Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and two were Not upheld.
Ad description
Two posters for Missguided, a clothing company:
a. The first poster, seen on the London Underground on 14 November 2019, featured a model wearing a pink wrap mini-dress, which showed her legs and cleavage.
b. The second poster, seen on 24 November on a train station platform, featured the same model leaning against a side table wearing an unbuttoned jacket with nothing underneath, sheer tights and high heels.
Issue
The complainants, who believed the images were overly sexualised and objectified women, challenged whether:1. ad (a); and 2. ad (b) were offensive. 3. One of the complainants also challenged whether ad (a) was appropriate for display where it could be seen by children.
Response
1.& 2. Missguided Ltd said that they followed a stringent approval process, including gaining approvals from external media agencies and the CAP Copy Advice team. They said they strongly contested that the imagery in ads (a) and (b) overly sexualised and objectified women. While the ads did contain images of young women baring some degree of skin, those looks were in keeping with industry norms and were in keeping with similar ads in the fast-fashion industry.
Missguided said that promoting and encouraging female empowerment was extremely important to their business and as such they designed and promoted collections which enabled their customers to stand out from the crowd in memorable outfits and poses. They said both ads were based on those themes which they believed were positive and enabled their customers to be bold and brave. Global Outdoor, the media owner said they reviewed the ads in accordance with their copy approval guidelines and also submitted it to the CAP Copy Advice team for review, who believed the ads were likely to be acceptable. They said they had not received any complaints directly.
3. Missguided said they did not agree that the imagery was inappropriate for display as it could be seen by children, because it was clear from the age of the model that their target audience for the campaign was young adult women and not children. They said the message behind the ads and the target audience had been misunderstood.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered that the pose adopted by the model in ad (a) was no more than mildly sexual. The wrap style of the dress and her pose, with one arm slightly behind her, meant that it fell open just by her breast, which we considered was likely to be in keeping with how the dress would ordinarily be worn, but featured no explicit nudity. We also considered the focus of the ad was on the model in general and on the featured dress, rather than on a specific part of her body.
While we acknowledged that some people might find the ad distasteful and the clothing revealing, we considered that the ad was unlikely to be seen as overtly sexual or as objectifying either the model in the ad or women in general and we therefore concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
We investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
4.1
4.1
Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
(Harm and offence), but did not find them in breach.
2. Upheld
The model in ad (b) was wearing a blazer with nothing underneath, which exposed the side of her breast, and which was coupled with sheer tights, sheer gloves and underwear. We considered she would be seen as being in a state of undress and that the focus was on her chest area and lower abdomen rather than the clothing being advertised. We also noted that her head was tilted back, with her mouth slightly open, and her leg was bent and raised, which we considered was likely to be seen as a sexually suggestive pose. We considered that the sexually suggestive styling and pose would be seen as presenting women as sexual objects.
Because the ad objectified women, we concluded that ad (b) was likely to cause serious offence.
The ad breached CAP Code rule
4.1
4.1
Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Compliance will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards.
Marketing communications may be distasteful without necessarily breaching this rule. Marketers are urged to consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material.
The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code.
(Harm and offence).
3. Not upheld
Ad (a) was seen on the London Underground and we accepted that children were likely to have seen the ad. However, for the reasons stated in point 1 above, we considered the image was not overtly sexual, and therefore concluded that it had not been placed inappropriately.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.2 (Social responsibility), but did not find it in breach.
Action
Ad (b) must not appear again in its current form. We told Missguided Ltd not to use advertising that objectified women and which was likely to cause serious offence.
