Tits, Ass And American Apparel’s Backlash
November 27, 2007
Update – 12/03/07 – American Apparel Shows Some Real T&A
Just last night, we verbally exploded all over our poor cab driver when we saw one of American Apparel’s billboards, which looked very similar to the one above. All ass, all over the place kinda like it was a cover shot for pseudo-porn mag Smooth. We’re not the only ones foaming at the mouth, as there seems to be a revolution picking up steam right here in New York City.
Before moving on let’s review shall we? AA has always had sexy advertising featuring both women and (occasionally) young men in tightly fitted cotton garb. In the beginning, the ads were sexual, but not over the top with a focus on the company’s sweatshop free products. As the years went on, the sexy ads became down right lurid. And so… press stunts like hiring porn star Lauren Phoenix to star in a new ad campaign and CEO Dov Charney’s four sexual harassment lawsuits are beginning to turn folks away. Yes, same store sales are up. The clothing retailer reported net income of $6 million, compared with a loss of $2.1 million in the previous year [CNN]. However, a revolt takes time and the evidence is mounting.
The first picture below is of a billboard on the Lower East Side in New York City. The graffiti reads: “Gee, I wonder why women get raped?” The second picture is a fake ad, which many folks including Copyranter, thought was the real deal. This social commentary paste-up reads: “Safe to say she loves her socks.” When porn parodies of your ads begin to appear around town and folks think your brand could actually be responsible, well… um… you’ve got a problem on your hands.
Bloggers and journalists are getting in on the backlash:
From The Kentucky Kernel: “Sweatshop labor is oppressive and unethical, but so is the exploitation of women in the media.”
From Newsweek: “They are sending the message that social responsibility is about money alone—as long as you pay the women inside the factory a legal wage you’re absolved from exploiting them in other ways.”
From the blog The Sardonic Sideshow: “I’ve never liked the ad campaigns for AA. It’s not that I am afraid of sexy images of 15 year old girls. It’s just that you can only be so edgy until you fall off into parody.”
From the blog Consumerist: “Because we loathe the peculiar iteration of kiddie porn that passes for American Apparel’s advertising…”
From the blog I’m Sick Of Your Insane Demands: “The disturbing part is that she looks to be about 12 years old. No hips, no body hair, no breasts–just kiddie porn disguised as advertising.”




November 27, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Great post. Yeah, it’s pretty insane how exploitative this whole campaign is. Gimme a break. Those quotes you pull are so right on the money, I couldn’t say it any better.
November 27, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Why would a woman want to buy clothes from a company
that boasts fair labor,
but clearly objectify females in their
(I can’t even call this advertising, sorry) ad space
and use models that are disturbingly young in provocative poses that are so porn-ish?
Who are you selling to?
Wake up little CEO boy.
November 28, 2007 at 7:37 am
The “Safe to say she loves her socks” picture is from this blog
http://www.stereohell.com/door/?p=130
November 28, 2007 at 2:11 pm
[...] ass crack or an embedded thong, AA switches to illustration to present even more explicit porn. { Copyranter [...]
November 28, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Bottom-dweller advertisers like Victoria Secret
and American Apparel have sunk to shocking new lows. It seems to me they are targeting shoplifters instead of shoppers. I imagine/hope their merchandise losses are significant.
CEO, keep your fantasies at home!
November 28, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I have a pretty high tolerance for this kind of stuff and am wholeheartedly “sex positive” and even I was offended by the ad with the woman bending over. I’m glad someone graffiti’d my sentiments.
Yet another reason NOT to buy American Apparel (the first being that their sizes are absurdly small–I’m thin and their XLs are tight on me.)
November 28, 2007 at 8:13 pm
The criticisms of AA’s ads are excellent, but the rape graffiti is way off the mark — and it’s a pretty broad mark.
It’s dangerous to begin to blame rape on sexual ads, or anything else in media. That’s some scary way-Right-Wing mindset action, the kind of reactionary response that leads to oppressive, sexist policies and laws.
AA sold out to a large corporation or investment group months ago, correct? They’re just copying a template that was predetermined – these big boats go in the same direction until profits tank. Want change? Tune in to Reverend Billy and stop buying the crud.
November 28, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I’m not even sure about their labor practices.
The ads don’t say they’re sweat-free anymore.
So I’m inclined to believe they are not.
The ads are exploitative, the clothes are expensive and who knows if they pay a decent wage anymore.
There’s absolutely no reason for me to walk in the store.
November 28, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Sounds to me like you guys are WAAAAAY too uptight to be in the ad industry. These ads are brilliant, fun, sleazy, sex positive and attention grabbing. Bet you wish you were doing work this good for your clients. But, guess what? You’re not…you’re just working up the same old uninspired, tired ass crap you guys always come up with. Maybe AA should look more like what….? The Gap or something? Yeah…that’d be cool. There’s a revolution going on in the AA cash drawer that’s where. Don’t like it? Don’t shop there. There are so many other WAY more offensive billboards by the likes of McDonalds, WalMart, and on and on. You complain about a great looking ass? Wow.
November 29, 2007 at 3:26 am
TOTALLY agree with the K.
If you don’t like the ads, don’t look at them! Hello, we live in the 21st century and if you can’t stand witty advertising that employs a bit of risque, maybe you should move to the desert.
If you would look around every once and a while, you would see that (OMG!) sex is everywhere.
When it comes down to it, AA is a creative company that sells comfortable, wearable everyday clothes at prices that are higher than, say, Old Navy, because they make their clothes in a humane, sweatshop-free environment using quality materials.
November 29, 2007 at 10:59 am
Poor, poor K. You’ve missed the point by such a stretch, you might need to catch a flight back to the top of the post.
Sit down before you embarrass yourself.
Too late.
November 29, 2007 at 7:49 pm
RJ Take a quick look around every billboard/busboard in NYC or anywhere city for that matter. Some crappy ass Graffiti does not mean a revolution is under way. Beyond that, you seem to miss the point that I am mostly commenting on the comments posted about this story being prudish and predictable. I’m also pointing out that if a big beautiful human butt offends you (as it seems to here) that is really sad. Sorry if you had a problem understanding that.
December 1, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Too true RJ, K needs to start reading from the top down.
And I’m hearing some uptight/defensive tude in K’s writings.
This isn’t about anything other than communicating a brand image/concept… (what advertising is)
to your target market
in a way that isn’t insulting them
or their intelligence/wit.
It would be nice if K could understand that.
December 3, 2007 at 8:22 pm
[...] Apparel and honestly, the French can be much more permissive about such displays. Our thoughts on AA’s advertising are very clear. ‘Rants goes on to make some commentary that many have made before, but is [...]
December 8, 2007 at 10:57 am
Christians regularly say that without a fake god to set the moral standard, we’re just a bunch of monkeys trying to hold back from raping and killing each other. Reading someone describe an illustration of a female inserting a finger into her anus as “witty advertising that employs a bit of risque”, I can see why they think that.
“Art” like this requires a certain technical ability, but there’s no intelligence behind it, and it requires no intelligence or thought to be able to “appreciate” it. Not even the stupidest are left wondering what it’s about, hence, the K and Rubix’s comments. I only hope that if either of you have daughters, they’re discerning enough to look away too, not so they can avoid being offended, but so they don’t ever believe that it’s alright to stick your finger up your ass for
some money. Idiots.
December 21, 2007 at 6:29 am
[...] there has been a sort of backlash against American Apparel. Earlier this year, a series of ads at the corner of Allen and Houston, on [...]
February 6, 2008 at 12:45 am
Gail Dines. Wanting not to objectify or demean women has nothing to do with the religious right. I am sex positive, which is a more personal idea rather than supporting publicly patriarchal ideology that contributes to rape culture.
February 19, 2008 at 7:51 pm
[...] 2. Tits, And Ass And American Apparel’s Backlash [...]
April 29, 2008 at 7:03 pm
4 things in response/defense:
1. when I go in American Apparel there’s more girls shopping than guys.
2. The kind of people that shop at AA will respond favorably to the controversy and publicity surrounding these ads.
3. Media-effects researchers have conducted studies that determined that the increase of pornographic/pseudo porn in the media actually correlates with a reduction in rapes. More porn = less men who need to find and attack clothed women.
4. AA clothing is, for the most part, mid-range affordable for a mass market retailer. Many items in the Gap are more expensive than AA’s most expensive item.