ASA Adjudication on American Apparel (UK) Ltd

Ad

An ad, for American Apparel (AA) clothing, which appeared on the back cover of Vice magazine, was headlined "FLEXFLEECE Ryan wears the classic unisex Flex Fleece zip hoody ...". Below were two rows each consisting of three photographs of a young looking girl wearing the hoody and looking directly at the camera. In the first row, she was wearing the hoody zipped up and appeared to be wearing underpants. In one photograph, she was wearing big-framed glasses.

In the second row, she was wearing the hoody unzipped and was naked underneath. She was wearing underpants and wore the glasses in two of the photographs. In the last photograph, her left nipple was partially exposed.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether:

1. the depiction of nudity in the ad was offensive and unsuitable to appear on the back of a free magazine that could be seen by anyone, including children;

2. the ad was offensive and inappropriate, because the model seemed young and vulnerable and could be seen to sexualise a child.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. AA said while the ad featured partial female nudity, they believed it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence given its context and audience and the medium in which it appeared.  They said the ad was intended to appeal to women and therefore depicted the model in a relaxed 'home' environment wearing the hoody in a number of confident poses, in the way a consumer might wear it at home.  The images were intended to show that the hoody was soft to the touch and could be worn directly against the skin.  AA believed the ad was not gratuitous; the model remained clothed, and wore the hoody and a pair of shorts in each of the photographs.  They said the ad focused on the hoody rather than the model and did not portray her as a sex object or in a negative or derogatory light.

AA pointed out that the ad appeared in Vice magazine, which they understood was not sold or available in traditional newsagents and had a circulation of approximately 89,000 in the UK.  They understood that its target market, 18- to 34-year-olds, would not have been offended by the ad.  Further, readers of Vice magazine would have been even less likely to be offended given that they would be familiar with the content and style of the magazine and that it typically dealt with controversial issues.  They added that they had advertised in Vice since its first issue in 2003 and previous ads used a similar style and look.

Vice magazine said their publication was free but targeted readers aged 18 to 34 years.  They added that it was distributed in adult clothes shops, music shops, nightclubs and bars, which were environments that had limited or no access by children.  Vice said American Apparel had used advertising campaigns with a similar creative style and execution on the back cover fo the magazine since its first publication in 2003 and they had never before received complaints.

2. AA told us that the model was an adult, aged 23.  They disagreed that she appeared under 16; she looked directly and confidently into the camera and looked happy and relaxed in each of the photographs.  She was styled wearing natural make-up and retro-style glasses but they did not consider that suggested that she was under 16, nor did they believe the average person would draw that conclusion.

They reiterated that the ad did not portray the model as a sex object, nor did it portray her in a manner that was negative or exploitative.  There was no suggestion that she had been coerced into appearing in the photographs or that she was doing so against her will.  AA strongly refuted the complainant's belief that the ad could be seen to sexualise a child.

Vice disagreed that the model appeared under 16 and understood that she was over 18 years at the time the photographs were taken.  They said the ad promoted a unisex product and therefore it sought to demonstrate the versatility of the fleece by showing the same model achieving six different looks.  In that context, Vice believed that showing the fleece unzipped was justified to demonstrate how a man would wear it.  They disagreed that the ad was likely to offend.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the free magazine targeted 18- to 34-year-olds and the editorial content was of an adult nature, featuring articles on culture and sex.   We noted the ad appeared on the back cover of the magazine but also noted that the magazine was primarily distributed through channels which greatly reduced the chance of it being seen by children.  We considered that the depiction of nudity in the ad (ignoring the age of the model which is dealt with in point 2 below) was not so overly gratuitous as to make it unsuitable for or likely to cause serious or widespread offence to the target audience.  We concluded that, given the targeted medium, the depiction of nudity was acceptable for the back cover of Vice magazine.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 2.2 (Social responsibility) and 5.1 (Taste and decency) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld  

We noted the model was 23 years oldand had been styled without make-up to give a natural look.  We nevertheless considered that she appeared young, and in some of the pictures, looked under 16.  We did not however consider that she appeared especially vulnerable.

While the ad depicted only partial nudity, we considered that the images were provocative with the model exposing progressively more skin in each photo in the series.  We considered that the photographs suggested that she was stripping off for an amateur-style photo shoot.

Because the ad could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child, under the age of 16 years, we concluded that it was inappropriate and could cause serious offence to some readers.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 2.2 (Social responsibility) and 5.1 (Taste and decency).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)