No use crying: another Boohoo ad banned for objectifying and sexualising women

In November 2021, Boohoo.com’s website featured a product listing for a t-shirt. Two images in the ad showed a model wearing the t-shirt with only thong-style bikini bottoms and trainers. One was a rear view that showed her kneeling, while the other showed her sitting on the ground with her legs apart. Another image was an upper-body shot that showed the model lifting the t-shirt as if to remove it, exposing her stomach and side.

Boohoo.com said the images were part of their swimwear category and explained that the model was wearing the t-shirt with a bikini, not the other way round – even though the listed product was the t-shirt. They also said that they often combined a variety of products in their images to show how items could be worn in different ways. They further said that they understood the importance of the issues raised and had removed the images from their website.

However, the ASA found that the images focused on the model’s body, not on the clothes. It also found that the partial nudity and the bikini bottoms were not relevant to the product. The ASA concluded that the ad objectified and sexualised women. It was therefore irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence.

The ASA has a fairly high tolerance for ads that cause offence. Although offensiveness is among the most common reasons for complaint, the ASA frequently finds that any offence caused is not serious or widespread. However, that tolerance is far lower in cases where images appear to sexualise or objectify women or children.

In particular, the ASA rejected Boohoo.com’s argument that the images “reflected the diversity of women in society and their customer base”. This is unsurprising, given that the ASA has repeatedly rejected arguments that presenting young women in similar poses is “empowering”. For example, serial CAP Code breachers Pretty Little Thing – a Boohoo.com affiliate – suffered an upheld complaint in relation to models similarly suggestively depicted, in poses said by the advertiser to be empowering (see link). So did another online clothing retailer, Missguided, on two separate occasions (see here and here), despite arguing in both cases that the images were “empowering”.

Advertisers should be aware that arguments that it’s somehow in women’s own interests that other women are presented in sexualised poses in advertising are likely to fail – even though the advertisers might argue that women who seek out fast fashion websites are capable of making their own judgments on these kinds of images, and of taking their custom elsewhere if they object.

This is the second upheld complaint against Boohoo.com for offensive and socially irresponsible advertising in three years, following a 2019 ruling on a marketing email with the subject heading “Send Nudes”, which was socially irresponsible because it made light of the of a potentially harmful social trend of girls being pressured to share intimate photographs. Boohoo.com has also had another three upheld complaints against it in the last five years, together with numerous upheld complaints against its subsidiary Pretty Little Thing. In this context it is revealing that, despite Boohoo.com withdrawing the ad voluntarily, which would often lead to an informal resolution, the ASA proceeded to an upheld ruling. While Boohoo’s marketing is no doubt intended to be edgy, it will need to take care to avoid the ASA escalating these repeated breaches to Trading Standards.