Many question Dov Charney’s intentions behind American Apparel’s intensely provocative ads. I think it is easier to try not to reconcile the over-sexed image of the company with the good causes it promotes. They are two separate parts of the founder’s character, the brand and most likely the employees.

With that said, here is the latest batch of controversy from the brand – a veritable bitch-slap to the rest of the fashion industry (perhaps wider?).  The American Apparel brand has long stood for gay rights and legalising illegal immigrants in the LA (where the clothing is made). This campaign appears to be a broader attack on companies that act with unethical practices toward employees, the environment and possibly anything that does not balance society and capitalism as well as AA does.

The ad seems to be a rehash of an campaign that appeared in 2002 in Vice Magazine (see terrible reproduction below). Just when pressure between ethics and commerce might be under the most strain, American Apparel reminds us that ethics still count and people need to be concerned about how companies offer their products to the market.

Strong language and shock tactics aside, this ad is a powerful challenge. Brands in their competitive set – GAP and Levi’s in particular – are struggling for ways to stay relevant to their audiences while offering little differentiation in product line. While all these brands come up with the odd product innovation, the price premium is carried through the brand and the message they promote. American Apparel has found a believable way to stay relevant and the brand continues to grow in leaps and bounds.

Levis has focused more on redefining the American identity with some success while GAP continues to have difficulty trying to keep Americana relevant for young customers.

Do young people care about Americana or do they want to express a modern, bold and activist point of view that is as distinctly American as James Dean? Instead of focusing on America as a concept of national identity, American Apparel communications focus on challenging America to shine and live up to the notions of freedom, tolerance and excellence that its founders framed in the constitution.

As a result, American Apparel is perceived to be at the forefront of what is best about America versus trying to contemporise a historical picture of the United States. By pushing a social and civil agenda, they are able to connect with what is important to young customers.

Related:

+ Levis, Americana and nationalism
+ American Apparel and the doctrine of shock

A new AdWeek/Harris poll came out last week that reported younger Amercians did not consider a ‘Made in Amercia’ label to be much of a reason to purchase.

Only 39% of respondents aged 18 to 34 said they would be likely to respond to a made-in-America pitch compared to 60% of 35- to 44-year-olds, 68% of 45- to 54-year-olds and 74% of those are at least 55

Levis recently ran their ‘Go Forth’ campaign, featuring nationalisitc imagery and the poetry of 19th century radical Walt Whitman. While sometimes contentious, promoting nationalistic ideas helps unify people: urging them to rally around the founding notions of the country and around important idiosyncrasies that define its people. When brands speak about nationalism, it’s often locked up to a history of achievment and progress: key aspects of civil branding.

Through this communication Levis is updating the ‘Amercian Way’ and helping refresh notions of what it means to be living in America through a straighforward listing of values that embody it. When watching this, I realise how much effort it takes to keep these notions relevant in our minds. With so much changing, what does it mean to be Amercian today?

I don’t suggest that Brand America is in decline. The research only suggests that consumers may not be loyal to the ‘Union-Made’ label as much as they used to. However, it does point out that nationalism and ideas of unity take work to maintain. The previous administration did a lot to reduce the American image overseas and the acceptance of outsourcing has probably diminished the appeal of the Made in America label.

But nationalism lives on through brands and can be a progressive and unifying force. American Apparel promotes it own brand of Americana. One could argue that the Canadian-born head of the company represents the radical thinking best embodied by Walt Whitman and is perhaps the open, freedom-based spokesperson for 21st century America. The retailer even found a new way to resurrect the Made in America label.

The GAP used to be known for packaging Americana and selling it to the world. But the concept of America has been moved by retailers like American Apparel, so the brand is playing catchup. As The GAP demonstrates, promoting a national identity can be a very powerful tool, but it needs to be crafted and evolved in order to remain relevant.

Here’s one of my favourite nationalism ads. Being Canadian, I love the nudge-nudge approach that this beer brand has taken in trying to define that ever-illusive beast called the Canadian identity.

In closing, I thought I would point out Johnnie Walker, a British Brand, that uses almost exclusively American images in this progress-related spot to identify great moments of achievement in the last 100-years. As ironic as it may be, it’s hard to talk about the great moments of progress for the 20th century and not keep coming back to America.

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: