Ethical fashion brand's posters banned for 'irresponsible' image of young model

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/30/ethical-fashion-brand-ads-banned-nobodys-child-asa

Version 0 of 1.

Posters for an ethical fashion brand have been banned for being “irresponsible” and sexualising models who appeared to be children.

One of the bus shelter ads for the brand Nobody’s Child featured a female model wearing a black jumpsuit and heeled shoes, sitting on the arm of a sofa with one leg bent resting on the sofa. It had text reading “nobody’schild.com”.

The other poster featured the same model wearing a tartan dress, sitting on a chair facing towards the camera. One leg was slightly raised. It had the same wording.

Nobody’s Child’s website describes the brand as “high quality ethical fast fashion”. “Delivering the latest fashion, style and trends, without compromising our ethical standards,” it says. “Great looking, great quality clothing, which is fast, but not throwaway.”

Two people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, claiming the posters were irresponsible and offensive because the poses and facial expressions of the model sexualised someone who appeared to be a child.

One also said the images, in conjunction with the brand name, implied they showed a vulnerable child.

Nobody’s Child said it strongly rejected the suggestion that the models were, or were intended to be, sexualised, or perceived as being underage or vulnerable.

It said the model was 21 and it had chosen not to style her in heavy makeup or bright lipstick in order to avoid projecting any kind of vulgarity.

Nobody’s Child added that its brand name was intended to reflect the feeling their target audience experienced, that they were no longer children and were now their own person. It said it recognised its target audience had reached an age where they could make their own decisions, rather than conveying vulnerability.

It concluded: “We would like to rebut in the strongest possible way all of the suggestions that we are in any way acting irresponsibly or causing harm.”

The ASA banned the posters, which it said were “irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence”.

It added: “We considered that her poses and gaze in both ads were mildly sexually suggestive, and that her pose in [the second ad] also suggested vulnerability.

“We understood the model featured in the ads was 21 years of age but considered she appeared younger, and that when shown in conjunction with the prominent brand name ‘nobody’schild.com’, would be regarded as appearing to be a child. In that context, we considered that the model’s poses implied vulnerability and sexual precocity.”