Controversy in Printed Advertising
I thought I would start my blog off with an excerpt from my Literature Review, as it relates so closely to my Current Project (See in ‘Portfolio’ tab)
“Print has long been an easily accessible form of advertising, from newspapers to magazines and even large scale prints such as posters and even billboards. It is widely used in advertising because of the mass audience it portrays too, however it is seen 24/7 by every age group, so advertising agencies have to be careful of what is on the billboards themselves. Whilst they are in someway protected by watersheds and regulations on television, the billboards do not get this same treatment. An example of this is Steven Miesel’s campaign shot for Calvin Klein in 2010. The advert was banned in Australia on the grounds that it depicted rape and violence. The Advertising Standards Bureau stated that “Highly sexualised and clearly suggestive of sexual behaviour.” The law in Australia says; “Industry standard says you can use sexuality and nudity provided you use them with sensitivity with the audience” This is interesting because it states that it is not an issue if the advertising techniques and imagery is relevant and target audience regulated. The issue with Steven Miesel’s campaign was that it was printed on a billboard where audience of all ages and cultures could see it. If it was a case of the film advertisement being shown on post watershed television, then this controversy would perhaps not have arisen to quite the extent that it was banned in Australia.
Continuing on the theme of overtly sexualised images, the predecessor to Miesel’s Calvin Klein campaign is certainly the Dolce and Gabanna campaign for their spring/summer 2007 range. It again hints at the rape and power over women, although there is also an image considered to be the ‘gay alternative’. This sexual power that is presented in the images is where Steven Miesel possibly got his inspiration. The images have an overall more ‘polished’ element to them. They look like high society sexual exploits as opposed to the Calvin Klein campaign that is photographed in high contrast black and white, portraying an overall more seedy and ‘heroin chic’ theme.
So at what point is advertising considered controversial and/or banned? The Advertising Standards Authority states that; “The Advertising Codes contain wide-ranging rules designed to ensure that advertising does not mislead, harm or offend. Ads must also be socially responsible and prepared in line with the principles of fair competition.” http://www.asa.org.uk/Advertising-Codes.aspx The statement that advertising must be ‘socially responsible’ is of particular interest. My interpretation of social responsibility is awareness of the audience you project to (as previously stated). Advertising can be used to whatever degree the company feels is necessary, so long as it is pitched appropriately and to the correct audience. The notion of children seeing, with increasing regularity, examples such as Miesel’s Calvin Klein campaign showing the ‘gang-rape’ of a woman is where most people seem to draw the line.”
What are your thoughts on the matter? Is controversial advertising entertainment or dangerous?
Kahla Delahay 