Clothing retailer Mamnick’s ad broke ASA Code and regulator rules – Reuters

Clothing retailer Mamnick has been told by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that an advertisement it tweeted violated the CAP code.

The tweet, posted on October 25, 2021, stated: “This is one of the new jerseys we are introducing to the AW21 CC.Mamnick cycling kit range…”. The post included an image of a model dressed in cycling clothes, wearing colorful reflective sunglasses and holding a machine gun.

The plaintiff, who believed the ad glorified firearms, disputed the ad’s irresponsibility, and the ASA said Mamnick “did not provide a substantive response” to his claims.

The ad violated Rule 1.3 (Social Responsibility) of the CAP Code (Edition 12), the ASA said, and “must no longer appear in its current form.” “We told Mamnick to make sure their ads were socially responsible by not glorifying guns,” the regulator said.

“The CAP Code states that marketing communications should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and society,” an ASA statement read. “The ASA understood that the advertisement was promoting the cycling jersey worn by the model, which was available for purchase. We understood that the weapon shown in the advertisement was not equipment that would be used in a sport or that would generally be used for legal hunting.

“We therefore considered that, in the context of an advertisement for cycling clothing, the presence of the gun was incongruous and shocking. While we accepted that the gun wasn’t pointed at the viewers, we did note that the model had her finger on the trigger. We also noted that the model’s sunglasses hid his eyes, but he appeared to be looking directly at the camera while holding the gun. We felt this gave a threatening and aggressive tone to the ad. We considered the gun was included simply as an accessory to enhance the appeal of the featured cycling jersey to make the ad look sleeker and bolder.

Read more: Criterium Cycles’ Richard Bowker on what cycle retailers can expect to see in 2022

“Although we considered that the inclusion of a firearm in an advertisement would not always be irresponsible in itself, we considered that the style of this advertisement as well as the incongruous appearance of the weapon glamorized the weapon to draw attention to the brand, so we found the ad to be irresponsible and in violation of the Code.

Anne G. Cash