Racked is no longer publishing. Thank you to everyone who read our work over the years. The archives will remain available here; for new stories, head over to Vox.com, where our staff is covering consumer culture for The Goods by Vox. You can also see what we’re up to by signing up here.
American Apparel's...er...creative advertising tactics have gotten them in hot water once again, this time with the UK's Advertising Standards Agency. The watchdog has banned a campaign that ran in Vice magazine, in which a model wears nothing but a pair of skimpy silk shorts and one of the brand's Flex Fleece hoodies. The ASA argues that the model "appears to be" under 16 years old (she's actually 23), and that "[the ad] could be seen to sexualise a child".
As regular Racked readers know, we're often intrigued by just how skeevy American Apparel's marketing fodder can be—and maybe, since we've seen so much of it that's why this little slice of boobage doesn't seem so bad (not to mention that the model looks at least 16 to us). Plus, let's not ignore the fact that the campaign appeared in Vice, which known for running material more offensive and graphic than this—it's not like the ad popped up in Tiger Beat. What do you think—has the American Apparel ad team really gone too far, or do the Brits need to loosen up a little?
· American Apparel Ad Banned [The Guardian]
· American Apparel Ad Succeeds [Gawker]