Snag faces daily complaints over model sizes, highlighting contrasting perceptions of body image in advertising and society.
A clothing brand, Snag, has disclosed that it receives upwards of a hundred complaints daily, primarily focusing on claims that its models are “too fat”. Snag is known for its vibrant range of tights and caters to a diverse audience with sizes ranging from 4 to 38. The brand employs over a hundred staff members, with at least 12 dedicated exclusively to moderating social media interactions to eliminate what they describe as “hateful” comments.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has indicated that, contrary to Snag’s experience, the majority of complaints it receives relate to models appearing underweight rather than overweight. The timely issue gained further attention following the recent banning of a Next advert, which was deemed irresponsible due to the portrayal of its model as “unhealthily thin” while promoting a line of jeans. This has drawn criticism from some social media users who labelled the situation as “hypocritical,” pointing out the apparent inconsistency in the treatment of campaigns featuring plus-size models.
Speaking to the BBC, Snag founder Brigitte Read remarked on the negative implications of body shaming, stating, “Shaming fat people does not help them to lose weight and actually it really impacts mental health and therefore their physical health.” Read expressed that the ban on advertisements featuring larger bodies reflects a prevailing issue of “fat phobia” in society. She emphasised the importance of representation, affirming, “Fat people exist, they’re equally as valid as thin people, they buy clothes and they need to see what they look like on people that look like them.” She concluded with a strong message on self-worth, stating, “You are not worth less the bigger you are. Models of all sizes, shapes, ethnicities and abilities are valid and should be represented.”
The ASA’s stance maintains that its intervention is predominantly focused on advertisements that display models perceived as underweight, a reflection of societal aspirations towards thinness. In a review from 2024, the ASA noted receiving 61 complaints regarding models’ weight, but only found sufficient grounds to pursue investigations into eight of those.
In reference to the contested Next advert, the company asserted that it was developed with a “strong sense of responsibility to both consumers and society.” Despite this, the ASA instructed that the ad should not be replicated in its original format, necessitating a revision to ensure that future advertising does not depict models in an unhealthily thin manner. The ASA clarified that the presentation of the model in the investigated advert, including pose and camera angle, strongly accentuated her slimness, leading to the conclusion that the model appeared unhealthily thin.
This ongoing discourse underscores a broader societal examination of body image and representation in advertising, catalysing discussions around the portrayal of different body types across various platforms.
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://www.bbc.com/news – This URL supports the claim that Snag clothing receives over 100 complaints daily regarding models being ‘too fat’, as reported by the BBC.
- https://www.asa.org.uk – The ASA’s website would provide information on their stance regarding complaints about models appearing underweight or overweight in advertisements.
- https://www.next.co.uk – This URL relates to the Next advert that was banned due to portraying a model as ‘unhealthily thin’, highlighting the ASA’s intervention in such cases.
- https://www.snagclothing.com – Snag’s official website would detail their product range and size inclusivity, supporting the claim about catering to a diverse audience.
- https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/adjudications.html – This URL provides access to ASA adjudications, which would include details on complaints regarding models’ weight and the outcomes of those investigations.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative references recent events, such as the banning of a Next advert, indicating it is relatively current. However, specific dates for some events are not provided.
Quotes check
Score:
9
Notes:
The quote from Brigitte Read appears to be original to this context, as no earlier online sources were found. This suggests it may be a first-time use of the quote.
Source reliability
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative originates from The Independent, a well-known and reputable publication, which generally enhances the reliability of the information.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims about Snag receiving complaints and the ASA’s stance on underweight models are plausible and align with broader societal discussions on body image. However, specific details about the complaints could not be verified.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative appears to be current and well-supported by quotes from a reputable source. The reliability of the source and the plausibility of the claims contribute to a high confidence level in the assessment.
