Supre ad banned for sexualising tweens

An ad for tween clothing brand Supre, which ran in print, in stores and on the back of buses, has fallen foul of the Advertising Standards Bureau for sexualising young people.

The ad used a young topless model to promote ‘jeggings’, a cross between jeans and leggings, and was slammed for inappropriately targeting young women.

Despite the advertiser challenging the ASB, stating that although “a sexy image”, it did not breach any form of discrimination or vilification towards women, the ads have been taken down.

The ASB also took issues with Supre’s claims that the ad is targeted to women aged 18-35 years old women. The board noted that the Supre brand is  popular with teenage and pre-teen girls and that the ad would be attractive to this age group.

One complaint read: “With only hair over her breasts and not completely covering them this picture immediately invokes the idea of pornography. I do not know if the woman is a real model or computer image but she looks about 15 years old – hence child pornography. I do not believe that such nudity should be forced upon the community.”

Complaints have also been made about a TV ad for Supre. The ad features a young girl thrusting her rear at the camera and rolling her tongue over her teeth. The ads are under investigation by the ASB.

A making-of video of the ad is featured on Supre’s Facebook page:

Comments


  1. Jane
    5 Jun 11
    11:53 pm

  2. Did the ACL put any complaints in about this ad? I’m interested.

  3. Jane
    5 Jun 11
    11:57 pm

  4. Jane
    6 Jun 11
    12:38 am

  5. The ABC response (presumably about the print ad only) is interesting: http://collectiveshout.org/wp-.....ternet.pdf “The board noted that the mode’s breasts are not visible and that her pose is only mildly sexually suggestive.” However, the video has a clear come have sex with me doggy or anal style moment.

    How old is this model? That would also be interesting to know from a workplace employment point of view.

    By Google Adwords standards, this image ad would be classified as non family safe and would not be allowed on the Content Network (ie there is a search and content network). http://adwords.google.com/supp.....wer=152211

  6. nickatnights
    6 Jun 11
    7:31 am

  7. Teenage boys across Australia are outraged.

    I think it was not only the ad that has been pulled.

  8. Harley
    6 Jun 11
    8:38 am

  9. This is very interesting. A company popular with certain customers is forbidden from trying to attract older customers. Not sure I like the reasoning for this decision.

  10. Ben
    6 Jun 11
    10:57 am

  11. Surely they could be banned for promoting tights being worn as pants?

  12. Tim Bennett
    6 Jun 11
    11:29 am

  13. Harley, great point.

    Jane, if that’s what you think a “clear come have sex with me doggy or anal style moment” looks like, you’re either deluded, dirty-minded or both.

  14. Matt
    6 Jun 11
    11:39 am

  15. Aside from the obvious, a girl covering her breasts with her hair being no different to a naked woman showering promoting shampoo. I highly doubt that stating a girl looks fifteen is grounds to remove an ad.

    Go to the chadwick models website and you’ll Jordan (not 15 years old) available for professional modelling work.

    Oh BTW, I agree. (jeans/tights) not equal to (pants)

  16. red
    6 Jun 11
    12:30 pm

  17. I meant – so – will the Screaming Bikini ad be banned – or not – because you can’t see her face, and therefore cannot tell her age?

  18. JG
    6 Jun 11
    1:17 pm

  19. Heaven help us that a clothing brand would want to depict people looking good in their products.

  20. Jane
    6 Jun 11
    1:27 pm

  21. Tim, i Made a comment before that I should have thought through more. Apologies.

  22. Thomas Dodson
    6 Jun 11
    2:52 pm

  23. hmm it is a bit sexualy suggestive, but the fact is that the print advert is well within the bounds of decency.

    not sure I agree with this one…

  24. mish
    6 Jun 11
    2:53 pm

  25. i’m with the banning. everyone knows that supre is for teenagers and pre-teens… this ad is highly inappropriate. I doubt that any woman in her 20s and 30s will shop at supre. this campaign certainly won’t appeal to them/me.

  26. mondayitis
    6 Jun 11
    3:45 pm

  27. For me the question is where are the print ads running? If it is Girlfriend, Dolly or Total Girl then the creative is inappropriate. Not so much if the ads were created for magazines or publications with an older target…If the ads were running in older titles then I can’t see why the fuss.

  28. ts
    6 Jun 11
    4:02 pm

  29. my 20 year old daughter (who is not prudish in the least) thinks the ad is overtly sexualised and finds it a complete turn off, hence is turned off the brand for portraying young girls in this manner.

  30. Gezza
    6 Jun 11
    5:15 pm

  31. Have to say when I saw these ads on buses I was very surprised they had got through. My first response was – she is young – 15-16 ish max. And clearly sexually suggestive. Perhaps would be OK in a teen mag for girls – but outdoor no way. Road safety issues alone would be reason enough.

  32. Mb
    6 Jun 11
    5:35 pm

  33. The ads ARE a bit much, but so are most of the clothes in Supre. I agree that it depends entirely where the ads were supposed to be placed, but the transit and in store may have been an issue. Although they’re trying to target an older market, their market IS predominantly young teenage girls. Although in their defence, have you seen the One Teaspoon editorials? Very raunchy

  34. James
    6 Jun 11
    6:08 pm

  35. usually my bus journey from the eastern burbs into the city is a dull, text book reading affair. however, when I saw this ad posted on the back of the bus infront of mine, well, let’s just saw I found it tough not to look at.

  36. AdGrunt
    6 Jun 11
    6:24 pm

  37. The only offensive thing about this ad is that in reality, “ladies who should know better” delude themselves that by wearing “spray-on” jeans, they can overcome physics.

    Over-sexualised? Depends how repressed you are, I guess.

  38. Stacey
    7 Jun 11
    10:27 am

  39. @Matt yes the ads ARE different to a woman advertising shampoo as it’s a completely different context.. everyone showers naked and it’s not sexual.. young girls don’t walk around topless, so the ad doesn’t need to be shot that way.

    I’m in no way prude, but I agree that the print ads should be banned. That ‘hair covering boobs’ shot is what you would find in a men’s magazine and shouldn’t be used to advertising clothing to young girls.

  40. AdGrunt
    7 Jun 11
    1:10 pm

  41. Unfortunately Stacey, the ASB realise that this is entirely in keeping with guidelines.

    I’m not clear what blight on society this might cause.

  42. malcolm
    7 Jun 11
    6:17 pm

  43. For god’s sakes – it is a HIGHLY sexulised image and completely inappropriate for the market (or for ANY market for that matter). She looks 12. Wake up.

  44. malcolm
    7 Jun 11
    6:20 pm

  45. And does anyone else find it ridiculous that a gay man is schooling a teenage girl how to be ‘sexy’. Sexy for what? Gay guys? Jesus Christ…

  46. AdGrunt
    7 Jun 11
    7:37 pm

  47. If someone is getting their rocks off to this, they’ve got bigger issues, that banning this isn’t going to solve.

  48. Stacey
    8 Jun 11
    4:31 pm

  49. It’s not that someone might be getting their rocks off to this, it’s that young girls are very impressionable and we shouldn’t be sending out the message that dressing sexy and going topless is something they should be doing

  50. AdGrunt
    8 Jun 11
    4:54 pm

  51. So Stacey,
    Ban Bond’s ads in case impressionable kids forget to put the rest of their clothes on?
    I don’t think you should judge the intellect of today’s youth by your own intellect.

  52. Stacey
    9 Jun 11
    9:58 am

  53. Bonds advertise underwear so of course the girls aren’t wearing clothes and their ads are fun, not sexy. I just think a topless model is inappropriate for the target market. No need to get personal by taking a stab at my intellect.

  54. AdGrunt
    9 Jun 11
    2:18 pm

  55. Now, now, Stacey. Re-read what I said.

    No stab there. But your response gives a fascinating insight into your own self-esteem.

    I’m not clear how this sexy can’t be fun. Or why it’s so wrong.

    It’s biologically and hormonally programmed for post-pubescent girls to want to attract attention. Supressing, ignoring or denying this is not going to alter this.

    But hey, it’s your subjective opinion.

  56. Adman
    26 Jun 11
    6:48 pm

  57. @AdGrunt and others, the sad fact of the matter is that biologically and hormonally ‘programmed’ or not, morals have gone out of the window, causing all kinds of personal life problems, and all because advertisers see youth (and the rest of us) as nothing more than meat for the industry and ‘consumers’. Sick, and very sad.