More hysterical censorship from the UK

Source

This transit ad, from the UK's Marks & Spencer chain, has been banned by the kingdom's ad regulator for being too sexy.

From their ruling:

"We noted the complainants’ concerns that this ad, displayed on buses, was likely to be seen by children. We considered that most children viewing the ad would understand that the poster was advertising lingerie and, as such, the models would not be fully clothed. We considered that the pose of the woman lying on the bed was only mildly sexual in nature, and as a result was unlikely to be seen as unsuitable to be seen by children. However, we considered that the pose of the woman kneeling on the bed was overtly sexual, as her legs were wide apart, her back arched and one arm above her head with the other touching her thigh. We also noted that the woman in this image wore stockings. We considered that the image was of an overtly sexual nature and was therefore unsuitable for untargeted outdoor display, as it was likely to be seen by children. We concluded that the ad was socially irresponsible."

If you read this blog, you know my stand on this. Using sex to sell everything is just lazy. Objectifying women in ads is insulting. But those are my opinions, not things I want regulated.

I honestly believe that we, as consumers, need to decide for ourselves what we are willing to tolerate from advertisers. Sexual exploitation of women in ads is so commonplace, in ads aimed at both men and women, that I'm surprised it has any breakthrough potential at all anymore. My 7-year-old son, just last weekend, was stopped in his tracks by a larger-than-life POP poster at Sears showing a woman in see through underwear. But that stopping power wears off. (In his case, he just blurted out "booby covers!" and laughed.)

You can choose to complain to a business about their ads. Or you can choose to not do business with them. You can choose to complain to the owner of the media. But this knee-jerk banning that's happening with the ASA in the UK really seems over the top to me. Plus, it only works into the offending advertisers hands by giving people a reason to take notice of their ads.

Generally, in social marketing, we feel that it's more effective to recognize and reinforce good behaviour than punish and shame bad. Imagine if organizations like the ASA put more of their efforts into celebrating the advertisers who are "socially responsible",  giving them the free PR while the naughty ones languished in the oversaturated sexy soup of the ad landscape. Wouldn't that be nice?

Via The Drum and The Telegraph

UK fashion brand takes a ribbing over super-skinny model pics

Fashionista reports that the UK Advertising Standards Authority ordered Drop Dead Clothing to remove the above bikini photos of Scottish model Amanda Hendrick from their online catalogue:

“The ASA considered the model was very slim. We also noted that in the bikini and denim shorts images, hollows in her thighs were noticeable and she had prominent thigh bones,” the ruling said. “We considered that in combination with the stretched out pose and heavy eye make-up, the model looked underweight in the pictures.”

The Daily Record says Carol Sykes, of Drop Dead Clothing, has accepted the ruling but not the rationale.

"Amanda is not anorexic or unhealthy and eats a very good diet. She's just a naturally thin person. She's my son's former girlfriend and a family friend. She had modelled for us for three years and we'd never had any complaints. Do I think people should aspire to be like her? Yes, because she is a beautiful person and jets around the world earning £600 plus a day. She's got a successful career and no mental health problems. Do I think removing a picture of Amanda will stop people being mentally ill? No, I don't."

 Umm, OK. The curveless model still appears in some less revealing outfits at the DDC store.

For me, the question is not whether or not Ms. Hendrick has an eating disorder. It's why the brand thought she was the right type of shape to model swimwear. Generally, swimwear models are much more robust in the hips shoulders (etc.), to show off a swimsuit's waist- and breast-enhancing appeal. Seeing this skinny model in such a context is not so much appealing as alarming. It reminds me of the nude fashion show in Altman's film Prêt-à-Porter, in which you are confronted with the realization that high fashion models only look sexy with their clothes on — as they lack any prominent secondary sexual characteristics that would ruin the line or the drape of the look.

Anyway, Drop Dead got publicity, Amanda Hendrick got notoriety, and the ASA got its way. This "scandal" is probably beneficial for everyone involved... except for the young women consumers who are being told that visible ribs are a thing now.

But apparently, asses are "out".

That said, I still don't believe that the pictures should have been banned. As irresponsible as the portrayal is, I think we're better off exposing the cynicism of the brand and trying to educate consumers rather than regulating taste. But that's just me.

No! Lola! — Marc Jacobs ad banned in the UK

Adweek reports that the controversial campaign for Marc Jacobs' Oh! Lola!, starring 17-year-old American actress Dakota Fanning, was banned by the ASA.

From the ruling:

"The ASA understood that the ad had appeared in publications with a target readership of those over 25 years of age.  We noted that the model was wearing a thigh length soft pink, polka dot dress and that part of her right thigh was visible.  We noted that the model was holding up the perfume bottle which rested in her lap between her legs and we considered that its position was sexually provocative.  We understood the model was 17 years old but we considered she looked under the age of 16.  We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality.  Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child.  We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence."

I agree that the ad is irresponsible. But there is a big difference between being offended and wanting to censor. This is where I often find the British regulator crosses the line. According to its ruling, "four readers challenged whether the ad was offensive and irresponsible as it portrayed the young model in a sexualised manner." Four!

Way to go, ASA. The ad would have gone away soon, because it is only one of many of its type. But this ruling will only help Marc Jacobs and Coty, the perfume manufacturer, and for all the wrong reasons. The ad was sleazy, especially since it features an underage actress who—like Brooke Shields before her—has been the disturbing focus of ephebophilic interest since she was 12. (She also played many sexualized roles in movies and ads at a tender age.) Now that the ad is certified perverted, it will capture the interest of a whole new audience.