Developments like this one get my branding blood flowing. Just what the heck are Levi’s doing getting stuck into urban regeneration? Is it too far outside of marketing? Is it redefining marketing in the way that we see other civil-focused efforts doing? Can Levi’s commitment last long enough to make a real impact? Will this level of effort be sustainable and offer real results to Levi’s USA and even globally?

I’m a storyteller at heart so believe in this approach. In short, I think it’s:

[1] Civil:  it is about companies taking direct action working with small groups of people to directly affect change in society.

[2] Novel: it moves on the role of companies beyond current CSR kind of activities.

[3] Connected: it connects the brand to civil efforts with the primary vehicle of the brand instead of relegating CSR to a related but secondary activity. By doing so, it creates new possibilities for communication and dialogue.

There are many risks to this kind of campaign and metaphors can be drawn into any foreign force coming into help a native population. If Levi’s can be empathetic enough, patient enough and committed enough then they need to be perceived as such through delicate communication of the efforts and the results over time.

Who can say what the benefits are since no other brand has tried this before? There are obvious and interesting ties to the American nationalistic image of the brand: building upon the fabric of the nation (no pun intended). If successful, it will cement Levi’s dedication to American principles and reinforce the authentic image of the brand in a way that is difficult to top.

The campaign works to rally hard working Americans in small towns and it connects urbanites with their American identity. It might even connect people in markets all over the world with the ‘can-do’ spirit that forms such a significant part of the American identity. The rewards of the campaign are as boundless as the risks but it can be agreed that Levi’s are making bold moves and if they are committed, we’ll see some truly interesting results.

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

In promoting World AIDS Day, we have collected a few of the iconic ads that we have seen over the years that are provocative, funny and scary – sometimes all at the same time. Here are some websites where we and all our clients can get more involved:

(RED)
World AIDS Day official site
UNAIDS: United Nations effort
ONE: International advocacy group
Global AIDS Alliance

Quebec Coalition Against AIDS

Michael Stich Stiftung AIDS awareness

MTV World AIDS day ads

French AIDES Awareness Council

Malaysian AIDS Foundation: Hope

Aldo fights youth AIDS

Benetton

What a great idea. Levis are rolling out the new ‘Care Tag’ in 2010 to promote recycling clothes and supporting charity shops – namely Goodwill shops.

“As a company built on values, we have long worked to promote sustainability in how we make our products and run our operations,” said John Anderson, president and chief executive officer of Levi Strauss & Co. “This initiative uses our global voice to empower hundreds of millions of consumers around the world to join us by providing simple and actionable ways to help care for our planet.”

We see partnerships like this as a real advantage to big brands. Levis has the reputation and clout to make this campaign work and change behaviour. The Care Tag has the possibility to catch on creating more kudos for the Levi’s brand, helping promote the Goodwill cause and helping people recycle their clothes more often.

In conjunction with the Walt Whitman themed ads focusing on nationalist narratives (see previous post), Levis has issued this goodbye to Senator Ted Kennedy. This clip from his most famous speech has been broadcast all over the media so, no doubt is instantly recognisable.

It reminds me of when Volkswagen said goodbye to Jerry Garcia from the Grateful Dead. I read this ad in Rolling Stone magazine sitting out in Stanley Park in Vancouver (so powerful, I remember where I was). The tie-in with the Grateful Dead and the Volkswagen microbus is seamless. VW even decided to use a model that last saw production during the Ted Kennedy scandal. The ad also did not tie into any campaign look and feel, slogan or anything commercial about the brand, so there is little cause for calls for exploitation.

In short, these are some of the criteria to use when thinking about whether to salute a fallen icon with your brand.

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.