Ad description

Two versions of a TV ad for a clothing company, Prettylittlething.com:

a. The first ad featured two young females modelling the clothes to a soundtrack and was seen on ITV Be on 11 November 2015.

b. The second ad was a shorter version of ad (a) and was seen on E4 on 7 December 2015.

Issue

Eight complainants, who believed the young women looked under the age of 16, challenged whether the ads were socially responsible because they sexualised children.

Response

21 Three Clothing Company explained that both of the models in the ad were aged 22, and they had provided proof of their ages to Clearcast. They said they had ensured when casting for the ad that both models were over the age of 21, because being socially responsible was important to them as a brand and they had a customer base of females in their early twenties. They said they had also provided Clearcast with a copy of the lyrics for the soundtrack in the ad. They said both ads were now off-air as the campaign had come to an end.

Clearcast said they had worked with the advertiser to ensure the final campaign complied with the BCAP Code. They said the advertiser had provided a formal statement that both models were born in 1993 and that there was nothing lewd in the lyrics to the soundtrack. Clearcast said they concluded that because there was no overt nudity or sexual behaviour in the ad, an ex-kids restriction was sufficient.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA understood that the models in the ad were both aged over 16 and were not children for the purposes of the BCAP Code. We therefore concluded that the ads did not portray or represent children in a sexual way.

However, we also considered whether the ads featured models who appeared to be under 16 in a sexual way, and were therefore socially irresponsible. We noted that the ads showed the young women wearing various outfits and some of them were revealing. For example, in some outfits the model's underwear or cleavage was visible. We considered that some of the models' poses were sexually suggestive. For example, in one scene the model was seen rolling around on a bed and onto all-fours and in other scenes the models looked seductively into the camera. However, we considered that whilst the models looked youthful and some of their actions in the ads were playful, they did not look like they were aged under 16.

For those reasons, we considered that the ads were not socially irresponsible because they featured children, or models who appeared to be under 16, in a sexualised way and concluded that they did not breach the Code.

We investigated the ads under BCAP Code rules  1.2 1.2 Advertisements must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society.  (Social responsibility) and  5.5 5.5 Advertisements must not portray or represent children in a sexual way.  (Children), but did not find them in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

BCAP Code

1.2     5.5    


More on