- Posted 9/3/08 at 2:23 PM
- branding, fashion
- Leave a Comment
Did you see Vogue's big branding faux pas?

A $1000 Fendi bib on Suri Cruise might have worked… but putting it on a child whose parents might hope to make $1.50 per day? Apparently the August edition of Vogue India featured such a pic among 16-pages of fashion editorial, which according to its editor, Priya Tanna, “sought to illustrate the power of fashion” as a strategy to reach a niche, the growingly affluent demographic in (the “new”) India. The iconic magazine received lashings for using less than rupee-full Indians as props to model $10,000 Hermes handbags and $200 Burberry umbrellas. “You have to remember with fashion, you can’t take it that seriously,” said Ms. Tanna. “We weren’t trying to make a political statement or save the world,” she said.
Therein lies the problem, Ms. Tanna…
What were they thinking? Vogue India must have their heads up their collective bums to think that shooting images of designer goods in the context of abject poverty was appropriate. Look, BG believes that fashion can be playful, in fact, it oftentimes should be playful, but is it ever chic to rub in someone’s nose their status as a have-not? BG, with her altruism filter firmly fixed, could see a way that this juxtaposition could have been used to enhance these brands, say if the editorial spread was being used to bring attention to the good works that these fashion brands were bringing to these people, now there’s a project that even Bono would approve of.
And hey, BG can’t help but think that it’s not just Vogue India suffering brand damage here—there is potential negative runoff for the designers that were featured in the shoot as well. Hermes, Alexander McQueen and the rest might want to highlight in the marketing their altruistic efforts around the world to help buffer this sitch. Even thought it was Vogue India who performed the faux pas, it was their price tags that were juxtaposed… It just isn’t done in this day and age where cause-related marketing is an integral part of nearly every company’s marketing plan and consumers have been trained to patronize companies that are socially and environmentally sensitive. We have long left the selfishness of the ’80s with the Bonfire of the Vanities mentality behind…
Coincidentally, last week it was reported that Vogue (USA) ad pages have been slipping – The September volume not so thick. The Vogue India fiasco can’t be helping the good ole’ USA brand, can it? Methinks this kind of press floating around on the web is a major no-no––afterall, consumers are interconnected and global. Reality check: What happens in India no longer stays in India, even when it comes to the sometimes nebulous world of branding or fashion.
But what do you think?
Was the fuss about Vogue’s India shoot…
1––Way overblown
2––Right on target
3––Didn’t scratch the surface
I am 
recent comments
I totally agree. And nothing wrong about being patriotic.
Great insights…I don’t think the audience cares who wins the awards, they just want to see the “show” so they have something to talk about the next day…and BTW- the Chrysler commercial was my favorite! Anything that promotes America building something again is ok with me…I guess I’m just a sucker for patriotism…
Nice article! It makes a great deal of sense. These companies spend so much to attain new clients but rarely put forth the effort to keep their existing ones happy. Everything is an argument or an angle. I guess they think we will forget.
I ask this lovingly Steve: by any chance, are you wearing a tie and nursing a martini?
Looking at Obama’s overall rising star these past years (and especially thinking back to who even knew his name prior to 2004), he is a media genius indeed. Yet at the same time, just as he’s not a Muslim (although 24% of the public still thinks he is), he’s also not the political Messiah his campaign painted him to be. In offering an opinion about this widening disparity between the myth and the man, which any Brand Girl is entitled to do, I simply pointed out some of his media missteps since taking office. Speculating that Obama might be a one-term prez unless he gets his media act and his policy act together—and playing nice with one another—is no more a diss than thinking Derek Jeter was playing kinda dirty when he faked getting hit by a pitch to get on base. That’s not dissing, and it’s not even playing party politics. It’s just stating the obvious.
And ’cause I can’t resist: when out with a girl, especially a bipartisan one, allow her a chance to take a full swing when at bat in a pennant battle of the minds. I’ll bet the house that she’ll get beyond first. And she won’t have to fake a thing either.
Funny piece but a faulty premise.
Obama is still a media genius. He’s controlling the debate and has accomplished more in his first two years than any President since FDR. Sure his approval numbers are down but we are in a the middle of a severe recession. Regan’s numbers were similar in 1982.
He has tried to be bipartisan but what does he get for it? The GOP even filibustered small business tax cuts (until two GOP senators who are retiring broke off yesterday). The public knows this. While they are anti-incumbent, they trust the GOP less than the Dems. And despite the GOP’s concerted efforts to block efforts to stimulate the economy (so they can hope to pick up more seats), the economy will turn around and the the POTUS’s appoval ratings wil improve with the rise in GDP.
And when out with boys, especially thoughtful ones, it’s probably not a good idea to diss Obama; not if you want to get to first base.