British ban "gratuitous" American Apparel ads but approve Beckham's underwear campaign
Product Offers
more
More British ban "gratuitous" American Apparel ads but approve Beckham's underwear campaign
- Emmys 2012 Fashion Round-Up: Best-Dressed, Worst-Dressed & Trends Of Note
- Gucci's Spring 13 collection shows Milan Fashion Week what Italian fashion is all about
- London Fashion Week: Burberry Prorsum Spring 2013 RTW
- Vivienne Westwood's climate revolution at London Fashion Week
- London Fashion Week: Mary Katrantzou Spring 2013 RTW
- Liberty Ross walks in Alexander Wang's glowing SS13 runway show
- Diane Von Furstenberg shows Google glasses at her SS13 runway show
- Victoria Beckham revamps her strict chic aesthetic for SS13
"Gratuitous": British watchdog agency banned eight American Apparel ads
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), Britain’s watchdog agency, have banned EIGHT American Apparel ads for being “gratuitous“. We’re not exactly surprised about this revelation as American Apparel have a long history of using borderline x-rated images of very young women to sell their wares.
The ASA released a statement: “We concluded that the gratuitous nudity in [the] ads, in combination with the sexualised nature of the poses, and the sexually provocative poses in [the] ads, meant the ads were exploitative and inappropriately sexualised young women.”
Eight American Apparel ads were deemed sexually provocative while Beckham was dismissed as “mildly sexual”.
American Apparel have defended themselves against the ban claiming that the images in question featured “real, non-airbrushed, everyday people“, the vast majority of whom were not professional models. The hopelessly trendy retailer added that the pictures were meant to capture women, who were clearly in their 20s, in who were “happy, relaxed and confident in expression and pose”.
In a seperate ruling, the ASA let H&M’s ad featuring David Beckham in nothing but his undies pass – they claimed that it was a legitimate part of a campaign to launch David Beckham Bodywear for H&M that served to show the function and (super tight) fit of the garment. They also dismissed Beckham’s facial expressions as “mildly sexual at most” (we’d say Becks is raging about that).
American Apparel have hit back saying their ads show “real, non-airbrushed everyday people” who are “happy, relaxed and confident”.
What do you think about the all-powerful ASA – do you think they have too much power or do you think it’s necessary to maintain basic standards? Let us know.
Due to the ASA, Britain will never get to "Meet Steffi".
No Party for these Pants: The ASA banned American Apparel ads for their sexually provocative poses
