NATIONAL: The latest consumer backlash against the “sexualisation” of children by fashion retailers follows a spate of complaints to the national advertising watchdog.
Retail powerhouse Witchery came under fire earlier this month over its spring/summer 2010 kidswear campaign, which featured almost identical themes, model poses and styling to its men’s and women’s advertisements.
The brooding creative received widespread coverage across national newspapers and broadcasters, after welfare groups and academics alleged it “adultified” its target market of two to nine-year-old children.
While the retail chain issued a statement denying any wrongdoing, the national advertising watchdog confirmed it was investigating the matter when contacted by Ragtrader.
Advertising Standards Bureau spokesperson Sari Mattila said complaints had been received for both the online and print campaign, with a ruling set to be handed down by late October.
The fallout came days after intimate apparel brand Bonds withdrew a range of bralettes for girls aged between six and eight years old, citing negative consumer feedback.
While there have been several reports and a government enquiry on the issue of sexualisation of children since 2006, annual case reports from the Advertising Standards Bureau reveal mounting concerns from consumers.
Mattila said that for the first time ever, a separate complaints category has now been introduced to deal with the sexualisation of children.
A review of all complaints this year indicate an average of six cases against fashion retailers or brands every three months. Further records show that while ‘clothing’ was the sixth most complained-about category in 2005, it shot to second place in 2009.
‘Sex, sexuality and nudity’ was consistently the key reason for all complaints across all categories over the last five years, but rose from 26.49 per cent in 2005 to 40.54 per cent in 2009.
Betts, Prada, Big W, Rivers, Bonds, Zu and Nick Mascitelli Imports (Replay) were among a group of fashion players accused of sexualising women and/or children this year.
Accessory chain Zu pulled an autumn/winter campaign after the advertising watchdog ruled it depicted sexualised images in a violent context. It featured a scantily clad model lying on her back in a gutter, mouth open and shirt torn, pulling the hair of another model clutching her Zu handbag.
One complainant alleged girls as young as 15 could view the “rape scene depiction” as acceptable. While the company defended the integrity of its advertisement, claiming it targeted women aged between 25 to 35, it discontinued the campaign following the bureau’s ruling.
“We did not believe this image would be an issue and are doing everything in our control to not repeat this issue in future,” the company stated in a formal response.
Bureau reports revealed family-friendly retailers such as Big W and Betts also fielded complaints this year. The former denied any wrongdoing in a print campaign which featured children in tees with slogans such as “Lock up your daughters”.
Meanwhile footwear chain Betts aggressively argued against criticism of a 12-page autumn/winter 2010 catalogue, which depicted children in a variety of poses against a misty forest backdrop.
While complaints alleged the poses were of an adult nature, the company extensively listed its “sensitive” practices when shooting children’s shoe campaigns.
“The front cover shot where the junior girl has her hand on her hip ... is a common pose for young children,” Betts added in its response. “It is not a sexual pose. We do not believe that the poses of the young children are those normally made by models 18 years of age and older.”
Assia Benmedjdoub