There’s something sort of delicious about seeing banned
fashion advertising—it plays to your mischievous side and makes you feel just a
little bit naughty.
Sometimes an ad is banned for the silliest of reasons, like
using too much Photoshop, otherwise known as “misleading” the consumer. Other
times it can be completely called for—let’s not forget that the fashion
industry has a history of shooting campaigns depicting oversexualized women,
underage models and violence against women to sell products. So we can
understand why some of these controversial ads need to be pulled, but not all.
Of course, who bans which ads can vary from country to country.
In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority holds most of the power when it
comes to censoring or banning advertisements and just one complaint from a
citizen can land a brand in the doghouse. In the US, markets hold the majority
of the power which is why it can take longer for an ad to be banned, even if
it’s causing outrage. "In the U.S., it's businesses that make complaints
about competitors and it takes a longer period of time," Advertising Age
deputy managing editor Natalie Zmuda told CBS. But across the board there seems
to be a limit to how much fashion brands can get away with. Ahead are a few of
the most controversial banned ads that just couldn’t escape the ax.
American Apparel:
Socks
These look less like fashion campaigns and more like the
stills from an amateur porn session. Of course, that seems to be the case for
almost all American Apparel campaigns—and, let’s be honest, this is probably
part of the reason why former CEO Dov Charney was fired. While American Apparel
is not a luxury brand, these images needed to be included because they're just
so shocking. They are creepy and uncomfortable, and even after going through
tons of banned ads to compile this list, these are the ones that make our skin
crawl. Three out of the four photos in this ad don’t even show the product. All
we have to say about this is good riddance.
Marc Jacobs: Oh,
Lola!
Some of these can be suggestive, but only if you look at it
in a certain light. As women who love anything and everything Marc Jacobs all
we see here is an adorable Dakota Fanning in an amazing lace dress and a
super-sized bottle of Oh, Lola. First thoughts? Where can we get that dress and
pick up a gallon of this perfume? The UK’s Advertising Standard Authority,
however, saw an underage girl in a dress that was too short and a suggestive
bottle of perfume. She was 17 at the time, but they stated she looked 16 and
“considered the ad could be seen to sexualize a child.” Yikes.
Saint Laurent:
Spring/Summer 2015
The latest ad to get a major ban was Saint Laurent for using
an underweight model. But Hedi Slimane is known for using skinny and gaunt
looking girls—it’s kind of his thing. Maybe it doesn’t really phase
high-fashion fans (we see a lot of slender models), but someone was appalled
and reported it. Immediately the ASA banned it saying that the campaign
depicted a model that was “unhealthily underweight” and that her ribcage was
“visible and appeared prominent.” Even her legs didn't escape scrutiny. The ASA
said "her thighs and knees appeared a similar width...which looked very
thin, particularly in light of her positioning and the contrast between the
narrowness of her legs and her platform shoes." To be fair it seems more
like the arch of her back, the shadow around her legs and the angle of the
camera is what lead to her looking ultra-thin.
Dolce & Gabbana:
Spring/Summer 2007
Seriously Dolce & Gabbana, do you have some strange
fascination with orgies that we should know about? This campaign was original
released in 2007 (appropriately dubbed the “gang rape” campaign) and went away
quietly, but after resurfacing earlier this year amidst the IVF scandal, people
flipped out. Some celebs even took to Twitter to publicly renounce and boycott
the label. It was first banned by Italy’s Advertising Self Discipline Institute
because of “the passive and helpless position of the woman relative to the men
around her, and the representation of abuse or the idea of violence towards
her.” And we have to agree, we’re totally fine with this being banned.
Tom Ford: For Men Fragrance
Oh, Tom Ford. While the designer has a lot, a lot of
controversial campaigns, most aren’t banned due to his very strategic ad
placement and the way he argues that it’s more artistic than salacious. It’s
why many of his campaigns are restricted, but not banned. Except for this one.
This is totally banned. Shot by Terry Richardson for the 2007 For Men fragrance
campaign, the cologne bottle sits precariously perched between the model’s legs
and breasts leaving very little to the imagination. As Ford has explained
numerous times: sex sells. Even if it’s totally banned and inappropriate.
Sisley: RTW 2001
Yves Saint Laurent:
Opium
Tom Ford has built a name for himself on his highly
sexualized imagery, so naturally, we've come to expect it of the designer. But
in his earlier days when he was first gaining popularity as the creative
director for YSL, no one was sure to what to expect. So he told them flat out
with this particularly scandalous ad. His Opium campaign with a nude Sophie
Dahl was so blatantly sexual it was immediately banned, and was even named the
eighth most-complained about ad in the last 50 years by the ASA, with an
enormous 948 complaints.
Miu Miu: Fall/Winter
2011
In 2011 a 14-year-old Hailee Steinfeld posed for Miu Miu’s
campaign white sitting in a brown ensemble on an abandoned railroad track. Her
skirt was an appropriate length, she wasn’t in any sexualized pose and to be
honest she looked rather bored. But the ASA jumped on the ad immediately
stating it was “irresponsible and in breach of the Code in showing a child in a
hazardous or dangerous situation.” While the harshest critics claimed the model
was crying, upset and attempting to commit suicide (what?), the Prada-owned
company explained that is was inspired by moments of the actress taking a break
between scenes, adding that “the viewpoint of the ad extended along the railway
track and it was clear that there was no train in sight.” We hate to say this
is an overreaction, but…
Diesel: RTW 2010









No comments:
Post a Comment