A Tube advert that includes Khloe Kardashian, by the corporate behind the controversial “seaside physique prepared” marketing campaign, has been cleared to be used.
The poster confirmed the fact star sporting a leotard alongside the textual content: “Can you retain up with a Kardashian?”.
The Promoting Requirements Authority (ASA) acquired 14 complaints about Protein World’s “socially irresponsible” promotion.
However it dominated the marketing campaign didn’t “encourage dangerous weight-reduction plan behaviour”.
The agency informed the ASA the general response to the advert was that it was motivating and empowering, and it didn’t imagine it was socially irresponsible.
It added that Transport for London had permitted the poster.
The watchdog determined the adverts “promoted Khloe Kardashian’s physique picture as fascinating and aspirational; this was supported by her pose and the airbrushed model”.
“We didn’t contemplate that she seemed to be out of proportion or unhealthy.”
It mentioned folks would perceive the phrase “Can you retain up with a Kardashian?” as a reference to TV collection Maintaining with the Kardashians, and using Protein World’s merchandise to “obtain a fascinating physique picture”.
The ASA added: “We acknowledged that using the phrases ‘Can you retain up with … ‘ and ‘problem’ may very well be interpreted as having a aggressive high quality, however we didn’t contemplate that the phrases or the adverts total inspired extreme weight reduction or different excessive or doubtlessly dangerous weight-reduction plan behaviour.
“We subsequently concluded the adverts weren’t socially irresponsible.”
The agency’s 2015 advert marketing campaign, which requested “are you seaside physique prepared?” drew 380 complaints amid widespread social media outrage.
Advertisements in Tube stations – which featured a mannequin in a yellow bikini – had been defaced.
Then, the ASA had already dominated the advert couldn’t seem once more in its present type attributable to issues with its well being and weight reduction claims but it surely concluded it was “unlikely to trigger severe or widespread offence”.