Witchery just doesn’t get it. Or chooses not to.
Last year a number of child development experts expressed concern about a Witchery campaign which presented adultified images of children modelling its fashions. Emma Rush, lecturer in ethics at Charles Sturt University and lead author of two significant reports on the sexualisation of children published by the Australia Institute, wrote about Witchery in a piece titled ‘Children are not miniature adults or fashion accessories’ here late last year:
A child is not a miniature adult. They are not a fashion accessory. They are a developing human being and need the cultural space to be just that. Yet we are now seeing constant marketing of adult appearance culture to children, as in, for example, the latest ads for the Witchery Kids brand. The Witchery Kids campaign is simply one particularly sophisticated example of corporations functioning to close down that cultural space for kids to be kids, with resulting ‘appearance anxiety’ for children during a period in their lives when they need the space to develop into their own person.
The wording of the new Witchery Kids campaign, ‘We believe that fun and imagination are the centre of every child’s universe’, is not reflected in the marketing images. Not one of the children in the images is smiling and it would be stretching it to say that even three of them are engaged in imaginative activities…
Nothing about the campaign images recognises that children are anything other than miniaturised adults. You could replace the children in the images with adults and nothing would appear odd. The images invite you to ‘read’ the children as adults…Read the full article and see pics from that campaign here
But Witchery couldn’t care less. They’ve repeated the exercise a mere five months later, stylising and posing children as fashion-conscious mini-me’s:
As described by the Herald Sun in Witchery’s Style Recruits campaign “unsmiling children aged 5-8 are pictured against a drab streetscape, decked out in combat-style garb, knee-high socks and short skirts, and leopard print.”
Kids Free to Be Kids director Julie Gale has complained to the company. Here’s her March 10 email:
Attention Customer Service
To whom it may concern,
As the Director of Kids Free 2B Kids I have been inundated with emails from people concerned about the way you have portrayed children in your catalogues.
I notice that complaints were also posted on the Witchery Kids facebook page prior to the article in the Herald Sun this past Monday. I notice the comments page remains disabled.
A person unknown to me emailed your reply [to them] this afternoon.
It is easy to reject the notion that you ‘intentionally’ conveyed children in an adultified way.
Whilst that may be true, it is extraordinary, given the reaction from child advocates and child developmental professionals to your previous catalogue.
I also think it’s extraordinary that you state the children chose the poses without direction. In my experience photo shoots are highly controlled and managed to the finest detail.
I am fully aware of the role of the NSW Children’s Guardian. Kids Free 2B Kids placed an FOI application in 2008 to better understand the process involving children and advertising at the government department.
It was revealed that Saatchi and Saatchi (for David Jones) gave the photo shoot directive “They are 10-12 years, so slightly more adult and sexy”.
That directive passed through the NSW Children’s Guardian. The directive also stated: “This is a branding exercise for DJ’s where we must communicate aspirational kid’s fashion”.
Last year when Cotton On came under fire for its adult sexualised slogans on children’s wear – there was a lot of initial resistance.
The CEO eventually called a meeting with me and then invited me to Geelong to meet with the National Clothes buyer.
They understood, after a lot of outcry from the community that they had crossed a line – even though they were aiming for ‘edgy and humorous’.
They also withdrew 40,000 items of clothing from their stores Australia wide and put in place protocol that did not previously exist.
Whilst they were initially re-acting – I appreciated their willingness to listen and learn and ultimately take proactive responsibility.
My invitation to the Witchery CEO is to make contact with myself or Dr Michael Carr Gregg to hear the concerns of child development professionals and learn about latest research.
Regards
Julie Gale, Director, Kids Free 2B Kids
Witchery claims it doesn’t support the adultification of children. It’s just got a funny way of showing it.
Ralph Lauren goes down the same pathIn the same week Witchery employed its children-as-adults marketing tactics, came the latest issue of Vogue Living, featuring a front cover fold out which opens to reveal a young girl also posed, dressed, and styled in an adult woman way, dressed in riding gear and situated in a huge mansion.
I dare anyone to justify this with standard ‘It’s just a little girl playing dress ups’ line. This is no dress-up. The clothes fit perfectly. This is a young girl deliberately made to look older. Her hair, make-up, fashion style, pose and mature intense gaze invite us to read her as not as a girl but a woman. And that is a dangerous thing to do.
Don’t buy Witchery. Don’t buy Ralph Lauren either.
To contact Witchery email: customerservice@witchery.com.au
To contact Ralph Lauren email
12 Responses
I emailed my complaint to Witchery, and have written on the facebook page of Witchery Kids. Here is a segment of my letter to them.
“My daughter certainly does not dress like that- she would happily choose bright colours and mismatched clothes, all while playing in the dirt and having a ball. She is also oblivious to how others might perceive her body shape, her sense of style and the quality of her clothing. As she should be- surely she should have a few years before she has to be aware of these things. The children in your catalogue look sullen, serious and none of them are smiling or playing. Perhaps they are worrying about diets and accessorizing?”
Witchery “rejects any suggestion that we would intentionally convey children in this light.” And here I was with the impression that in fashion, design, art and photo shoots, every minute detail was deliberate to achieve the designer’s intentions, as Julie Gale correctly acknowledged.
From their facebook page, Witchery states that “Overwhelmingly, the majority of feedback we have received regarding our campaign and product range has been very positive.” Really? Who did this positive feedback come from? There are many complaints on their page, and Child experts have not provided this positive feedback.
There are some serious inconsistencies here.
Yes Caitlin – there were negative comments and complaints on their facebook page until they disabled the comments section – and it remains that way. Open to feedback? I think not!!
Just had a look at the Witchery website. They have a philosophy for their children’s clothing line. The first sentence reads: “WitcheryKids is playful, candid and real”. If that is their philosophy, why does it not come through in their advertising? They have a cute little video to watch of the kids actually having fun. It is far more better than the photos of them being totally unplayful, most certainly not candid and in no way real.
I feel the same way about Gap’s add for their “Bleecker collection”. And even though some of the children are smiling, the clothing, kids poses and general feel of the picture it’s quite adult like. You can google the image under Gap bleecker collection. I just wonder what is the real motivation for this companies to advertise this way?
For me, the question of whether these are ‘adultified’ images was answered when I looked at the group photo with the very blonde little girl and thought, “Hmm, I quite like that jumper.” As in, I would like it in my size, for me.
I don’t want to be looking at a children’s clothing catalogue and wondering if the clothes also come in adult sizes. I want to look at it and see children being children, wearing age-appropriate clothing and doing things that kids do. And sure, kids certainly can and DO pout… but making that attractive or desirable is very disturbing.
The most salient point for me, is the way in which both these clothes and images invite us to read children as adults and treat them accordingly. Do we not already struggle enough as a society to respect the fundamentally different needs and nature of children, without expecting kids to take part in their own adultification? I am horrified that these companies, and so many consumers, don’t seem to see how exploitative it is to expand their profits by trading away the childhood of our kids.
I think the modern parent probably does spend a lot of time thinking about how to dress their kids – maybe just thinking the wrong way. We look at ourselves and our lives, our needs and desires and habits, and dress our kids to match. But we need to get down and look at it from their perspective – what’s practical, comfortable and awesome-looking is radically different at 2 months, 2 years, 12 years, 20-plus. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to your kid to wear fun or cool outfits – as long as THEY are the ultimate arbiters of what ‘fun’ and ‘cool’ are. I mean, is there anything happier to look at than a little kid proudly wearing a totally mismatched outfit that they picked out all by themselves? Imagine the grownup that kid might become if that self-expression and confidence was encouraged throughout their childhood. So stop imposing your boring pouty matchy-matchy acessorised blandness on our funny, colourful, wacky little people, Witchery!!
PS anyone else keen for a moratorium on skinny jeans for toddlers??
The other factor which distresses me is the children entering the fashion industry as a “career” at the age of what 3? they are obviously mimicking what they have seen and know what is expected from them. just watch the little tackers strutting their stuff on a catwalk. It irritates me enough seeing 16yo girls parading as adult models with that prancy pony walk but to see the little ones poncing about like that disturbs me. It has been demonstrated to the little ones and they are such good copy monkeys from a very early age.
this is scary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bsv_CM1RA8&feature=related
they all obviously think ‘Any Publicity Is Good Publicity’ but there is no way i would buy their range if this is their response to feedback. well done to you all for the article opening our eyes to a seeming harmless yet very potentially dangerous ad campaign,
The only way is to NOT purchase their garments – ADULT and CHILD. they are not listening or opening their eyes or unfortunately bad publicity is good publicity. Lets show them it is not working by avoiding this business at all costs.
Compare this to the images from Fiona Scanlan’s BIG stores….where the children look like children…..totally gorgeous.
Oh dear me! What the hell is WRONG with you people?
Little kids play dress-ups.
You lot are reading far too much into these images. Yeah yeah yeah, I know all about deconstructionism and so on.
For goddess’ sake, if you find these images offensive then you really need to get out more.