Staying on the right side of the regulator

It should have been an ad seen by American Apparel fans across the globe. It was bold, on brand and a little bit provocative – but this, the brains behind the campaign probably thought, would be part of the appeal. Sadly, its debut in pop culture magazine Vice was enough to get it banned.

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) vetoed the series of six images on the grounds the retailer had used a partially nude model. The watchdog stated that she did not look older than 16, and the campaign, advertising the company’s Flexfleece zip hoody, suggested she was “stripping off for an amateur-style photo shoot”. The model was in fact aged 23, but the fact the images could be interpreted as sexualising a child means the ad’s debut was also its swansong.

American Apparel is not the only retailer to fall foul of the advertising regulator. The supermarkets are frequent culprits, particularly over pricing and provenance claims. Earlier this month, supermarket chain Morrisons’ latest TV commercial was barred from being aired because it claimed to be the only supermarket sourcing and packing fresh fruit and vegetables from British farms. The ASA upheld complaints from Asda, Waitrose and Co-operative Group, deeming the ad misleading as other retailers do handle this produce in the same way. Just this week, a provocative new poster campaign from Dixons prompted anger from department stores and even legal threats from Harrods.

Creating an ad campaign that makes an impact with your audience, provokes a positive reaction and follows ASA regulations is a not an easy task. It needs to be original but not isolating, clever without being convoluted, provocative but not indecent. 

Avoiding an ASA ban is important if you want your audience to see the campaign. But this should not curb vision, says Saatchi & Saatchi director of strategy Richard Huntington. “We make a lot of money because we think creativity has an effect and we invest in it,” he says. “You’re more likely to create an ad that resonates with people. I thought the American Apparel ad was fantastic. Banning it is ridiculous. The ASA has got its priorities all wrong – breasts are fine but not nipples?”

He continues: “People in advertising work at the edge of what’s acceptable in society and working at the edge means you address taboos. We know that creating an ad that generates an emotional response is more successful than one that doesn’t. The Cadbury gorilla ad creates joy. The Guinness gay kiss ad from the 1990s left people shocked, but people remember these images. Classic issues that cause reaction are race, gender, sex and sexuality.”

Although there is no formula to creating and launching a successful campaign, there are key things you must address to capture you’re audience.

Marketing expert Neil Kennedy says: “The first thing you have to do is understand your customer. It’s like building a house: you wouldn’t start mixing cement if you hadn’t bought bricks and had planning permission. Then you’ve got to identify and define your brand, and you can only do that if you understand your customer. You have to communicate clearly and consistently. Consistency is very important. Retailers that do this well are Harrods, Selfridges and Asda. They have a kind of handwriting – you could recognise it is their ad if you put your hand over the logo.”

Huntington agrees and advises retailers to ask themselves key questions during the creation of the campaign. He says: “Is it speaking to your audience? Remember, a group of 30 to 50-year-old women are very different to a group of 16 to 20-year-old young men. Also, can people attribute the ad to your brand? In the 1990s you only had to see the first five seconds of a Levis ad to know what brand it was and that’s not because of the logo.”

Although images have been the cause of controversy in the past – Sophie Dahl’s naked form for Opium perfume and David Beckham’s eye-catching boxer shorts for Dolce & Gabbana, to name but two – the words used to sell products hold equal importance in terms of creating an impact. Tesco’s “Every Little Helps” and Marks & Spencer’s “This is not just food…” are now synonymous with the retailers.

Choose your words carefully

Huntington says: “When it comes to words, you have to ask yourself what is more important – the language of the brand or the audience? We’ve been through a period of advertisers using colloquialisms and it hasn’t got brands any further. We’ve lost the art of the slogan, which is sad because there is real value in slogans. Good ones are clever with alliteration and assonance. After such a long time of brands using slogans like ‘Lovin’ it’ (McDonald’s) I think we’re going to see a return to the slogan.”

While the priority in campaign creation should be on innovation, the fact that advertisers are being monitored cannot be forgotten. The ASA demands that all ads should be tasteful and decent. However, the “standout effect” of a bad taste campaign is undeniable.

The images commissioned and used by Benetton of an AIDS victim on their deathbed provoked fury as did an H&M lingerie bus side ad stating: “This ad received 197 ASA complaints. All from women – none from men”. They may have offended, but if consumers hadn’t seen them before the ban they were desperate to see them afterwards. 

A spokesman from the ASA says: “Taste and decency is subjective. There is no absolute example of what’s right and wrong. Something that would have offended the public 10 years ago is probably acceptable now. Would the ‘Hello Boys’ Wonderbra campaign cause such a fuss now? I don’t think so.” He continues: “One thing that will always cause complaints is generally any picture that sexualises a child or has any nudity. That will always cause concern. We don’t play a numbers game. An ad that gets one complaint could get banned while another that gets 1,000 could be fine as far as we’re concerned.”

The inability to measure subjectivity means it will always be impossible to judge if an ad oversteps the ASA’s, and the consumer’s, line of taste and decency. While Huntington puts creativity first, even he has boundaries to avoid bans. He says: “There are two ways to mess up – creating an ad that doesn’t follow the code of taste and decency and one that isn’t honest and legal.”

According to the ASA, American Apparel didn’t do the former, and Morrisons the latter.

A risk worth taking?

“You can play fast and loose with print advertising because it isn’t pre-vetted like TV and people can only complain afterwards. But taking a risk with a campaign can lead to it being banned and the ASA insisting on pre-vetting all of your work,” says Huntington.

Operating with a degree of caution could certainly save retailers huge amounts of money if they want campaigns to make it into consumers’ eye line. However, they should not be completely cowed by the rules. 

Alan Treadgold, director of ad agency Leo Burnett, says: “Great communication by retailers should be arresting and have that glorious ‘stop you and take notice’ quality, especially in high touch and high emotion categories, and apparel’s right up there in this respect. But that’s not a licence to be shocking or crass or crude. In making judgements about whether an ad is offensive or likely to cause offensive, you’ve got to take into account where it appears.”

He concludes: “If you want to avoid falling foul of the ASA, then the easy thing to do is to play it safe at all times. This is easy, but wrong. Let the regulator regulate and let the advertisers push the boundaries and that way both parties are doing what they should be doing.”