American Apparel: Back to School Controversy

American Apparel as featured previously on my blog is yet again using shock tactics and sexualised images to promote their company and products. Dov Charney the founder who was dismissed previously for sexual allegations and misconduct has been re-hired as a ‘consultant’, surely the man who has various sexual harassment cases against him shouldn’t be re-associated with the company if they want to get away from the negative image which he has portrayed onto them.

American Apparel Back to School

The latest campaign which has caused outrage comes from the ‘back to school’ range and promotes a ‘School girl’ fantasy which can be linked to pornography, the image has reportedly been removed from the site now (I found it on Google) which leads you to think if it is just an innocent campaign then why remove it?

It can be assumed that the model is of the consensual age but it’s hard to tell when you cant see her face… Back to School is often aimed at under 16’s so it could be argues that this is promoting the sexualisation of children which cannot be justified. “Peter Bradley, from Kidscape, said: ‘It’s something we find abhorrent. It’s about using underage pornography to sell products and the sexualisation of children, which cannot ever be justified.”

We’ve all heard the expression ‘sex sells’ but that should never be used to promote anything to do with children or schools.

American Apparel- Schools Out
April 2014

Another advertisement taken directly from the American Apparel website was used to show that the school term had ended, the young girl in the advertisement can clearly be shown on a bed which again sexualises the image, I’m not sure what age the girl is but she looks too young to be objectified by a company trying to use sex as a promotion. If you look at the many other campaigns from the company or even of the products then you will see that the company like to use young models often wearing very little.

American Apparel- Vinyl Mini Skirt
July 2014

This image isn’t linked to the back to school campaign but again expresses the need the company feels to use young models whilst sexualising them, the product in question is of a ‘vinyl mini skirt’ which in itself could be linked to fetishism and pornography, again the girl is quite young and posing in very little. Considering the company are trying to sell a skirt why should the model be topless and have her legs spread apart?

American- Apparel Bon Appetit
April 2014

Another recent campaign from April 2014 shows a girl with her legs spread, the actual product she is supposed to be advertising is a ‘Fisherman’s jumper’ which I guess some people may not be able to tell as the large letters of ‘Bon Appetit’ and the fact she’s eating a large sandwich are quite distracting… 

The site actually sells clothes aimed at babies and young children so is it appropriate for them to sexualise clothing aimed at women? I hardly think so. If you take a look at their ad campains (link below) you will see that the male models aren’t sexualised so why should it just be women that ‘sell sex’, it just promotes objectification and misogyny and I think the company should stop listening to Dov Charney and turn their selves around before the company is run into the ground.  


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2718720/American-Apparel-resorting-porn-sell-Back-School-range.html#ixzz3AAcgOT7J

Previous Ad Campaigns: http://www.americanapparel.net/advertising/?search=1&type=0&year=0&keyword=&page=1

Advertisements

American Apparel: CEO Misconduct

american-apparelIf you Google American Apparel then you will see pages of images filled with sexually graphic content, it’s hard to believe this is a clothing company…

Dov Charney the CEO of controversial company American Apparel has been fired after coming under many sexual harassment cases, the 45-year-old who founded the company in 1998 is believed to have undertaken an unprofessional approach to his female employees, it is said he walked around in his underpants in front of them and even brought they sex toys as gifts. Although he has come under fire for many sexual harassment cases the company have always backed him and no cases have been successful, it has recently emerged that the company have let him go due to ‘misconduct’ it is not clear what he has actually done.

american apparel store openingSuch controversial advertisements like shown above prove that Charney has a lack of respect for women, previous employees claim he acted inappropriately during interviews and were even asked to masturbate in front of him, surely this should have rung alarm bells with the other directors and shareholders within the company? Whilst being interviewed by a journalist she claims he had a sex act performed on him whilst being part of an interview, this CEO clear should have been removed from the company long ago, just because he has ‘power’ within the company doesn’t mean he should abuse it and harass those around him.

Dov CharneyTo check out some of American Apparel’s controversial campaign why not read https://chasingtheimpossibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/american-apparel-controversal-campaigns/

http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/fashion-blog/2014/jun/19/dov-charney-american-apparel

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/american-apparel-fires-founder-dov-charney-after-misconduct-inquiry-9547865.html

*images from Google

Check ‘Em Tuesday Campaign Controversy

check em tuesday coverPage 3 as we all know features topless models for unnecessary purposes, boobs aren’t news and shouldn’t be featured in a ‘family’ paper, a while ago now I signed the petition to have the Page 3 content removed as well as 161, 823 more people so I am quite disgusted and concerned as to why David Dinsmore has decided to use sexualised women to promote Breast Cancer awareness.

Check ‘Em Tuesday will now run every Tuesday to remind women to check theirselves for any signs of Breast Cancer, using a popular newspaper is a great way to promote cancer awareness but using sexualised images is not the right way to go about it! Coppafeel the charity working with The Sun feel it’s the best way to alert people of the dangers rather than aimed at sufferers.

I have nothing against the charity and hope it succeeds before I am seen as being against cancer awareness, I just feel that it seems like The Sun has used a tactical move, they know about the vast amount of support for no more Page 3, even MP’s want it gone, so promoting a deadly disease to keep the content in place is a disgusting move.

check em tuesdayThe above image has been used to ‘promote’ the campaign, had you not seen it before would you be aware it’s promoting breast cancer awareness? Breast Cancer is a serious condition and I personally feel that The Sun isn’t taking it very seriously, it’s nice that they want to promote it but they are going the wrong way about it.

Go CommandoGo Commando is the male equivalent of Check ‘Em Tuesday but there was a very large difference between the promotion of both campaigns, Page 3 models were given front page and a large spread in the paper, Go Commando used ordinary men and only had a small feature in the paper, the majority of the space on those pages was covered with advertisements. What does that tell you?

Cancer is deadly serious no matter what gender, age or ethnicity you are, yet The Sun seems to think that female models in their early 20’s is the way to promote it and older white males (with one exception of a 24 year old) will attract readers. In the article it has the cancer stories of the men who have suffered, and again Coppafeel features to the side of the story but to promote the symptoms of breast cancer rather than having a male guide on cancer symptoms.

If you don’t agree with Page 3 and think it is outdated then why not sign the petition? or follow the campaign on Twitter @NoMorePage3

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-dinsmore-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3

 

*images from Google

American Apparel: Controversal Campaigns

It’s no surprise that the store fronting mannequins with full pubic hair is a store that also printed a t-shirt of a menstruating vagina just last year, the store of course is American Apparel.

Controversy is the forte of this store, with previous advertisements bordering pornographic (photos to come shorty) Women are constantly sexualised by this brand so this latest stunt to grab attention doesn’t come as a surprise with the use of female mannequins.  The mannequins are fronting full pubic hair and realistic nipples shown in see through underwear, but what is the point to this campaign? Does it make you want to go in store? It’s certainly been a good way of publicising their selves as many stop and stare at the displays as well as talking about it worldwide.  

american-apparel mannequinsThe pubic hair campaign is for a Valentines Display, I fail to see it.

An advert which features a model wearing just sports socks with hand placements to look like masturbation is another example of an extreme advertisement they have previously used and had banned. You would think a clothes shop’s primarily focus would be to sell the clothes and not to sell sex.

american-apparel-ads-2011-mainAnother shocking advert for the company which features sheer pants showing off more pubic hair, why is this company so obsessed with pubic hair and vagina’s?  Personally I don’t find the adverts to be that clever or appealing but their sales tactics appear to be sold on controversy and shock alone.

american apparel store openingThe finally shocking advertisement is the one above which is for a store opening, funny how the store details are in small print and barely noticeable. The owner Dov Charney clear has no respect for women otherwise why would he sexualise them to such an extent just to ‘sell’ clothing although very little is worn in advertisements.  Another issue I have with all this is that the models always look quite young, sexualising young women gives off such a terrible impression, it makes them look like objects rather than human beings.

*images from Google