American Apparel: what are we really being sold?
American Apparel's adverts have again come under fire for being too 'sexual' (and that's before you start on its founder). Claire Cohen argues that this ethical fashion brand is selling to us in a deeply unethical way.
Sometimes, you need a high waist. Occasionally, a pair of legging beckons – or a grey marl t-shirt. I once even tried on some disco pants before realising I looked like Lady Mary Crawley stuffed inside a black pudding, stuffed inside a glitter ball - with cystitis.
But on none of the occasions that I’ve bought any of these garments from American Apparel, has a picture of the semi-naked girl with her arse in the air clinched the sale.
You see, American Apparel is the paradox on our high streets. It’s the antithesis of what we’ve come to expect from our clothing retailers. Whereas we usually fret about where, how – and for how little – our clothes are being made; with American Apparel we worry about how they’re being sold instead.
The brand might pride itself on ethical manufacture (in downtown LA) and support of the gay community, however the methods it uses to flog its wares are rather more dubious – as its latest ad campaign shows.
The images show young models, seemingly posing as schoolgirls and bending over so their buttocks are exposed under their plaid miniskirts. The range appeared under a section of their website called ‘Back to School’ - so there can be little doubt who the clothes were aimed at (these particular pictures have since been taken down).
The ad campaign has been roundly condemned by parents and charities, including Kidscape who accused the company of using “underage pornography to sell products and the sexualisation of children.” There’s also a range of crop tops and skirts called ‘Lolita’, which remain on the website.
------------------------------
Creeping change
You’d think we’d be unshockable by now – after all, American Apparel has been flogging its clothes via images of young women sporting knee-high socks, lacy underwear and body hair for years. It favours the sort of fading pictures you might see pasted to the walls of a portacabin on a run down trading estate.
And, in 2012, it was criticised by the Advertising Standards Agency after an ad campaign featured seemingly underage girls. The body branded a picture that appeared to show a girl naked from the waist down as ‘gratuitous’.
It's a far cry from the brand's original stance. American Apparel started as a wholesome place to buy your basics. Bored of Gap? Come and get a plain white t-shirt here. Clothes were modelled by the store’s staff and life was simple.
But somewhere along the line, there was creeping change. The ads got sexier, the hotpants got higher and we all started to feel a bit uncomfortable looking at young women with their legs splayed out, wearing crop tops and blank expressions. There were reports that models were told not to pluck their eyebrows and wear minimal make-up.
Are we comfortable being sold to like this?
Fingers pointed at Dov Charney – the Canadian founder and CEO of the company. In June, he was sacked from the board amid scandal and allegations of sexual misconduct (including holding one employee as a sex slave, disseminating nude photos of another and getting a woman to give him oral sex during an interview with a journalist. Not to mention ‘misusing funds’).
But, last month, we learnt that he’s been hired back as a ‘consultant’ – and he’s still listed as chairman on the American Apparel website.
Charney is a Terry Richardson-esque figure. Indeed, the name of the American Apparel founder and the notorious fashion photographer are frequently whispered in the same breath. They favour the same style of photography – voyeuristic, amateur and with a grainy veneer of sleaze.
‘Uncle Terry’ stands accused of sexual harassment and exploitation by a number of models and many have called for the fashion industry to disown him (thus far two civil cases have been settled and no criminal charges brought against him).
Richardson is a controversial figure - yet celebrities and brands continue to work with him - and many continue to buy the products his pictures are selling. Only a few weeks ago, America's domestic goddess Martha Stewart posed for Richardson in Porter magazine (an off-shoot of high fashion website Net-a-Porter). While Lady Gaga had him direct her latest video.
It's time to ask ourselves: are we comfortable with being sold to in this way?
----------------------------------
Who's a naughty boy then?
American Apparel, for its part, has decided to confront its recent controversies.
This week, several billboards appeared in Los Angeles. They read: ‘We’re not politically correct – But we have good ethics’. They go on to quote American Apparel’s ‘sweatshop free/fair wages’ tagline.
The brand might hammering home its message of ethical production, but it's continuing to sell us clothes in an arguably unethical way. By owning-up to its controversies like this, it's simply doing the advertising equivalent of shrugging its shoulders, winking and saying "ooh, who's a naughty boy then?"
In New York, in 2007, an American Apparel billboard was spray-painted with the words, ‘Gee, I wonder why women get raped’. I can only wonder whether this example will meet the same fate.
There is one glimmer of hope. This month, the company announced the appointment of its first female board member.
My advice to her? If they ask you to model for the company’s next ad: just say no.
Testing Adding Damage Reduction to PvP
Testing Adding Damage Reduction to PvP
Do you consider the Horde to be "the bad guys" or is it more complex?
Dont want to takw grove guardians
MMO-Champion
Recent Blue Posts
Recent Forum Posts
Originally Posted by Mermaid
Reply With Quote
