Banned Ads of 2011

There are always ads being banned.  Some bans I feel have more merit than others.  So far this year, a few ads have been banned:

1.  Dakota Fanning for Marc Jacobs Oh Lola - Banned in the UK

Reason: “the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualize a child.” - UK Ad Standards Society

It also has been said the image is very reminiscent of Lolita.

My Opinion: First of all, I strongly dislike the photographer, Terry Richardson.  I feel all of his pictures look like they were taken in a sleezy hotel room that is about to shoot an old fashioned porno.  Otherwise, I don't have a problem with the dress, but the placement of the bottle is awkward.  Especially with the name of the perfume as "Oh, Lola!"  It seems as if they are questioning her position.

Verdict?  I think the ad could have continued running

2. Wodka Vodka Christmas Billboard - Taken down the day after it was put up because of complaints

Reason“reinforces anti-Semitic stereotypes.” - Anti Defamation League

   

My Opinion:  Wodka Vodka is known for making humorous ads.  In previous ads, they have had the saying "Escort Quality, Hooker Pricing" and "Hamptons Quality, Newark Pricing."  The placement of the ad is also in question.  They placed it near New York, which has a high Jewish population.

Verdict?:  While it is funny, I feel it is inappropriate and rude.  I'm glad it was taken down.

3. Hailee Steinfeld for Miu Miu - Banned by UK Advertising

Reason: “irresponsible because it depicted a child in an unsafe location.”  Prada responded to this comment with: she “could have easily moved from where she was sitting because she was not restrained in any way.”

My Opinion: Ridiculous.  I like the ad, though the dress isn't too cute.  She is 14 years old, she knows that if a train comes, she should move.  I've also heard that maybe it promotes suicide.  I don't think it either promotes or suggests this.

Verdict?: Dumb.  I don't see why they banned it.

4 and 5. Lancome and Maybelline banned in UK for excessive airbrushing

Reason:

“If advertisers go too far in using airbrushing and other post-production techniques to alter the appearance of models and it’s likely to mislead people, then that’s wrong and we’ll stop the ads,”

“Advertisers must be able to provide appropriate material to us to demonstrate what retouching they’ve done in the event we question them, and they mustn’t mislead,”

Lancome responded with:

“L’Oreal admitted post-production techniques had been used in its advert featuring Turlington to “lighten the skin, clean up make-up, reduce dark shadows and shading around the eyes, smooth the lips and darken the eyebrows”.

"The company, which provided the ASA with pictures of both women “on the red carpet” to show that they were naturally beautiful, admitted that digital post-production techniques had been used on Roberts but maintained that the changes were not “directly relevant” and that the ad was an “aspirational picture.”

My Opinion: While it is true there is deceptive advertising when it comes to makeup, I feel it is expected.  In reality, if Maybelline and Lancome changed all their ads to be photoshop free, no one would buy their product based on the ads because the competitor's ads would all look better.  Of the two ads, I feel the Christy Turlington ad to be much more deceptive, further proven by their statement.  If they point out that it hides crows feet, then I hope that it actually does.  If it says it hides dark circles, why did they have to edit that with photoshop?  It makes me wonder if she is actually even wearing the product.

Verdict?: I think the Lancome ad is fine.  Julia Roberts is gorgeous and this is the same image we see of her in all magazines.  Maybelline I feel is very deceptive, but not to the point of it being banned.

6. Nivea - Ad found to be racist, they promised never to print it again

Reason: Racist

My Opinion: I think this ad is very racist, especially in the unequal society in which we live.  Nivea should have known that the ad could be received poorly.  Before they approved it, especially with the caption "re civilize yourself," they should have noticed the racist connotations.  True, I am unsure as to who the ad agency behind it was, and thus they may be in a city where it isn't offensive.

Verdict?: I feel this ad was in poor taste.  They may not have done it purposely, but so many people have to approve an ad before it is printed, it is surprising no one questioned it.

Upon searching the internet for banned ads, it seems that the UK advertising review committee has been really busy lately.  Europe has always been more lax about nudity in their ads, but through these examples, it shows they are more concerned with the implied messages.  There are always sexually explicit ads which I find offensive, but they never receive the publicity that these banned campaigns have.

Some companies use shockvertising, purposely trying to cause buzz because of their controversial ads, but I feel these companies weren't purposely trying to offend people.

- Sara Jacobson