Ad description
A website, two pages within an app and an email for Marks and Spencer, seen in April and May 2025:
a. The website featured images of two female models wearing a pink polka dot dress. One image showed one of the models leant against a tree trunk, facing forwards with her arms behind her back.
b. The first app page featured an image of a female model wearing slim fit trousers and a white top. She faced the camera with one hand in her pocket and the other holding a bag.
c. The second app page featured one image, also seen in ad (a), of a female model wearing a pink polka dot dress.
d. The email featured two images, also seen in ad (a), of two female models wearing a pink polka dot dress.
Issue
Four complainants challenged whether the ads were socially irresponsible because they believed the models appeared to be unhealthily thin.
Response
Marks and Spencer plc (M&S) said their inclusive women’s wear clothing represented a full spectrum of sizes, ranging from 8 to 24. That was so they could appeal to all customers and ensure inclusivity, as well as responsibly promoting aspirational fashion. They confirmed that the models within the ads were size 8 and individuals at the lower end of their sizing range.
They said they took concerns about the depiction of body image in their ads very seriously. They explained that all models featured in their advertising, including the models in the ads, were selected not only for their professional suitability but also for their health and wellbeing. They said as standard practice, they ensured that all models were in good health, and that they complied with industry standards and best practices to avoid promoting unhealthy body images.
They said, with reference to the model in ads (a), (b) and (d), the model’s pose was selected as a relaxed and natural one, with the neckline of the dress depicted to show its aesthetic appeal. Neither element was intended to make the model’s collar bones appear prominent and their appearance was only incidental. Similarly, the camera angle had been chosen to best depict the product and the wider holiday setting and had not been chosen to exaggerate the model’s proportions.
Concerning ad (b), the model’s pose was picked to convey confidence and ease and it was not designed to accentuate her slimness. Further to that her shoes had only been chosen for stylistic and fashion purposes.
They confirmed that after receiving the complaint they had amended the ads and removed the specific images.
Assessment
Upheld in relation to ad (b) only
Ads (a), (c) and (d) all featured an image of a model leant against what appeared to be a tree trunk, facing forwards with her arms behind her back. The ASA acknowledged that the model’s collar bones were visible, which had likely been caused by the positioning of her arms behind her back. However, we considered the model’s face did not look gaunt and that, while thin, her arms and the leg visible in the shot, did not display any protruding bones. Further to that, the model appeared in proportion and we considered that she was not presented as unhealthily thin overall.
We assessed the other images in those ads, which featured a different model to the one leant against a tree. The model was slim and, in the image where she held a handbag, her collar bones were also visible. However, they were not prominent, and the images showed the model in proportion. We also considered that the model did not appear unhealthily thin in those shots.
Ad (b) featured a model facing the camera, one hand in her pocket and the other holding a bag. The model’s shoulders and the very top of her chest were shown and her collar bones were also very prominent, emphasised by her left hand being in her pocket and being arched outwards. The model’s body appeared thin and she wore large pointed shoes which emphasised the slenderness of her legs. Further to that, in part due to the camera angle which appeared tilted downwards, the model’s head appeared out of proportion with the rest of her body and further highlighted her small frame. Therefore, we considered that the pose of the model and the choice of clothing meant the ad gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin.
For the above reasons, we concluded that the model in ad (b) appeared unhealthily thin and that the ad was irresponsible. The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility).
We also investigated ads (a), (c) and (d) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.3 (Social responsibility), but did not find them in breach.
Action
Ad (b) must not appear again in the form complained about. We told Marks and Spencer plc to ensure that the images in their ads were prepared responsibly and did not portray models as being unhealthily thin.
