By Sarah Garrod.
An American Apparel advert has been banned because it 'could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child'.
The advert, designed to be published on the back cover of Vice magazine, showed a series of images of a girl, with the hoody she wears increasingly unzipped in each photograph. In the final photo the model's left nipple is partially exposed.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) today upheld a complaint that the ad was inappropriate and could cause offence.
American Apparel disagreed, insisting it believed the advert would not cause offence.
A complaint was made about the nudity - and whether it was unsuitable to appear on the back of a free magazine that could be seen by children. The ad also caused concern because the model seemed young and vulnerable, and the complainant challenged whether it could be seen to sexualise a child.
American Apparel was quoted in its response as saying: 'While the ad featured partial female nudity, [we] believed it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence given its context and audience and the medium in which it appeared.
The high street clothing retailer said the ad 'was intended to appeal to women and therefore depicted the model in a relaxed 'home' environment wearing the hoody in a number of confident poses, in the way a consumer might wear it at home'.
'The model was an adult, aged 23,' American Apparel said, disagreeing that she appeared under 16.
'She looked directly and confidently into the camera and looked happy and relaxed in each of the photographs,' the firm added. 'She was styled wearing natural make-up and retro-style glasses but [we] did not consider that suggested that she was under 16, nor did [we] believe the average person would draw that conclusion.'
Of the two complaints, the ASA did not uphold the complaint of nudity, saying it was acceptable on the back cover of the magazine. However, it did uphold the complaint about the ad sexualising a child, saying: 'We noted the model was 23 years old and had been styled without make-up to give a natural look. We nevertheless considered that she appeared young, and in some of the pictures, looked under 16.
'Because the ad could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child, under the age of 16 years, we concluded that it was inappropriate and could cause serious offence to some readers.'
The ad has been banned from publication in its current form.
An American Apparel advert has been banned because it 'could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child'.
The advert, designed to be published on the back cover of Vice magazine, showed a series of images of a girl, with the hoody she wears increasingly unzipped in each photograph. In the final photo the model's left nipple is partially exposed.
 |
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) today upheld a complaint that the ad was inappropriate and could cause offence.
American Apparel disagreed, insisting it believed the advert would not cause offence.
A complaint was made about the nudity - and whether it was unsuitable to appear on the back of a free magazine that could be seen by children. The ad also caused concern because the model seemed young and vulnerable, and the complainant challenged whether it could be seen to sexualise a child.
American Apparel was quoted in its response as saying: 'While the ad featured partial female nudity, [we] believed it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence given its context and audience and the medium in which it appeared.
The high street clothing retailer said the ad 'was intended to appeal to women and therefore depicted the model in a relaxed 'home' environment wearing the hoody in a number of confident poses, in the way a consumer might wear it at home'.
'The model was an adult, aged 23,' American Apparel said, disagreeing that she appeared under 16.
'She looked directly and confidently into the camera and looked happy and relaxed in each of the photographs,' the firm added. 'She was styled wearing natural make-up and retro-style glasses but [we] did not consider that suggested that she was under 16, nor did [we] believe the average person would draw that conclusion.'
Of the two complaints, the ASA did not uphold the complaint of nudity, saying it was acceptable on the back cover of the magazine. However, it did uphold the complaint about the ad sexualising a child, saying: 'We noted the model was 23 years old and had been styled without make-up to give a natural look. We nevertheless considered that she appeared young, and in some of the pictures, looked under 16.
'Because the ad could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child, under the age of 16 years, we concluded that it was inappropriate and could cause serious offence to some readers.'
The ad has been banned from publication in its current form.
No comments:
Post a Comment