American Apparel has always been known for their borderline porn ads, featuring employees and models who are handpicked by founder, Dov Charney and his associates.
And it’s no secret that Charney, who’s actually Canadian, has had several sexual harassment suits filed against him by former employees. Click here if you don’t believe me.
So when it hit the interwebs, AA’s new, topless swimwear campaign barely made a splash. Maybe everyone, including the hipsters, are already desensitised? I know I don’t even bat an eye anymore!
I showed the ad to a friend of mine to gauge her reaction. She seemed unfazed and mentioned that she was referred to the store when she was looking for a pair of lace leggings. However, remembering an article that she read about the company (and its owner) made her rethink her options of where she would ultimately make her purchase.
So does knowing this information about the owner or the controversial ads themselves deter or encourage you to shop at American Apparel? Do you find ads like the one above sexy, exploitation, or just smart marketing?
….not what I appreciate seeing on smart canucks…there are (sadly) sights for those that want to view such!!!
Didn’t Borat have that suit in green? I think he looked better in it.
I think its icky. Unforuntalely these ads are everywhere. “Smart Canucks User” I’ve seen these ads on regular sites everywhere, my son even came across them viewing one of his gaming sites. I was really surprised that this is just the norm now. Its tacky advertising. I just don’t like their advertising strategies, super pale skinny woman dressed in ugly clothes haha.
I’m as liberal as they come, but I think it’s in bad taste.
i’m not particularly offended by the ads themselves, but i don’t think they should be easily visible. i visited the AA site when they had the sale last and was not expecting some topless girl images. when sites have content that is NSFW/kids there should be some sort of warning at least.
This post proves these type of ads work.
You are talking about them.
Yes and No Sara, doesn’t mean well shop there though.
No I don’t think it is smart marketing, I think it is tacky and exploitation. The first time that I visited the American Apparel website, I had no idea about their image or history, and was astounded to see images on there that were bordering porno. There should be a warning before entering their website. I get the whole “sex sells” thing, but honestly I think it is sad if you feel that is what you have to do to sell your product. Besides that, I’m not sure why a woman would want to buy a bathing suit from there after seeing an ad like that? If it were aimed at men, sure, but otherwise, I don’t get it.
I agree to vibrantflame…its just tacky…I went to AA once to buy clothes…but they have neither the quality nor the prices to sell their stuff…and I wonder which women would like to buy clothes which leave you naked at the end of the day. Even if they have a hugely attractive body type
So no It just feels in bad tatse and I wouldnt like to actually BUY stuff from them
After seeing that ad, I will not shop in AA. It definitely deterred me!
I don’t shop there, but it’s got nothing to do w/ their ad campaigns. I just can’t justify spending $40 on a pair of leggings.
I think the main difference between AA ads and some other clothing companies that use sex is this: AA feels like you just viewed some sleazy amateur porn you found under some creepy old man’s mattress. Other companies generally just go for the “Hey, we have put our clothes on super thin models who have nice legs and make-up, they’re hot!” and even if the models are showing a lot of skin, it doesn’t have that amateur, voyeuristic feel that AA has. It’s all in the photography, the choice of models, the choice of positioning the models “assets”. AA ads usually make the models pose like there’s a man in the room almost “forcing” the models to pose for him, a Sugar Daddy waving a dollar bill in the corner. AA also makes the models pose in actual sex positions or pornography positions. I’ve seen ads where I could clearly make out the models vaginas through those thin cotton leggings or whatnot. AA = ick.
I’d like to say also that I’m as liberal as they come and even I think AA is in bad taste. Advertising has its place and private viewings of porn have their place. I don’t like the two to mix because ads are public but I don’t mind sexiness (as in “hot women”) in ads. It’s a fine line and AA always pukes on it. If you like amateur porn, that’s fine, just don’t make it your company image (unless you are actually a porn company or something, lol.)
Are we really this naive when it comes to advertising, and the means companies will use to sell their products, or at least have them noticed? Despite the list of offended consumers here, there is one truism of the industry that has never failed: sex sells. Consider AA’s audience, and you might discover that such consumers have seen this technique employed over and over again, with increasing shock and awe – at least to those of us who ogled the Sears catalogue when we were young. Speaking of which, this type of objectification is offensive when aimed at women, but in a recent post for Moores, the poster commented that the male model was “hawt.” He wasn’t shirtless, or pantless, but if we’re treating such individuals as objects, rather than people, it’s not solely AA’s fault for appealing to that baser instinct.
Wrong. It is so maddening that women continue to allow themselves to be exploited.
I feel so bad after seeing these pics.smartcanucks is like my homepage website.But mostly I m angry on AA .Can;t we do something about it.like e-mailing some consumer board.As I m sure AA administration ‘d be no help.
I REFUSE to shop at AA because Dov Charney is a pig who takes advantage of young women with stars in their eyes. He makes me ill.
personally i think its a bit too much, but i’ll admit it made me look twice. mind you the second look wasn’t cause of a “oh i want that!” reaction but more of a what the f#@%!
i wouldn’t want my toddler walking thru the mall and walking past this store seening that in the window – i know that much!
I let AA know I will never shop there due to the lack of respect for young women in the recent Ad.
Even this thread is an example of how ingrained misogyny is in our culture.
“It is so maddening that women continue to allow themselves to be exploited”. Maybe when women stop attacking and blaming each other for what happens in society rather than speaking out against the real problem (misogyny and institutionalized sexism), women will stop feeling like that’s the best they deserve.
Women allow themselves to be treated this way. When a guy makes a pass at the women at a place where a friend works, all the women laugh and flirt back. I have seen the women have little cat fights with each other, which the guys like and the women play into it. All the women at the place where my friend works, dress up and try to complete with each for looks. Then women wonder why they aren’t taken seriously.
I think that the models who pose for American Apparel are aware of what they are doing and the women are trying to jump start their careers. After they have worked for American Apparel the women then try to get more money through a lawsuit against the company.
Your whole statement generalizes women Cheap and it’s rather offensive.
I find the models and the clothes equally unattractive. Yet it is smart that AA seems to appeal to normal people since they use normal people in their ads. Sort of, their looks at least but they are far to skinny. At least they are real I guess, unlike those airbrushed people for the buffalo billboard ads.
American Apparel may be pushing the limits of normal sexualized advertising, but looking at that one aspect of the company gives a very distorted view of the whole situation. For the record, I have no association with American Apparel, and I’ve never even set foot in one of their stores… but some of the comments on this post bugged me so I decided to reply. Here goes.
They’re one of the few north american clothing companies that doesn’t outsource all of their labour, which results in their factory workers earning a wage of over $12/hr, compared to just a few cents for workers in many other western-owned factories operating in china. Even compared to other LA-based garment workers, AA employees earn about twice as much. Yep, pretty evil so far…
The company offers many perks and benefits to employees, such as paid time off, health care, company-subsidized lunches, bus passes, free English as an additional language classes, on-site massage therapists, free bicycles and on-site bike mechanics, free parking in addition to the proper lighting and ventilation. Every floor of the factory includes free telephones where workers can take and receive long distance phone calls. (I copied this verbatim from Wikipedia, please direct all credit for spelling errors accordingly.) Gosh, they certainly are sounding like a horrible company….
They also have a strong environmental policy, using innovative manufacturing techniques, fabric recycling which saves 30,000 lbs of fabric per week from going to landfill, solar panels to provide up to 30% of the power for their factory buildings, has a bike sharing program for employees so they can get to and from work without using cars or other polluting transportation sources, is regarded by peta as being a vegan-friendly company, and use organic cotton in many of their products.
Geez, these guys are scum.
Last but not least, they do some charitable work. In 2005 they had a fundraiser to generate money for Katrina victims, including sending 80,000 shirts to people who had lost everything in the hurricane. They also donate blank shirts to Farm Aid, who brands and sells them as a fundraiser. They also donated over $400,000 in clothing to Haiti earthquake victims, and over 5,000 pairs of socks to the charity Soles4Souls. Man, what jerks.
Judging a company solely based on their advertising is not only foolish, it’s immature. Oh no, breasts…. shocking!! What are you, 10? There are real issues involved, and when looking at THOSE issues, American Apparel stacks up VERY well against their competitors… But by the logic of come commenters here, a company would be fine to support if they used sweatshop labour and provided no benefits for their employees but didn’t show much skin in their ads…?
Then again, we’re a culture who cheers for violent sports and scream foul when a singer’s top gets torn off. We give awards to the people who make horrifically violent movies, but rush to censor humans in their natural form. The higher the average weight of a “normal” person gets, the more we criticize thin people for being “unhealthy” or “anorexic”.
The more women choose to do what they want to with their bodies, the more we cry exploitation, and call them names like sluts and whores.
Seeing bare breasts in an advertisement will not damage a child.. but the reaction from people that think it would, indicates the damage has already been done… to them, in the sense that they’re now so ashamed of the way a natural human looks, that they think they should be covered up and hidden.
Our society, USA and Canada both, has things very very backwards. Violence, lies, mistreatment of workers, etc is ok… but uncovered humans are bad?
Real mature.
I never said that I’m for slave labour, child labour etc. Where did anyone say that? So it’s either slave labour or boobs?
Bottom line to me sure they might be doing some good in the world. But I still don’t need/want to see bare boobs in a clothing add everywhere. Theres playboy for that, or heck I can just take off my own top and look.
My point was, if someone is going to boycott a company over a single issue, then the presence of boobs in their advertising should be way down the list. Other companies are actually doing bad stuff, but we as a society seem to be ok with it. I just don’t understand why the line is arbitrarily drawn at anything that hints at sex, when we don’t bat an eyelash at issues which ought to be clearly obvious as injustices.
I just think our priorities, as a society, are backwards.
Ok I get you now Leo.
Society is completely arse backwards towards so many things I prefer to just live in my bubble.
Actually all that “good” stuff AA is doing is definitely balanced out with the “bad” stuff they do. I don’t see you mentioning the sexual harrassment suits and also the way they treat their employees in the factories is debatable. There have been workers who have talked about how some conditions are less than favourable.
There’s a difference between “humans in their natural form” and exploitative photography that borders on voyeuristic pornography. Also, they never use “fat chicks” or “ugly chicks” as models so I’d say they’re ultimately not going for the “humans in their natural form” angle in terms of advertising. They’re going for shock and sexual abuse. Some of the girls look like they have no idea they’re being photographed or maybe they’ve been drugged. Ultimately, they look like they’re being exploited (even if they chose to model, it’s the imagery evoked that we need to focus on). I go to nude beaches, I think I know the difference between enjoying humans in their natural and beautiful state (all shapes, sizes, cellulite, moles, scars, fat chicks, skinny chicks, and everyone in between, old and young, EVERYONE!) and whatever AA does in their advertising.
From what I can tell from some very brief online research, none of the allegations in any of the harassment suits have ever been proven. And besides, how many unreported instances of sexual harassment do you think happen in factories in developing nations, where the workers have no rights, and very few alternatives to working there? As for the factory conditions, no garment factory job is going to be all sunshine and rainbows.. but compared to the conditions their competitors provide for their employees, AA still comes out looking pretty good.
Again with the exploitative comment.. that’s just an opinion. The girls in these photos are clearly posing for a camera, and are not engaged in sexual acts, so the photos are not “voyeuristic pornography”. As for as not using “fat chicks” or “ugly chicks” as models… so-called “plus size” models are normal looking people, and “ugly” is 100% subjective. But even assuming we all agreed on a singular standard for beauty, there are no companies that use “ugly” people for fashion advertising, so AA is no different.
As for the notion that they look drugged… that vapid, vacant-eyed stare is standard issue for fashion models & “actresses” like paris hilton… sure there’s a chance that some of the girls are high on something, but the idea that the photographer drugged them just to take pictures of them in secret, while they just happen to be in fashion poses? LOL.
You’re vilifying this company solely based on heresay and your personal beliefs, all I’m saying is take a look at how other clothing companies treat their employees. Compared to the conditions the majority of the worlds garment manufacturing companies have their workers in, AA using ads that show a little skin is insignificant… the vast majority of people who choose to model, clothed or otherwise, are not being exploited. However, many of the people who work in overseas clothing factories are being exploited.. forced to work long hours, with often unsafe equipment, breathing in toxic fumes from fabric dyes.. no health care, very few rights, for barely any money.
I’m just asking.. where’s the rage for that exploitation? Why is it ok to turn a blind eye to those things, but then have a problem with THIS?
If it helps to put my opinion into perspective… a few months ago I was at Starbucks in the morning, on my way to a meeting. There was a woman in line ahead of me who was complaining to the barista that some minor detail of her drink order had been made wrong, it was such an inconvenience to her, blah blah, and she demanded that they make her a new one. Meanwhile, through the window I could see a frail homeless man outside, searching in a garbage can for something to eat. To me, this issue is similar..
The more we focus on trivial junk, the less we focus on the real problems out there in the world.. where people actually are suffering and being hurt, no opinions or speculation required.
I mostly just wanted to point out that your statement on AA’s photography as a affirmation of the “beauty of a natural human’s figure” was wrong because of course in the fashion industry, they’re not going for that. Not saying skinny girls are not natural (I am a very thin girl) but that fashion photography in big companies like AA, Sears, etc, other than their “plus-sized” models never deviate out of a certain “youth and/or thin oriented image”.
I’m not arguing against you in terms of AA being just a bad as companies that use overseas factories. AA is different and they have their different problems. Some of their treatment of actual workers in their retail stores is also not the best (but isn’t it always like that in any retail store, :P)
And let me say, I’m very aware of other issues in the world. But AA’s style of advertising is one of them as well. I’ve volunteered my time towards various initiatives in my city – environmental, social, political, sexual (LGBT issues and rights) etc. There are a lot of problems. But unhealthy sexualized imagery is part of my interests in the dialogue on human sexuality and problems in our oppressive heteronormative society.
AA’s not the only offender but this post is specifically about AA. In the USA, their ads are really more sexualized than Canadian counterparts. So other companies have “problematic” advertising as well. But in Canada, it seems like AA is one of the few companies that’s really “pushing the envelope”, other companies just tend to downgrade their ads in Canada and make them less raunchy than their ads in the USA.
I just wanted to mention that I didn’t make a statement calling AA’s photography an affirmation of the “beauty of a natural human’s figure”, the closest I came to that was one mention that being naked is our natural form. Also, the trend of portraying young/thin/pretty is endemic to our culture in general, not just fashion advertising.
I realize this post was specific to AA, I just felt that they were, and are, being judged too harshly based on this one issue, which when compared to other issues of the industry in general, seems inconsequential to me.
In the balance between a handful of women who choose to model for a fashion company, in oversexualized ads or not, and the millions who are being worked in uncomfortable, unsafe, unhealthy conditions for so little compensation that it’s virtually slavery, my priorities are squarely on the latter.
We all have our priorities, and they often don’t align with others. I’ll keep fighting for my causes, you do the same, and with any luck we’ll meet somewhere in the middle in a fair and just world that we can all be happy with.
Peace.
Hello there, just wandered by. I have a Los Angeles 4g website. Truly more information that you can imagine on the web. Not what I was looking for, but very nice site. Take care.
Most affiliate marketers who are having success these days are publishing Cost Per Action, or CPA ads. The reason for this affiliates don’t need to complete high ticket sales in order to get commission for a conversion.