The recent ban of a Marks & Spencer (M&S) advertisement has sparked discussions surrounding body image in advertising and the responsibilities of retailers. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which oversees advertising standards in the UK, determined that the model featured in the advertisement appeared “unhealthily thin.” This decision highlights an ongoing concern regarding portrayals of body images that can promote unhealthy standards to consumers.
According to the ASA’s ruling, the combination of the model’s pose, the choice of clothing, particularly “large pointed shoes” that accentuated the model’s slender legs, was deemed “irresponsible.” The authority emphasized that such representations can have negative implications, particularly among impressionable audiences who may aspire to emulate the appearances they see in advertising. In light of this decision, M&S has been compelled to ensure that any future advertisements do not feature models who convey an unhealthy image.
Following the ruling, M&S expressed its disappointment but asserted that the company values inclusivity within its women’s clothing range. They defended their approach to fashion advertising, claiming that their promotional material is designed to be aspirational, not misleading. Following the ASA’s findings, M&S immediately ceased distribution of the controversial advertisement and began taking steps to adhere to the regulatory body’s recommendations.
The advertisement in question had previously been displayed within the M&S app, featuring a model adorned in a white off-the-shoulder top paired with slim-fit trousers and the controversial pointed shoes. Notably, the ASA pointed out that the model’s head appeared disproportionate in relation to her body, further highlighting her small frame and exemplifying an unrealistic body standard.
In response to the scrutiny, M&S clarified that the pose selected for the model was intended to convey confidence and ease, rather than to emphasize an overly slim appearance. Furthermore, they explained that the footwear choice was related to styling and fashion, rather than an intention to promote skinny ideals. Despite the ASA ruling, it was noted that three additional M&S advertisements had undergone investigation but were ultimately not prohibited. Nevertheless, M&S took the initiative to remove and revise the relevant images following the inquiry.
The retailer maintains that all its models are chosen not only for their professional skills but also for their health and well-being. M&S asserts commitment to ensuring that models used in their advertising adhere to health standards, thereby aiming to mitigate promotion of potentially harmful body images to their audience. This stance is indicative of a growing trend among brands to take accountability for the influence they wield in shaping societal beauty standards.
The debate around body image representation is not unique to M&S. Other brands have also faced bans for similar issues. For example, Next was recently scrutinized for an advertisement that made a model appear excessively thin, while a separate weight-loss drug advertisement featuring Gemma Collins also received backlash for its portrayal of body image.
The ongoing discussion around such advertising practices invites a broader exploration of the values that brands project through their promotional content. The ASA’s decision opens a critical dialogue about the responsibility of marketers and retailers to promote healthy and realistic body images.
In summary, the ban of the M&S advertisement serves as a significant reminder of the power of advertising in influencing perceptions of beauty. It accentuates the importance of responsible marketing and the necessity for brands to be cognizant of their representation of body image in order to foster a more inclusive and healthier societal view of beauty.
