Advertising: Freedom of Expression or Invasion of Privacy?

Advertisements found throughout American media have been known to push the envelope in terms of obscenity laws, nudity, and sexually suggestive material. Whether we want to admit it or not, modern American culture has definitely experienced a broadening in sexualized marketing practices particularly with images found on billboards, lyrics on pop songs heard on the radio, and television commercials. Whereas only a decade ago, these images were directed towards teens, they now target a new market, pre-teens. A few weeks ago in the Abercrombie and Fitch store in Virginia Beach, angry parents of teen shoppers complained to two promotional photos, in particular, that were seen as inappropriate: One that depicted a topless woman (seen above) with her hand barely covering her nipple, and the second, depicting a group of boys (seen below) wearing pants exposing their buttocks (Also see MSN video for full new coverage broadcast). The use of sex for advertising purposes is not a new concept, however, what is new is the gradually younger target age group that those images are directed towards and the idea that marketers have gone to extremely low standards to achieve a profit.

In the past, Abercrombie and Fitch has gotten away with the photography found on the walls of each store, on billboards, and in the pages of their catalogue and they have been successful using those images to promote their clothing lines. Thus far, the clothing line takes the stance that their imagery and the pictures under scrutiny "show less skin than you see any summer day at the beach. And certainly less than the plumber working on your kitchen sink." They also argue that the representations are meant to be cute and playful. However, parents of teen shoppers make an equally valid point: either the company must modify the advertising image and fully cover all the models or, the target audience must be raised to target men and women who are old enough to shop on their own, without parental guidance.

When the issue was brought to the attention of Mark Stiles, the Deputy City Attorney handling the case, he recommended that the obscenity charges against the manager of the store in Virginia Beach be dropped. Stiles confirmed that the case was a tough one to judge because Abercrombie's advertising is "designed to go right up to the line," but nevertheless still seems to remain within legal boundaries. The advertisement abides by the city law that specifically forbids the viewing of "obscene material in a business that is open to juveniles." The posters also abide by the United States Supreme Courts Miller test for determining obscenity that outlaws any illustration that, "appealed to prurient interests, were patently offensive to the prevailing standard of the adult community and had no artistic value." According to Thomas Lennox, a spokesman for the retailer, "these photos are tame."It would be easy to disregard the photos if it were just one or two that were troubling, however, it seems as though the public is not focusing on the website, clothing tags, and catalogue which all routinely feature teenage models in the nude and sexually suggestive material. Even in 2002, Abercrombie kids, a line for children ages seven to fourteen marketed rear-less underwear with phrases such as "kiss me," "wink wink," and "eye candy," on the shelves earlier this year. Taking into account Abercrombie's provocative past, outrage from parents who believe the company sells inappropriate sexual depictions to the teenage target audience is an incredibly strong case that stricter governmental regulation needs to be enforced, especially considering the thoughts from Lennox, the spokesperson, who openly stated, "The Abercrombie & Fitch brand is provocative and undeniably sexy." If further governmental action is taken, the precautions installed need to ensure the public that if standards are raised, Abercrombie & Fitch can no longer just receive a slap on the wrist if the rules are broken. While Abercrombie & Fitch has had a successful history of pushing the envelope and continuing to remain within legal boundaries, the company must protect children from their sexualized advertisements. Whereas other companies in its category have forfeited the extra profit brought in by controversial advertisements, Abercrombie has continually taken the risk that could potentially ruin the company name.

The purpose of advertising is to catch the eye of the consumer so it is no surprise that a clothing company such as Abercrombie will stoop to incredibly low levels to reach their goal. However, the issue is where the lines must be drawn between what exactly is appropriate for youths versus adults. Another problem related to this issue is who embraces the power in distinguishing the categories, does the store have the upper hand or should the authority be determined by the simple equation of supply and demand? Ultimately, consumer capitalism plays a role in this issue because a successful commercial infrastructure requires persistent growth and the potential for increasing market. In order for the marketplace to continue to bring in capital, new target audiences and revenues must be discovered and indeed the teen target group has proven to be a perfect niche. However, undoubtedly retailers also must take credit and regulate their image. The direct effect of erotica as part of mainstream culture is that pre-teens feel the need to look older and sexier while mothers strive to look younger and the ultimate outcome is a broadening in the acceptance of sexualized marketing techniques which reinforce those ideals. There will always be something in media stirring up controversy, but if the teen target audience did not actually sell, companies would not risk pushing the envelope. Perhaps advertising must actually hit rock bottom before the moral lines can begin to be drawn.