Update:
This article has been linked to from the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood.
In this post, I assumed that Lands’ End had removed the lollipop from the ad, however a reader has pointed out that they are still using the original photo – complete with lollipop – in their online kids’ catalog. Click on this link to go to the catalog, then click on the kids’ catalog to see the photo. Breaking News, 10 Minutes Later: After Bonnie’s comment, below, and this update it looks like they removed the photo the catalog.
Many of you have expressed an ongoing interest in my effort to get Lands’ End to stop the media’s trend toward the over-sexualization of children. For those of you who haven’t read my original post, last month when I received my Lands’ End Back-to-School catalog in the mail I was surprised to see this photo in their usually wholesome and age-appropriate children’s catalog:
Bothered me then - but bothers me even more now because they said they'd take it down.
What bothered me about the photo:
- The 9-or-10-year-old girl in hiked-up shorts, in a somewhat suggestive, leggy and adult-like pose, mouth open, licking a lollipop (prompting one reader to comment, “Who are they targeting? Little girls? Or pedophiles?”)
- Two boys flanking either side exchanging knowing hubba-hubba glances.
Note: The wanna-be best friend’s desperate expression bothered me, too, but for purposes of this post is beside the point.
The photo bugged me when I wrote my original post, but it bugs me a lot more now because I was misled by Lands’ End PR director. As soon as I wrote the post I had a lot of interest not just from parents, but from Lands’ End employees - including one female spammer who told me I was “just jealous of the little girl because she’s pretty and I couldn’t get a date.”
Huh?
Thinking she was a random spammer who had probably forgotten to take her anti-psych medication, I deleted her comment. But she commented again and said, “You can dish it out but you can’t take it?”
That’s when I traced her IP address and discovered that she works for Lands’ End.
The PR Director for Lands’ End emailed me and asked me to call her, so I did. When we spoke, she apologized for the Lands’ End employee who, she said, did work for the company but did not work for the PR department (um, does this mean it’s okay for her to spam me?).
This is what she said: “I’m sorry that you found the photo to be inappropriate, and I want to assure you that this was not intentional.”
Huh?
Let’s do the math:
LANDS’ END (OWNED BY SEARS)
+ HUGE ADVERTISING BUDGET
+ HIGHLY-SKILLED ADVERTISING TEAM
+ EXPERIENCED TEAM OF PHOTOGRAPHERS
+ AD REVIEW BY SEASONED PR TEAM
________________________________
= NOT INTENTIONAL
Really?
The PR Director assured me that they “had a Big Meeting in which they took the blog post very seriously, and decided to pull the photo from all future ad campaigns.”
Well.
I was so pleased with this, and so pleased with my mom-blogger self, that I wrote an addendum to my blog post in which I informed readers that Lands’ End had promised to remove the offending photo from all future ad campaigns.
Well, that smooth-talking PR woman told me a whopper.
What she should have said:
“We decided to Photoshop the lollipop out of the photo and to keep the short-shorts, leggy-legs, adult-like pose, and two boys exchanging knowing glances because we think they’ll sell backpacks. Is that okay with you?”
The shorts on the little girl prompted one dad to comment, “HELL NO. My daughter is not going to wear shorts that short at that age. We shop or my wife Tracy shops for most of the kids clothes at Mini Boden Clothing out of the UK. They run great deals and have sales and shipping deals all the time and the clothes are made for kids. Kid friendly clothes. I cant believe the looks the boys and girls are giving each other.”
It’s a month later and here is the photo on the Lands’ End kids website:
To their credit, they removed the lollipop. Does this make it look appropriate to you?
Another reader, a parent who teaches at American University in D.C. (and an advocate for the wonderful Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood) has been actively interested in following up on this issue because the photo also bothered her, a lot. She recently clicked on Lands’ End’s online back to school catalog, and was surprised to find that they are still displaying the same photo on their kid’s website, just without the lollipop! Sure – okay, it’s better without the lollipop, but there is still so much wrong about it.
Click this link here to see the photo on their website.
Sadly, I think that Lands’ End missed the point. They’ve used the same photo, with the same girl in short-shorts, posed in the same suggestive manner that bugged us all in the first place. This is like me complaining about the schoolgirl photo of Britney Spears, and someone “fixing it” by buttoning up her top…would that make it any less suggestive?
Britney as a um, school girl.
Now, I’m totally not against sexy. I’m not even against the Britney Spears photo, above, because she was not a child when this photo was taken, she was 18. What I am against is the constant and insidious effort by the media to sexualize our children, tweens, and teens so they can sell more stuff.It was her choice.
(Oops! She was only 16. I take it back. I am against it. )
It’s just not right. I’m sick of it. And it needs to stop. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit back and let that shit into my house via one of the last few companies I trusted to let kids look like kids, Lands’ End.
I know that my parenting blog isn’t going to do much to stem the tide of marketeers targeting our children by trying to use sex to sell stuff to people. But I am exasperated that Lands’ End, one of my favorite children’s clothiers, intentionally sexed up a photo of a child, then told me they didn’t intend to, then promised they would not use that photo again, then used the photo, just minus the lollipop.
What do you think? Did Lands’ End take appropriate action by erasing the lollipop but leaving the rest? Or do you think I’m over-reacting? Do you think it was okay for them to tell me they would remove the photo from all future campaigns? I mean – technically, they removed part of the photo – but to me, the end result is still the same: a tarted up ad campaign aimed at sexing up our children.
Tell me what you think. I’d love to hear your opinions!
You might also like...
On The Beach
Shame on Land’s End. They’ve just compounded their stupid mistake by feeding you a PR li(n)e and doing what they want anyway!
I think the photo is still offensive. Her legs, the boys, the other girl – all crap shit if I may so. Grr.
The disturbing comment by the Land’s End employee showcases our cultural confusion about sexuality. Of course a healthy, adult sexuality is exactly what we want our girls to have when they are YOUNG WOMEN! Corporate America is not interested in helping our girls towards that end; instead, as you say, they want to sell products to our children while pushing them towards UNHEALTHY AND PREMATURE sexualization–in other words, fitting into some twisted idea about what BOYS want. (This is harmful for our boys as well, of course, but that’s another topic!)
I highly recommend KILLING US SOFTLY and STILL KILLING US SOFTLY if you want to learn more about this depressing and irresponsible aspect of advertising.
Thanks, Adrienne, for bringing this issue to the forefront!
Land’s End, could you please issue a public apology on your site? And let us know what steps you’ll take in the future to prevent this sort of thing from happening again?
Thanks for your comments Bonnie. Is the Killing Us Softly a DVD or a book? I will look into it. Also you’re so right about the cultural confusion about sexuality, with the *female* employee defending an ad that is essentially sexualizing girls – how effed up is that?
You go girl. I’m proud of you. If not you, then who? If not now, then when? Keep up the good work. You will find support.
Thanks Christine!
Not enough, but I’m not surprised. Sadly it’s what I expect from big clothing sellers….and it’s a sad statement on society that most of us tolerate it. Thank you for NOT tolerating it and writing about it, Ado. You remain a hero!
Julia didn’t Michael Jackson say “I’m a writer not a hero?” – or was it something else? (-: This whole issue has gotten me thinking, mothers need to unite on this front and that’s the only way we can effect change.
Really? You’re upset about this advertising photo and yet you’re willing to quote Michael Jackson? Are you kidding me?
I have to agree – the pose is VERY suggestive. ….but I’m surprised they even removed the lollipop! They did something, but not enough. It’s like slapping a bandaid on when stitches are needed. These are CHILDREN!
It was INCREDIBLY inappropriate for an employee to spam and write negative comments. If she worked for me (I don’t work for Land’s End) she would – at the very least – be reprimanded and possibly fired. She should know better.
I LOVE it that you’ve reached corporate attention! That you noticed it and did something about it is wonderful and you have my thanks! If I saw my grand daughter in that pose wearing her short hiked up, I’d yank her out of there so fast, her head would spin!
You go get ‘em, tiger!
Well thanks for your comments Ann. Re. that employee – I am a big advocate of free speech and after the PR director mentioned she knew the employee worked at LE I have to say I was hoping she does not get fired or anything because that would just suck. I imagine she was just getting all steamed up and fueled by skewed company loyalty, is probably quite young, and not super educated but that’s just me. I sure as shit would not have spammed a mom trying to protect girls even way back when I was a young graduate. Anyway she was really just a tangent – the bigger problem is that LE has not kept their word to moms, and that sucks.
You did a wonderful thing. It’s a shame that Lands End doesn’t understand women. I think getting rid of the “I <3 extacy" lollipop was a good start but it's just a start. That's a creepy photo
Thanks Jessica. Wow – I didn’t even think of the ecstasy lollipop imagery. Creepy.
Hey, A, even without considering the CLEARLY sexualizing aspect of this ad, I hate this photo of those girls: as you also noted their expressions and posture depict the caricature-ized mean, phony girls often depicted in shows or movies about *high school-aged* children. These aren’t the expressions or posture of girls anyone is going to like. The fictional characters they resemble are the antagonists of every plot and are uniformly despised. So tell me, who aspires to have their daughters emulate a caricture of a shallow *itch? Lands End totally missed the boat. And I did voted my disgust when I switched from Lands End to L.L. Bean this year!
Don’t even get me started on all the subversive mean-girl posing that’s going on there – a gestalt of high school or something horrid – I’m not even going to go there. Media is powerful. Advertisers send powerful messages to our children – a responsibility most of them don’t take into consideration since their bottom line is making $. For me though – if I had a kid’s clothing company – I would never shoot a photo like that. I would be embarrassed for myself as a business woman.
You’re fighting the good fight, and you are not alone in finding this photo disturbing. Shame on Lands End. What a disappointing response from them. And the employee who spammed you should have been strongly reprimanded.
Thanks Jackie. Re. that employee – right after I informed her that I’d traced her IP address I did not hear another peep out of her. It’s funny how faux bravery cracks as soon as anonymity is gone.
You are right to take action against this ad. It’s suggestive, age-inappropriate, and sexist. It’s alarming to see how one by one, retail companies are conforming to certain trends in the way they market their products, even when the ‘trend’ is one that’s negative and corrupted. All just for the sake of selling their products.
These kinds of advertisements need to be stopped before it becomes the norm. There should be a policy or regulation concerning advertisements, especially those that pertain to children. The more such ads circulate and used, the more the trend will be perpetuated.
I wonder what other actions, we mothers, can take in order to get companies to be more aware of the messages they are sending to the younger generation…
To Lands’ End PR Director: Please remove the photo from your website and all ad campaigns as you had promised to restore parents’ trust in the direction your company is heading.
This is heartbreaking as I do love Lands’ End. Pretty soon there will be no place to shop for girls clothing. P.S. With this post you might enjoy a game of Bingo: http://bit.ly/lTR56K I have to say, “You can’t get a date” is a new one for me.
Lisa, your website is fantastic! And your FB page! SO glad I found it. I will pass it on.
I agree with all of the above, but there is one point: the short-shorts are too short, yes. But I think that’s a problem with the product rather than with the model. The pose is a problem because of the shortness of the short shorts, which is a problem in the PRODUCT as well as the PR.
So I don’t excuse Land’s End for the shot – but I think it may be properly representing the product’s flaws, which is a whole ‘nuther kettle of worms.
Removing the lollipop helped, but I still think that the redheaded girl is way too sexualized. Also, I agree that the poses send out a certain message which I would not want any child of mine to see.
Dear Land’s End: You exhibited poor judgment. There is no shame in admitting you missed the mark and taking this down.
Dear Sad Land’s End Spammer: I’ve had plenty of dates. I did not have to dress as a trollop to be invited on any of them.
Good catch Adrienne. Oh the irony – I literally just ordered a bunch of wholesome looking Land’s End items. I didn’t see that catalog/photo till now. I completely agree the photo looks oddly out of place considering the somewhat preppy (dare I say Holly Hobbie) image their clothes seem to portray (both for kids and adults).
Thanks for your advocacy on this – it’s great to see so many voices raised to hold Lands’ End accountable. In another discussion about this photo some think the pose is not sexualization but just normal modeling and portrayal of kids trying to act older than they are. I don’t see it that way. I agree with you that it is sexualization: Yes – she is a little girl who is a model – to me that doesn’t make it ok for her to be posed by adults in suggestive ways. Bottom line I don’t care what “makes sense” in modeling world – that’s its own bubble-world that I don’t care a bit about the rationality of. I care about what the products of modeling world show and say to actual girls and boys and how it affects them. To me it’s “justification creep” & circular reasoning to say that because she’s a child model it makes sense for her to be posing like a slightly pouty, insecure sexy woman in a catalog. We know darn well that her pose was totally controlled and adjusted by the adults running the photo shoot who arranged all the kids and all the products and backdrops in many versions, ad nauseum. Then the adults looked through the 100′s of photos and picked (and polished with photoshopping) the one that ended up in the catalog. That process has nothing to do with the normal way kids behave when they’re not modeling. That’s just an illusion marketing images try to create. The message that pose gives to girls & boys is a female flirtatiously advertising her sexual availability. And because models, including kid models, are treated like celebrities and role models in our culture, that implies it’s a way any girl should pose and want to emulate the look of. Of course kids in real life try to look older and experiment with how to present themselves as sexually mature. When it’s happening in real life it’s totally normal –But that is NO justification for the commercial exploitation of that normal kid “trying out behavior” to sell any product ever. Also when the mimicing is done in real life it gets naturally moderating feedback from those around the kid – by adults as well as kids. But when presented in marketing for a company like Lands’ End, the subtext is that this is normal girl behavior. And that’s harmful, in my book.
Nancy – thank you for your comments. “Justification Creep” is creepy, and so is that bubble-world of modeling you referred to. Thanks for input.
I guess I understood when you pointed out the sucker, but now that the picture is different, I think it is fine. I don’t think the boys are “leering” – they are just trying to be liked (just like every other child). I’m a mother of 2 girls & I agree about the lollipop, but I think her shorts are cute! I love lands end & I’m sure they didn’t want it to be a sexualized photo.
I do see your point, it is better – but to me they are pushing the Lands’ End brand in the wrong direction with the rest of it.
I’ve just been told by a reader that they have not taken the lollipop photo out after all (see above). It is displayed in its original form in the online e-catalog for kids.
I’m not going to comment on the article itself because I don’t think my opinion would be a popular one. Not that I’m “for” the picture…
With that said, I just thought I’d point out that I’m 95% certain that Brittney Spears was not 18 in that photo. Actually, I believe she was 16.
Hi Misty – I’m pretty sure she was 18 when this song debuted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears) although she looks younger. I’m not a Britney fan but that’s a different post. (-:
Nope. She was still 16 when that video was made in the summer of 1998. She was born in Dec 1981.
Hold it, when I go to http://www.landsend.com/ecatalog/ and click on “kids’ catalog” and jump to the inside front cover the lollipop is STILL THERE–exactly the same photo as it was in my print catalog. So now I’m confused–where exactly is it photoshopped out?? Why do you see it differently than I do?
Momalog fans, you might enjoy today’s On Parenting Blog in the Washington Post about avoiding branding when you shop for back-to-school–so interesting (if depressing) to see how all these issues converge!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-parenting
Thanks for pointing that out, Bonnie. I just wrote an updated note at the start of my post. Also thanks for that other link, gonna go check it out now.
Yeah, the Wikipedia article is misleading. If yoy look at the article for the song it says that the video was recorded in August of 1998. Her birthday was in December so she was actually 16 at the time, about to turn 17. The album was released in 1999, before her 18th birthday. It only remember because I remember radio djs making very crude jokes about her turning 18 and she had already been quite popular at that time. Apparently the video was also her idea… I’m appaled as a mom that I used to look up yo her when I was younger.
Wow, that’s why she looked younger. Thanks for the clarification Misty. Yeah as a mom I’m not so sure I’d be thrilled to have my 16-year-old shoot to stardom wearing a school girl uniform singing that particular song.
Here’s a book we should all be reading–So Sexy So Soon!
http://dianeelevin.com/sosexysosoon/
I just got this book and will do a review of it – thanks B.
Removing the lollipop… still not appropriate! Far from it. That ad needs to disappear forever.
It’s Tuesday–and there is a totally new front cover and inside front spread on the kids’ e-catalog–a victory of sorts. Now if Lands’ End would just tell us how they’re going to avoid this happening next time, I’d rest happy!
I agree – it’s progress. They still have the photoshopped ad in though (in my post where it says click here to see the link). What do you think?
You’re absolutely right. You’re doing the best thing we can do – inform others and motivate them to contact the company and threaten to stop buying. The only thing that will affect this kind of marketing is if it stops being effective as a sales strategy. Until that happens, it won’t change.
An interesting headline today – these parents are suing for $26 million because the photo of their 15 year old daughter is too racy: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/parents-sue-retailers-and-photographer-over-provocative-shots-of-daughter-used-on-t-shirts-2529083/#photoViewer=1
Enough’s enough! WHERE do we stop objectifying our kids for a dollar?!? It has to END somewhere and it ends where my spending power begins. I won’t even give a dollar for that damned DieHard® to Sears/Kmart so long as they continue this assault on our kids’ childhood for a couple Dollar$. They won’t get mine so long as I continue to see this kind of thing!
I would not have targeted this foto as overly sexualized at first glance. The boys don’t seem leering to me, rather the whole group is sharing a joke. Unfortunately with the lolly pop, the joke might have been, “look what I learned when I secretly watched a video from my parent’s stash of r and x rated movies.”. The stance is very adult an sexualized. No 10 year old I know would stand like that for a pose. The lolly pop was pretty bad judgement, shared by the employee who was too defensive to objectively evaluate constructive criticism. The fact that I didn’t see this ad as a problem initially is more evidence of the larger issue: showing young girls and teens in sexual positures and clothes is a bit of a norm. Thanks for taking this up with Land’s End. Based on their pathetic and patronizing response to your concern, I won’t buy our fall clothes there this fall (breaking with a 3 year tradition) and instead go with Hannah Anderson. I’ll re-evaluate next Fall. Thanks.
thanks for taking a stand. there are several companies that i can purchase my childrens clothing from that don’t have over sexualized ads. you screwed up lands end…no parent will soon forget it either.
Just found out about this via Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood. Thank you for advocating for children, who should not be subjected to this crap. The girls are posed inappropriately, shorts or not, lollipop or not. And the boys are posed like lecherous creeps. I am very disappointed in Lands’ End. This photo shoot was orchestrated by an adult (more likely a team of well-paid adults). My most recent catalog shows the non-lollipop version, and it doesn’t make it OK. I will be writing to Lands’ End now to explain why we’re not buying from them this year…
No, I liked the old Lands End advertisements and catalogs. I do not like this new photo. Lands End used to have pictures of real kids having fun. At that time I bought a lot of clothes from Lands End. Now that I have seen the new ads I am not in favor of them at all. It seems as if Lands End is trying to jump on the bandwagon of sexual ads. Let kids be kids. It may be that Lands End id now owned by Sears where it was not before, but I still don’t like it.
It’s not the Lands End of 20 years ago. What a shame.
If they are trying to sell backpacks, why not just have a picture of kids walking to school or getting on a school bus? Something normal looking.
I really don’t think it’s that objectionable. Especially to say that the boys are “leering” with “hubba hubba looks” – they look pretty innocent to me. They all look like normal kids smiling and laughing at school. They look like the kids at my school. Yeah, the one girl’s shorts are a little short but I don’t think she is posed sexually as others are saying. In my opinion, you can’t compare this to the Britney Spears picture. You made your point with Lands End, they removed the lolllipop, move on. If you are really opposed to sexualization of children, I’d recommend that you focus your efforts elsewhere.
Julia thank you for your comments. I am intrigued at how divided some women are on whether or not the ad is age-appropriate. The vast majority including myself feel it is inappropriate but there are women like yourself who find my targeting it irritating and inappropriate in itself. Yesterday this post got 1000+ readers – it was linked to on the website for Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood who are in my opinion experts in the field of sexualization of and marketing to children, and they referred to the ad as “highly sexualized.” I rest my case. And a footnote, although I certainly could have written about Abercrombie & Fitch’s bikini push-up top for 8 year olds or something more extreme I felt strongly that Lands’ End published an inappropriate photo here – some will disagree, but the vast majority does not – but for me, the main thing is that as a mother of a 9 year old and a 6 year old, and a customer of Lands’ End – a brand I trusted to maintain a non-sexualized image of children up until now – it’s not appropriate. I thank you for your comments though.
Unfortunately this company (Lands End) has carried out an inappropriate advertising style, or mantra if you will, that is widely accepted in our society today. We see the sexualization of children and others young and older streaming from most forms of media.. is it any surprise?? I applaud you for your protest, however, language such as “effing” and “s__t” might also be an inappropriate manner to describe your displeasure with Lands End over this advertisement. It is the responsibility of we adults to begin with setting the example for our children and this “should” include our choice of words when voicing our opinion on such an important matter… dis-respect begins not only with photo-ops, but also the way we speak with/to each other. Our choice of words can lead to many doors, which in turn, lead to other doors that may or may not lead to the sexualization of our children …
You made an excellent point about language and I have edited the article – thank you.
Lands’ End Continues to Run Sexed Up Kids Ad http://t.co/0SaldyD
You know I love your blog right? I mean I’ve told you that 10 kajillion times or maybe just half a dozen on twitter; I forget which but I have to somewhat disagree with you here and that’s only because I don’t find this image (lollipop included)or the ad half as offensive as I have some of the other media out there aimed at young girls or the role models for young girls. I got this catalog too and the only thing I really thought was “Dayum. Those shorts are waaaay too short. They’d never pass the dollar test at our school” and quickly passed on those clothes as suitable back to school choices for my own tween daughter (though I suspect that girl is a tad younger than 12).
But I definitely commend you on raising awareness (as I do as well) on advertising and media creating a sexed up world that our kids are forced to live in.
If you’re interested, I welcome you to come over and check out today’s post. I think you’ll find it just as offensive as your own – of course I linked to ya!
AdotheMomalog becomes AdotheHERO! RT @AdoTheMomalog Lands’ End Continues to Run Sexed Up Kids Ad http://t.co/hFMaklM
I’m so saddened by this ad. It really makes me upset! What became of the days where product sold itself? Why does sex even have to come into the picture ESPECIALLY with children! Unacceptable! I’m so proud of you for post and bringing attention AND action to this! BRAVO!
It would brake my heart if my son was acting like that picture. Shame on Land’s end. What is worse, because my son got some presents send from grandma directly from them, their catalogue arrives addressed to my 3 year old ?!
[...] to The Momalog for calling out Land’s End on this pornified advertising for children. “What bothered me [...]
I was searching for a store that sells comfortable underpants for toddler girls, and “Lands End” popped up. When I went to their site, however, they sell only socks and tights. Somehow I stumbled upon your blog and wanted to congratulate you for raising a fuss about that ad. I’m not sure when you posted this photo, but I recently signed a petition for J.C. Penny’s and another store (I forget which one) to stop selling T-shirts that featured slogans like “I’m too pretty to do homework so I asked my brother to do it for me.” I am now 63-years old and was part of the feminist movement in the 60s and 70s. Some people criticized “women-libbers” as being ugly lesbians who couldn’t get a date anyways. Well, I am straight and was very attractive in my youth. I wanted to pursue a career in science but had swallowed that garbage that science wasn’t “feminine.” Because there were mostly girls at my school, our male physics teacher used to say that girls didn’t need to know about physics so he talked about his fishing trips. In those days, science was often taught by the gym teacher. A woman much older than I told me she had wanted to pursue a career in science as well, but ended up teaching English (as did I) because she had gotten the message that science wasn’t a field open to girls. Those amazing women who were brave enough to smash the stereotype and enter “masculine” fields should be our role models. I remember a female doctor who lived alone in a big Victorian house at the end of my street. My sister and I used to tiptoe by this woman’s home, convinced that this doctor was not only larger than life, but also somewhat scary. We were both exceptional students (and beautiful and popular,) but my sister and I were brainwashed into thinking that a woman could be just five things: a nurse, a teacher, a secretary, or a wife and mother. The expression “old maid schoolteacher” originated from the rule that once you married, you had to quit teaching. My generation worked so hard to liberate women, but it’s scary to see what is happening now. Thank you for caring about the little girls in our world. Does Land’s End realize that in producing ads like this, they are feeding the sexual fantasies of pedophiles? Another one of my sisters has been a nurse in a prison for a long time, and she has witnessed that there is no “cure” for pedophilia. Why, then, do advertising agents for these large companies not care about the safety of their own daughters and grand daughters? Child pornography is so readily available on the Internet. As soon as one site is closed down, another pops up. Childhood is about innocence; though sex sells, it should not be at the expense of our children.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment, which I just now saw. Good for you for being a feminist, I know your generation worked hard to liberate women. I so agree that it’s sinister and scary what’s happening to young girls (under 10s now especially) in our culture – how companies like Land’s End or even the generic Halloween Costume catalogs we get in the mail – sex up kids. I do think the advertising companies know precisely what they are doing, as do the PR directors of companies like Lands’ End – they’re selling sex. And for them that’s the bottom line – dollars. No one is really thinking about the real cost to our children’s innocence (except the moms on the front lines).
I’m a parent of an 11 year old girl who is not at all into ‘fashion’. But as someone who spent 22 years in advertising photography I don’t think you know what you’re talking about when you suggest that the photo was intentionally sexual. No one actually would sit down at an ad meeting and tell a room full of creatives that they wanted to see some sex in their kids ads. I don’t know what you think of people in creative fields, but I can assure you that we’re just like anyone else and we don’t like the sexualization of children any more than you do.
That said, I think your observations may say a little more about you than anything else. I had to read your objections to understand what you were talking about. I saw 4 kids. Two talking and two looking at each other. I didn’t see, and don’t see, any ‘hubba hubba’ glances. And I don’t see lolipops as sexual. I am at a loss as to why you would. They’re sold at Walgreens and Target and the corner drugstore to kids and adults, and I guess I think it seems like quite a stretch to make a piece of normal candy into something sexual.
I’m sorry, I do understand that you want very much to be concerned, but in this case I think the only one sexualizing children is you.
I agree with @Minnesota. When I look at the picture, I look at four kids, at the start of the school year. And I didn’t even really notice the lollipop. If I had to think more thorourghly, I would think, maybe her friend gave it to her for the first day of school. And it looks like they are all sharing a funny secret or joke. There are many more battles other than this one.
Thank you for advocating for children, who should not be subjected to this crap. Sadly it’s what I expect from big clothing sellers….and it’s a sad statement on society that most of us tolerate it. It’s like slapping a bandaid on when stitches are needed. I would be embarrassed for myself as a business woman.
Unfortunately all lands end did is capture todays youth. Parents focus on your kids instead of bloggossiping about it!
Major thankies for the blog article.Much thanks again. Really Great.
I just received the 2012 Lands End spring/summer catalog and – disturbed by the cover photo – googled “lands end catalog cover criticism.” This is how I found your blog. I don’t understand why Lands End put such a low riding skirt on a pre-pubescent girl (honestly, I don’t understand little girls wearing bikini’s at all, isn’t the point to protect as much skin from the sun as possible? But I figure that’s up to the parents). I’m appreciative that you brought this issue up and am thankful that it is a conversation. I’m also sad, because I like a lot of the Lands End clothes, but don’t feel I can continue to support a company that contributes to the oversexing of little girls. I’m also cancelling my subscription to Parenting Magazine for a similar reason. Their issues have always tended toward a parent that is obviously more fasion conscious than I. But in their most recent issue the cover story is how to dress your child like a celebrity kid for less money than the celebs pay. I saw that and thought, “who cares?” And then I realized that it is this kind of spread that gets girls to be fasion conscious at waaaay too young an age.
Today we’re dealing with immeasurable complexities when it comes to raising our children – some of them wonderful and others not so. We’re dealing with a nation that (at least with top execs) have become greed obsessed. And a world where there are countless human rights violations. When I think about parenting my daughter, I think about what to tell her as she becomes increasingly aware of a paradoxical world – and how to maintain her enthusiasm for life and free spirit in the midst of so many forces that would rob her of both. I also think about how I’m going to help her preserve her innocense and childhood for as long as possible – especially given the sexed up environment that she will (unfortunately) increasingly become subject to. The last thing I need is to worry about whether I’m dressing her like a celebrity’s kid – or whether her socks match her shirt, for that matter.
I’m subscribing to your blog now – thank you again for bringing this to the forefront.
[...] How To Continue To Annoy The Lands’ End’s PR Director [...]
[...] to The Momalog for calling out Land’s End on this pornified advertising for children. “What bothered me [...]
[...] from selling sexy childrens clothes. When I read about it in today’s paper I remembered your Momalog on the subject. Take a bow. You were the first to condemn [...]