top of page
Search

“There’s No Such Thing as Bad Publicity”...Or Is There?

Writer: Ava Sofia Bratt
Ava Sofia Bratt
Dec 18, 2025
6 min read

Section One: The Situation: What Happened and Why It Mattered


In late 2022, luxury fashion house Balenciaga became the center of a global controversy

after releasing an advertising campaign that drew immediate backlash. Published in November, the campaign featured young children posing with teddy bear handbags styled in bondage-inspired harnesses.


The campaign was quickly flagged on social media, where critics accused Balenciaga of

sexualizing children, promoting inappropriate imagery, and failing to uphold ethical standards in its review process. Outrage escalated across both traditional and digital media, prompting scrutiny of the brand’s leadership and creative oversight.


The controversy mattered because it called into question Balenciaga’s values, brand

integrity, and accountability. What began as a fashion scandal quickly became a mainstream

debate about corporate responsibility and the ethics of advertising, amplified by the sensitivity of involving children and the viral spread of outrage.


Section Two: The Stakes: Who Was Affected and What Was at Risk?


The Balenciaga ad controversy was not simply a mistake in creative direction, it was a

reputational crisis that exposed the brand’s vulnerabilities. At the heart of the backlash was the question of trust—whether consumers, collaborators, and the public could believe in Balenciaga as a responsible global brand. For a company built on exclusivity and cultural relevance, the damage extended far beyond a single campaign.


Consumers, particularly parents and young buyers, felt betrayed by the imagery and

began to question whether Balenciaga could be trusted to uphold basic ethical standards. The controversy also put brand partners and celebrity collaborators in a difficult position. Public figures like Kim Kardashian, who had long been associated with the brand, were forced to issue statements distancing themselves or demanding accountability. The fashion media, meanwhile, amplified the scandal as an example of how quickly provocative marketing can cross the line into reputational disaster, holding Balenciaga up as a cautionary tale. Even Kering, Balenciaga’s parent company, risked a reputational spillover that could have affected its other luxury brands, including Gucci and Saint Laurent.


The stakes were heightened by Balenciaga’s identity as a house known for pushing

creative boundaries. That reputation relies on a delicate balance of provocation and cultural

awareness. In this case, the backlash suggested not just a lapse in judgment but a systemic failure of review and corporate responsibility, undermining credibility and contradicting industry commitments to social responsibility. A brand that once thrived on the power of provocation now faced accusations of irresponsibility, signaling to both the public and the industry that its bold advertising had tipped into negligence.


When mishandled, the crisis risked far more than short-term lost sales. It threatened

long-term boycotts, strained celebrity and industry partnerships, and jeopardized Balenciaga’s position as a cultural tastemaker. For a luxury brand, prestige is its currency, once that sense of desirability erodes, it cannot easily be bought back. The scandal made clear that one poorly vetted campaign could overshadow years of cultivated adoration.


Section Three: The Media Narrative: Media, Creators, and Public Discourse


The Balenciaga ad scandal played out at the intersection of traditional media framing and

algorithm-driven social outrage, creating a narrative that was nearly impossible for the brand to control once it took hold. The earliest press coverage positioned the campaigns as more than just poor taste, framing them within a lineage of crude scandal in fashion. Medium headline,


“Balenciaga’s controversial new campaign and the long history of ‘shockvertising,’”

contextualized the controversy as part of fashion’s pattern of provocation, but the framing carried an implicit critique—Balenciaga had gone too far, crossing into territory where shock was not artistic but harmful. Other outlets leaned heavily critical, with headlines like “Balenciaga’s ads crossed the line and here’s what you can do about it” (Lauren’s Kids) and “The Balenciaga ad scandal and our children’s safety” (The Center for Parent Youth Understanding), framing the issue as not just corporate negligence but a direct threat to children. The Guardian’s coverage cemented the narrative globally, stressing the seriousness of the imagery by explicitly linking the teddy bears to “bondage” and “child abuse papers.” This illustrates the agenda-setting role of the press, even in an age of fragmented media, “the power of the media—particularly social

media—as an agenda setter is substantial...people base perceptions on what they read or hear, often without bothering to dig further to elicit the facts” (Seitel, 2020, p. 58). Once major outlets defined the issue as child exploitation, that frame spread across platforms, making it nearly impossible for Balenciaga to reset the narrative.


On social media, the scandal took on a new intensity. TikTok and Instagram amplified

outrage through short-form explainers and commentary. Influencers dissected the imagery frame by frame, often reaching wider audiences than traditional outlets. Sensational content flourished because platforms reward emotional engagement.


Traditional outlets framed the scandal as a reputational miscalculation, while online

creators personalized the outrage, urging boycotts and accountability. This distinction

mattered—the press suggested reputational risk, but creators made the crisis feel intimate and urgent. Because of this, Balenciaga’s attempts at apology were drowned out, leaving the brand reactive rather than proactive.


Section Four: PR Response Strategy: PESO, Messaging, and Timing


Balenciaga’s response revealed the limits of its crisis preparedness. From the outset,

communications leaned on deflection and containment rather than ownership and accountability.


Using the PESO model, Balenciaga activated almost every channel, though not through

their own strategy. Its owned media included formal apologies published on Instagram and

statements from the CEO, Cédric Charbit, which framed the issue as a “grievous error” and

promised new internal controls. These apologies were delivered late in the scandal, allowing

negative sentiment to dominate before leadership stepped in. In shared media, Balenciaga faced relentless criticism on TikTok, Twitter, and Instagram. Rather than engaging directly with creators or commissioning explanatory content, the brand’s silence allowed user-generated outrage to drive the conversation unchecked. Earned media coverage in outlets like The Guardian and Vogue Business, further entrenched the crisis in mainstream news.

Timing was the brand’s greatest weakness. While the ads were pulled quickly,

leadership-level apologies arrived days later. As Seitel notes, opinion swings sharply in response to major events and stabilizes only once their implications are clear (Seitel, 2020, p. 70). Here, damage was immediate, and later words could not recalibrate perception.


The challenge ran deeper than just missteps in timing, however. Public interpretation was

influenced by unconscious fears. As Samuel notes, “unconscious thoughts were as significant, frequent, and normal as conscious ones...making them just as valuable to marketers as to therapists” (Samuel, 2024). In Balenciaga’s case, the imagery tapped anxieties about child exploitation that made rational explanations ineffective. Once audiences associated the brand with these fears, framing alone could not reset the narrative.


Ultimately, the response did not resonate. For consumers, the apologies felt belated and

incomplete. For celebrity partners, the delay forced them to issue independent statements. By failing to align messaging across PESO channels and by prioritizing legal deflection over

values-based accountability, Balenciaga missed the chance to shape its narrative.


Section Five: Final Analysis — “There’s No Such Thing as Bad Publicity”...Or Is There?


The Balenciaga case proves the old saying—“there’s no such thing as bad

publicity”—does not always hold true. While the scandal increased visibility, the result was

reputational harm. The problem was not only the disturbing content of the campaign but also the mishandled response. Instead of turning attention into momentum, Balenciaga allowed visibility to spiral into a crisis of trust and credibility.


From the beginning, the brand failed to align its message with public expectations, and

the delayed apologies compounded the damage. In that gap, the narrative was shaped almost entirely by media outlets, influencers, and conspiracy communities online. As WTW (2024) notes, “the damage is preventable, arising from foreseeable risks or stories that slowly gain traction until they blow up into a crisis.” The risks of using children in provocative imagery should have been clear, instead, the absence of proactive risk management turned a foreseeable issue into a global scandal


Most damaging was the clash between Balenciaga’s provocative identity and the cultural

moment. The brand crossed a line the public would not tolerate, and vague promises of “new

controls” failed to reassure audiences. With children at the center, people expected far stronger accountability than Balenciaga delivered.


For these reasons, the controversy cannot be viewed as beneficial. The attention put

Balenciaga at the center of cultural conversation, but not in a way that sustains luxury brands.


Instead of reinforcing exclusivity or creative rebellion, it cemented an association with

negligence and irresponsibility. As Seitel reminds us, reputation is not secured through

statements but through consistent action—”reputation is gained by what one does, not by what one says” (Seitel, 2020, p. 87). Balenciaga’s vague promises of internal reform lacked the action-oriented credibility needed to rebuild trust, leaving its reputation scarred.

The lesson for public relations is clear—visibility without trust is meaningless. Crises

that touch core values like child safety require swift, transparent, value-driven responses.

Ownership cannot be delayed, it must come from leadership and be supported by credible action.


Balenciaga’s failure shows that bad publicity does exist, and it leaves reputational scars even

luxury brands cannot afford to ignore.



References


Book, L. (2022, December 6). Balenciaga’s ads crossed the line and here’s what you can do


Cartner-Morley, J. (2022, November 29). Balenciaga apologises for ads featuring bondage bears and Child abuse papers. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2022/nov/29/balenciaga-apologises-for-ads-featuring-bondage-bears-and-child-abuse-papers


How to de-risk your brand’s reputation in 2024. WTW. (2024, April 18). https://www.wtwco.com/en-id/insights/2024/04/how-to-de-risk-your-brands-reputation-in-2024


Jones , C. W. (2022, December 6). Balenciaga’s Controversial New Campaign and the Long


Mueller, W. (2022, December 1). The Balenciaga ad scandal and our children’s safety. The


Samuel, L. R. (2024, June 10). The Psychology of Consumer Behavior. Psychology Today.


Seitel, F. P. (2020). The Practice of Public Relations (14th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.


Shoaib, M., & Binkley, C. (2022, November 29). The price of provocation: What’s next for

Comments

bottom of page