The campaign—intended to promote clothing sold in skintone-shaded hues—came under complaint, and the complaint was upheld after an investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The organization declared that it mocks a “potentially harmful social trend.”
While the ASA said it was aware that the advertisement was for clothing in skintone-colored shades, it nonetheless said that it was more likely consumers would interpret the phrase as a harassing reference to an obnoxious and often-repeated request for naked photographs.
“Increased pressure to share such photos had been linked to negative outcomes for young people,” said the ASA, while saying that the Boohoo’s typical marketing group means that the ad likely reached children.
In the finding, Boohoo was told to make sure their advertising is “socially responsible”.
Boohoo replied in a statement of their own, saying in part “We note the ASA’s ruling and recognise our obligations to ensure that advertising is socially responsible.”
They weren’t the only company who had to deal with a ruling from the ASA. Clothing company Missguided had a television ad banned by the ASA, which claim its June commercial had ‘objectified women’.
Missguided defended the ad—which showed women posing in seductive states in bathing suits and and summer clothes—claiming the ads promote a “particular lifestyle” and were an attempt to promote a certain lifestyle brand. They added that the “display of skin was relevant, necessary and unavoidable”.
The ASA disagreed, saying the ads were “highly sexualized” and that some of the women in the ads were not wearing clothing that the company was advertising in its sale. It was likely, they said, to cause “serious offence”, and insisted that the ad did indeed objectify the women in it.
Missguided has been ordered not to run the ad again, and been told to take note and avoid further ads with similar sexism.
These aren’t the only brands that have seen controversial advertising become a part of their company profile. American Apparel, infamous for its explicit ads, ran afoul of the ASA with several explicit ads that were banned in the country for its photos of women in “vulnerable,” “gratuitous” and “voyeuristic” positions. Calvin Klein has also had its more provocative ads come in for a bashing by the ASA.
