How the Next Ad Ban Exposed the Power of Perception
- Brea Cannady
- Oct 13
- 3 min read
In 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned a Next product image for portraying an “unhealthily thin” model.
The Ad That Shouldn’t Have Been Approved
The image showed a model sitting on a wooden block, legs stretched toward the camera, wearing black leggings and heels. The low camera angle elongated her legs, and the tight fit emphasised their slimness.
Next said they hadn’t retouched the model’s body — only the leggings, which they digitally lengthened “to maintain focus on the product while avoiding any exaggeration of her body shape.” The ASA disagreed. It ruled that the pose, camera angle, and styling together gave the impression the model was unhealthily thin, breaching the industry’s code on social responsibility.
In short, it wasn’t about the model’s health. It was about the impression created — what the image communicated visually, regardless of intent.
When Intent Doesn’t Equal Impact
Next defended the image by arguing the model was naturally slim, that her body hadn’t been altered, and that the edit was minor. But that misses the point.Consumers don’t see “production intent.” They see an image that, consciously or not, defines what’s desirable.
This case makes clear: the visual impact of an ad can cause harm even when no manipulation of the body occurs. It’s not about how an image is made — it’s about how it reads.
The Problem Goes Beyond the Next Ad Ban
Earlier this year, M&S was pulled up for a similar reason. Different retailer, same mistake. Both ads framed extreme thinness as effortless, aspirational, and “on brand.”
That repetition reveals the real issue: when ultra-thin imagery is seen as normal, it slides through approval without question. The M&S and Next rulings together show how common this visual language has become — and how dependent the industry still is on aesthetics that quietly reinforce harmful ideals.
The Impact Most People Don’t See
These images don’t live in isolation. They sit in feeds, catalogues, and shop windows. Over time, they shape how people see their own bodies — not through one shocking picture, but through endless repetition.
Research shows exposure to idealised body imagery increases body dissatisfaction and disordered eating behaviours (Bellisario Media Lab, Penn State).
In the UK, at least 1.25 million people are currently living with an eating disorder (BEAT). Among 17–25-year-olds, over half show signs of possible eating problems (NHS Digital). And people with anorexia are up to ten times more likely to die early than the general population (National Library of Medicine).
You don’t need every viewer to develop an eating disorder for harm to exist. You only need a culture where “healthy” keeps inching closer to “unhealthy” — and no one notices until someone complains.
The Gap the System Leaves Exposed
This wasn’t the first time Next had an ad banned. The ASA previously ruled against the retailer in 2022 over influencer advertising breaches. But what’s striking here is how minor the details were: the model’s pose, a low camera angle, a small digital tweak. Those subtleties shouldn’t be enough to cross a regulatory line — yet they were. That shows how fragile perception is, and how little space there is for error when beauty norms are already distorted.
The ruling also shows how reactive the system remains. Regulators only step in after complaints are made. There’s still no proactive standard for assessing the psychological impact of images before they go live. Until that changes, this pattern will keep repeating.
The Real Problem Isn’t the Image, It’s the System
This case isn’t an outlier. It’s another example of a system that relies on damage control instead of responsibility. The M&S and Next rulings prove how easy it is for harmful ideals to pass as “tasteful” marketing.
When people speak up, regulators act. The ads get pulled. But that’s not prevention — it’s cleanup.
