Fashion victim

Adjudication of the Advertising Standard Authority:
Complaint: Objections to a magazine advertisement, in Vogue, Elle and Harpers & Queen and a poster. The complainants objected that the advertisement was:
1. irresponsible, because it showed unsafe driving
2. offensive to people who had been, or who knew people who had been, involved in road accidents.
Adjudication: The advertisers believed the scenario was obviously not real and said it was intended to be humorous; they said the lips in the mirror were enlarged and the man's expression was ridiculous and over-the-top. They said the car was not hitting the man. Vogue, Elle and Harpers & Queen thought the advertisement was unlikely to offend their readers; they had received no complaints. Harpers & Queen said their readers were likely to be familiar with the campaign and to recognize that the advertisement was for Harvey Nichols.
1. Complaints upheld
The Authority considered that, because it showed a car in a dangerous and unwise situation, the advertisement was irresponsible. It asked the advertisers to withdraw the advertisement.
2. Complaints upheld
The Authority considered that the advertisement was likely to offend those who had been involved in car accidents or who knew people who had been injured or killed in car accidents. It concluded that the advertisement was likely to cause serious or widespread offence and asked the advertisers not to repeat the approach.