The Banned Ad: A Closer Look

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has ruled against a controversial advert from Next, deeming it "irresponsible" for featuring a model who appeared "unhealthily thin." The advert in question showed the model sitting on a wooden block, posing with one leg bent and the other straight, as part of a product listing for denim leggings. While the model’s face did not appear gaunt, and her arms did not reveal any protruding bones, the ASA argued that the camera angle, styling, and pose emphasized the slimness of her legs in a way that could be harmful. The watchdog stated that the sharpness of the angle and the tight-fitting leggings drew attention to the model’s knee, making her thigh appear disproportionately slim compared to her lower leg. This, the ASA concluded, gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin, which could have negative implications for viewers, particularly young people who may be impressionable and vulnerable to body image issues.

The ASA’s Ruling and Concerns

A single viewer lodged a complaint about the advert in September, prompting the ASA to investigate. The watchdog carefully analyzed the imagery and the potential impact it could have on consumers. While other images of the same model in the product listing were taken from different angles and showed her in various poses, the specific image in question was deemed problematic due to its focus on the model’s legs. The ASA noted that the composition of the advert—combined with the tight-fitting nature of the leggings—created an illusion that exaggerated the model’s slimness, even though the model herself was not digitally altered. The watchdog emphasized that advertisers have a responsibility to ensure that the images they use do not promote unhealthy or unrealistic beauty standards, particularly in the fashion industry, where body image concerns are already prevalent.

Next’s Defense and Response

Next defended the advert, arguing that it was created with a "strong sense of responsibility to both consumers and society." The retailer stated that the model, while slim, had a healthy and toned physique that aligned with the nature of the product being advertised. Next also maintained that the stylist and product manager had met the model in person during the photoshoot and did not express any concerns about her health or appearance. The company explained that the setup of the advert was designed to focus attention on the product itself, rather than the model’s body, and that there was no intention to exaggerate or distort her body shape. However, the ASA disagreed with Next’s interpretation, ruling that the advert’s composition and styling indirectly emphasized the model’s slimness in a way that could be misconstrued as promoting an unhealthy body ideal.

The Implications of the Ruling

The ruling highlights the challenges advertisers face in balancing artistic creativity with social responsibility. The ASA’s decision serves as a reminder that even subtle elements of an advert—such as camera angles, lighting, and styling—can significantly influence how a model’s body is perceived. By banning the advert, the ASA sent a clear message that advertisers must be vigilant in ensuring that their imagery does not inadvertently promote unhealthy or unrealistic beauty standards. This ruling also underscores the growing scrutiny placed on the fashion industry to embrace diversity and inclusivity in its representation of models. While Next maintained that the model in question was healthy and that the advert was not intended to be misleading, the ASA’s decision demonstrates that the onus is on advertisers to anticipate how their imagery might be interpreted by the public, particularly vulnerable groups such as young people.

The Broader Implications for the Industry

The ASA’s ruling against Next’s advert is part of a larger conversation about body image and representation in advertising. In recent years, there has been increasing pressure on brands to feature models of diverse shapes, sizes, ages, and backgrounds. This shift reflects a growing public awareness of the potential harm that unrealistic beauty standards can cause, particularly in contributing to body dissatisfaction and mental health issues. While some critics argue that the ASA’s decision may be overly restrictive, others applaud the watchdog for taking a stand against imagery that could perpetuate harmful stereotypes. The ruling also raises questions about the role of regulators in policing advertising content and whether such interventions are necessary to protect consumers or if they risk stifling creativity. Regardless of one’s perspective, the case serves as a reminder that advertisers must navigate a complex landscape where artistic expression and social responsibility often intersect.

Conclusion: Balancing Responsibility and Creative Freedom

In the end, the banning of Next’s advert serves as a cautionary tale for advertisers about the importance of considering the broader societal impact of their imagery. While the model in question may not have been digitally altered, the ASA’s ruling emphasizes that the way in which models are styled, posed, and photographed can still have a profound effect on how their bodies are perceived. For Next, the ruling means that the advert cannot appear again in its current form, and the company has been reminded of its responsibility to ensure that its imagery is prepared responsibly. Moving forward, the case highlights the need for advertisers to strike a delicate balance between showcasing their products in an appealing way and avoiding imagery that could be seen as promoting unhealthy or unrealistic beauty standards. As the fashion industry continues to evolve, the conversation around body image and representation will undoubtedly remain a focal point for regulators, brands, and consumers alike.