Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and the other Not upheld.
Ad description
A paid-for ad on the Guardian news website for Diesel clothing, seen on 26 March 2025, featured an image of the model, Katie Price, wearing a bikini and holding a handbag in front of her chest. Text underneath the image stated, “Diesel Spring Summer 2025”.
Issue
The ASA received 13 complaints.
- Some complainants, who believed the ad objectified and sexualised women, challenged whether it was offensive, harmful and irresponsible.
- Some complainants, who believed the model appeared to be unhealthily thin, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible.
Response
1. Diesel SpA t/a Diesel said the ad was part of a brand campaign called “The Houseguests”, which was designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion in the fashion industry, by reflecting a wide range of body types. They regretted that this context was not clear to the complainants. They believed the ad was compliant with the CAP Code, but nevertheless they had removed the ad from the Guardian website. They said the ad had been published in over 100 countries worldwide and they had not been notified of any other complaints.
The model, Katie Price, was 46 years-old and had a body type that was not usually included in high fashion campaigns (the average age for editorial models being 16–23). They believed the image was a celebration of Ms Price’s sexuality and empowerment and was not objectifying, degrading or sexualising. The image showed Ms Price clearly in control in an active and dynamic pose where she proudly showed off her body and the handbag. The bag was the central feature of the image and she was wearing swimwear from their spring/summer 2025 collection, which they said was a reference to her history as a ‘page 3’ model and an encouragement to other mature women to be unafraid of their sexuality. They said the ad showed a confident woman with tattoos.
They said Ms Price was well-known for her exaggerated appearance and larger-than-life personality and her large lips and breasts formed part of her curated public image. That exaggerated, eccentric and altered appearance formed part of the creativity of the campaign.
They believed that any ad looking to challenge societal norms could be distasteful to some people, particularly those with more traditional or conservative ideals, but that did not make the image offensive or irresponsible.
They therefore believed the ad did not objectify women, and was therefore not offensive or irresponsible.
2. Diesel said although Ms Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight. They said, in the ad Ms Price’s head was in proportion with her body, her collar bones were not overly pronounced and her limbs, although slender, were clearly covered with healthy muscle and were proportional to her size. They believed the image was not therefore irresponsible.
In relation to both points, the Guardian said the ad had been served programmatically and automatically via the open digital advertising marketplace. They had received a complaint directly about the ad on 4 April and blocked the ad from appearing again because they did not consider it complied with their policies. They had received an earlier complaint, which they now believed related to the ad, but were unable to determine that at the time because the image had not been provided with the complaint. The Guardian had processes in place to prevent potentially harmful ads from being published. These were not, however, triggered as the ad was given a categorisation that was permitted by the Guardian’s processes.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged Diesel’s comments regarding the wider advertising campaign, but considered the ad in isolation, as it was likely that at least some people seeing the ad would not have seen any of the other ads or videos that were part of the campaign.
The model featured in the ad was Katie Price, a well-known public figure. She was shown holding a Diesel handbag in front of her chest, prominently in the foreground of the image, and was wearing one of Diesel’s bikinis. We understood that the products featured were part of Diesel’s Spring Summer 2025 collection. She appeared to be standing in front of a portable sunbed, which would have been apparent to some people seeing the ad. However, the background of the image showed Ms Price was inside a house, rather than a location which would be more immediately associated with wearing a bikini, such as a beach or poolside.
The bikini only partially covered Ms Price’s breasts and we considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers’ attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body. While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her. We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).
2. Not upheld
We acknowledged that Ms Price was slim and considered whether the ad depicted her in such a way as to make her appear unhealthily thin.
We considered that her arms, whilst slender, did have some muscle tone and were in proportion to the rest of her body. Her hair had been styled away from her face in a beehive style, in such a way as to elongate her face and her head was slightly tilted downwards which added to that effect, but we did not consider she appeared gaunt. None of her bones were obviously protruding. There was a gap between her thighs but that appeared, at least in part, due to her pose with one leg stepped forward. Only the tops of her thighs were visible in the ad, and we considered they did not appear to be unduly slender and appeared to be in proportion to the rest of her body. We therefore considered that the ad did not depict Ms Price in such a way as to make her appear unhealthily thin and concluded that it was not irresponsible on that basis.
On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility), but did not find it in breach.
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Diesel SpA t/a Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.
