Compression specialist gets under readers skin

Skins is rapidly shaping up as the L'enfante terrible of the Australian fashion scene after being accused of being "emotionally bankrupt".

The comment came as a result of a print advertisement the compression garment company launched to promote its 'She' range.

The advertisement, which ran in a major metropolitan newspaper, showed a woman wearing full-length Skins pants paired with a Skins singlet. The woman was shown kicking her leg past the head of a second version of herself wearing different clothes. Lying on the ground alongside her were many bodies, all of the same person. The bodies were shown in different positions and covered in stains, grime and what appeared to be blood.

An example of the submissions made to the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) in response to the ad included one complainant who questioned the need of what they perceived as gratuitous and "appalling" violence.

"Given the current behaviour of some in our community who believe resorting to violence is a way of solving their differences do we really need to perpetuate it as a theme in advertising? Or perhaps Skins and [its] agency is so bereft of talent [it] must resort to using appalling imagery in their advertisements to create free publicity for their products?"

In response the New South Wales-based company refuted the suggestion the ad portrayed unjustifiable violence.

It said the ad was created as a metaphor for the way women dislike their body image and was designed to show a woman at war with her own biological shortcomings.

"The message we are sending to women is that they are empowered and not limited to the body shape they have inherited. The message is that the Skins [range] equips women to fight the daily battle that they may have with their own generic form."

The ASB agreed the ad was in breach of the Advertiser Code of Ethics concerning the unjustifiable violence and argued it was difficult to see that the woman had beat herself.

The ad has since been withdrawn.

The complaint marks the third time in 12 months the brand has been given a "please explain" by authorities after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission took it to court over its claims it did not pay sports stars to endorse its brands or provide them with complimentary products. It was later found the company had 29 sponsorship agreements in which it provided more than $800,000 worth of products to sports stars.

The group also ran foul of New Zealand's Advertising Standards Authority in April 2008 when it was forced to withdraw an ad after it was found to be "racially insensitive".