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 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. Picture: Supplied
Image: Picture: Supplied
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’.
In her complaint, Natasja Oosthuizen lodged her complaint with the ARB against an in-store advertisement for Mr Price Kids.
In her written complaint, Oosthuizen said: “A young female child with make-up sitting in a very inappropriately sexualised way with open legs and just inappropriate for a young girl. It smacks of objectifying females.”
The ARB said that although given the opportunity, Mr Price chose not to reply.
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 of sensitivity.
“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, on further contemplation, the Directorate agreed that the open legs, hands on hips, and pout of the child, all contribute to a sexually suggestive positioning.
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.
“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 Directorate 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.
IOL News
Related Topics: