Urban Outfitters takes an early lead in 2015's Body Image Hall of Shame

Is it a bad Photoshop, or does this model have impossibly long and skinny legs? Either way, the UK's Advertising Standards Authority ruled in favour of a consumer complaint that "the model in the picture was unhealthily thin, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful." It appeared in the UK version of the popular retailer's online catalogue.

The ASA ruling stated, "We understood that Urban Outfitters’ target market was young people and considered that using a noticeably underweight model was likely to impress upon that audience that the image was representative of the people who might wear Urban Outfitters’ clothing, and as being something to aspire to. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible."

Urban Outfitters responded with "We do not believe she was underweight."

Another recent ruling against the chain found their ad for a "Fuck my liver" hip flask, advertised with the slogan, "Drink like the rebel you are," to also be irresponsible.

Dumb e-cig ad is a throwback to a more racist era

This ad, from Belfast, is kind of shocking in its cluelessness. Taboo love between a mature white woman and a young black man! The scandal!

Fortunately, according to campaign, the Northern Irish didn't like it much either. The Advertising Standards Authority received several complaints, and ruled that "consumers viewing the ad would believe it was presenting a relationship between an older and younger individual, particularly an older woman and a younger man, and a couple of different races, as something that was unusual or socially unacceptable."

The ad has been ordered removed, which is always a touchy subject. I far prefer when brands willingly remove ads because it's in their best interests not to piss off customers by pretending it's still the 1950s.

Australian burger joint unapologetic about gross "assburger" ad.

Remember the least appetizing burger ad of 2013? The Australian burger chain, Goodtime Burgers, showed a burger patty and fixings wedged in a model's "buns." No, really.

According to Mumbrella, after the ad was ruled "degrading" by Australia's Advertising Standards Authority, Goodtime Burgers issued this sexist non-apology:

Via Mumbrella

Text reads:

To those who may have been offended by our sensory arousing advertising experience in the last issue of THE BEAST, please accept this formal apology. Our point was not to disturb, but to simply introduce the erotic combination of our moist & juicy burger patties and our soft and smooth buns to the beautiful people of Bondi. We guarantee you will remember this burger the next morning. Our food is sexy, stimulating, juicy and made-to-order. So, if for some reason our last ad left you thinking beyond the burger and onto the onto the buns, sadly you have missed the mark. The point of our ad was to entice your senses, tastebuds to be exact!Yes, we are about the beach.Yes, we are about the buns.Yes, we are about having fun.And Yes, we are about great food at great prices.However, to cram all that information into one advert would be cheap, crass and in your face. We are sorry for many things, but there is one thing for certain, we are not sorry for having a GoodTime :)

The "apology" ad generated more complaints to the ASA, but they ruled “that the text in conjunction with the image gives a humorous content which in the Board’s view did not amount to an image which is exploitative and degrading.”

Looks pretty obnoxious to me. But then again, so does a good percentage of the advertising out there that hides behind "it's all in good fun" cynical appropriation of women's sexuality.

Paddy Power provokes with "Oscar" ad, succeeds

It's not easy to be a more insensitive and offensive advertiser that PETA, but online betting outfit Paddy Power does it on a regular basis.

This time, it's an "Oscars" ad that features accused murderer and elite athlete Oscar Pistorius. And oh, did they get what they wanted:

Paddy Power's controversial ad campaign featuring Oscar Pistorius, which offers "money back if he walks", is to be investigated by the UK's advertising watchdog after receiving nearly 50 complaints. 

The adverts, which offer refunds for losing bets if the South African Paralympian is found not guilty of the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, has been criticised for being in bad taste. 

The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) received 46 complaints in two days and has now decided to launch a formal investigation.

Now there's a Change.org petition to "please remove your offensive betting on the outcome of the Oscar Pistorius trial and donate any profits so far to a women's charity fighting violence against women." It has, of this writing, 122,610 digital signatures.

Not that any of the offended are in Paddy Power's target market. In fact, I wonder if they actually get more business from stunts like this (and this, and this) than they ever had the potential to lose.

It's a cynical adworld out there.

Red Bull finds out it's still "too soon" to make Titanic jokes in ads

The Telegraph

A couple of days ago, AT&T and other brands took a lot of flack online for using the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as subject matter for advertising and social media promotions. "Still too soon," is the general response.

But what about something that happened more than a century ago? Red Bull probably thought that the 1912 sinking of the RMS Titanic was fair game for a laugh. Sure, more than 1500 people died that night. But surely with the passing of time, and survivors, this one is fair game for a gag?

Apparently not. The Telegraph reports that Britain's Advertising Standards Authority has received 42 complaints about the ad, calling it "tasteless" and "offensive" (although they haven't yet launched any action against it). Clifford Ismay, a relative of Titanic owner Joseph Bruce Ismay, called it "despicable."

Howard Nelson, founder of The Titanic Heritage Trust, went into detail:

"It is very offensive and just disrespectful. We appreciate there will be commercial ventures involving the Titanic which we say is fine - as long as it is in good taste and respectful. 

This is not. 

There is a difference between making a joke and this. I get jokes all the time about icebergs and the like, taking the mick out of my interest in the Titanic, but that is banter. This is blatantly offensive because it is taking the mick out of the people who have passed away. 

It would be the same if someone did something similar about 9/11 - there would be an uproar. This is no different."

Is it no different? I've grown up with the Titanic as more of a symbol than as a real event, since it's such an icon in popular culture. People have been making Titanic jokes, and using the ship's sinking as a clichéd metaphor, for generations. I can understand why Red Bull didn't anticipate the backlash.

But perhaps the biggest difference between the Titanic and horrors such as 9/11 or the Holocaust is that the ship's sinking was a tragedy while terrorism and genocide are something much worse. To joke about the latter isn't just to joke about death, but to make light of the human evils that deliberately caused those deaths. That's the difference.

Not to say that the Red Bull ad is tasteful, mind you.

But in my opinion it's not as bad as what The Onion was implying with their horrifying satire of opportunistic 9/11 ads:

Feels different, doesn't it?

Even the ASA has a soft spot for silly IRN-BRU ads

According to AdFreak, one of the latest entries in IRN-BRU's always-cheeky "Gets you through" campaign provoked 176 complaints to the UK Advertising Standards Authority:



Specifically:

1. Most complainants challenged whether the ads were offensive and irresponsible, because they considered that the scenario between the mother and young men was sexual and inappropriate. 

2. Some complainants challenged whether the ads were sexist and demeaning to women. 

3. Some viewers challenged whether ad (a) was inappropriately scheduled at a time when children could have been viewing.

Here is the advertiser's defence:

AG Barr plc (AG Barr) stated that the premise of the campaign was using IRN-BRU to cope with awkward situations and the ads under investigation dealt with how parents could unwittingly embarrass their teenage children.  AG Barr said they had been conscious that the ads should stay true to the traditionally cheeky and irreverent sense of humour of IRN-BRU ads, but should not objectify women, carry any tone of a sexual nature or cause offence.  They said they did not consider that the scene between the mum and young men was sexual or inappropriate and felt there was no lasciviousness or flirting between the mum and the boys.  They stated that the friends were simply reacting to the mum's new clothing in the way you would expect them to and that the mum was completely oblivious to the reaction she was drawing from her son's friends.  They said the central focus of the ad was the son's embarrassment and the comedic and surreal concept that IRN-BRU would help him deal with such an awkward situation, and that humour relied on the mum's innocence.  They added that the young men were not reacting in a way that portrayed sexuality, nor were they colluding in a salacious fashion, but were rather transfixed by the mum's appearance.  They said all three male actors were aged 19 to 21 years.   

They considered that the mum was dressed in a way which did not display a gratuitous amount of cleavage, this they felt reinforced the lack of sexual undertone and pointed out that the mum was very matter of fact when she delivered the line "New push up bra - amazing, eh?".  They said the line was delivered as a straightforward observation about the new addition to her wardrobe, in the same way she would announce that she was wearing new shoes, and, similarly, the delivery of the line "Group hug?" was also in a light-hearted and friendly tone with no hint of flirtation.

The ASA is notoriously skittish about sex in advertising, so you might expect that an ad with teenage boys ogling a mom's cleavage would get pulled pretty quickly. But in a surprise ruling, the standards body cleared the ad.

From The Guardian:

In its ruling, the ASA noted that the interaction between the mum and the two boys did not constitute irresponsible behaviour. 

"Although we noted that some complainants had interpreted the action in the ads as portraying an inappropriate relationship between the mum and the son's friends, we did not consider that their interaction was a portrayal of irresponsible behaviour," it said. 

"We considered that the action relied on the mum being confident and attractive, but not consciously or overtly behaving in a sexualised or flirtatious way. We also considered that the focus of the ads was the son's embarrassment at the effect his mum's appearance was having on his friends. 

"Therefore, and particularly in the context of ads intended to portray a surreal and light-hearted comedic approach, we did not consider that the action or depiction of the female protagonist was sexist or demeaning and concluded that the ads were not in breach of the code."

Interesting development.

British homophobes offended by pictures of women kissing... themselves

All images via Daily Mail

So here's a thing. The Daily Mail reports that these images, used on-site to promote the Harvey Nichols department store in the UK, provoked 17 complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority.

From the ASA site:

1. Nine complainants challenged whether the ads were offensive, irresponsible and unsuitable for untargeted display where they might be viewed by children, because they appeared to portray a lesbian kiss;
2. Ten complainants challenged whether the ads were offensive, irresponsible and unsuitable for untargeted display where they might be viewed by children, because they were sexually explicit;
3. Two complainants challenged whether the phrase "LOVE THYSELF", combined with the images in the ads, was offensive on religious grounds.

Here's their ruling. It's actually kind of entertaining reading:

Assessment 

1. Not upheld 

The ASA noted that each of the three ads showed an image of a woman leaning in to kiss her mirror image, rather than another woman. We considered that, particularly because of the identical styling of the model in each ad and the text "LOVE THYSELF", the content was sufficiently clear and was unlikely to be widely misunderstood. 

We acknowledged that some complainants had interpreted the posters differently and had understood them to depict a lesbian kiss. One person also mentioned a young child who had not identified that the kiss was between one woman and her mirror image. Although we recognised that some people might have found what they perceived to be a portrayal of a lesbian kiss distasteful, we considered that a reference to homosexuality in an ad would be unlikely in itself to cause widespread or serious offence or constitute irresponsible advertising. 

Because we considered that it was sufficiently clear that the posters showed one woman about to kiss her mirror image, and because we also considered that they were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence even if interpreted differently, we concluded that the ads were not offensive, irresponsible or unsuitable for untargeted display because they appeared to portray a lesbian kiss. 

On that point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find them in breach. 

2. Not upheld 

We noted that close-up images of models' faces were common methods of advertising beauty products, and that the emphasis in each of the ads was on the styling of the model. In addition, the text "LOVE THYSELF" was prominent because of its size and position on the posters. We therefore considered that the aim of the ad, to promote the beauty department of a well-known department store, was clear and that the images used were consistent with that message. 

The posters showed close-up shots of the face of a woman leaning in to kiss her mirror image; in each instance her lips were slightly parted but the faces were not touching. We noted that no nudity was shown and the poses were not provocative. We therefore concluded that the ads were not sexually explicit and were consequently not offensive, irresponsible or unsuitable for untargeted display. 

On that point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find them in breach. 

3. Not upheld 

We noted that the words "LOVE THYSELF" bore some similarity to the bible verse "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" and understood that, if that association was made, the ads could be seen to distort a religious message for commercial means. However, in our view the text "LOVE THYSELF" was not so strongly linked to the most central tenets of the Christian faith as to be widely interpreted as mocking the sacred elements of that religion. We also noted that "LOVE THYSELF" was not a direct biblical quote, and for that reason considered that it was not exclusively associated with Christianity. Given the absence of any other imagery or references which could carry religious meaning in the ads, we concluded that, in the context of an ad promoting a store's beauty department, the phrase "LOVE THYSELF", combined with the images of a woman about to kiss her mirror image, was not offensive on religious grounds. 

On that point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find them in breach. 

Action 

No further action necessary.

Love the Bible reference.

Sexualized? Yes. Exploitative? Yes. But officially not gay. That's a relief.

Tip via Jezebel

Now Donald Trump is trolling Scotland as well

The Drum reports that Donald Trump, creator of the American election "October surprise" that ended up making a fool of him, likes to spread his special brand of idiocy to other countries as well.

The Donald (man, I miss Spy Magazine!) posted the above picture on his Facebook page with the caption, "I guess they don’t have freedom of the press in Scotland. We created this ad and the ASA would not allow us to publish it. I don’t know what is wrong with it, it seems factually accurate to me."

Alex Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland. His government has committed Scotland to legislation on emission reduction and the generation of renewable energy. And his government did release convicted terrorist Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, "based on the rules and regulations of Scots Law and the reports of the Parole Board for Scotland, the Prison Governor, and the Scottish Prison Service Director of Health and Care Dr Andrew Fraser" to Libya on compassionate grounds when he was dying of prostate cancer.

But for someone so concerned about "truth", Mr. Trump is pretty fast and loose with his own facts.

...a spokesperson from the ASA [the British Advertising Standards Authority] told The Drum: “I can confirm that the ASA has not banned the ad that Donald Trump refers to. 

“We don’t ban ads from appearing. We respond to concerns about ads once they’re in the public domain. 

“The advertiser may have sought pre-publication advice on the likelihood of the ad being acceptable under the Advertising Code. This Copy Advice service is provided, for free and in confidence, by our sister organisation, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP). 

We can’t comment on whether advice was sought or given as the service is confidential.
“However, I should stress that Copy Advice is exactly that, advice. It is non-binding and Copy Advice does not ‘ban’ ads either.”

In other words, the ad was submitted to an advisory panel that tells advertisers whether or not the ASA is likely to cause members of the public to complain to the ASA, which would then consider the complaint against British advertising standards, and act accordingly. 

They do kind of "ban" ads, through ad industry self-regulation. They make some pretty ridiculous judgements, but they are no more of a threat to "free speech" than other industries' self-regulating bodies in the United States, such as the Motion Picture Association of America or the now-defunct Comics Code Authority.

As my colleague Kerry pointed out, Donald Trump is developing a golf course in Scotland, and the proposed turbines are "spoiling his view".

Let's just hope that the UK's Committee of Advertising Practice also told Mr. Trump, in confidence, to fire his Art Director.

London Mayor blocks "cure your gayness" transit campaign

The above king board was supposed to run on several buses in London, England, next week. That is, until the city's mayor intervened.

According to the Guardian, the ad by "Christian" organization Core Issues was blocked by London Mayor Boris Johnson in his capacity as Chair of Transport for London.

In case you haven't noticed, it parodies the popular human rights slogan, "Some people are gay. Get over it!"

He defeated the frickin' Balrog, so you may want to heed him.

Surprisingly, the Advertising Standards Authority, which bans every ad that upsets even a couple of people, cleared the creative in advance.

"We went through the correct channels and we were encouraged by the bus company to go through their procedures," Core Issues Trust leader Mike Davidson told the press.

But the Conservative Mayor would have none of it. "London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance," he said. "It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses."

Core Issues is crying "censorship" which is their prerogative. But assuming homosexuality is something you're born into, these ads as bad as promoting programmes to teach people to stop being Swedish, or stop being female.

Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat mayoral candidate, is gay. He made light of the situation.

"As mayor I want to make London a place that is welcoming to all people," he quipped, "including Christians."

ASA okays furry fandom SIMS ad for UK

"Are you an animal person? Well, not like me cos most people are made up entirely of person. And if you're a person person, then you'd be missing out on the duality of life. With the Sims 3 Pets you can have a pet or be a pet. You can play both ways. So, go on, experiment. Chase some tail. Play with life".

According to BoingBoing, Britain's Advertising Standards Authority (who always make for good blog) received a complaint about the sexualized nature of this ad, featuring both people and animals (as well as people as animals):



From the ASA site:

"A TV ad, for a console game, included an animated character that had a human body and a dog's head. It stated "Are you an animal person? Well, not like me cos most people are made up entirely of person. And if you're a person person, then you'd be missing out on the duality of life. With the Sims 3 Pets you can have a pet or be a pet. You can play both ways. So, go on, experiment. Chase some tail. Play with life". The ad also included animated scenes of a man playing a guitar surrounded by animals and other people. He was also shown in a bath and then appeared about to kiss a woman on a bed."

Issue

1. Some of the complainants challenged whether the ad, in particular the scene with the couple on a bed, was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

2. Most of the complainants challenged whether the ad, in particular the scene with the couple on a bed, was suitable to be broadcast when children might be watching.

...


Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered the presentation of the ad was such that it was clear that it was for a videogame and that the scenarios shown were not a reflection of real life. We acknowledged some viewers might find the content of the ad, in particular the scene of the couple on the bed, distasteful but considered most viewers were likely to interpret it as being light hearted and mildly suggestive, rather than as being overtly sexual. We therefore concluded that it was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 4.2 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We considered the scene of the couple on the bed was mildly suggestive but noted it was brief and that although they appeared about to kiss, kissing did not take place. We considered the ad did not include anything that was likely to cause harm or distress to children or was otherwise unsuitable for them. We therefore concluded that the ad did not breach the Code.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 32.3 (Scheduling of television and radio advertisements) but did not find it in breach."

So go ahead, Britons! Get your yiff on...

Steel Panther poster banned in UK for sexy/sexist imagery

Spinal Tap would be so proud.



Indeed. Steel Panther are yet another parody band who do the material so well that people take it seriously. At least that's what happened when this outrageously over-the-top poster appeared in the UK last fall.

The Guardian reports that the ASA, the UK's notoriously ninny ad standards enforcer, did not accept the argument that that the ads were meant to "poke fun at the ridiculousness of the attitude to women, outfits and music in that [1980s] era".

Here's the ruling in full:

"The ASA noted Universal Island Records' argument that the poster was not meant to cause offence or be seen as demeaning to women.  However, we considered that the main image on the poster was overtly sexual.  We noted that the pose of the woman showed her with her legs apart, her hand between her legs and her breasts partially exposed and considered that her facial expression was suggestive of an orgasm and sexual activity.  In addition to this, we considered that the album title "Balls Out" was sexually suggestive particularly when viewed in the context of the poster, where the woman was seen dangling two silver balls between her legs in a way that we considered was suggestive of male genitalia. 

We noted Universal Island Records' argument that the poster was meant to be viewed humorously and not to be taken seriously as it was meant to represent the over-the-top image of the band featured in the poster.  However, we considered that most people would not view the poster in this way and even if they had viewed it in that context, the poster was overtly sexual when taken as a whole.  Given its placement in a range of public locations, we concluded that it was likely to cause serious and widespread offence, was unsuitable to be seen by children and therefore was not appropriate for outdoor advertising."

Universal had stated that their media plan favoured locations that are "popular with adults for nights out" but since the campaign is over now anyway, it hardly matters.

What is interesting about all of this is the struggle between artistic licence in the pursuit of laughs and real-life standards against sexism, racism, and other social ills. It's such a fine line...




Tip via Adland

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.

Lancome ad banned in Britain for heavy-handed Julia Roberts Photoshop

AdWomen reports that the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)  has ordered pulled a make-up ad starring Julia Roberts because "these campaigns don’t show the real results that L’Oreal’s products can achieve."

When did Britney Spears get such a wide mouth?

As I've stated before, despite my objection to many harmful images in advertising, with the exception of really egregious "thinning", photo retouching is not a big issue for me. It's just digital illustration, and should be treated as such. If we can teach that to our impressionable youth, we won't have to worry about them doing tragic post-production work on their own bodies.

I far prefer the Photoshop Disasters approach of exposing and mocking overdone manipulation. In this case, "Pretty Woman" Roberts is not even recognizable as herself.

A Maybelline ad with Christy Turlington was banned for similar reasons.

Maybe she's born with it... maybe it's Photoshop CS5 Extended

Sleazevertising

South Africa's IOL reports that their country's Advertising Standards Authority has banned an ad campaign by a chain of "gentlemen's clubs":



What's interesting about this ruling is that the billboard wasn't just cited for being sexually explicit, but "an offence to the dignity of athlete Caster Semenya".



For those who don't remember, Ms. Semenya was the South African runner who won gold in the 800 meters at the 2009 World Championships in Athletics, only to have the IAAF insist that she undergo a gender test — causing national and global furor.

For his part the advertiser, Lolly Jackson, is playing this scandal for all its PR potential — first of all denying that the ad had anything to do with the runner because he lacks subtlety ("the model on the billboard would have been black, she would have been wearing a pair of athletics shoes") and then vowing to use his future ads to "throw mud" at the ASA.

It's a sleazy ad to be sure — in every sense of the word. But I can't imagine an ad getting pulled in this country just for making an oblique jab at a public figure. Can you give me an example otherwise?