American Apparel’s raunchy ad banned from website
The Advertising Standards Bureau has upheld a complaint made about an in-house advertisement on American Apparel’s website, branding the images as being too “suggestive” and “sexualised”.
The ad is a slideshow described as “Liz, American Apparel Melbourne Retail Employee”.
The images include the young woman wearing a number of advertised products in zebra stripe pattern, a red top and a yellow top.
The woman is photographed in a bedroom scene. In one image her entire breast is exposed. In other images she is lying on a bed, sitting on a bed and standing with her back to the camera.
Complaints made about the ad included that it could pass as “amateur pornography”. American Apparel declined to respond to the ruling and has withdrawn the ads from its website.
The ASB ruled:
The Board determined that these images did not treat sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and that the images breached section 2.3 of the Code.”
Section 2.3 states that advertisements “shall treat sex, sexuality and nudity with sensitivity to the relevant audience and, where appropriate, the relevant programme time zone”.
American Apparel ads of the same theme gained much criticism last year. An ASB spokeswoman said at the time it received complaints about the ads, but it was not able to launch a formal investigation as the complainants failed to provide the ASB with the URL to the specific ads.
Meanwhile, last year in the UK a press ad for American Apparel was deemed “irresponsible” by the Advertising Standards Authority for featuring a young woman partially naked.
Pfft.. bigger picture please. ;P
Tame compared to some of their past images.
Wow. Just Googled American Apparel and clicked Images. Make sure your safe search is on…or not.
WHAT?! BREASTS ON THE INTERWEBS?! I’M CALLING MY LOCAL MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT!!!
I thought news was “dog bites man”, not “sexy clothing label shows sexy pics on its website” . Odd that this is a story at all, since, as Tom says, a bit of “calling the pope catholic”. n’est-ce-pas?
the big question is….Can we really be sure facebook and Google are not behind this.
Over to you Conroy!
so she works at the melbourne central store eh …
What a joke. It’s not like they are in the Sunday paper or Monday night family programming…ASB need to chill the fuck out and leave them alone. I find it very difficult to believe that they haven’t realised yet that by banning harmless ads they are only doing exactly what AA wants and getting them more publicity
When we see a clothing ad revealing a bloke’s limp tadger peeking provocatively out of his shorts, we will have achieved true equality. Seriously chaps, if you need to see a sly nipple that badly, $3.95 for Zoo Weekly gives you all the cheap thrills a post-adolescent could want. Ads like this are tedious substitutes for having to come up with an idea. Sure sex can and does sell, but making it genuinely challenging, clever or fun is what helps builds a brand’s identity and following – not lame Miley-Cyrus-gone-bad wallpaper like this.
All this fuss to sell a few fluoro bodysuits and gold sequined scrunchies. Next thing you know American Apparel will be having their shops smashed in – http://bit.ly/9c1PHp – and going out of business – http://bit.ly/cLrTmq
jail bait
I like the complaint that it was “like amateur pornography”. What were they searching for … professional pornography and were disappointed?
You see, once Conroy’s filter is in place, at least we won’t have to see this kind of ghastly images. Protection, thats what this country needs! Please Mr. Conroy can I have the filter please??
Did you read the caption under the picture on smh.com.au? (click on link)
Beyond bad taste….bla bla bla. smh.com.au is the epitome of bad taste. And how
is that any different to all the half naked chicks that appear daily on that so called newspaper. get a life smh.
Congrats AmAppy…finally making headway in O-zizzle.
Looking forward to a store in Brisbane!
Confession: I’m one of the wowsers who wrote to AmApp about a full page back cover ad they had on a mag last year. (Email was ignored.) The girl looked barely 14. She was wearing a striped one piece, high cut over her hips, leaning back with her knees bent and legs spread wide open (facing camera) on a coffee table. Doesn’t sound that bad, but given her age, I found it pretty sick. It’s not just about a peaky boob – it’s about the fact that they are using pubescent teenagers in overtly sexualised poses to sell their overtly average product. Jail bait – too right.