Calvin Klein ad controversy: nudity, empowerment, and untargeted display

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has partially reversed its controversial ruling on a Calvin Klein ad featuring singer FKA Twigs, prompting questions about censorship, objectification, and the ever-evolving boundaries of advertising.

The posters, displayed in April 2023, featured FKA Twigs wearing an unbuttoned shirt revealing part of her breast and buttocks. In January, the ASA banned the ad, citing concerns that it "centred on FKA Twigs' physical features rather than the clothing" and presented her as "a stereotypical sexual object." This decision sparked widespread criticism, including from FKA Twigs herself, who accused the ASA of a double standard as they had chosen not to investigate complaints about another Calvin Klein ad featuring the actor Jeremy Allen White posing in underwear. Calvin Klein argued the images were not sexually explicit and portrayed empowered women collaborating on the campaign. They also emphasised the inclusion of men, such as Allen White, in the broader campaign, and the lack of vulgarity.

In a surprising turn of events, the ASA has now backtracked on its initial ruling. They acknowledge that the image "drew viewers' attention to the model's body," but they no longer consider it "sexually explicit" or "irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence." Instead, they now claim the ad portrays a woman who "appeared to be confident and in control."

However, although the ASA no longer considers the image to be irresponsible or likely to cause serious or widespread offence, they maintain their ban on its display in public spaces, deeming it "overtly sexual" and unsuitable for untargeted mediums. This creates a confusing situation for advertisers, leaving them to grapple with an unclear line between "overtly sexual" and "sexually explicit" when crafting campaigns.

Furthermore, the ASA acknowledges that public pressure, including criticism from FKA Twigs, played a role in their decision to revisit the ruling. While this shows a willingness to adapt and learn from public feedback, it also raises concerns about the potential for public pressure to sway decisions instead of upholding objective standards. On the other hand, they acknowledged "concern that our rationale for banning the ad was substantially flawed".

The ASA's reversal of its decision highlights the ongoing debate around acceptable levels of nudity and sexuality in advertising. While the ASA acknowledged the model's agency and the artistic expression of the campaign, concerns about children's exposure to arguably indecent images ultimately limited the display of the ad. The new ruling leaves advertisers facing uncertainty and raises questions about the line between creativity and responsible targeting in campaigns. It also shows that the ASA's main sanction against advertisers, adverse publicity, can be a double-edged sword if the public take the side of the advertiser against the ASA.

Co-authored by Honor Kunisch White, Trainee Solicitor