Table of Contents
‘Pornographic’ American Apparel ads banned
American Apparel Ads has been rapped by the Advertising Standards Authority for a series of “pornographic and exploitative” ads that inappropriately sexualise young women, while H&M’s ads starring David Beckham in his pants have been judged acceptable.
Micro Mesh
It doesn’t get much more revealing than this. A model wearing a completely see-through sheer bodysuit poses on top of a man in this overtly sexual advertisement for American Apparel ads. (American Apparel ads)5 / 14American Apparel has come under fire over the years for its provocative and overtly sexual advertisements, mostly under the direction of the fired founder Dov Charney. As the troubled clothing company files for bankruptcy, take a look back at the controversial ads that caused a stir.
Before
American Apparel’s ads, which appeared on its own website and in a lifestyle magazine, were accused of being “offensive … pornographic, exploitative of women and to inappropriately sexualise young women” in the consumer complaint.
The ads showed women in underwear and various stages of undress and including bare buttocks and breasts.
American Apparel claims that the images on their website featured “real, non-airbrushed, everyday people” and were not portrayed as “vulnerable, negative or exploitative”. The retailer says the images were the kind that “normal people” could relate to and regularly shared with their friends on social networks and would not offend its adult audience.
In its response to the complaint American Apparel said: “It [is] important to judge what was and was not offensive by reference to the current times and the views of the majority of decent and reasonable people, not a small and puritanically-minded minority.”
It also said: “If the complaint was upheld it would be applying a standard of offensiveness and censorship which would be completely out of date in the more adult and non-repressive world of today, and would also mean that the vast majority of lingerie advertising would be deemed to be offensive, pornographic, exploitative or to inappropriately sexualise women.”
The complaint was upheld against eight out of nine ads investigated, which the ASA believes included “gratuitous nudity” and must not be shown again. The ASA has also advised American Apparel not to use similar images in future.
The ASA said: “We concluded [the ads] had not been prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.”
A previous American Apparel ad was banned in 2009 for sexualising children.
Meanwhile, H&M’s ad campaign to launch the exclusive range of David Beckham underwear has avoided censure despite complaints that it was offensive and irresponsible.
Ads featured the footballer modelling an exclusive range of men’s underwear.
After
For More News
American Apparel ads came in third. The last ad to appear in the top spot was the Abercrombie Kids ad.
As advertising experts try to gain a better understanding of how internet advertising is taking over the world of media, the issue is not new. But now the timing appears as if it has struck home.
And as an industry, we should be fearful. The last two years have witnessed a steady creep of advertising into places where it was not welcome. Just this week the Interactive Advertising Bureau highlighted that the average Internet advertiser spends more on advertising than TV or radio.
Remember, brands only exist because consumers recognize them and value them, and ads are only valuable to consumers if they make us feel good. According to the ads, that only happens when we look and touch the things we want to purchase. But it’s not that we don’t understand that. It’s that brands are we are trying to figure out how to adapt.
Digital Ads Is Not Good For Business
Experts seem to have come to terms with this for the last decade or so, but suddenly they are faced with the reality that online advertising is actually taking over and putting them out of business.
This is a bit hard to accept, especially when the digital space is such a positive experience for consumers.
What we do know is that if you compare the cost of digital advertising to printed or even television ads, you will understand why the distinction is often not as stark as the ads suggest.
The truth is that printing ads can be expensive, just like digital advertising can be. In fact, it is the digital space where it is usually cheaper to buy advertising than print ads are.
Coca-Cola Invest Huge Budget For Advertisement
So we shouldn’t be surprised that major companies like Coca-Cola have invested heavily in advertising, even if the message was probably intended for the print space. If it can work for them, it can work for other businesses.
This is also not exactly new. Ads have been airing on television and on the internet for decades, and since we have been accustomed to them, it’s unlikely that we will suddenly give up ads.
In the end, I believe this trend is much like the turn of the century, which is generally considered to be a positive period for advertising. Advertising is always going to come in and out of fashion. If you don’t pay attention, you can lose out on big bucks. The best response to advertising is to either embrace it or boycott it.
