When it comes to marketing, they say that sex sells. That may have been true ten years ago when retailers like Abercrombie & Fitch, Calvin Klein, and United States of Benetton ruled the fashion scene. But lately the industry seems to be erring on the safe side in advertising. Maybe this is why controversial photographers like Dov Charney and Terry Richardson have recently gotten the boot. Maybe it’s a movement in feminism. But maybe it’s just censorship.

The sexualized female figure has shocked the public since the Impressionist Era. The censorship of the female nipple is nothing new; however, as in art, it’s this same kind of scandal that often gives companies the most attention, which is basically the point of advertising. The more people are talking about a company, the more money they make. There is no such thing as bad press. So why are so many ads playing it safe these days?

One reason for this could be that companies just don’t want to bother with all the hassle. If an ad is too controversial, it risks getting banned in some countries. For example, back in 2011 the U. K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) seemed to read a little too much into Dakota Fanning’s ad for Marc Jacobs’ perfume Lola, resulting in a ban throughout Great Britain. The ad features Fanning with the perfume bottle, which includes a large rubber rose on the cap, between her legs. At the time the ad ran, Fanning was only 17 so it upset people to see a minor, whom the ASA claimed looked under the age of 16, staring in such a “provocative” ad.

Marc Jacobs, however, seems hardly controversial compared to other retailers such as Benetton and Italian label Sisley. These companies are notorious for making cheap shots when it comes to advertising. For these two, the more scandalous, the better: from a kissing nun and priest to a man dying of AIDS to “fashion junkies” snorting a dress. Despite their tendencies to upset the public, these ads have been successful in garnering attention. In such cases, these companies value shock factor over just putting out a pretty ad.

Benetton has become tamer since photographer Oliver Toscani stopped working with the company in 2000. Their recent Unhate campaign featuring feuding world leaders kissing, like President Obama, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, Pope Benedict XVI , and Egyptian leader Grand Sheikh Ahmed el Tayeb, led to the Vatican suing back in 2011.

Another reason ads may have tamed down is that companies now do most of their marketing through social media. Sites like Facebook and Instagram are heavily regulated when it comes to what they determine is appropriate for such a large and diverse audience. Most pictures featuring the female nipple are promptly removed from these sites within hours of posting. Therefore, if an ad is considered too inappropriate, the company risks losing a large amount of consumers.

Although sometimes they make more than one version of an ad through strategic cropping, companies, especially smaller ones that can’t afford it, may not want to bother paying for multiple versions of the same campaign. Social media also allows for free advertising for all kinds of companies and can be shared to reach consumers who may not normally pay attention to a specific brand. While Benetton’s ads certainly have a tendency to go viral, they risk running into potential legal troubles on the web. If an ad ends up on a site with certain regulations, the company could be held accountable.

Online advertising has presented endless opportunities for giving companies exposure but at the same time, advertising has also never been more censored. There are few laws to regulate what is appropriate and what is not online, so it is often up to the websites themselves to make the regulations. Many sites do not want to face the legal complications involved with featuring controversial images, which in turn has led advertisers to not even bother with anything controversial in the first place.

While Benetton may not offer anything groundbreaking or artistically ingenious in its ads, the company is known for opening up a conversation about greater issues such as HIV/AIDS, homophobia, and racism. Lately however, there is not much conversation going on regarding these kinds of ads, just a bunch of pretty models in pretty clothes. While the point of fashion advertising is to sell clothes, sometimes the less clothing a model wears, the more intrigued a consumer may be to find out what kind of product the ad is selling. The use of accessories in fashion ads also creates a more timeless image, which is bound to be remembered and used for decades.

Perhaps advertisers should start taking cues from the Impressionists again, instead of playing it safe. The Impressionists lucked out though, because there was no ASA or Facebook back then to stop them from creating anything interesting.

Of course full-on nudity isn’t the only way to intrigue an audience with sex appeal. Let us not forget the classic Brooke Shields for Calvin Klein ads, who was just 15 at the time.

Nothing, not even the ASA could get between her and her Calvins.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Buzzfeed]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Censorship in Fashion: Where Did All the Controversial Ads Go? appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, clothing retailers American Apparel and Aldo fired fashion photographers Terry Richardson and Dov Charney for sexually harassing models. Several models have spoken out about their inappropriate behavior over the last few years, so why did these companies wait until now to react? Justice didn’t last long in Charney’s case, however, as the American Apparel founder and CEO was rehired a week later as strategic consultant while the company reviews any past accusations of sexual harassment.

The modeling industry is one of the few professions where workers are not always treated like real people, because the job description mostly entails selling their bodies. Until fairly recently, there were few if any laws protecting model’s rights. Last year veteran model Coco Rocha and the Model Alliance helped pass a law in the state of New York recognizing models under the age of 18 as child performers, limiting the number of hours they are allowed to work. The Model Alliance has also drafted a Model’s Bill of Rights stating that agents and photographers are to maintain a professional relationship with the models they work with, and it also calls for models to be informed ahead of time if a shoot will involve nudity so they can give prior consent. No model under the age of 17 can pose nude or semi-nude.

But there is also a bigger issue at hand: the female model’s word against that of these reputable male photographers. In this interview with HuffPost Live, Model Alliance founder Sara Ziff explains why she will never work with Richardson again and why models may feel pressured to put themselves in compromising positions, when working with photographers like him.

Ziff mentions the Model Alliance’s amnesty service as a way to provide legal aide to models who have been taken advantage of by photographers, since there are no official laws to protect them in situations like this. The Model Alliance’s efforts are certainly a step in the right direction, but potential clients like Harper’s Bazaar, American Apparel, and Aldo ultimately have the power to refuse to work with alleged offenders. These companies most likely have a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment protecting all of their other employees, so why not their models too?

Somewhere along the way, an inherent double-standard formed in the industry. Despite the decent amount of women in corporate fashion positions, the male gaze still governs a lot of what we see in magazines. These models lose their rights as humans because someone like Terry Richardson is an untouchable fixture in the industry. Ziff mentions that a model’s career isn’t really legitimized until she shoots with Richardson. Models may feel obligated to do whatever he tells them to do and he clearly takes advantage of that if he tries to engage in sexual activity with them.

If you need further convincing that there’s a double-standard, here are some of Richardson’s ads with the female models replaced with men.

Courtesy of Lauren Wade via Takepart

Notice this ad blatantly says “For Men.” Fashion is stereotypically a women’s industry yet most ads appear to be created for the male gaze. Is the fragrance for men or are those breasts for men?

Meanwhile, some women have defended Richardson when he’s come under fire. Musicians Miley Cyrus and Sky Ferreira are publicly known to be friends with the photographer and continue to work with him year in and year out. Ferreira recently claimed, “I have never been forced or manipulated into anything. I made a music video with him and I have never felt uncomfortable with Terry and had 99 percent of the creative control.” Perhaps this is because artists are protected by their own celebrity and do not have the same sense of anonymity as a model would. Someone like Richardson may see a model as just a face or body, whereas he may want to go out of his way to please a famous client like Cyrus or Ferreira.

Charney and Richardson have been able to keep their jobs for so long, despite these allegations because they have taken advantage of women whose jobs involve using their own bodies to market a product. Both women and men in the industry, however, need to realize that models are not mannequins, they are people employed to do a job that happens to involve their bodies. The job description by no means includes having their bodies violated for the pleasure of others. Ziff says it herself: “The choice between an uncomfortable sexual situation and your job, that’s the definition of sexual harassment.” If sexual harassment is unacceptable in all other workplaces, it should be unacceptable in these models’ line of work as well.

The Model Alliance is definitely taking a step in the right direction by offering a safe space for models to turn, but in order to guarantee absolute safety in their workplace, legal action must be taken. The laws passed by the state of New York also only really protect underage runway models. Sexual harassment issues lie predominantly with print models, and there need to be laws to protect them both inside and outside the studio. Not all models may belong to the Model Alliance, so if there were official laws protecting them, they might not be so afraid to speak up about harassment.

While it may be difficult to enact such regulations on an international level, the Model Alliance could at least start on a national level in collaboration with the Council of Fashion Designers of America. The industry has a responsibility to protect all of its employees, and that includes its models, the literal faces of fashion.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured Image Courtesy of [American Apparel via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Does the Fashion Industry Protect Alleged Sex Offenders Over Models? appeared first on Law Street.