Lucy Handley
Lucy Handley is a key member of the Marketing Week features team and has also worked in advertising agencies so can bring a unique perspective to client-agency relationships when writing on this topic.
Is the Young Versace ad starring Cindy Crawford’s daughter too much, too young?
Share
Kaia Gerber, the ten-year-old daughter of supermodel Cindy Crawford and Rande Gerber, is starring in Young Versace’s first advertising campaign.
The clothes are grown up, she’s wearing a black leather jacket and very short pleated skirt which flares out at the sides. They are aimed at children up to age 12, but put them on a grown woman in this pose and they’d definitely have a sexy edge.
This is in the same week that the government is pushing its parent complaint website ParentPort and is right in the middle of ongoing arguments about the sexualisation of children.
Many children feature in advertising for clothing brands, but type ‘children’s clothes’ into Google and you get pretty dresses from H&M, Next and Boden featuring bright colours, balloons and beaches.
Put these images next to the Young Versace campaign and it does start to look like Kaia is being exposed to too much and too young.
The opposing argument of course is that this is completely on-brand for parent Versace’s rich customers who want the bling and glamour of the fashion label to be available to their offspring. It’s an image that is meant to stand out and make the brand desirable.
But for me, being on-brand is all very well, but this is a step too far.
What do you think?
Readers' comments (5)
Ruth Mortimer | Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:12 am
This is an interesting point you raise here, Lucy.
But I find defining what is appropriate to market to children a difficult area. There are some areas where it is really obviously inappropriate and others where it is more debatable.
For example, are shops selling glittery bras saying "big and busty" appropriate for 10 year olds? No, obviously not. Overtly sexual clothing is not suitable for kids.
But is Kaia's Young Versace clothing sexualised? No. It's skirt, jacket and sandals with socks. That is not a sexy outfit in itself. However, it looks in the ad - as you say - to be quite an adult look, which is itself a bit disconcerting on a child.
So is this ad inherently inappropriate? I don't think so. But it does seem a bit unnecessary to make a 10 year old girl look like a 25 year old.
Mind you, I am very much out of touch with what 10 year old girls want to wear......!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:40 pm
I think also you need to think back to the age of 10 years, think what you were wearing...?
I know when I was around 10, Spice Girls were the "it" thing, the union jack dress was owned by most young girls, baby pink "short" shorts & oh yes... leopard print.
Fashions change and young girls will always follow them, consdering the other advertisements for childrens fashion such as Pop Icons, Girly Mags & even Barbie.... I think this ad is quite tame.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
amanda | Fri, 20 Jan 2012 4:17 pm
I find it hard to believe that the clothes would appeal to girls 'up to the age of 10 - it definitely appears more of a teenage look to me - but what do I know? I have 2 boys (thank God)! Perhaps Versace wearing mums want little clones?!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sarah | Mon, 23 Jan 2012 5:00 pm
I think marketing involving children is an increasingly fraught area and a really difficult one to define. Ultimately, if this was an ad for marks and spencers, featuring a pretty young girl wearing a similar outfit - albeit less contentious because it is not designer, then questions wouldn't be raised.
Ultimately, like any marketing, it has to appeal to the target audience and be relevant - and the Versace consumer is of a certain type. As long as the ad itself is not inappropriate or overtly sexual, which I don't think this is, then the usual marketing principles apply.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lou Ellerton, The Value Engineers | Wed, 25 Jan 2012 9:25 am
An important element to consider when judging, I feel, is the context to the campaign.
I'd agree that the clothing and overall feel of the execution is certainly sophisticated, but would question what the expected medium will be for the communication.
If, for example, the execution is intended for women's style titles such as Vogue or Tatler, I'd argue that it's actually a fairly good fit. One imagines that its target audience in that scenario would be high-income women who are looking to dress their children in designer wear, and are used to seeing clothing presented in a certain way. The Young Versace campaign is more likely to appeal to them in that context than the fresh-faced, outdoors-y look of a Boden ad.
Should the campaign be intended for billboards or tween magazines, however, it's probably less appropriate - not least because few of its viewer-/readership will have the income to purchase from the range!
On a side point, it's worth recognising that pre-teen girls are often very aware of fashion cues and aspire to more adult looks. The Young Versace ad neatly offers this, without stepping over the boundary into overtly sexual presentation - and can be more comfortable doing so, knowing that its consumer demographic is unlikely to be purchasing in-store without parental accompaniment.
Finally, I think it's interesting that the model herself is showcased in a fairly natural style. Cmpare this to the recent Cadeaux photoshoot in French Vogue, and you'll see a very clear difference in tone of voice. Now that's what I call inappropriate!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment