You may have seen this Supre ad plastered on billboards, the back of buses and on the internet. The ad features a young female model wearing ‘jeggings’ and no clothes on her upper body.
What were your initial reactions when you first saw it? Well, for a number of viewers, the ad simply went too far, with some even saying it was close to ‘child pornography’. One person was quoted as saying:
“With only hair over her breasts and not completely covering them, this picture immediately invokes the idea of pornography. I do not know if the woman is a real model or compute image but she looks about 15 years old – hence child pornography. I do not believe that such nudity should be forced upon the community” (Focal Attractions, 2011).
As a result of many objections, the ASB reviewed the complaints made, and the board noted that the image of the model wearing only jeggings and shoes was inappropriate and over-sexualised, and inappropriate for viewing by children (young girls 8-14 years). However, the board found that the ad did not breach section 2.3 of the code, which states: ‘Advertising or Marketing Communication shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and, where appropriate, the relevant programme time zone’. On these grounds, the board dismissed the complaint. I personally believe the decision the ASB made wasn’t reflective of the explicit image portrayed in the ad. Even though it didn’t specifically breach any codes, it is clearly a provocative and exposing image of a near naked lady advertising a children’s and teenagers brand. My opinion is only one of many, but it leaves me asking – when and where do we draw the line?
A group of people of various beliefs, ages and backgrounds (a mother, teacher and three university students) were shown the ad. When asked what they thought about this controversial promotional effort, a number of varied responses were obtained:
§ "While it might be seen by some as appropriate, it may also be seen as unethical to target such a young market with such exposing pictures considering their target market is 12-15. As a male, I knew what they were trying to achieve, and I found it immoral as it is depicting an image of a far more mature woman to a young audience.” (Male, aged 20)
§ "The advertisement is not very representative of clothing and places far greater importance on the sexual objectification of women.” (Male, aged 19)
§ “As a mother I feel that this ad is extremely inappropriate and portrays women to young girls as sexual objects. There is no need for the lady in the ad to not be wearing any clothes.” (Mother)
§ “As a teacher, I have discussed this ad with my class. A number of the girls didn’t think this ad represented the values of Supre and were disappointed in the company's efforts to attract attention to the brand.” (Primary school teacher)
The responses, although slightly varied, were all closely related. Each individual questioned thought Supre had gone too far and pointed out that there are better ways to exploit the brand than through sexualised images of young women.
Despite the advertiser challenging the ASB, stating that, “although a sexy image, it did not breach any form of discrimination or vilification towards women,” Supre eventually decided to take the ads down. Even though there was some debate from the company, I personally believe the decision by Supre was very responsible and well calculated. If the store simply ignored the complaints made by consumers and other viewers of the ad, their whole reputation and brand image could have potentially been destroyed. Let’s hope Supre hasn’t done too much damage already.
If you wish to familiarise yourself with other ads that have been subject to complaint, please visit www.adstandards.com.au
No comments:
Post a Comment