The photographs for the "We, On Death Row" project, were obtained legally, but through a devious method by pretending it was a campaign (not necessarily an ad campaign) sponsored by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. They conducted interviews with the inmates saying it would be featured in Newsweek magazine.

All hell broke loose when the photographs ended up as ads in magazines, videos and on billboards. The ‘interviews’ appeared in a 90-page magazine supplement. The state of Missouri has sued Benetton for fraudulent representation in obtaining rights to the inmates. But the real issue has got more to do with an advertiser making a political statement about a sensitive issue –considering the newly declared moratorium on executions in the adjoining state of Illinois—than anything else. Interestingly, the Italian clothes-maker thrives on controversy. Controversial adverting is what differentiates the brand that is still pumping life into the decades old ‘United colours of Benetton’ campaign. In fact Benetton has become synonymous with the term ‘shockvertising’, a model experimented by a few other clothing designers and upscale product companies.

Benetton ads, while purportedly pushing a political agenda, are noticeably exploitative, deliberately offensive to some people, and take the age-old advertising tactic of subverting reality to its extreme. The most distasteful ad was one of a real AIDS patient on his deathbed, shocking for its timing when the world was just beginning to grasp the horror of HIV. Prior to that, it had dallied with religion sensibilities (a nun and a priest kissing) and race relations (a close-up of a black woman nursing a white baby). The latter exploited a terrible detail of the slavery era, when black slaves were supposed to have been forced to bring up the children of their white owners.

So why is there not a worldwide outcry for the boycott of Benetton? The answer must lie in the complicated world of marketing. Shockvertisers feed on the market’s inclination to reward the unconventional and take advantage of the media’s shifting stand on of public sensibilities. A lady’s ankle was once as off limits as cleavage. But thinks about it: In a mediasphere where Jennifer Lopez could appear practically nude on stage to present a Grammy award, who is to fault advertising that only takes its cue from such 'liberal' commercial environments? It drives the wedge deeper between our so-called standards: innuendo and risqué footage is OK when packaged in radio and movies but horrifying when attached to a sale of a product or service. Where are the moral guardians when rap music is permitted to contain expletives and racial slurs (albeit with a warning label) in the name of freedom of expression, but products and services have to adhere to a higher standard? I am not condoning this brand of shockvertising one bit, but my point is this: before society raps advertisers on their knuckles, it had better look at other more powerful opinion leaders as well. TV host Jerry Springer makes Benetton look a cherub. This king of talk-show trash makes a living by having people discuss sexually-charged politically-incorrect behavior during in the day, but no one will ban it from America's living rooms because it comes packaged as network programming. His counterpart on radio, shock-jock Howard Stern gets people to do and say things on the air that are more powerful than anything you can find in an adult magazine. Benetton has a strong following, too. Five years ago, Calvin Klein used what were evidently teenagers in suggestive poses and suggestive voice-overs for print and TV ads, attracting what it always craves: controversy –which is another word for publicity, which is another word for free advertising. Calvin Klein’s ads for its Obsession line of fragrances are so powerful in their close ups of the human body, that they are being parodied by an advertiser who doesn’t really need controversy. So here’s an interesting scenario. A print campaign for the Breast Cancer Fund has the words OBSESSED set across the naked upper body of a woman, using an identical type-style as a Calvin Klein ad. The twist is that there are real mastectomy scars replacing the model’s breasts ought to be. Distasteful? Shocking? Relevant? Who’s to measure public outrage? In this instance, it’s hard to argue that shock value is out of place.

Conversely, a Nike ad, also mimicking the kind of ads that Victoria’s Secret or CK would run, has a similar layout of a topless, headless torso for its clothing line’s sport’s bra. But the most controversial ad in recent months is for a French fashion company called Emanuel Ungaro. Themed ‘Beauty and the Beast’, it involves a dog in a heavily studded collar, licking a woman’s well-heeled foot. If it is disturbing, it is by implication. In 1998 there was an unusual Coca-Cola TV commercial featuring a "dead" teen in a morgue clutching a Coke Card. Go figure what the marketing objective of that was. When the pubic complained, Coke pulled the ad. But words can be as shocking as body parts. Just before the Benetton affair, an anti-smoking ‘Truth" campaign came under fire. While tobacco companies now admit that cigarettes are lethal, dramatizing that fact may be a lit risky. One ad featured three bungee jumpers swinging off a bridge to grab cans of a soft-drink off a rock. The first two are successful and take a swig off the fictional ‘Splode’ drink, but when the third fellow opens the can it explodes in his face, and he disappears in a puff of smoke. The horror sinks in only after the following sentence appears on the screen: "Only one product actually kills a third of the people who use it. Tobacco". Some TV stations refused to run the commercial.

As for Benetton, Sears has stopped selling its clothing line in its 400 stores nationwide because the ‘death-row’ ads have crossed the line. But when I last checked, NBC is still carrying Jerry Springer. His topic today: "Destin thought her fiancée' bisexuality was just a phase...until she found him in the arms of a male lover". If you had to choose between the programme and a Benetton ad, which one would you allow your nine-year old son to be exposed to?