Shine OnSkincare line reshoots ad campaign after Australia advisory board suggests more smiling
It’s the fashion world equivalent of that annoying guy who tells you “Smile, honey, it’s not so bad” while you’re just trying to walk down the street.
According to multiple news outlets, Australia’s Outdoor Media Advisory Board (OMA) warned French skincare line Ella Bache that their new billboard campaign featuring a series of naked models would be a breach of their AANA advertising code of ethics.
The issue was not, as you may have initially imagined, due to the nudity (which was covered by the models’ strategically placed hands anyway). The problem, as per the OMA, was that the models weren’t smiling, thus projecting far too “arousing” and “sexualizing” an effect.
Were they posed in the same unclothed positions, but showing their pearly whites, the campaign would get the full green light.
Also see: Tyra Banks sparks debate with edgy art project
“[W]e considered that while the nudity was relevant to the product, the serious facial expressions did increase the sexual overtones of the image... We have said that the alternative images where the girls are smiling are acceptable as it is less sexualized and is relevant to the product," reads the OMA letter sent to Ella Bache executives.
Needless to say, the decision caused more than a few perfectly plucked eyebrows to be raised in Europe’s fashion capital.
"We are seeing self-appointed regulators making sexual judgments about facial expressions, which borders on the laughable. This sort of thinking displays why Australian advertising is falling behind the rest of the world, as creativity is being squeezed out by political correctness,” Ella Bache creative director Faie Davis tells Australia’s Daily Life.
Not wanting to stir the pot, Ella Bache reshot the same campaign with the same models in the same position, only this time they’re all grinning ear to ear.
Also see: How a model gets retouched for a lingerie ad
It’s tempting to imagine that the photographer got them to smile by reminding them of why they were back in the studio.
But the OMA’s chief executive of industry police, Charmaine Moldrich, defended their decision by telling the Daily Telegraph that they were concerned with how the ads appeared to objectify women.
"If women are looking empowered and comfortable in their skin - that's OK,” she explains.
"If they're naked and sexualized - that then puts (the ad in a position where it might breach the code)."
What do you think? A PC overreaction for the record books, or a step in the right direction toward eradicating the objectification of women?
