Advertising Board Rules On Mr Price Kids Advert That ‘Smacks Of Objectifying Females’

23 May 2024 by Heinrich in Advertising, Legal, South Africa

Related Posts

• South Africans Are Getting Fed Up With Poor Online Shopping Services
• Takelot In Trouble Over ‘Best Fu****g B****es’ Bangles
• New Rules Aimed At Tackling 'Crypto Hysteria'
• Netflix With Ads Has Officially Launched - Here's What You Should Know
• 3D Monster Cat Billboard In Tokyo Goes Viral [Video]

[imagesource:befunky]

The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has ruled in favour of a consumer who complained about a Mr Price kids advertisement which she found ‘smacks of objectifying females’.

The customer, Natasja Oosthuizen, lodged a complaint with the ARB over an in-store advertisement for Mr Price Kids which showed “A young female child with make-up sitting in a very inappropriately sexualised way with open legs and just inappropriate for a young girl”.

In his ruling, the Directorate said it took a great deal of care in the consideration of this advertisement, as complaints regarding children must always be treated with the utmost sensitivity.

The Directorate ruled that, at first glance, the image is not overtly problematic.

“The make-up that the complainant refers to is not obvious, and the child has a very youthful haircut, and is wearing a tracksuit that doesn’t hug her figure in any way,” the ruling stated.

However, the Directorate agreed that the open legs, hands on hips, and pout of the child, all contribute to a “sexually suggestive positioning”.

“However, whatever the intention of the pose, the combination of the various elements (spread legs, hands on hips, pout) have the potential to be perceived sexually.”

The ARB said while there is no indication that the advertiser intended it to be suggestive, “the fact remains that when it comes to using children as models, extra care must be taken to preserve innocence for the models themselves, and to avoid inappropriate (in this case, sexualised) depiction to the public.”

The ARB further said that it could be argued that the child is conveying attitude, rather than any kind of sexualised message, but found that there is no argument or justification for a child to be positioned in a way that can be perceived as sexually suggestive.

It ruled that the advertisement makes use of imagery that is provocative and sexualised, and instructed its members not to accept any advertising from the advertiser with the image in dispute.

[source:iol]

• ← Fans Have A Fit Over ‘Horrible’ Portrait Of Kate Middleton – ‘Is This A Joke?’
• Bishops Water Polo Player Faced With R645,000 Damages Claim For Throttling Rondebosch Opponent, Knocking Teeth Out →

• 2oceansvibe Partners

  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  •