Dolce & Gabbana tried selling a $2,400 ‘slave’ sandal

Dolce & Gabbana is just now learning that slavery is bad.

The realization was triggered by a gladiator-like sandal it was selling online called the “Slave Sandal in Napa Leather with PomPoms” — for $2,400.

Technically, as Footwear News points out, the word slave is an actual shoe term: It is, apparently, a “description for a particular lace-up shoe silhouette.” But the term has fallen out of favor, taking a back seat to the phrase “gladiator sandals” for glaringly obvious reasons. Also, it only takes an ounce of common sense to know avoiding the word is smart marketing.

The listing, which has been edited, still lives on in screenshots:

dolce-gabanna-slave-sandal-02

Other brands, including Saks and Moda Operandi, have smartly left out the word “slave” from their descriptions although the term appears in Lyst’s URL, Racked points out.

Not surprisingly, people on Twitter were mortified. “I’m sorry, but WTF is wrong with people?!,” one person tweeted. Another added: “Okay but how did D&G think it was okay to name some sandals ‘slave sandal’ wow.”

Italian Vogue could have warned them against the moniker: In 2011 the publisher was heavily lashed online for featuring “slave earrings” on its website before apologizing. But then again, Dolce & Gabbana has a habit of courting controversy: Last year Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana publicly criticized in vitro fertilization.

The designer hasn’t responded for comment. Upon further inspection, perhaps the sandal’s design is worth apologizing over too.

https://digiday.com/?p=165101

More in Marketing

What does the Omnicom-IPG deal mean for marketing pitches and reviews?

Pitch consultants predict how the potential holdco acquisition could impact media and creative reviews heading into the new year.

AdTechChat organizers manage grievances amid fallout of controversial Xmas party

Community organizers voice regret over divisive entertainment act at London-hosted industry party, which tops a list of grievances.

X tries to win back advertisers with self-reported video stats

Is X’s big bet on video real growth or just a number’s game?