Comments on: American Apparel's amateur porn-styled ads

American Apparel's amateur porn-styled ads

hoder — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:52:04 -0800

American Apparel ads: Porn pushers or youth prophets? (Now, Toronto) Some believe American Apparel's amateur porn-styled ads using real models are retail brilliance – others say it's time for a boycott.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:07:24 -0800

It's hard to judge without more and bigger example pictures. Lots and lots of much bigger example pictures. Need to be posted. Now! Especially that raven-tressed chick with the dark eyes and bushy eyebrows and the big sensuous lips and the strong Roman nose. It's very very hard.

By: DaShiv

DaShiv — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:07:56 -0800

Lefties shocked that sexual imagery works at pushing leftie products as well. Outrage at 11. Before start hyperventilating over the "porn" buzzword, can we have more samples of the ad compaign in question? The article gave a little context but with precious few examples.

By: cali

cali — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:19:23 -0800

Da Shiv: here. I read an interview with Dov (too long ago to remember where, sorry) where he talked about fitting the t-shirts on the closest available "real women" he could find - from the strip club down the block from the factory. I think his first print models were his fitting models too. So how have they changed, exactly? By taking grainy photos instead of glossy ones, and having the models bend over instead of staring at the camera? I'm as sick of seeing halfnaked women everywhere as the next girl, but I don't see how AA is different from Calvin Klein or Abercrombie & Fitch. I'm not outraged.

By: schyler523

schyler523 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:26:15 -0800

I see these ads in every LA Weeklyand every week i think that not only are the models they choose are hot, but hey they could be a freakin' nerve.com photoshoot... hey whatever sells...better these people than A&F or whatever flavor of the month shi-ite.

By: sourwookie

sourwookie — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:26:42 -0800

Do you want me to be outraged over the sweatshops or the porn? Cause I'm having a tough time making a call here...

By: scody

scody — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:32:11 -0800

Porn? Christ, the billboard American Apparel had up at Sunset and Alvarado for months (right by what I assume is their flagship store) looked like the model was fucking dead. Seriously, I guess it was supposed to look sexy -- her eyes staring off into the middle distance, her mouth hanging open, her fingers knotted up in her matted, messy hair -- but it honestly looked like a crime scene photo of a woman who'd been beaten and dumped. Creeeeepy. Most definitely not sexy.

By: rockabilly_pete

rockabilly_pete — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:38:06 -0800

Ridiculous accusations. How are these ads qualitatively different than those in a Victoria's Secret catalog? Answer: no supermodels, the photoshopping is kept to a minimum, and the photography is better. We should be offended because there isn't a sheen of artificiality over the whole production? That's all that I'm hearing from these arguments.

By: NickDouglas

NickDouglas — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:43:12 -0800

I'm deeply satisfied that the Google ad by this article was for Christian t-shirts, a link I provide only out of pity, as it is not half as sexy as American Apparel.

By: Onanist

Onanist — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:50:43 -0800

None of those shots seem particularly risque at all compared to other adverts I've seen, except perhaps for the nude male butt. *gasp*

By: AlexReynolds

AlexReynolds — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:56:15 -0800

The Calvin Klein pedophile ads seemed more risque, but that's just me.

By: teece

teece — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:16:18 -0800

Sigh. I looked at some of the pictures American Apparel calls its best on its website. They are trash. And not in a "porn" kind of way. They are just trite, hackneyed photographs. After the 50th shot of a model with her head cut off, I was getting pretty annoyed. Ooooh, how edgy. You can make a stupid, amateur mistake on purpose! Putz. I'd like to meet the photographer so I could smack him/her. Are these things bad because they are "porn?" Get a grip. Sex sells. It always will sell. I'd be happy if we could leave this whole puritan bullshit behind, whether its coming from reactionaries on the right or the left. While there are real issues regarding the objectification of women, the idea that sex should, or could, be banished from advertising and art etc. is just patently stupid. There is no better way to get someone's attention than to grab them by their balls/ovaries. That's hard-wired genetics. Any advertiser that ignores that deserves to be run out of business. And we like it, besides.

By: DaShiv

DaShiv — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:20:24 -0800

How are these ads qualitatively different than those in a Victoria's Secret catalog? Answer: no supermodels, the photoshopping is kept to a minimum, and the photography is better. You mean the photography is worse, and decidedly so: terrible lighting, poor color balancing, and let's face it, the poses and compositions weren't intended to be terribly flattering to the models (professional models or not). The vast majority of the ads were shot rather straightforwardly, with a small minority featuring models facing away from the camera (fabric-covered buttocks! shocking!). Frankly, given that the article cites American Appareal as a distributor of "undies", crying porn just because its advertising aesthetic isn't the sterile (and higher production cost) look of your typical JC Penney lingerie ad is a disservice to feminists. You can only cry wolf so many times before people tune you out. The article's probing of the guy's sex life reeked of ad hominem. As long as there was no coersion involved (i.e. adult consent was given), who cares? Would it have been different if it were a lesbian owner sleeping with the models?

By: dabitch

dabitch — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:05:53 -0800

Exactly DaShiv.. I remember finding this ad dissected on some site where they were crying "porn" and "degrading to women". They made a huge deal about the lighter in that shot but I couldn't for the life of me get worked up about these ads. The only thing that pisses me off is that constant head-cropping, like teece mentioned.

By: BlackLeotardFront

BlackLeotardFront — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:13:39 -0800

via NOW toronto... via fleshbot? teehee. Personally I've seen the ads on the back of the Stranger every week and thought they were hot. Now there's controversy? Well, whatevers to those nerds.

By: sninky-chan

sninky-chan — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:31:53 -0800

The... lighter? I don't get any of this at all. I'm going back to sleep...

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:46:35 -0800

Nothing to see here, please move along.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:41:53 -0800

I don't know what kind of paper NowToronto is, but this seems like manufactured controversy. These are extraordinarily tame ads. The one on the back of this week's Onion was funny, though. I don't have it in front of me, but it was something like "Svetlana was a Norwegina DJ who moved to New York. She found out that people here listen to Rock, not House. She's currently looking for work. American Apparel."

By: fshgrl

fshgrl — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:43:04 -0800

I'm a woman and I don't feel degraded by pictures of normal women wearing everyday cotton underwear. And I don't get the lighter thing either.

By: DaShiv

DaShiv — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:55:07 -0800

"Manufactured controversy" sounds about right. The cynical will point out that the article's author readily admits that her business has ties (as a client) to American Apparel, the dogmatic idealists will enjoy another minute in the sun to rage against the patriarchy, and at the end of the day, American Apparel will net some free publicity. Sounds like a happy ending for everyone who helped to put on the charade.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 04:20:54 -0800

Jesus, what is this about? I coudn't get past the shit writing and obnoxious tone of the person who declared himself a writer in that link.

By: docgonzo

docgonzo — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:51:12 -0800

It's a bit hard working up any outrage over this manufactured controversy when NOW makes loadsadough offa pages and pages of "escort" ads in the back of each issue...

By: acrobat

acrobat — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:06:48 -0800

Boycott this, control that, disallow the other. Come on America with your phoney prudence and outrages. The world is sooooo bloody tired of you.

By: MrZero

MrZero — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:21:07 -0800

I would just like to remind acrobat that the phony prudence and outrage is provided by NOW Toronto. What did they say in that movie? Blame Canada?

By: jon_kill

jon_kill — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:24:23 -0800

Jesus Christ, Toronto is lame.

By: scheptech

scheptech — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:38:04 -0800

Porn pushers or youth prophets? Maybe the former of the 'soft' variety, certainly not the latter. Only (slightly) remarkable thing here is the silly notion that there's anything insightful or prophetic about youth being interested in sex.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:53:08 -0800

"Jesus Christ, Toronto is lame." Now, now. Trolling for Canadians is generally considered bad sport. But for Torontonians? That's egregious.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:54:46 -0800

Rhetorical analysis [PDF] of an earlier American Apparel ad.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:55:29 -0800

acrobat said: Boycott this, control that, disallow the other. Come on America with your phoney prudence and outrages. The world is sooooo bloody tired of you. The article is Canadian and doesn't mention anywhere that the described outrage is voiced by Americans. In fact, the Americans commenting on this post have unanimously registered a total lack of outrage. So... what are you talking about?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:56:26 -0800

What incredibly tame ads. Although, to tell the truth, I'm actually tired of "sexy" ads. Not out of any moral objection, but just because after awhile all those artfully semi-exposed crotches blur into one big ubervagina thus rendering it all very boring. Plus it's permeated advertising so much that half the time I don't know what the ads are for anymore. Plus the clothes are kind of lame.

By: schoolgirl report

schoolgirl report — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:58:24 -0800

Frankly, I'm more offended that Americal Apparel charges $15 for an undershirt.

By: DaShiv

DaShiv — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:05:13 -0800

MetaFilter: One big ubervagina rendering it all very boring.

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:10:31 -0800

What docgonzo said. NOW specializes in mock outrage and empty lefty (disclaimer: I'm somewhat to the left myself) sloganeering. Which is unfortunate, because they do occasionally produce some pretty good muckraking journalism, but a lot of people who would otherwise sympathize with their views are permanently turned off by the hipper/holier-than-thou tone NOW seems to take pride in. Of the Toronto alterna-weeklies, I much prefer eye, which tends to tone down the world-weary hipster schtick, and has better reviews to boot. A freelance writer I know said that NOW is largely run by bitter, aging ex-hippies, and it shows.

By: agregoli

agregoli — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:13:58 -0800

I think the ads are great, and if they get more people to buy American Apparel stuff (a great company that makes a great product) than I say, awesome! Sex sells.

By: gorgor_balabala

gorgor_balabala — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:39:31 -0800

I never knew this company had stooped so low. It's about time!

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:43:00 -0800

"One big ubervagina rendering it all very boring..." I find the idea of one big übervagina quite exciting, actually. I, for one, hail... Well, you know.

By: yesster

yesster — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:43:33 -0800

One man ass? Come on! Where's the beefcake?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:45:46 -0800

One man ass? You'd prefer a two man ass, maybe?

By: fungible

fungible — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:56:55 -0800

Yes, the ads are based on porn. And I love them. Those chicks are hot, not airbrushed. I'd take those ads over Calvin Klein any day.

By: docgonzo

docgonzo — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:58:02 -0800

bitter, aging ex-hippies, and it shows As the former news editor for a Canadian alternaweekly rag, I'd like to state for the record Mr. Card Cheat is 100% correct on all counts. (And I'm pleased to say me and my comrades would have laughed the piece of crap linked out the door.)

By: drunk7daysaweek

drunk7daysaweek — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:12:38 -0800

I see those ads on the back of Eye all the time... the chix are usually very sexy... but they're not explicitive

By: sugarfish

sugarfish — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:20:58 -0800

Do the adds seem any different when you know that Dov Charney likes to whip it out and masturbate in front of reporters?

By: agregoli

agregoli — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:24:52 -0800

Explicitive?

By: furtive

furtive — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:26:27 -0800

I'm a canuck...and I get to see one of those ads on the side of an AA van parked across the street from me on a near daily basis. My opinion? No diff than any Calvin Klein ad. Perhaps not the way I'd market a company who's greatest selling point is that it treats it's employees, but then it's not my company, and I'm not in marketing. I'd hardly call it porn.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:31:37 -0800

" Do the adds seem any different when you know that Dov Charney likes to whip it out and masturbate in front of reporters?" No. But it's worth mentioning for those that don't follow the link, that Charney likes to whip it out and masturbate in front of all women that he has any power over (and a reporter is there to do a story). He's a nutcase living out his middle-school fantasies. But I don't know how that changes the ads.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:29:57 -0800

I'd rather look at those ads, than to see Vincent Gallo push Chloe Sevigny's head into his lap for a rousing skin flute sonata.

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:35:46 -0800

Interesting. We're used to porn having bad photography. So now any time we see bad photography, we think of porn.

By: gorgor_balabala

gorgor_balabala — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:38:21 -0800

skin flute sonata Oh yes, please give me attention for baiting you Vincent Gallo...

By: mdn

mdn — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:53:14 -0800

well, just to balance things out a bit, I found these ads mildly depressing, and am less inclined to think AA is a company I'm particularly likely to support in the future. I've bought a couple things from them; a bit expensive, but nice quality, and the idea seemed appealing in one sense, but possibly exploitative in another (making money by appealing to people's ethics - I mean, that they promoted that, not just let people make up their mind over it, but advertised themselves as "the ethical clothing shop" - felt like it had the potential to be manipulative). I was kinda on the line about the place. The general feel these ads give me pushes me just over to the "nah" side.

By: Fuzzy Monster

Fuzzy Monster — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:55:14 -0800

I third what The Card Cheat said. NOW gets Hippie Indignant at the drop of a hat. The writers are either college kids just discovering Injustice or burnt-out old hippies still banging their old, tired drums. And the writing... eh, the writing, she's-a not so good.

By: jon_kill

jon_kill — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:17:34 -0800

Now, now. Trolling for Canadians is generally considered bad sport. But for Torontonians? That's egregious. I am Canadian. And one in four of us is Torontonian (I'm not). Let's think.

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:19:16 -0800

Fuzzy Monster, your appropriation of the voice of the stereotypical Italian immigrant makes me burn in righteous indignation!!!! How your regressive attitude can be allowed to exist in our modern, more enlightened world is beyond me. Shame on you, Fuzzy Monster!!! Now turn to page 52 and buy these Kool Gadgets and Designer Clothes! / NOW writer

By: Fuzzy Monster

Fuzzy Monster — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:01:57 -0800

Mamma Mia! The Card Cheat, he's-a gonna cut me good! *flips to page 52* Hmm... you know, I have been in the market for a glow in the dark translucent musical mousepad... and they're only two hundred dollars!

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:58:29 -0800

I'm Canadian and I approve of this porn. Sex is fun, both to have and to watch.

By: pwedza

pwedza — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:02:22 -0800

those pics look more like abduction photos

By: dame

dame — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:11:28 -0800

I read an interview with Dov (too long ago to remember where, sorry) where he talked about fitting the t-shirts on the closest available "real women" he could find if they get more people to buy American Apparel stuff (a great company that makes a great product) than I say, awesome! See, this is interesting because my one problem with American Apparel is that their women's clothes are made for skinny chicks (or short, round ones). So then I find myself torn between shops that make clothes that fit but use sweatshop labor and shops that sell ethical clothes that happen to require wearing men's tops or some home tailoring. And I find that dilemma far more interesting than the is it porn debate. Because we all know all the arguments to that one.

By: mikeh

mikeh — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:13:51 -0800

I'm surprised no one's jumped on to the other American Apparel "controversies" by this far down in the thread (I've heard they're union-busting evil overpriced bastards who are just waiting to sell out to the highest bidder!). In any case, I tend to like the ads but feel some sort of dorky guilt that I own products from a company that's advertised all over the damn place in such obvious ways. I guess that's their branding, though. As for sexy advertisements, I still think the girl in the Puma print ad who's growling while crouching next to a tiger is hot.

By: graventy

graventy — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:36:54 -0800

This tastes to me of false outrage. Even viral marketing. Hey, y'know what tastes good with non-porn? Pepsi Blue.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:34:00 -0800

"I am Canadian. And one in four of us is Torontonian (I'm not). Let's think." Think what? I pretty much guessed you were a non-Torontonian Canadian since it's pretty much non-Torontonian Canadians that feel the need to diss Toronto. The point here is that it's just not sporting because Canadians are so easy to provoke and Torontonians in particular. You follow?

By: SenshiNeko

SenshiNeko — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:18:28 -0800

Reminds me of the fake Puma sneaker ads that pretty blatantly insinuated oral sex AND pretty blatantly pushed the Puma logo. (Previous MeFi discussion.)

By: dabitch

dabitch — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:39:17 -0800

puma ads in large format. (also, first web posting, feb 25 2003.)

By: dabitch

dabitch — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:40:59 -0800

disclaimer, my post by the way. It just annoys me that Slate didn't mention adland. *cries*. ;) About the lighter I'll see if I can re-google that strange outraged article, it was something about the girl being "dirty" because she does "bad things" like smoke, so it was a visual que that she was a bad girl.. Yes, tres weird.

By: Al_Truist

Al_Truist — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:55:22 -0800

Thanks for the link, NickDouglas, some very amusing designs there. :) As for the AA ads, it simply looks to me like they've succeeded in copying the VICE magazine aesthetic. They know their demographic, and they're marketing to them. We're surprised? I don't own any AA clothing, but I know others who do, and they're quite happy with the quality of the goods. The fact that they're "sweatshop free" goods is why they cost $15 for an undershirt. Think about that next time you buy a two-for-$10 pack of undershirts at Walmart or Target. And reading NOWtoronto for anything other than concert listings or film reviews/times is a complete waste of your time...10 or 15 years ago they were much better, but they've learned to suck so much more since then...

By: DaShiv

DaShiv — Sat, 19 Mar 2005 02:44:29 -0800

it was something about the girl being dirty because she does bad things like smoke Just in case that sentiment crosses gender lines: I've been bad, oh so bad. Spank me. *lights up*