New AMA ruling on FKA Twigs’ Calvin Klein Advert

The UK Advertising Standards Authority (‘ASA’) published a revised ruling on 6 March 2024, regarding FKA Twigs’ “Calvins or nothing” billboard campaign. 

The complaint

A poster for Calvin Klein’s “Calvins or nothing” advertising campaign featured FKA Twigs (LP1, Magdalene) wearing a long denim shirt that covered half of her body, leaving the other half exposed. 

Two complaints were made to the ASA that the image was overly sexual and offensive, as it objectified women. Further, some commented that it was inappropriate advertising as it was not targeted, so it was likely to be seen by children. 

The ASA’s Committee of Advertising Practice’s Code ensures that marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. According to these Codes, care should be taken to avoid such serious offence on the grounds of, among others, gender.^[i]

Calvin Klein’s response

Calvin Klein denied the claims that the advert was overly sexualised, instead asserting that the images were empowering to women, and that FKA Twigs had collaborated on and, more importantly, approved the images. Calvin Klein also noted that the “Calvins or nothing” campaign included well-known and celebrity male subjects, and so was not focussed on sexualising women. For example, the recent advertising campaign by the company featuring Jeremy Allen White (The Bear) in a similar state of undress.

This called into question an interesting point of whether men and women are judged differently when assessing whether they are being objectified in adverts (or indeed in the wider media). 

The first ruling 

The ASA gave their first ruling in January 2024, holding that the FKA Twigs advert was not centred on the advertising of clothing, but “placed viewers’ focus on the model’s body.” Therefore, the poster presented FKA Twigs as a stereotypical sexual object, and so was irresponsible and not suitable for display in an untargeted medium (i.e., where children can see). 

FKA Twigs took to Instagram to respond to this ruling. In her now viral response, she stated that she only “saw a strong beautiful woman of colour” and not “the stereotypical sexual object” she had been labelled. Further, she commented that she had reviewed other campaigns from Calvin Klein, past and present, and “[couldn’t] help but feel there are some double standards here.”

One journalist described the ASA ruling as reading “a little like it was written by the council in The Scarlet Letter with additional input from Andrew Tate.”^[ii]

The revised ruling 

The ASA conducted a review into their original decision, after being “widely criticised, not least by the singer herself” and pointing out that they were “not deaf to the commentary that surrounds our decision making.”^[iii]

After giving “careful thought” to their initial ruling, they reversed much of their previous ruling. The March decision states instead that the poster was of “a woman who appeared to be confident and in control.” Therefore, FKA Twigs had not been objectified, and the poster was not irresponsible or likely to cause offence based on sexual objectification. 

However, due to the overtly sexual nature of the image, the ASA did uphold its decision that the poster could not be displayed in an untargeted medium accessible by children. Thus, the ban on it appearing in the same format remains. 

The ASA has stated that the republished ruling is final. 

Thoughts

The paucity of the revised ruling is telling.  There was no consideration of the double standards as to similar Calvin Klein adverts that feature male models, save that the ASA has said that they have received three complaints regarding Jeremy Allen White’s poster campaign. It is notable that these complaints are being reviewed, but not investigated. 

Further, there is an intersectional aspect of the ASA’s ruling on FKA Twigs’ matter that was not considered. At the same time as the singer’s poster was reviewed, posters of Kendall Jenner were also ruled on. These posters feature Kendall wearing only lingerie, with her crotch raised to the camera, and another of her in only a pair of jeans. Neither of these pictures were held the be likely to be seen as irresponsible. Though this ruling may be hardly surprising considering the less than diverse executive board of the ASA, comprised of mostly men, and being exclusively white. 

However, it is good that the ASA were not ignorant of their actions and admitted wrongdoing. They showed that they would listen to consumer concern and attitudes towards female expression and empowerment, as well as the opinions of the subject of the poster herself. This could be a very important factor of the ruling for publishers and companies in the future. 

The ruling shows that context is clearly important, as the ASA will consider if the model has given their express approval of the image, and indeed been involved in how they have been presented. Further, where there is support from the audience of the image the ASA is unlikely to intervene or rule against it. 

---

^[i] https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/advertising-codes/non-broadcast-code.html  [Rule 4.1]

^[ii] https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/fka-twigs-calvin-klein-ad-banned

^[iii] https://www.asa.org.uk/news/revised-calvin-klein-ruling.html