Fashion designers are a funny breed aren?t they? No other profession is full of characters that are religiously followed and praised for their movements. Do you monitor the work your local builder does? Course you don?t you arrogant tool. Do you keep up to date with what a professional footbal- oh.
All you have to do is say the name Marc Jacobs and people who know their stuff will tell you that you won?t be able to fill a wardrobe full of his creations for less than ?30. That?s more for the fashion ‘working class’ like us, who?ll have to stick to Primark onesies and tear-stained sweatshirts.
A jumper from Marc Jacobs is likely to set you back ?400+. All because people are morons and pay the price for organic, free range camel pubes. You know, as opposed to those ones you get from battery camels.
Designers also like to try new ideas. Perfumes are an easy market to break into as all you have to do give the product a snazzy name, create a fancy bottle and shoot a sexy advert. Two of the three steps were followed by Marc Jacobs, but there was a small issue with the use of model Dakota Fanning.
Star of movies such as Man On Fire, Dakota Fanning still hasn?t reached her twenties yet but has seemingly been in “the business” (not that business) for around thirty years. Is she the Peter Pan of actresses? We say this because everytime she appears in a big screen flick, Fanning always seems to play a timid child or emotionally stunted young women.
Due to the child like appearance of Fanning, it clearly struck a chord with the casting agency who were looking for someone to promote the badly named fragrance ?Oh, Lola!? Take a look why don?t you?
That image is from The Daily Mail. They were so outraged that they felt the need to show the offending picture so that their readers could be truly outraged. Why have we done it?
According to the ASA who govern British advertising, they believe that any bloke looking at that advert will start dribbling manically and roam the streets so they can find female prey to sexually molest. Well, that?s the message we got anyway. That was just us reading between the lines. The ASA released a statement saying:
?We noted that the model was holding up the perfume bottle which rested in her lap between her legs and we considered that its position was sexually provocative.?
Looking a little closer, the bottle was nestled precariously close to her lady garden and because Dakota?s surname sounds extremely like the word ‘fanny’, we can only assume that the prudes out there in advertising land nearly collapsed into a coma with so much filth flying around at the one time. Brilliantly, it seems that people behind the Marc Jacobs admit to creating a paedophilic look for their brand. Someone from the ASA said, in a very stern tone:
“We understood the model was 17 years old but we considered she looked under the age of 16. We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence.”
Imagine if Michael Jackson was alive and releasing dodgy merchandise? The poor children sleeping over at Neverland would just be thinking they were taking part in an innocent photoshoot; all before being used as part of sexy labelling for soup, crayons and carpet cleaner.