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.
Did the ACL put any complaints in about this ad? I’m interested.
http://collectiveshout.org/wp-.....ternet.pdf
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
Teenage boys across Australia are outraged.
I think it was not only the ad that has been pulled.
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.
Surely they could be banned for promoting tights being worn as pants?
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.
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)
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?
Heaven help us that a clothing brand would want to depict people looking good in their products.
Tim, i Made a comment before that I should have thought through more. Apologies.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
@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.
Unfortunately Stacey, the ASB realise that this is entirely in keeping with guidelines.
I’m not clear what blight on society this might cause.
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.
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…
If someone is getting their rocks off to this, they’ve got bigger issues, that banning this isn’t going to solve.
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
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.
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.
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.
@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.