A controversial subject matter that advertisers have to cope with is the issue of advertising to children. Controversial advertising is a double edged sword. It can arouse the curiosity of the brand or it can generate the enthusiastic but it also will let the audience get the negative feelings towards the brand which could affect the brand adversely (Manral.K, 2011). These provocation advertising are used to buzz audience and raise the brand awareness in an extreme way. Because of that, these brand become the subject of arguments although it may successfully get the attention from the audience but it cause a negative feeling and associations to the audience. Beside that, controversial advertising will damage brand identity. Think about it, brand identity is the essence of your business it makes your brand unique and tell the story about the brand and the product but if a brand is selling a kids fashion, does it suitable using controversial as a way to communicate to the audience? One of the most important thing in marketing is to connect with the target audience, because any indispensable for any business or a brand are connecting to the audience. Especially with a specific target to decided how the intended of the interest group responds to occasions, items, or a situation. The reaction of your target audience will directly relate to the business or the brand (Zen,2013) . Advertising and marketing for children targets emotions, not intellect. It trains audience to choose products not for the actual value of the product, but due to celebrity endorsement or what is on the package. It undermines critical thinking and instead promotes impulse shopping. Example below are showing the failure of using controversial advertising in some of the brand. A Gucci advert was banned for using an “unhealthily thin” model in their video advertisement. The video advertisement for the Italian style brand depicted a group of models dancing during a birthday celebration in an outdoors villa in Florence. Each of them wore items from the Gucci cruise collection. Images of two models were featured at the end of the creative in the advertising; one sat on a shiny yellow sofa wearing a short skirt that showed her legs (see Figure 13) , while the other models wore long-sleeved and lengthy dressed and leaned against the wall (see Figure 14). People lodged complaints against the advertisement claiming that the advertisement was irresponsible because it portrayed “unhealthy” ladies. Gucci claimed that the advert, which was featured on the brand’s website, was aimed at an “older, sophisticated” target audience, and claimed that the newspaper had an “adult and mature readership”. The brand stated that while the models were slim, nowhere in the advert were their bones visible, their clothes were not revealing and the “lighting was uniform and warm to ensure there were no hollows caused by shadows”. While the marketing standards authority concurred that the model on the sofa appeared to be slim and not excessively thin or underweight, the model leaning against the wall looked “unhealthily thin”. The Advertising Standards Authority said the model’s torso and arms appeared quite slender and were “out of proportion with her head and lower body”. They claimed that “her pose elongated her torso and accentuated her waist so that it appeared to be very small.” Additionally, “her somber facial features, specifically around the eyes, made her face appearance gaunt”. The photo of the model was branded irresponsible and was thus banned from continuous usage (Mae, 2016). American Apparel, the Los Angeles based clothing manufacturer and retailer known for basic apparel and marketing campaigns, chose to bring sexy back, and to drive it back to being the focal point of the brand’s identity. In June 2014, American Apparel founder Dov Charney, who was popular for spearheading racy and controversial images and advertising campaigns, was suspended for inappropriate behavior. Paula Schneider then assumed control over the business and endeavored to reestablish the brand to something more respectable by 2015 and to move away from its infamously improper past. The subsequent result was an odd blend of fundamental advertisements that advanced insipid and overrated articles of clothing, while at the same time endeavored to incorporate slight indications of the brand’s provocative legacy. In any case, what ensued was a brand that had lost its personality. Under the direction of Charney, the meager design and sexual advertising garnered the attention of rising fashionable people who attempted to escape non-specific rural design patterns, which subsequently led to the brands introductory success. American Apparel began the fashion revolution of leggings, trim tops and distressed apparel providing a unique offering to the market, while making an exceptionally brand identity of attainable aspiration. The ‘real’ models that were highlighted in the advertisements were relatable and enabled anybody to purchase the clothing and embrace the persona of being hot, youthful and real (Wang, 2016). The ASA received a single complaint in regards to a few American Apparel advertisements, which claimed that the photographs were “pornographic, exploitative of women and inappropriately sexualised young women.” Most of the American retailer’s advertisements have a plain sexy feel. American Apparel has been utilizing both suggested and explicit nakedness in its advertisements for quite a long time and is pleased with it, documenting each advertisement on its site with the slogan, “Take a look at the unique images that define us.” The ASA came down on the brand and prohibited a 2009 advertisement “in light of the fact that the advertisement could be believed to sexualise a model who gave off an impression of being a tyke, younger than 16 years.” However, the UK watch dog did not endeavor to go up against American Apparel, an organization that has assembled its image on sexy images (Krupnick, 2012). American Apparel was never far from headlines thanks to its advertising and controversial founder, Dov Charney. However, for the second time in six months, watchdogs banned one of its commercials because it visibly sexualised a child. The photos (see Figure 17) which appeared on the retailer’s website and Instagram page, were judged by the advertising watchdog to be irresponsible, harmful and offensive. The internet image portrayed a girl wearing a short skirt, bending over to touch the floor and thus exposing her underwear. The Instagram image portrayed a lady leaning into a car while wearing a very short school skirt. Since she was photographed from the back, her underclothes were similarly exposed. Court cases involving the ASA stated that the web advertisement, which was created in-house, was offensive because it was openly sexual, and irrelevant for a skirt marketed as school-wear. In its defense, American Apparel gave a long list of excuses. The retailer claimed that its technique was not intended to portray pornography but instead to photograph individuals in more natural settings. The organization additionally justified the commercials by means of announcing that the models were not portrayed in a way that was vulnerable or exploitative (Hall, 2014). The target audience for this unique commercial was the younger urban crowd, who tend to be particularly impacted by changing fashion trends. Teenagers and young adults were the main target audience for this commercial. Therefore, it was assumed that older people and the more conservative population may consider this advertisement to be distasteful due to the fact they may no longer be the target audience. Advertisements are meant to promote products, are a paid form of communication that communicates to audiences and since they are public, they are everywhere. Therefore, the models in the advertisement can be sexy but not over the top. Teenagers may think that these behaviors can be imitated since it was allowed to be published. Therefore, in order to avoid these problems, advertisers should know where to draw the line when it comes to utilizing this technique in their advertisements.