Given the choice between asking for permission or begging for forgiveness, Dov Charney would probably do neither. As a reaction to being sued for using Woody Allen’s image on billboards, without permission,  the American Apparel CEO was planning on rebutting in court with the argument that Woody Allen has no reputation left to tarnish or exploit due to the affair with his adopted child.

Charney certainly has pluck and his persona is intrinsically tangled up in the American Apparel brand. The brand is at once a social champion, paying its garment workers twice the minimum wage in its Los Angeles factory and a pariah accused of sex exploitation in its advertising.

In an open letter posted on the American Apparel website, Charney has this to say about the Woody Allen affair: “The billboards were designed to inspire dialogue. They were certainly never intended to sell clothes. This was not the first time we used a billboard for something other than to promote our products. Before and since we’ve used them to express social messages — including, for example, our support of immigration reform.

The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.”

Read the full statement in The Guardian

PR Week describes Dov Charney as “a mixture of Cesar Chavez and Jerry Lewis — a visionary committed to labor rights, and a gregarious, loudmouthed entertainer full of heart and good humor.”

Certainly Charney runs a very unconventional company. Doing things differently is what he seems to do best. But he is far from a myopic activist or showman. Charney knows that the only thing that sells better than sex in fashion, is sex with controversy.  But controversy is a difficult animal to manage, as companies like Benetton can attest.  American Apparel seems to be running the gauntlet well so far.

This may be thanks in large part to its genuine engagement with social issues. Most notably, its ’sweatshop-free vertical integration’ model that enables the company to pay workers fair wages and react quickly to market conditions.

From a Civil Branding point of view, we think it is incredible that this retailer has captured so much attention in so little time. In less than 10 years, American Apparel has over 250 retail shops in 19 countries and they design and manufacture everything they sell. Their communications have created dialogue around human rights issues as diverse as immigration, fair wages, gay rights, racial integration and domestic violence.

American Apparel take an unconventional approach to communicating social causes that is more stylistic than activist. The brand surrounds the issues with a cool factor that tends not to alienate, but engage opinion leaders in the community since it speaks their language. The brash, gritty and often naughty nature of the style does not sit well with the establishment or with conservative audiences. So the brand does not engage everyone and will not act to unite liberal and conservative views. But, it is captivating and does create debate.

American Apparel is a brand to watch since it promotes Americana more successfully than GAP and is able to open dialogues about social justice topics with less risk to the brand than Benetton. Lessons are to be learned from both a conventional branding point of view and in creating a more civil society through raising tough issues needed for progress. They are as abrasive as sandpaper to some audiences, but are capable of creating positive change with their actions and their messages.

When challenged about carrying the explicit gay magazine, BUTT, Dove wrote an open letter. In it, he says, “BUTT is an important art magazine that I support. No question, that it is going to offend people and it is my feeling that that is the nature of provocative art. At times, to make progress, you end up offending people. And people were offended by many things I have done over the years. But I did what I felt was right, especially from an art and creative point of view.”

Here are a couple more controversial campaigns: