Excessive avenue retailer Subsequent has been battered by the advert watchdog for that includes an “unhealthily skinny” mannequin on its web site, dismissing the retailer’s claims that she had a “wholesome and toned physique that aligned with the character of the product”.
The product itemizing for Darkish Blue Energy Stretch Denim Leggings was seen on the Subsequent web site in September final 12 months and advert featured the mannequin sporting the leggings, sat on a picket block; her legs have been prolonged nearer to the digital camera.
However one complainant, who believed the mannequin appeared unhealthily skinny, challenged the Promoting Requirements Authority to analyze whether or not the advert was irresponsible.
In its defence, Subsequent mentioned that its goal was to market the product in a approach that was “genuine and accountable” and that it used fashions “starting from slim to plus measurement”.
It did acknowledge that the mannequin was slim, however argued the mannequin’s proportions have been “balanced”, notably contemplating she was tall at 1.79 metres (5ft 9in), and that it had not digitally retouched her look.
Nevertheless, Subsequent admitted it had digitally altered the picture of the leggings to make them look longer to “keep give attention to the product whereas avoiding any exaggeration of her physique form”.
The retailer concluded that the mannequin had a “wholesome and toned physique that aligned with the character of their product”.
In its ruling, the ASA conceded the mannequin’s face didn’t seem like gaunt and that whereas her arms have been slim they didn’t “show any protruding bones”. It mentioned the shot had been arrange at a low angle that “accentuated the fashions already tall physique [and] additional emphasised the slimness of her legs”.
In different photographs in the identical product itemizing the mannequin didn’t seem unhealthily skinny, however on this specific shot the completely different angle used “had a visual impression within the look of the mannequin’s physique”.
The watchdog mentioned: “As a result of the pose, digital camera angle and styling within the advert investigated strongly emphasised the slimness of the mannequin’s legs, we thought-about that the advert appeared that the mannequin was unhealthily skinny.
“We concluded that the advert was irresponsible and should not seem once more in its present kind. We advised Subsequent to make sure that the photographs of their advertisements have been ready responsibly and didn’t painting fashions as being unhealthily skinny.”
Associated tales
Fern Brady tour ad crucified for mocking Christianity
Grass firm cut down to size yet again for ‘degrading’ ad
‘Funny’ Valentine’s ad gets tongue-lashing from ASA
ASA pulls plug on baby-faced rapper rum promotion
‘Suicide’ ad for life insurance fintech shot down by ASA
Charlie McKelvey
