Business & Professional Ethics 7th Edition by Leonard Brooks,Paul Dunn

Exercise 53

In July of 2008, Virgin Mobile USA began a 'Strip2Clothe' advertising campaign. There are millions of homeless teenagers in the United States, and Virgin Mobile's website said "someone out there needs clothes more than you." Virgin Mobile invited teenagers to upload videos of themselves disrobing. For every uploaded striptease video, Virgin Mobile would donate a new piece of clothing. For every five times the video was viewed, an additional piece of clothing would be donated. Virgin Mobile said that they would screen all the videos. The strippers had to be 18 or older, and there was to be no full nudity. By July 12, there were 20 videos on the site that had generated 51,291 pieces of donated clothing.
The campaign sparked immediate criticism. Rebecca Lentz of The Catholic Charities of St. Paul and Minneapolis called the advertising campaign "distasteful and inappropriate and exploitative." Parents were concerned that their under 18 year-old children would strip, zip the video, and not reveal their real age. On Tuesday July 15, The National Network for Youth (NN4Y) said that it would decline to partner with Virgin Mobile. Some of the 150 charities represented by NN4Y objected to the campaign saying that it was inappropriate given that many homeless teenagers are sexually exploited. NN4Y said that any member organizations that wished to receive clothing donations through the Strip2Clothe campaign would have to contact Virgin Mobile directly.
In response to the public outcry, Virgin Mobile altered its campaign. On July 21, it launched 'Blank2Clothe' in which the company would accept any kind of talent video such as walking, juggling, singing, riding, and so on. All of the striptease videos were removed and the strippers were asked to send in new, fully clothed videos.
The arguments against the campaign were that: it targeted youth; many homeless teenagers are sexually exploited; the homeless normally need shelter and safety rather than clothes; and the campaign was in poor taste. But there were some supporters. Rick Koca, founder of StandUp For Kids in San Diego, said that the campaign wasn't hurting anyone and was raising public awareness. In the one week ending July 19, the controversy and the campaign had resulted in a further 15,000 clothing donations.
Some years before, the Benetton Group S.p.A. developed the United Colors of Benetton Campaign, originally to draw attention to prejudice against black people. The campaign broadened over time to include other prejudices and consist of a series of shocking pictures published in unexpected venues. For example, there were pictures of a nun kissing a priest, a bombed car in a street, a white dog kissing a black lamb, an AIDS activist on his death bed in front of a picture of a crucified Christ, and a white girl portrayed with an angelic halo and a black boy with hair like horns. Is the Virgin campaign substantively different that the Benetton campaign of 1992?