The ‘About Love’ campaign is a bold move from Tiffany & Co. Coinciding with the release of this campaign is a pledge of $2M in scholarships and internships to HBCUs. It marks a monumental moment signalling a lot of ‘firsts’ for the brand. These include:

• The first appearance of a previous privately-owned Basquiat artwork, ‘`Equals Pi’, now exclusively owned by Tiffany & Co.
• The first advertising campaign that will feature both Jay-Z and Beyonce (The Carters).
• The first time Tiffany & Co. will feature their 128.54 karat Tiffany diamond in an advertisement.
• It’s also the first time a black woman has ever worn the diamond; and the 4th person to wear it in history.

These are not coincidences. Tiffany’s Vice President of products and communications, Alexandre Arnault, believes that Basquiat’s ‘Equal Pi’ coloured in the iconic Tiffany blue could have been the artist paying homage to the brand. There is so much to this campaign contextually that makes it feel like a gigantic power-play - they’ve figuratively crossed all the t’s and dotted all the i’s. The brand has chosen to use two figures who are mainstays in popular black culture alongside work from a Neo-Expressionist artist to represent their brand and, essentially, signposting as a new direction for Tiffany as they move into a new period sitting under LVMH as a part of a $15.8Bn deal.

It leads me to think - what significance do you see in these major figures of popular black culture, that allows you to attach yourselves to them in the hope of changing your brand’s perception and position? The Carters appear as two shiny new items in the Tiffany universe; and to get it over the line in our eyes of judgement, the $2M going to HBCUs should make enough change for people who need the support from a brand featuring priceless diamonds and rare artwork.

Nonetheless, criticism of this campaign and the choices the Carters made still played out on social media. Here’s some commentary by the people who matter the most; the audience:

From the moment the campaign was previewed online, people criticised it straight away; with most putting Beyonce’s morals in question. Unsurprisingly, most people commenting on this were Black people who did not hold back on their views on this. Valid points were raised around the critiquing being exclusive to a black woman engaging with the diamond in comparison to the near non-existent controversy when Lady Gaga wore it to The Oscar’s a few years ago. Could this commentary be a representation of the standards by which Black people hold their people accountable to? It’s even being considered hypocrisy because of Beyonce’s prominent messaging as a part of the ‘Black Is King’ movie in partnership with Disney.

Let’s circle back round to the donation made to HBCU’s. With this huge priceless campaign being paired with the $2M gesture, it almost feels like we as consumers and critics are put in the corner as, surely, we can’t critique a charitable move by the brand? Oh, but we can. It’s shrouded in the epitome of capitalism and grandiosity; a view in which we no longer see in advertisement with society's liberal and considerate goggles where we now want people to be able to feel represented in advertisement. But this is the total opposite. This is reminiscent of the days where Grey Poupon adverts had regular tv spots, or you were told “there is only one Harrods”, “A diamond is forever” and “There’s no place like Selfridges”.

One of the most important things to us at Blanguage when it comes to advertising, is practicing our ability to analyse, critique and question. Question everything. As Head of Creative, I believe the intention of any project we are involved in should always be explored; this includes extensive research into the contextual background behind the work. We are here to do the hard work in order to communicate creative vision and cultural messaging in a cohesive way. In this case, the Creative team at Tiffany & Co. saw The Carters, Basquiat and a charitable donation as cultural cues that they believed Black people would care about; enough to ignore the deep questions behind elements of their brand. Implications behind a move like this is that the cultural figures involved (in this case, only The Carters) will take the brunt of the critiques; and in a worst-case scenario; it could damage public perception of them. A company like Tiffany & Co. (remember, newly a part of LVMH) are protected by years of history and a legacy customer base that they can always fall back on if they lose the ‘street-cred’ they thought they’d gain from a controversial campaign.

I will never call for a committee, of some kind, to regulate the morality of what is advertised. However, what I would call for is Black people to have an intrinsic moral compass in all of us to be applied to projects where you are at the forefront of a non-Black company's messaging or campaign.

Should we continue to usher in a resurgence of these types of advertisements where we are reminded of our limited buying power, our class and financial status; witnessing moments of grandiosity shielded behind a donation to HBCUs? Or should we criticise, question and g-check these brands as they inject their affluence and prosperity onto our social media feeds and ad spots for no purpose other than because they can? (Yep, I said g-check).

This campaign marks a monumental change in the shift of celebrity culture, class and the constant struggle between consumer and business.