering as a group. Administratively, Kering and Balenciaga are housed together in Paris. After Gucci, the rise of Balenciaga in popular culture and social media was the brainchild of the group. Kering has been very successful in taking underperforming brands and transforming them into leaders and the hottest brands to a certain degree more successfully than LVMH. As such, Kering in my eyes is quite the master of publicity and creating trends, so this choice of them is truly bizarre to me.
I have mostly observed Balenciaga from afar through pictures of their shows in the news or by walking past their headquarters in the 7eme arrondissement. Also, I personally don’t own any Balenciaga pieces, but we have been a long term customer of Brioni. Additionally, I have friends who went to school with the Pinault. As such, I have spoken to and hear of the family in the Parisian circle, and I find this very shocking that they would allow this to happen. So while this is my first time in the Balenciaga forum and unfamiliar with its universe, I am greatly shocked by Kering as the parent company. I would like to see more accountability from not only Balenciaga but also Kering as a group. The same way Balenciaga used their platform to support and help Ukraine, I hope the platform will be used to create a positive change to truly take account and make a change.
Sustainability has been a fundamental issue for Kering, and sustainability is not simply about the environment. Rather the social and governance aspects are just as important if not more. These campaigns completely go against these principles. Beyond the stakeholder and customer dissent, I hope shareholders also react to this and hold Balenciaga and Kering accountable.
I agree, especially with your second paragraph. That's what makes the combination of both of the recent ad campaigns SO troubling.
1) The Office ad with the Williams case - It's a stretch, but I may be willing to suspend disbelief that an office photoshoot for a fashion house advertisement would just HAPPEN to include a printout of a USSC case that over a decade old. It's odd, but whatever. I'm a lawyer who likes to read on paper instead of screens, so I have printouts of old court cases around my workspace too. The fact that it's the Williams decision is random, but on its own could be innocuous.
2) The photos with the kids - We don't need to go back over why so many people found these images so unsettling. I offer special thanks to tpf posters who were willing to share added context and insight based on their own experiences.
As some posters have taken great pains to point out, these are completely separate campaigns. Set designers, photographers, models, etc. for one likely had no idea what was included in the other. But what did they have in common? Balenciaga. I find it hard to believe that an image-driven fashion house wouldn't comprehensively review ALL photos for major ad campaigns for consistency and cohesiveness and brand messaging before allowing them to be used. And that's what generates doubt that it was all just a weird coincidence and Bal had no idea what was going on. Because including the Williams decision in the office ads introduces the idea that the research was done ahead of time about what the legal boundaries were for CP. I expect that lawyers for Bal/Kering did exactly that research, which is probably what led to green-lighting the kids' ad.
IMO, that's what makes this beyond the pale, and also makes me wonder what other photos may have been taken for the kids' ads that weren't used in the initial release or were deemed unusable. As we saw from the initial backlash and Bal's 'response' the image of the girl holding the bear was taken down, but replaced with one where a little boy is in the same room with the bear, but not interacting with it. I'll defer to those who have worked in photography/fashion, but it seems reasonable to assume that MANY photos of MANY different scenes were taken, giving the client choices for which images to ultimately use. Is that why Bal/Kering did their legal research about what is and is not permissible?
As I read back over this, there is a LOT of supposition and not giving Bal the benefit of the doubt. But it's hard to go easy on an international conglomerate including a fashion house that prides itself on pushing boundaries and being shocking when the other side of the equation are little kids having their picture taken surrounded by questionable objects. IMO Balenciaga is going to have to do a much better job explaining itself, the intended narrative behind the ad campaign, and what went awry, before they're in the clear again. My prediction is that they never will, which would only compound why they're problematic.
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more. Consenting adults can do as they wish - whether behind closed doors, on twitter, or in advertising campaigns. If they're going to be racist, homophobic, sexist, what have you - then we as friends, consumers, etc. can choose to hang out with them or not - buy their products or not - listen to their music or not. It's how the free market and free speech work and I'm 100% behind this model.
But once they get children involved - now I have THOUGHTS!
I am so disturbed by this! Balenciaga's statement is very weak. I don't buy that this campaign went through so many hands and no one noticed anything. Even if Kering/Balenciaga didn't "see" anything wrong, surely they "felt" it. I can't in good faith give business to a corporation that is this blind or unaware. I question what else they are unaware of.