The UK is pretty notorious for banning controversial ads. From Marc Jacobs to Dior, a number of big names have been blocked from running certain advertisements, proving that even the most rich and famous aren’t always above the law. American Apparel, unshockingly, has also faced restrictions in the UK for some scandalous ads (NSFW) that ran earlier this year. And now it’s getting the boot again!
It’s probably pretty easy to guess why the above shot was deemed inappropriate by the Advertising Standards Authority:
The (ASA) said that the model pictured appeared to be potentially under the age of 16. The watchdog added that whilst the image did not contain explicit nudity, the “amateur” photo, the model’s pose and her unsmiling expression meant the photo would be interpreted as having “sexual undertones” and a “voyeuristic quality”. It concluded the ad inappropriately sexualised a model who appeared to be a child and was therefore irresponsible.
American Apparel, naturally, is saying they did nothing wrong, and says that “the model was over 18 years of age and was shown wearing products that were meant for adult consumers. (They) pointed out that the ad was placed in Vice magazine, which is a publication written for adults.” I’m not the biggest fan of AA’s advertising methods, but I’m going to have to side with them here. The model was over 18, and I certainly wouldn’t have glanced at the ad and assumed otherwise. While I’d love to see the company come out with less-sleazy material, I don’t think this deserves to be banned. [via Buzzfeed]
Should this ad be banned?
daisy / 603 posts
If the ad is being banned because the person “appears” to be under 18, but isn’t I think it’s a bunch of crap. I’m 24 and get told I look about 16…..
guest
It’s no worse than any of their other ads. I agree with @lttlegel - people thought I was a teenager when I was in my 20s. She looks just as young as many of their other models.
guest
I think that ad ROCKS. But who cares what their ad standards auth. cares. Many countries have far worse ads, errrr, better I mean, that this one.
guest
I’ve seen more risque ads.
I’m 22, and people still mistake me for being a high school student. Apparently I look young, and it doesn’t help that I’m short.
guest
I think the cropped version of the picture would have been nice even though doesn’t sell much of the socks presentation there. XD
tulip / 16 posts
Even though she is over 18, the fact that she doesn’t look that way will attract potential-child-predators.
..just sayin’
guest
meh!
guest
If she’s 18, I don’t see the problem.
guest
She looks 12.
guest
She looks like a kid. I agree with the Brits on this one.
guest
Why do AA ads always have to be so creepy? Bleh.
guest
It’s like Australia banning porn stars with small boobs. It’s ridiculous. Protecting the IDEA of a child rather than ACTUALLY protecting CHILDREN (as in, looking into the model and making sure she was of the right age) just doesn’t make sense. These places are essentially pushing their perception of what they believe identifies a child physically and then saying that they don’t want these qualities sexualized.
I then propose that these countries ban all women from wearing makeup to look youthful, ban hair removal (since usually prepubescent girls don’t have body hair), and don’t allow the dying of grey hair.
Or, you know, we could just get over it and spend the resources to protect children rather than demean of-age people.