ASA Adjudications

no added sugar Ltd
Unit 1, New North House
202-208 New North Road
London
N1 7BJ
Number of complaints: 5
Date:7 February 2007
Media:Catalogue
Sector:Clothing

Ad
A catalogue, for childrens clothes, showed young children modelling clothes in various poses; they were all wearing make-up. The catalogue was based on a story entitled: "A weekend at Great Aunt Marys and her lessons in etiquette".  A caption underneath each image related to the story.

a. One image, which was a double-page spread, showed a young girl lying on a sofa; she was staring into the camera.  The caption stated "DECORUM 'A guest should never, entirely, make themselves at home'".

b. A second image showed a young girl standing in the corner of a room.  She had one arm raised behind her head and her hair was messed up.  The caption stated "PERSONAL GROOMING 'Pride in ones appearance at all times ... a little hair brushing is never in vain'".  

c. A third image showed a young girl on all fours on top of a chest of drawers with a clock on the wall above; the girl was looking backwards.  The caption stated "PUNCTUALITY 'A gentleman should never keep a lady waiting, and a true lady should act like one!'".  

d. A fourth image showed a young girl lying on the back seat of a car; she was sprawled out with one leg on the seat and one arm raised above the headrest, she was staring upwards.  The caption stated "RULES & REGULATIONS 'Not to be violated, seat belts included'".  

e. A fifth image showed the rear view of a young boy pushing a car; his jeans were worn low, which made his bottom partially visible.  The caption stated "HELPFULNESS 'Show willing, particularly in times of crisis'".  

f. The back page of the catalogue showed an image of a young boy holding up two fingers in a V-sign.
Issue
1. One complainant objected that image (a) was offensive and irresponsible, because it showed a child in a sexually provocative manner.

2. One complainant objected that image (b) was offensive and irresponsible, because it showed a child in a sexually provocative manner.

3. One complainant objected that image (c) was offensive and irresponsible, because it showed a child in a sexually provocative manner.

4. Four complainants objected that image (d) was offensive and irresponsible, because the childs pose and the accompanying caption were sexually suggestive.

5. Three complainants objected that image (e) was offensive and irresponsible, because the image and caption were sexually suggestive.

6. Two complainants objected that image (f) was offensive, because a young boy was making an obscene gesture.
The CAP Code: 2.2;5.1;47.2

Response
No added sugar said they were a relatively new company that produced edgy baby and childrens wear of a high quality and they were recognised for their bold, fashionable and unique approach to childrens clothing.

They said their winter catalogue not only served as a buying tool but was also a platform to portray the feel and ethos of the brand.  They said, as art directors, their vision for a shoot was to create something stylised and modern, an aspirational catalogue for the brand.  

No added sugar said all of their catalogues had a story and the story of this catalogue was "A weekend at Great Aunt Marys and her lesson in etiquette".  They explained that the story was set at Aunt Marys house and she and her loyal manservant, George, hosted a weekend for Marys nieces and nephews and set out to teach their children important lessons in etiquette.   They said the lessons in etiquette story had been an addition to the original concept because they felt the images needed some quirky copy to explain to the reader what the children were doing in each shot.  They had looked at each shot and had written a line relevant to the story.  

No added sugar said 14,000 catalogues had been sent out and they had received six complaints direct about it.  They said they did not see any sexual references in the photos and they found the suggestion that such references existed shocking and upsetting.  They believed the captions were merely fitting to the image and story.

No added sugar commented on some of the specific images to which the complainants objected.  They said they could not understand why people had objected to image (a).  

They said the girl in image (c) was up to mischief at Great Aunt Marys and the image was obviously a reference to punctuality, with the clock in the background.  They said they had therefore chosen to use the classic expression "a gentleman should never keep a lady waiting".

They said, because the shot in image (d) was about the clothes, a closed position (typical of sitting in a car) would not have been appropriate and therefore the model had reclined so that the clothes were visible.

They said that, whilst shooting image (e), the model was asked to push the car so that they could get a shot of the jeans and sweat top from behind.  The small amount of flesh he revealed happened naturally and, when they edited the image, they did not see a problem with it.

No added sugar said the decision to use image (f) had been a concern to them, particularly in terms of placement on the back cover of the catalogue.  However, because the catalogue was targeted at adults they decided to use it, especially because they felt it was a fitting end to the story of the catalogue; the V-sign was the childrens defiant response to the lessons in etiquette.  They said they had, however, expected to receive some negative feedback about the image.

No added sugar said two of the models featured were their own children and the other models were children of friends; the children's mothers were present throughout the shoot.  They said they had set out to create a modern, edgy fashion story and had expected the catalogue to be received in that context.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA acknowledged that no added sugars intention, in shooting the images and in including the captions, had been to create a fashion story with a stylised look.  We noted some recipients had found some of the images offensive, because the children were wearing make-up and some were posing in an adult manner.  We considered, however, that the vast majority of recipients would see image (a) merely as a young girl, wearing make-up, lying on a sofa watching TV; they would not interpret the childs pose as sexually provocative and would recognise the intention of the image and caption.  We concluded that image (a) was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen as irresponsible by recipients of the mailing.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 (Decency) and 47.2 (Children) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld
We considered that the link between the image and the caption was clear in image (b) and that the childs pose was unlikely to be seen as sexually provocative.  We therefore concluded that the image was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence, or be seen as irresponsible by recipients of the mailing.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 (Decency) and 47.2 (Children) but did not find it in breach.


3. Upheld
We noted the girl in image (c) was heavily made up, with a serious expression on her face and was kneeling on all fours.  We considered that, especially in conjunction with the caption "A gentleman should never keep a lady waiting", the image was likely to be seen as presenting the child in a sexually provocative manner.  We concluded that image (c) was likely to cause serious or widespread offence and be seen as irresponsible by recipients of the mailing.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 (Decency) and 47.2 (Children).

4. Upheld
We noted the girl in image (d) was posed with her legs sprawled out and she was looking vacantly out the window.  We considered that the image was therefore likely to be seen by some recipients as showing the child in a sexually provocative way, particularly because the wording in the caption, "not to be violated", could be interpreted as sexual innuendo.  We concluded that the image could be seen to be sexualising the child and the image was therefore irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 (Decency) and 47.2 (Children).  

5. Upheld
Although we noted no added sugars assertion that the partial display of the childs bottom in image (e) had been unintentional, we considered that the display of flesh was unnecessary and inappropriate, particularly because the model was a child.  We therefore considered image (e) could be seen to be sexualising the child and the image was therefore irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence.   

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 (Decency) and 47.2 (Children).  

6. Not upheld
We noted the catalogue was targeted at adults and we considered that the image of the young boy making a V-sign was in keeping with the stylised images and the story of the catalogue.  Although we acknowledged that some people might find the image distasteful, we considered that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or be seen as irresponsible by recipients of the mailing.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising), 5.1 (Decency) and 47.2 (Children) but did not find it in breach.
Action
We told no added sugar not to use images (c), (d) and (e) or similar images again and advised them to seek CAP Copy Advice before advertising again.   

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

back | top