SUBMISSIONS WELCOME.

When considering the proliferation of women’s exploitation in the fashion and makeup industry, it can be difficult to imagine an alternative approach to ‘getting people’s attention’ that does not involve the casual objectification of women. Even when it has been proven that sex and violence can prevent messages from being received by a viewer, the use of naked and semi-naked women in advertising creates an unspoken agreement that objectification is ‘necessary’ for selling makeup, fashion and skin care products. Hair removal specialists NADs for one, are a company whose objectification of women in advertising could be considered essential for selling hair removal cream and makeup (which, after all, are designed to go on skin).

It's that time of year again, already! As Christmas approaches, retailers are kicking it up a notch competing for your business, and Collective Shout releases our annual blacklist of corporate offenders who have sexualised girls and objectified women throughout the year. These companies do not respect women, they have not changed their ways, and they don't deserve your money. 

You can speak with your wallet and show these companies that sexually exploiting women and girls is bad for business.

Below is our boycott list for 2016:

"There is no need for a woman to be naked to advertise on the first page"

What will 30 minutes at Chadstone Shopping Centre tell us about our pornified culture?

"AFR should not include material such as this in this type of newspaper or magazine"

“the use of a completely naked woman in a promotion of a fragrance has little relevance” 

Fashion designer Tom Ford has a long history of sexually exploitative advertising. Ads for the label sexually objectify women, reducing them to a series of sexualised body parts, or depict naked women alongside fully clothed men.