Sponsorship Debate: Venice's "The Bridge of Sisley"

After quite a bit of social media in museums coverage on the blog lately after the recent Communicating the Museum conference, today we are turning our attention to cultural sponsorship and partnerships.

Corinne Estrada, founder and director of Agenda, was recently in Venice and took some interesting photos of the Doge’s Palace and the Bridge of Sighs. They are not your average tourist photos though, as large parts of the sights are currently covered by enormous Sisley billboards advertising their latest collections. These type of billboards are becoming more and more common in European capitals; recently an enormous H&M advertising campaign adorned one entire side of the Palais de Justice in Paris and a Veolia campaign has covered a prominent tower in Prague for several months now.

This is a type of cultural sponsorship where companies pay for this priviledged visibility and the money goes towards renovating these important cultural monuments, many of which need expensive and vital repair work. The projects are always controversial; tourists do not expect to visit a renowned monument such as the Bridge of Sighs and instead be confronted with a thirty foot model adorning every available surface. Just take a look at a couple of quotes I found on some online forums:

>> “I hate this company for the offensive advertising in venice on doges palace. i decided never to buy products of this company. signed, angry customer”

>> “If you think those ads look dreadful during the day, you should see them lit up after dark - absolutely heart-breaking.”

>> “It would be more heartbreaking to see the buildings crumble.”

While some rage against these kinds of adverts, The Art Newspaper recently recommended a huge billboard for the Wladimir Klitschko Curator exhibition on the facade of the Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice as the "best advertisement of the entire Venice Biennale". Nicole Newman who is Head of Development at Somerset House (and President of the upcoming CultureBusiness forum) was impressed by the Sisley campaign and Michelle Wright, Head of Arts at London-based PR firm Four Communications thought it was “great”.

We’re going to have an on-going poll in the right-hand column of the blog to see what you all think about this issue, feel free to cast your vote! The Sisley advertising campaign in Venice: an unwanted eyesore which is ruining the city’s cultural beauty? Or a clever sponsorhip project which can facilitate much-needed renovations? Is it polluting the landscape? Or is it an inspired method of communicating a brand's message? This will hopefully form the basis for a debate we conduct at the CultureBusiness forum in Paris in December. So, over to you! We'd love to hear your thoughts.

Comments

[Pascale B]

I don't understand how the city of Venice let it happened! I thought these buildings were historic registered monumens and safely guarded against this kind of abuse.

[Philippe Fouchard]

Such type of actions is not sponsorhip anymore but mere advertising. Sponsorhip is supposed to help save, defend and promote the other, not promote its own brand and products.

[Patty]

So why didn't the company pay for the repairs and then use and elegant, and very temporary sign saying that the beauty of history is important. The metaphor of beauty -- wherever we find it is worth preserving.

Not a bad thing for a company to sponsor. Just a horrible decision about how to implement the sponsorship.

[ad enthusiast]

oh please. the purists can always find something wrong. what about the art that is being displayed in grand size?

[Michael in Dublin]

Having just returned from Venice I have to say that I am utterly appalled by the utter vulgarity and crassness of the Sisley campaign. It has completely ruined the historical and artistic integrity of a major landmark. It reflects poorly on the Sisley brand and I hope that others, like me, will actively avoid this brand in future.

Where does it end? What's next? A Juicy Couture velour suit over the Statue of Liberty? A Burberry scarf banner around Big Ben?

The message should be sent loud and clear that our cultural and historical icons are off limits to desecration by short-sighted PR hacks.

For any Sisley executives reading this - know that in this case, bad publicity is NOT better than none.

[Claire Solery]

A short article rencently published in The Art Newspaper about the redesign of the Accademia bridge in Venice sheds some light on the reasons why such display of sponsor advertising can take place. Here is an excerpt of it:

"Restoration of other city monuments through the use of sponsorship has already divided opinion, with the sight of the Ducal palace and the Bridge of Sighs covered in hoardings advertising the sponsors causing dismay. Mara Rumiz, the assessor for public works, says the lack of public funds made it impossible to do the work without recourse to private sponsorship.
"We hope that companies will realise that it will benefit their image if they keep their visible presence to a minimum while gaining a reputation for being Responsible for the new Accademia Bridge."

Here is another thing to meditate...

[@StetsonClowes]

Wow at first I thought this was a bad joke. No problem to sponsor something but this is incredibly vulgar. Kind of ironic that a "fashion" company is behind something so clumsy. Planning a trip to Venice in a few weeks and am disappointed.

[Art Twomacs]

I'm totally torn on this. Part of me says "they need the money", the other side says "no way". They need to rethink how this happens rather than ban it. I would hate to see those buildings simply fall apart.

[John Whiting]

Not only are Venetian walls covered with graffiti, but their monuments are now being obscured by gigantic billboards. These are opposite sides of the same coin. For producing the first, you may be fined; for the second, you are paid enormous sums of money.

[Martin]

Just plain ugly. By all means display an image of a facade if it is undergoing restoration behind scaffolding, but advertising like this stinks. If this is the *only* way to save these stuctures from decay then why not let them sink into the lagoon. Personally I will boycott the products of all the companies promoting their products this way, they ruined my view of Venice on a recent visit and I won't consider returning there until they are gone.

[Venice Travel Guide]

I think this is very ugly. Along with the Swatch-James Bond watch ads in front of Palazzo Ducale.

While everybody understands that they must find money, i'm sure other ways could be used for that.