Like the politics, miss the package.
American Apparel is hard to read. Sexual harassment allegations against CEO? My little briefs come OFF. Demonstrable positive impact in downtown Los Angeles community? Little briefs back ON. More allegations that CEO may be inviting garment workers “upstairs” for a little “overtime?” Little briefs off, again. It’s exhausting. Then over the weekend an interesting piece from the New York Times business section: American Apparel is running a new ad campaign laying out their position on immigration reform. To sum it up, their take on the issue won’t exactly get Mitt Romney switching from his crazy mormon underwear to a pair of mens baby-ribbed briefs anytime soon:
The ads say in part that the status quo “amounts to an apartheid system” and should be overhauled to create a legal path for undocumented workers to gain citizenship in the United States. The black-and-white quarter-page advertisements show American Apparel employees of Guatemalan origin — fully clothed … some immigration experts criticized the advertisement and said it amounted to an admission that American Apparel uses illegal immigrants.
That’s pretty awesome, and for a company that just went public in December, pretty brave. Or is it? They’ve left me guessing again. As an activist — and someone who has helped to market “socially-responsible” companies — its rare that a business will be so overtly political. I used to beg clients to take stronger stands. But for American Apparel, which at this point is basically known for ads featuring nasty, naughty, dirty hipsters crawling around fetid apartment floors in their panties, they kind of have to do something to up the ante, don’t they? [A surprising fact: American Apparel runs the largest garment factory in the United States.]
Maybe it doesn’t matter. If they can educate people, or can engage their target audience in the politics of immigration reform are you actually reading this, or looking at that lithe young man over there in purple briefs? Omg us too!, so much the better. It may even be that American Apparel can make a bigger bulge in this issue than an traditional advocacy group anyway. (Unless some advocacy group can build a brand around scruffy boys in tight pink briefs. Don’t think I haven’t tried …)
For now, the extremely constricting but oh-so-cute briefs go back ON. And we’ll see. Maybe the ads will get more dramatically political, calling out candidates as 2008 wears on. And maybe they will rotate featured models, providing hotter hotter briefs hotter hotter more naked a more diverse range of employees. Regardless, its a noteworthy tactic.
About The Author - Ben Wyskida is a writer, activist, conscientious hedonist and political communications strategist living in Brooklyn. - Visit Ben's site.
I spent a few minutes outlining why he’s wrong at my name’s link. I could have spent more time but the ad isn’t worth it. If anyone still doesn’t understand why he’s wrong, scan the thousands of posts about this topic in my archives.
Egh, Lonewacko, I have to disagree with you. Dov Charney is wrong ’cause he’s a perv, not because he runs a non-sweatshop garment factory and has progressive views on immigration. In your blog, you mention American Apparel’s ad copy mentioning that “no serious political voice calls to send them back to their previous countries,” which you note is true, “as long as you ignore the plans of at least three Republican presidential contenders, dozens of House members, and, of course, our own laws.” Um? Is that your point of reference? Those views, and our very own laws, are problematic at best. For example: Tom Tancredo is a xenophobic, bloodthirsty crazy person! And only a jerk would vote against the DREAM Act (which is why it died).