Marc Jacobs "Oh Lola" Fragrance : Dakota Fanning by Juergen Teller - Page 3 - the Fashion Spot
 
How to Join
the Fashion Spot / Visualizing Fashion / Ad Campaigns
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Rules Links Mobile How to Join
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
18-09-2011
  31
backstage pass
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Gender: femme
Posts: 774
She's so incredibly dull.

  Reply With Quote
20-09-2011
  32
windowshopping
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Romania
Gender: femme
Posts: 11
Sad....that was inspires me....saddness....and I doubt that's the message that was meant to be given...i don't but to buy a perfume that will make me depressed)

__________________
Ganbatte!
  Reply With Quote
09-11-2011
  33
V.I.P.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tbilisi
Gender: homme
Posts: 17,864
Quote:
Marc Jacobs’ Oh Lola Ad Banned

LONDON — Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority ruled Wednesday that the print advertisement for Marc Jacobs’ Oh Lola fragrance, starring Dakota Fanning and shot by Juergen Teller, “was irresponsible and likely to cause serious offence,” and has banned the ad from appearing again in its current form.

The ad features Fanning posing in a pink polka dot dress, with an oversize bottle of the Oh Lola fragrance resting in her lap. The ASA received four complaints about the ad after it appeared in magazines in August, which argued that it portrayed “the young model in a sexualized manner.”

As part of its adjudication, the ASA said that Coty, which owns Marc Jacobs’ beauty license, countered that it “did not believe the styling in the ad suggested the model was underage or that the ad was inappropriately sexualized because it did not show any private body parts or sexual activity.”

Coty added that the campaign had appeared in “highly stylized fashion magazines,” targeted at those over 25 years old, and said that such readers were unlikely to find the images offensive as they are similar to many others in fashion titles.

However, the ASA found that while Fanning was 17 years old, “we considered she looked under the age of 16,” and that the positioning of the perfume bottle was “sexually provocative.” “We considered the ad could be seen to sexualize a child. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence,” the ASA said. It ruled that the advert breached two of its codes, social responsibility and harm and offence.
wwd.com

  Reply With Quote
09-11-2011
  34
fashion insider
 
Lee MG Tisci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Stgo.d'CHILE
Gender: homme
Posts: 2,435
^ i'm not really for banning things but i think this case is justified, the ad is misleading as some members already noticed months ago in this thread..
.

__________________
Moss - Stone - Boscono - Dunn
Abualrub - Beech - Chabernaud - Teixeira
  Reply With Quote
09-11-2011
  35
trendsetter
 
VersaceVixen009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: gypsy queen
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,025
Some might call me dumb here most likely, but I really don't understand what's so "suggestive" about this ad thats enough to get banned. Shes not too young, shes not in any provocative clothing, and she's not doing anything particularly sexual in this ad other than having a perfume bottle.

__________________
Follow me on tumblr
  Reply With Quote
 
10-11-2011
  36
Looking Up
 
Squizree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Gender: homme
Posts: 18,545
I'm not against the ban, but there have been worse ads. Way worse.

  Reply With Quote
10-11-2011
  37
front row
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Gender: femme
Posts: 311
I do understand why they would ban this ad. Dakota is a child, not 10 but she is underage. Banning the ad was a very conservative move, but I get it. With the flower petals near her...area, it's not classy.

  Reply With Quote
10-11-2011
  38
front row
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Gender: femme
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by VersaceVixen009 View Post
Some might call me dumb here most likely, but I really don't understand what's so "suggestive" about this ad thats enough to get banned. Shes not too young, shes not in any provocative clothing, and she's not doing anything particularly sexual in this ad other than having a perfume bottle.
I believe it has more to do with the shape of the bottle. In the art world flower petals are a classic representation of female genitalia, and given where the bottle is positioned...
Anyways, it's doubtful that the ad's art director or those at Coty were naive to this.

  Reply With Quote
10-11-2011
  39
trendsetter
 
VersaceVixen009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: gypsy queen
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,025
^ Wow, I need to work on my observing skills or maybe I was just tired. I could see where some people would be offended even though theres been WAY "worse"/ sexually controversial ads, such as Tom Ford's Opium ad back in 2003.

__________________
Follow me on tumblr
  Reply With Quote
10-11-2011
  40
front row
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Gender: femme
Posts: 311
^Ha, no worries! I agree that the Opium ad was much more blatant in its portrayal of female sexuality, but I believe that Sophie Dahl was in her 20s at the time (correct me if I'm wrong).

  Reply With Quote
10-11-2011
  41
backstage pass
 
Blodeuwedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Gender: femme
Posts: 611
The way the ad was done with the title of the fragrance immediately went from Oh Lola - Oh Lolita for me.

  Reply With Quote
11-11-2011
  42
backstage pass
 
abadonna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Paris
Gender: femme
Posts: 652
weird looking arm on the first pict, but love her face

  Reply With Quote
12-11-2011
  43
tfs star
 
KINGofVERSAILLES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: I'm from Here
Gender: homme
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by moirla View Post
I do understand why they would ban this ad. Dakota is a child, not 10 but she is underage. Banning the ad was a very conservative move, but I get it. With the flower petals near her...area, it's not classy.


Actually, legal age in the UK is 16 and Dakota is almost 18. Legal age in NY, where Dakota lives, is 17. There is nothing even remotely illegal about this ad.

__________________
Here is my TUMBLR
  Reply With Quote
13-11-2011
  44
front row
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Gender: femme
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGofVERSAILLES View Post
Actually, legal age in the UK is 16 and Dakota is almost 18. Legal age in NY, where Dakota lives, is 17. There is nothing even remotely illegal about this ad.
I don't recall implying that it was illegal. I was referring to the age of majority (proper adulthood), not age of consent. What I meant was that I completely understand why some thought that it was inappropriate.

  Reply With Quote
Reply
Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Tags
dakota, fanning, fragrance, jacobs, juergen, lola, marc, teller
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"


 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TheFashionSpot.com is a property of TotallyHer Media, LLC, an Evolve Media LLC company. ©2017 All rights reserved.