The New York Times recently ran an article stating that with a new advertising campaign American Apparel is “…moving in a political direction.” (1) The article then went on to describe the various workers rights practices that American Apparel’s head, Dov Charney, both espouses theoretically and implements practically in his business- it barely touched on the strategy behind the ad campaign. The ads are meant to make American Apparel look like it is advocating for real change in immigration policies of the United States with quotes like “…we cannot just sit in the shadows and watch the government and politicians exploit and misrepresent this matter to advance their own careers” and “At what point are we going to recognize that the status quo amounts to an apartheid system?” The statements are honorable enough and Charney is right to use his position to highlight some faults of the current system. Unfortunately, while Mr. Charney may not be guilty of misrepresenting the issue (people more informed than me can evaluate the claim of an “apartheid system”) he is almost certainly “exploiting” it to sell clothes. (as well made and attractive as they may be…)
(Ad Featured in New York Times Article)
The company’s use of the immigration issue in their ads amounts to nothing more than another clever refinement of the brand’s image as a socially just (all their clothes are made in the US – no need to worry about 13 year olds patching together t-shirts in a dark room instead of going to school!) and edgy company. What could be more controversial than ads featuring college women in non-traditional poses (to put it politely)? Well, how about ads that cast the company as the moral conscience of American commerce, standing up to greedy self-serving politicians who exploit the issue of immigration to rouse a frightened and ill informed populace?
(A more typical advertisement – “provocative” -as described by the company itself(2) )
Put otherwise: the ads are more of the old strategy: appear outrageous and rebellious then sell clothes to people attracted to those qualities. It was time to break the monotonous parade of hindquarters, knee-high socks and unisex underwear. Sexually “provocative” ads had become, well, kind of bland. New controversy was needed and it came in the form of stark neorealist imagery coupled with sophisticated and incisive political dialectic.
notes:
(1) New York Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/business/media/18adco.html?ref=media
(2) Picture from the “Provocative Ads” section of the American Apparel website:
http://americanapparel.net/presscenter/ads/goodtimes0711.html
0 Responses to “it sells”