ASA Adjudication on H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd
H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd
4th Floor
40 Argyll Street
London
W1F 7EB
Date:
8 August 2012
Media:
Poster
Sector:
Retail
Number of complaints:
10
Agency:
Universal McCann
Complaint Ref:
A12-195495
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Nine issues were investigated, all of which were Not upheld.
Ad
Five posters for H&M swimwear:
(a) One poster showed a woman sitting in shallow sea water, wearing a pink bikini. Text stated, "Bikini top £3.99".
(b) A second poster showed a woman sitting upright on a beach, wearing a black bikini, a shawl around her shoulders and sunglasses. Text stated, "Bikini top £3.99".
(c) A third poster showed a woman standing in shallow sea water, wearing a patterned bikini. Text stated, "Bikini top £3.99".
(d) A fourth poster showed a woman wearing a one-piece block patterned swimsuit, which was zipped to the neck. Text stated, "Swimsuit £19.99".
(e) A fifth poster showed a woman standing in sea water up to her thighs. She wore a yellow patterned bikini and an opened scuba diving back pack. Text stated, "Bikini top £3.99".
(f) A digital poster was seen outside Westfield shopping centre. It featured three images, the first was similar to poster (a) but the shot was zoomed out and showed more of the model. The second image was the same as poster (c) and the third featured a model in the sea, wearing a one-piece swimsuit and sunglasses.
Issue
The ASA received ten complaints:
1. four complainants challenged whether ad (a) was offensive, because they believed it was degrading towards women;
2. seven complainants challenged whether ad (a) was irresponsibly placed, because they believed it was too sexual for general display and unsuitable to be seen by children;
3. one complainant challenged whether ad (b) was offensive, because he/she believed it was degrading towards women;
4. one complainant challenged whether ad (b) was irresponsible, because he/she believed it was too sexual for general display and unsuitable to be seen by children;
5. two complainants challenged whether ad (c) was offensive, because they believed it was degrading towards women;
6. two complainants challenged whether ad (c) was irresponsibly placed, because they believed it was too sexual for general display and unsuitable to be seen by children ;
7. one complainant challenged whether ad (d) was irresponsibly placed, because he/she believed it was too sexual for general display and unsuitable to be seen by children;
8. one complainant challenged whether ad (e) was offensive, because he/she believed it was degrading towards women; and
9. one complainant challenged whether ad (f) was irresponsibly placed, because he/she believed it was too sexual for general display and unsuitable to be seen by children.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
H&M Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd (H&M) said the campaign was one of many produced and shown by H&M during a season. The purpose of the campaign was to show their latest fashion and clarify their business idea, which was fashion and quality at the best price. H&M took their responsibility as an advertiser very seriously and were disappointed that some consumers found the campaign degrading to women or inappropriate for general display. Their intention for the campaign was to show their latest swimwear collection and appeal to their core audience, not to offend or be deemed unsuitable for general display.
When they planned an outdoor campaign they bought posters in locations which optimised against their core target audience (women aged 18–39). However, they only used poster sites that did not fall within a 100 m proximity to schools. H&M regretted that the advertising had been perceived as offensive, and said they would take the complaints into consideration for future advertising campaigns.
Assessment
1., 3., 5. & 8. Not upheld
The models in all the ads were wearing bikinis. However, we considered this was in line with consumer expectations in a campaign promoting swimwear. We noted that, although the photographs were close-up shots, there was no nudity in the ads and considered that neither the models’ poses nor expressions were overtly sexual. . While we considered that the poses could be seen as mildly sexual, in the context of a campaign for swimwear, we considered that they were unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
We investigated ads (a), (b), (c), and (e) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find them in breach.
2., 4., 6., 7. & 9. Not upheld
Ads (a), (b), (d) and (f) featured models who were leaning their heads back towards the sun, with eyes closed. This had the effect of drawing attention to the models’ chests which, in a different context, could be considered sexually suggestive. However, in the context of a campaign of posters for a range of swimwear, featuring models at the beach in the sun, we considered that the approach was in line with consumer expectations. The posters featured no nudity or overtly sexual poses. Although we welcomed H&M’s decision to place the posters away from schools as a precautionary measure, we concluded that ads (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) were suitable for general display and therefore not irresponsibly placed.
We investigated ads (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
