In this news report, two photos are shown, one showing an old man modeling a Burberry umbrella that costs US$200 and another a child from a poor family wearing a US$100 Fendi Bib. They were part of a 16-page spread in Vogue India. Vogue’s India August Edition presented the 16-page vision of supple handbags and status-symbol items modeled not by celebrities but by average Indian people. This is the new India—as how Vogue sees it.
Admittedly, through this advertisement, Vogue is able to capture our attention as the message that is being brought across by these pictures is powerful.
Admittedly, through this advertisement, Vogue is able to capture our attention as the message that is being brought across by these pictures is powerful.
Vogue magazine is about realizing the “power of fashion” and the shoot was saying that “fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege”. It also suggests about Vogue’s bold foray into the Indian Market. Vogue’s way of advertising needs to be applauded for its originality and attempts to break new grounds.
However, some people find this advertisement distorted beyond reality. Personally, I also find this way of advertising distasteful despite its innovation.
Vogue India’s edition uses a great deal of contrast (showing poor people sporting expensive goods) and it stops short of using big stars like in any other fashion advertisements. This in a way is using the shock element as we all presume poor people cannot afford fashion at all. Our presumption is justified though.
Why would a poor man who cannot even have a good meal want a branded bag? Most people in the well-developed countries also do not live in the lap of luxury to easily splurge on luxury items, not to mention the poor people of India.
Vogue magazine seeks to persuade us to break away from our stereotypes that only the rich can afford branded products. However, I see their attempt as unsuccessful as Vogue is ignoring the social context in which it is advertising the goods. The target audience is wrong and thus the purpose is not served.
Vogue magazine seeks to persuade us to break away from our stereotypes that only the rich can afford branded products. However, I see their attempt as unsuccessful as Vogue is ignoring the social context in which it is advertising the goods. The target audience is wrong and thus the purpose is not served.
Vogue magazine has distorted and misrepresented the real needs of the Indian community. Although India has a fast-growing wealthy class, nearly half the population is struggling for survival. Vogue’s approach in this case is insensitive, impractical and not prudent at all. What the ‘poor people’ in the photo shoot need is a bowl of rice rather than an expensive bag.
Vogue India sparks criticism in India itself, as people see Vogue’s approach as attempting to exert power over those who consume this fashion. If people were to buy into Vogue Magazine’s Idea in this case, it would really be the acceptance of fashion uncritically. I understand Vogue Magazine’s attempt as encouraging mammonism and influencing us to believe that fashion is a way of life.
Vogue India sparks criticism in India itself, as people see Vogue’s approach as attempting to exert power over those who consume this fashion. If people were to buy into Vogue Magazine’s Idea in this case, it would really be the acceptance of fashion uncritically. I understand Vogue Magazine’s attempt as encouraging mammonism and influencing us to believe that fashion is a way of life.
9 comments:
I wouldn't be pleased if i owned this particular issue of Vogue India. This 16-page spread, much as it has brought creativity to a new level and despite trying to break new ground in fashion photography has been done in a very distasteful manner.
Why is this group of people being used? Have they been paid a decent amount of money to be featured in this photoshoot like how a professional model would have been paid for this assignment?
It doesn't make sense to use this group of people for this purpose when you've mentioned that all they would appreciate is really finding the means to getting by on a day-to-day basis.
It is also not pleasing to the eye to see this group of people in a fashion/lifestyle magazine. Socially speaking, it is a misfit and would spur a huge debate on what exactly is the underlying message for using this group of people to model luxury products.
-Melissa
I personally find the pictures posted quite humorous as I'm pretty sure those scenarios won't happen unless Vogue decides to give away free merchandise. Success at promoting their merchandise to lower-income Indians? I don't think so and totally agree with you. I would've felt insulted. However, I have to admit the images were an interesting and thought-provoking way to model their goods.
I felt that it was a creative albeit crude avenue of marketing Vogue products. It is creative in the sense that they're trying to increase consumer base by appealing to the masses, that fashion is and can be for the common man. But I think you highlighted the inappropriateness of the ad rather well, in that the social context has been distorted. And who knows if the ad may even spark a wave of consumerism for goods that are considered luxurious among the working classes; or their children, for that matter, who should well be spending their hard-earned wages on affordable goods and necessities.
I think Vogue successfully gained attention through the pictures. On the other hand, it caused people to debate over the pictures as well-whether the pictures were appropriate. However,I feel that the main problem still boils down to the gap between the rich and the poor.
ya the branded goods seem so out of place on these people.. can't they think of better ideas? Not everyone can afford branded goods right...
hey! i like the novelty that this advert has, but it does seem inappropriate .. the idea of using poor ppl did not sit quite well with me as well.. are they trying to cut cost for advert?!?! really funny .. advertisers always want to seek new ways to better advertise their prod.. they use strange and shocking things to capture our attention.. but altho the advert affects us in some ways, are we persuaded to buy the products? not necessarily.. they have done a research that and they found tht most of us do not really remember advertisements.. yes we see them, but are we able to tell ppl wat advert we come across today? we've almost become numb to advert.. sad news to advertisers sia..
i feel that it's an irony. despite so, there is no doubt that such photoshoot draws the attention of vogue readers. I disagree with Kai Lin's view that Vogue seeks to discourage us from steorotyping because i have seen people who are not rich yet they are able to afford branded stuff. it is not necessary that only rich people can afford expensive goods. thus, I believe that Vogue does not hope to bring upon the message not to steorotype but it is just a way of advertising maybe?
I agree with u. Vogue is being very insensitive here.
Just a sideline here- How much is Vogue actually paying the "models" in this case? Hopefully the $$ given would be able to provide some relief to the family.
Post a Comment