Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Marketers who do not feature children, but use sexual or provocative imagery, should ensure that they do not use media that is likely to be seen by children. As well as the obvious example of posters (BSS Group Ltd, 22 February 2012 and Unilever UK Ltd, 23 November 2011), that can include poorly or loosely targeted media, such as unsolicited texts, ungated or unrestricted websites and some national or regional press. (1st Choice Glazing Ltd, 1 February 2012) Following an independent report, published by the Department for Education called Letting Children be Children, and the ASA’s own research, the ASA’s position on this type of advertising has been tightened. The ASA has produced further guidance on its position. Marketers should refer to Taste and decency: Sex, sexual orientation and sexism.
The Code does not prevent marketers from using photographs or images of children but they should do so in a socially responsible manner and in the knowledge that society’s concern about such images has heightened in recent years. Images of heavily made-up, adult-like girls, or boys, depicted in a suggestive, sexual way are likely to breach the Code and should not be used. Innocent, non-suggestive, non-sexual, non-exploitative images are likely to be acceptable, especially if the advertisement has been carefully targeted (Golden Wonder Ltd, 15 June 2005, and Jigsaw Junior, 23 October 2002).
In May 2004, the ASA upheld 74 complaints about the image of a topless child of ambiguous gender. The complaints objected, and the ASA agreed, that the image of the child (a boy) had been sexualised. So marketers should obviously take care when featuring children of either gender to ensure they are not portrayed in a sexual manner (Orthet Ltd, 12 May 2004).
In 2007, the ASA received complaints about a children’s clothes catalogue that showed young children wearing makeup and modelling clothes in various poses. The adjudication gives excellent guidance for marketers trying to decide what styles and poses are likely to cross the line into the irresponsible. It makes clear how the accompanying text can play a part when deciding whether images are likely to breach the Code. The ASA concluded that images of made-up girls watching TV or standing in an innocent manner were not irresponsible whereas a girl kneeling on all fours accompanied by the caption “a gentleman should never keep a lady waiting”, a girl with her legs sprawled accompanied by the caption “ … not to be violated” and an image in which the child’s bottom had been partly exposed were all likely to be seen as sexualising the child and were therefore irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence (no added sugar Ltd, 7 February 2007).
In 2008 the ASA upheld complaints about a campaign that featured a young woman, whom the complainants believed looked under the age of 16, with her arms around ‘Cactus boy’, a character who appeared to be an adult man. Although the female model in the ads was in fact an adult, the ASA considered that her youthful appearance and the poses in which she was shown implied she was a minor engaged in a sexual relationship with an adult man. (Coca-Cola Great Britain, 19 November 2008). A number of ASA adjudications underline the view that if a model is too young-looking or child-like (naturally, or by dint of pose, make-up, dress or context), marketers risk causing offence or breaching the rules on social responsibility or Children (Rules 1.3 and 5.1). In 2011 the ASA upheld complaints against a perfume ad, which showed the model Dakota Fanning, with an over-sized perfume bottle between her legs. The bottle resembled a flower in bloom. The ASA concluded that, although the model was 17 years old and the ad appeared in a magazine with a target readership of women over 25, the image sexualised a child. (Coty UK Ltd, 9 November 2011) Similarly, an ad for a clothing brand used an image of a partially clothed young-looking model. Again, although the model in question was an adult, the ASA considered she appeared below the age of 16 in some of the images. Because the photographs suggested that she was stripping off for an amateur-style photo shoot the ASA concluded that it was inappropriate and could cause serious offence to some readers. (American Apparel (UK) Ltd, 2 September 2009). The same advertiser breached the Code in April 2012 when it was found to have shown young women (but not children) in sexualised poses.
Other symbols of youth, such as school uniforms, are almost certainly unacceptable if used in a sexual context. In 2008 a no-frills airline ad, featuring a young woman standing in a class room and wearing a cropped school uniform, was considered unacceptable because it was offensive and socially irresponsible to link schoolgirls with sexually provocative dress and behaviour (Ryanair Ltd, 30 January 2008). Similarly, a complaint was also upheld in 2010 against an ad that featured the phrase ‘back 2 school party’ in conjunction with an image of a woman dressed as a school girl. Linking teenage girls with sexually provocative behaviour was considered unacceptable (Spearmint Rhino Company Europe Ltd, 10 November 2010).
For obvious reasons, marketers should be mindful of parents’ sensitivities about provocative ads on the Internet. See ‘Children: Targeting’ and ‘Taste and Decency: Sex, sexual orientation and sexism’
Last modified : 26 April 2012