NATIONAL: Fashion advertisers have been accused of "importing pornography" into the mainstream, following the latest furore over a campaign resembling an amateur porn shoot.
The Advertising Standards Board could move to ban a controversial creative by American Apparel this month, after consumers and lobby groups claimed it breached the industry code of ethics. One offending image featured a young woman - believed to be a retail staff member - sprawled against several cushions and wearing little more than a pair of socks.
The Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB) confirmed this would be the tenth such case brought before its board in just six months. Fashion brands Calvin Klein, Guess and Bonds were also questioned over sexual content in their recent marketing campaigns.
The Australian Institute former director Clive Hamilton, who was slapped with a lawsuit from David Jones after accusing it of "corporate peodophilia" in a 2006 industry report, said he was not surprised consumers were taking greater action against fashion retailers.
"David Jones instantly transformed its kids advertising when our report first appeared. They [were] were badly stung by our criticisms because they were true. Now the kids in their ads look angelic, rather than erotic, which is as it should be. I think when advertisers push the boundaries, they eventually cross some invisible line and people just get pissed off and start reacting to it."
Hamilton said fashion brands in particular were guilty of "importing" pornography into mainstream society. While he had not issued an official complaint to the ASB in relation to American Apparel's campaign, he said it demonstrated the need for tougher advertising standards in Australia.
"The American Apparel ads featured such porn staples as 'the striptease', 'the amateur porn shot' and the 'take-me-from-behind' pose - they were tacky and lacked creativity. It's all seen as part of the game, tactics to get a commercial edge."
The latest controversy followed the release of an explosive photographic brief obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws last month, which stated girls as young as 10 should be portrayed as "slightly more adult and sexy" in a campaign shoot for David Jones.
The FOI request was made by child welfare campaigner Julie Gale last year, soon after David Jones dropped its lawsuit against Hamilton. The department store's decision coincided with a Senate Inquiry into the sexualisation of children in the media, of which several Australian fashion retailers were embroiled.
"It interested me that the lawsuit was dropped just before the inquiry," Gale said.
The brief obtained by Gale revealed young models should look "sexy" for a catalogue spread on girlswear brand Allison Ashley. David Jones and its advertising partner Saatchi and Saatchi had since pointed the blame at a freelance photographer and claimed he/she no longer worked for them.
Hamilton said highly visible advertisements on billboards or catalogues in particular should be of great concern. Fashion brand Guess was recently questioned by the ASB over a billboard advertisement featuring three bikini-clad models (one only visible from the waist down) posing with a range of accessories. Although the case against Guess was dismissed, a representative of the brand told the ASB it had no intention of using the ad again.
One complainant noted a petition containing over 10,000 signatures from Australia had been presented to Victorian and NSW governments regarding roadside advertising. A copy of the petition - 'Saying no to sexual advertisements' - indicated most key signatories were from religious or family groups.
Australian Association of National Advertisers chief executive Scott McClellan claimed the sector was working proactively to address concerns over sexual content. In 2008, the peak industry body ordered a review of its 'Advertising to Children Code' in response to public concerns over the sexualisation of children, including those featured in fashion advertisements.
"It was the most extensive public and political consultation ever undertaken in relation to the advertising industry's self-regulatory system," McClellan said, adding it contributed to the revised AANA Code for 'Advertising and Marketing to Children'.
"By and large, industry is mindful of community expectations regarding the portrayal of sex in advertising."
However, Hamilton claimed outrage over recent fashion advertisements demonstrated the message had largely gone unheard.
"I don't think labels are being 'more responsible'; they are just reacting prudently to public pressure. I am sure they would go further than they have if they thought they could get away with it. The people who run the industry appear to have had a social-responsibility bypass operation."