“This past week, while conducting research for my Geography 72AC class on representations of women in advertising around the Bay Area and how advertisements in the built landscape affect societal perceptions of femininity and the role of women, I stumbled across the familiar retailer name—American Apparel. I was reminded of the once prominent clothing company, whose pleated tennis skirts, pastel halter tops, and grunge-inspired flannels lined my tumblr feed in 2013. ”
Since its peak in 2008, the company has gone bankrupt two times: first in 2015, and then again in 2016—the year in which it closed down all its retail stores and laid off all its employees. In 2017, American Apparel came back as an online-retailer only after being acquired by a Canadian company. While some parts of the company remain the same, there is no longer a commitment to manufacture everything in the United States, which was at one point one of the most attractive selling points of the retailer.
There are many reasons we can attribute to American Apparel’s downfall, such as fishy financial practices, rising cotton prices in 2010-2011, and the loss of labor due to ICE raids at their manufacturing facilities during the Obama administration. But—somewhat ironically considering the old adage “sex sells”—the company’s overly sexual marketing strategies might also have played a role in their road to bankruptcy.
American Apparel’s history of racy advertising teeters on the verge of soft porn: it features scantily clad women, who look barely above the legal age, in provocative poses—suggestively lying down in bed, spreading their legs, and bent over. The “homemade” quality of these images also adds a voyeuristic feel to the viewing experience; it makes the viewer feel as though they are taking part in something they shouldn’t be seeing.
While most of the company’s ads are far too pornographic to include within the body of this article, you can check out more examples of them here to get a better sense of what I am referencing.
The problem with American Apparel’s sexually-charged marketing strategies is that such ads contribute to the objectification of women and of young minors (given that the models in these ads look barely legal). Women are seen solely as objects of sexual fantasy rather than human beings; their only purpose is to satisfy the sexual appetites of men.
Even the man behind the company’s sexist advertising, former CEO Dov Charney, has himself been accused of sexual harassment and sexual minsconduct numerous times, despite denying all allegations.
Perhaps the idea that sex sells may be a misconception, atleast in the retail world. People are waking up to the consequences of the media’s objectification of women and the sexualization of young girls. In fact, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the United Kingdom banned numeros American Apparel ads for being “pornographic” and “exploitative”, while many others around the world have called for boycotts against the company.
While it is important to recognize that we have made undeniable progress in terms of empowering representations of femininity in advertising, it is clear that our society still has a long way to go.
article by Madeline Lorie ‘23
design by Carolyn Lu ‘24