ASA Adjudications

Dolce & Gabbana
Via Goldoni 10
20129
Milan
Italy
Number of complaints: 166
Date:10 January 2007
Media:National press
Sector:Clothing

Ad
a.  An ad in the Times and the Daily Telegraph magazine supplement for Dolce & Gabbana featured four men dressed in Dolce & Gabbana clothing.  Two of the men were brandishing knives in an aggressive manner towards a third man who was sitting on a chair.  A fourth man was lying on the floor with a wound to his forehead.

b. An ad in the Daily Telegraph magazine supplement for Dolce & Gabbana featured two men supporting a woman who was holding a knife and had a wound on her chest.
Issue
1. 157 complainants, including Mothers Against Murder And Aggression ("MAMAA") and Media March were concerned that ad (a) was irresponsible because it condoned and glamorised knife-related violence in the UK;

2. 47 complainants objected that ad (a) was offensive in the Times because of the recent knife amnesties and the proliferation of knife-related crime in the UK;

3. 26 complainants believed ad (a) was offensive in the Daily Telegraph supplement
magazine because of recent knife amnesties and the proliferation of knife-related crime in the UK;  

4.  One complainant believed that ad (b) was irresponsible because it condoned and
glamorised knife-related violence in the UK;

5. One complainant was concerned that ad (b) was offensive because of recent knife amnesties and the proliferation of knife-related crime in the UK and

6. One complainant objected that ad (b) was inappropriate and irresponsible because it linked self-harm with fashion and could encourage self-harm amongst impressionable young people.
The CAP Code: 2.2;5.1;10.1

Response
Dolce & Gabbana (D&G) said they were an international fashion house with a youthful and innovative clothing style, designed to reflect Mediterranean culture.  

D&G explained that their Autumn/Winter 2006/2007 clothes collections were designed to evoke the Napoleonic Period.  The related ad campaign took its inspiration from well-known paintings by Delacroix and David.  They explained both ads had run in a variety of print media in Europe, China, Hong Kong, Japan and the USA without complaints.  

On the individual points of compliant, D&G argued that:

1.  ad (a) was highly stylised and intended to be an iconic representation of the Napoleonic period of art, emphasising the theatrical effects of that genre.  They insisted that the men in the ad were not brandishing the knives in an aggressive manner and did not give the impression that they were going to stab each other.  

2. & 3.  the background in ad (a) did not represent a realistic scene that could cause offence and there were no words or expressions used to suggest violence or any offensive act.  

4.  ad (b) was deliberately designed to be out of focus, so that it gave the appearance of a canvas of a painting.  They explained that the models make-up was designed to give a theatrical effect to the scene and the wound on the womans chest was made-up to be unrealistic.  

5.  ad (b) showed the models in rigid poses, in order to concentrate the readers attention on the advertised clothes they maintained for that reason the ad could not cause offence.  

6.  ad (b) was photographed to reflect the Napoleonic period and to appear theatrical and highly stylised.  They asserted that for those reasons the ad did not represent any act of aggression or self-harm.

The Times said they had received several complaints about ad (a).  They said they accepted that the ad might be problematic under the terms of the Code and would discuss those issues as a matter of urgency with the advertisers.

The Daily Telegraph maintained that; although a small number of readers had contacted them directly about ad (a),  they did not believe that most of their readers found the ad offensive or would see it as condoning violence.  They also argued that most of their readers would not be adversely influenced in any way.

The Daily Telegraph said they had not received complaints about ad (b). They said they did not believe that readers would see self-harm as either a fashion statement or a fashion accessory and that they were confident that their readers behaviour would not be inappropriately influenced by the ad.

They believed the ads were part of a series, which used dramatic and classical poses in theatrical tableaux, involving a Shakespearean atmosphere.  They insisted that the models were heavily made-up in both ads which gave them a surreal appearance presented in classical settings.  

The Daily Telegraph argued that most readers of the supplement in which the ads appeared were educated, professional, fashion-conscious people who would recognise the ads heavy stylisation.  
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA noted the comments of D&G, the Times and the Daily Telegraph.  We also noted that ad (a) was highly stylised.  However, we considered that the knives were brandished aggressively and the image of a man lying on the ground with a wound to his forehead added to the overall impression of violence.  We considered that the ad could be seen as condoning and glorifying knife-related violence and concluded that it was irresponsible.  

On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code clause 2.2 (Social responsibility).   

2. Upheld
We noted the comments of D&G and the Times.  We noted that the Times had acknowledged that ad (a) had caused concern to a number of readers and welcomed its willingness to approach D&G to discuss the issue further.  Furthermore, many readers of the Times were concerned that ad (a) had appeared in an unfortunate juxtaposition opposite an article on knife-related crime.  We concluded that, in that context, the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point ad (a) breached the CAP Code clause 5.1 (Taste and decency).

3. Upheld
We noted the comments of D&G and the Daily Telegraph.  Although, we considered that the depiction of the knives in ad (a) was highly stylised, we also concluded that its appearance in the context of the Daily Telegraph supplement was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to readers.   

On this point ad (a) breached CAP Code clause 5.1 (Taste and decency).

4. Upheld
We noted the comments of D&G and the Daily Telegraph.  We considered that the depiction of a woman with a wound to her chest and a knife in her hand could be seen as glamorising knife-related crime in the UK and concluded that it was irresponsible.  

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code clause 2.2 (Social responsibility).  

5. Upheld
We noted the comments of D&G and the Daily Telegraph.  We considered the depiction of the wound caused by the knife in ad (b) glamorised knife related violence and was likely to cause serious or widespread offence in the context of the Daily Telegraph magazine supplement.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code clause 5.1 (Taste and decency).

6. Not upheld
We noted the comments of D&G and the Daily Telegraph.  We acknowledged that there were strong public concerns about self-harm.  However, we noted that the ad had appeared in a magazine supplement with an adult readership and was highly stylised.  In that context, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to encourage self-harm among young people.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Social responsibility), 10.1 (Safety), but did not find it in breach.
Action
We reminded D&G of its duty to prepare ads with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society and told D&G and the Times to take greater care in the placement of similar ads in future.  

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

back | top