Miu Miu ad banned for appearing to sexualise a child.

The GuardianMark Sweney

6/05/16

Campaign running in Vogue magazine featuring 22-year old-model Mia Goth was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence, rules ASA

Mia Goth: the 22-year-old model appeared in Miu Miu’s ad in Vogue magazine.
Photograph: Matteo Prandoni/BFAnyc.com/Rex Features

An ad campaign for fashion brand Miu Miu that ran in Vogue magazine has been banned for appearing to sexualise a child.   Miu Miu, which is owned by Prada, ran a double-page ad that appeared to be shot through a slightly open doorway revealing a young woman reclining on a bed.

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority received a complaint that the image looked as if a child had been dressed as an adult in a sexually suggestive pose which was irresponsible and offensive. Prada said the ad was part of a campaign that used three different models which “showed glimpses of the models through doorways and placed the viewer at the heart of a multidimensional, multi-room story”.The company said the model in the ad, Mia Goth, was 22 years old and rejected the accusation that she was shown in a sexually suggestive pose, or that there was a sexual tone to the ad.

Vogue UK also defended the ad saying that it has a “sophisticated” readership that is educated to “appreciate top photography and great fashion models”. The magazine said it had not received any complaints directly from readers. The ASA said that the model’s youthful appearance, minimal makeup and slightly-too-large clothes contributed to the impression that she was under 16. The decision to shoot the ad through a partially opened door, with the model reclining on a bed, gave the image a “voyeuristic feel”.

   “We considered that the crumpled sheets and her partially opened mouth also enhanced the impression that her pose was sexually suggestive,” the ASA said.  “We considered that her youthful appearance, in conjunction with the setting and pose, could give the impression that the ad presented a child in a sexualised way. Therefore, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence.”   The ASA banned the ad for breaching the advertising code relating to social responsibility and harm and offence.

Fuente