ASA Rules There's No Shame in Harvey Nichols' Game
Mar 21, 2012 - by Lester Brathwaite
Britain's Advertising Standards Authorit y has had its share of questionable decisions in the past. From deeming Hailee Steinfeld's Miu Miu ads "irresponsible" for depicting the teen actress on railroad tracks to banning Dakota Fanning's Marc Jacobs "Oh Lola" ads for being "sexually provocative." Well it seems the ASA has loosened up a little -- at least when it comes to loose women -- giving a controversial "Walk of Shame" video by Harvey Nichols a thumbs up. And maybe a high five.
After receiving a handful of complaints from viewers -- ranging from accusations of classism, weightism, and the less popular sluttism -- the ASA decided to take the ad under consideration.
Originally debuting in December, the video shows an all-too familiar situation: some hot disheveled messes in last night's Joyce Leslie, hair a rat's nest, makeup smeared, drunkenly stumbling out with the trash on their walk of shame home.
We've all been there. Some of us live there; threw up a condo there; thinking of putting in a coy pond there. Might even add a guest house there.
Then at the end of the ad, a lady who pulled it together at Harvey Nichols is seen, still glamorous and carefree, coming home at the crack of dawn. No shame in her walk at all. Rather, Harvey's intention "was to show that women could also do the 'stride of pride', which was how men were popularly referred to in the same situation."
Well, the advertising watchdog bought it. In its ruling, the ASA claimed the confident, well-appointed lady redeemed the ad and therefore it "did not reinforce negative stereotypes of women generally or women who chose to have casual sex in particular".
You hear that, gals?! It's okay to lay it down as long as you can eventually class it back up. Which I've been saying for ages now.
As for being demeaning towards women of a lower class or a more robust frame, the ASA added that the video didn't imply "that lower-class women who had one-night stands should feel shame whilst more wealthy women should feel proud, or that it mocked less wealthy women who did not have 'model' figures."
Sounds like on a couple of occasions the Advertising Standards Authority has crawled home without its panties, too. What do you think? Is the ad offensive or just keepin' it real? [Telegraph]