No Added Sugar - childrens wear, I was so disappointed

[MascaraOHara]

I saw the catalogue and was, quite frankly, disgusted by the pictures.

Have this been done before?

She bounced down mostly on her head/neck and various limbs thought she'd broke her neck as I scrabbled towards her but she was fine. 5 minutes of crying then said she didn't hurt anywhere.. scared the effing shite out of me though (I was stood right at the bootom and saw everything)

Well done Twig. I wish I was so articulate.

MOH -glad your dd's ok!

Twiglett - spot on - nicely done I think/.

i have complained

thankyou for bringing it to my attention mascara - i shall boycott accordingly

it gets worse as the theme of the photo's in the catalogue appear to be contradictory of the slogan.

So far exmaple comments about straight backs show images of rounded shoulders. Pride in ones appearance shows a girl with tangled/backcombed hair etc.. now put that into context of the girl on the back seat. vile! Oh and the boy with a save our trees t-shirt on sat under a hard wood table.

Also I find the picture of the toodler crouched facing the corner very distressing.

I don't know if the website shows the same suggestive picture as the catalogue under 'frocks' a girl stretched out on a settee.

I have never in my life before complained about anything but i just e-mailed the company and complained (in Ireland so ASA wouldn't accept my complaint)

MOH.... the toddler upset me too.... almost more than the girl in the dress..... sickening stuff

that is revolting

The clothes only go up to age 8 as well so not even like they were trying to aim at teenagers.

DD2 used to have the 'Hell raiser' T-shirt, and currently has the 'Minx' one (beacuse she is known as The Little Minx at home). Now I don't think I will put it on her any more. The boundary between kids with attitude and whatever this is trying to portray has been well and truly crossed. This is digusting, and I will not be buying from them again.

Grim - I couldn't see the boy pushing the car one properly and was really surprised that I was able to right click it and save it to my PC to enlarge it and was even more surprised that they had indeed shown his butt crack! What a vile distasteful site!

bubble rock OMG

(obviously i hadnt tried enlarging that picture!)

I was sent the catalogue and was disgusted. I then saw this thread and shall a;so complain. A local shop stocks them and I shall also talk to them about it.

I wondered if anybody else felt the same about this. I'm sure the company thinks it's very edgy. I think it's just vile.

If they were going for edgey they were way off the mark.

I don't think a six year old in dramatic,thik, emerald eye shadow on all fours with dirty tights is edgey.

Well these are the stockists in UK
Selfridges
Harrods
Daisy & Tom
Fenwick of Bond Street
Showroom 64, London

May be worth contacting them too. I do not consider myself easily shocked but thought these were really inappropriate. Made me feel v uneasy. Think the company ought to know that their marketing idea is way off the mark...

I may well drop them all an email, cc-ing NoAddedSugar.

Have just emailed this to the company:

To whom it may concern,

I thought you may like to read the comments from some of your target market concerning your website/brochure. While many of us like the clothes, there is a lot of concern about the images chosen to promote them. There is a difference between showing a 'naughty' or 'cheeky' child and these images, which members of the site are calling 'borderline pornographic'.

This is the thread from a web discussion... bla bla bla

Will probably contact the stockists too as I am really concerned about this - if this company are allowed to do this, what else will follow?

it is wrong. I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling uncomfortable (to put it mildly) about the 'advertising'

Ok, and filled in online form. Never made a complaint before! Thanks for the link. This is what I wrote if anyone wants to use:

The images used to promote the clothing for this company are inappropriate and overtly sexual for children's clothing. One picture shows a partly naked young boy -this is not necessary to advertise trousers

Oh I have realised now why they make us feel so uncomfortable. It's because none of the children are smiling...

no because they're all to busy trying to look seductive.

I don't like the old people pictured in it either.

I was trying to work out WHY it made me so uneasy. I have always been of the opinion that if you see a child wearing make-up as pornographic that is because YOU are putting that interpretation on it - a naked child at the beach is just a naked baby, not a baby naked ready for sex iykwim.

BUT these children have been told how to act and are not playfully spontaneously enjoying pretending to be grown-ups or even be seductive. In real life, the naughty girl who doesn't want to wear a seatbelt would look a bit cheeky or giggly or mischievious, this girl looks sullen and moody and serious. This gives an uneasy impression.

Anyway, last post on the subject. Just hoping other people see this and complain too...

I don't complain about things like this .. I'm certainly not prudish and I used to work in Marketing so I'm quite used to using images to grab attention .. but these images, some at least, go far too far .. there should have been a creative director or marketing expert available who was willing to say "No stop! This is beyond edgy, this is not an acceptable portrayal of young children"

I find it a shame actually because I would normally have been attracted to some of the clothing .. but the total lack of sensibilities from the marketing side has ensured that I would not buy it for my children, nor as presents and I would be quite clear with peers as to my reasons why.

The worst thing would be if this awful campaign actually gains them further exposure for the brand so I'm happy leaving it with the ASA and stockists for now.

I hope the company re-considers its marketing