Among my group of friends, we have developed a way of talking about certain retail establishments as “the Place with the Stuff.” It was originally a way of deflecting blame for shopping at Urban Outfitters, but has since become the moniker for American Apparel and a few smaller California-based chains as well. Indeed, there’s plenty of shit to talk about these shops: AA uses hyper-sexualized images of young women–emaciated to varying degrees–and we’ve all heard the rumors about how sleazy the owner is, right? UO tends to pillage and mass-produce everything cool and indie with remarkable speed, and then funnels profits to pro-life and anti-gay rights organizations. I feel like those are good enough excuses for boycotting both.
(I won’t even bother with UO, because they’re so far beyond hope.)
I found this fake advertisement (above) on a website that spoofs the NY Times (and it’s really worth a look): it’s a posi spoof with mock articles about how the world could be in 9 months if the surge in community volunteerism prompted by the Obama campaign continued being active and vocal about the needs of the people in this country. Of course this particular spoof ad really caught my eye because I’m such a critic of this company anyway. This ad highlights another key issue about AA: they aren’t unionized. They might brag about being made in America, but this is not synonymous with being made fairly by a company that respects and adequately supplies for their workers’ needs. Nowadays, being unionized does not guarantee this either. This Place with the Stuff is better than your average garment manufacturer. According to NPR, “Earning twice the California minimum wage, employees get subsidized lunches, subsidized health insurance, free on-site English classes and free bus tokens—even company bicycles to get to and from work.” And that doesn’t sound super bad.
Media or, uh, the media do bizarre things to our perceptions or ourselves, other people, and the world around us. There is something very provocative about AA advertisments; they have an essence of voyeurism, barely legal pornography, and an after taste of sexual exploitation. The young women in the AA advertisements embody what my sister calls Rape-Chic. Harsh. But, I think she’s describing the way all those women look totally vulnerable and somewhat defeated. They certainly don’t look unionized. I wonder what those ads would look like if they were unionized. Maybe they’d look no different. What if they were collectivized?!? Would an equitable relationship between the dude with the camera and the half-naked woman on the other side affect the resulting image?
An entirely different image that AA has been promoting of late is that of the illegal immigration. However, their take on the issue is predictably pro-immigrant and vaguely radical. The “Legalize LA” campaign may or may not be suggesting that immigration is a human right that should not be restricted, but they’re certainly saying something. And they’re probably convincing a few of their so-hip patrons to pay attention to that whole immigration thing. Unfortunately, the photo spread advertisements come across a lot stronger than the immigration “action plan.” Mixing politics with marketing is, at best, messy. At worst? It’s something like: Legalize LA ’cause those immigrant girls look so sexy in the solid jersey hot short, style # 8301.
Paul M Davis
5 Comments
Matthew
Immigration ‘action plan’? It’s a clothing store not a lobby in Washington.
As for mixing politics with sex, honestly, it’s an interesting angle. They treat their employees well, bring illegal immigration into mainstream dialogue, and sell their clothes with sex- I see 2 things on that list that I don’t get from other retailers.
18 Nov 2008 11:11 am
Elaina
Thanks for the comment, Matthew. These guys are definitely better than most. However, as consumers and as members of this society, I think we need to be wary of how businesses advertise their supposed ethical treatment of employees as a selling point. It’s easy to fool ourselves into thinking that because something is “american-made,” “organic,” or “fair-trade” it is a flawless product. Any of these characteristics are likely to attract the purchasing power of conscious consumers, but as citizens, we should not let those companies rest because there’s still significant room for improvement.
18 Nov 2008 12:11 pm
Danielle
If you read Rob Walker’s book where he talks about American Apparel, he brings up a good point. The company is pretty upfront that they use sex to sell clothes while they treat their employees well in order to make good clothes. That’s a very subtle and important difference. I read about this on the Wikipedia page but basically the ethics aren’t about selling clothes, the ethics are there because they work.
Seems like you should be all over that, it’s living proof of what we talk about as liberals. But whatever. I guess I understand the cynicism.
20 Nov 2008 03:11 pm
Levi
I’m not sure where you’re going with this . . . there are certainly critiques to be made about AA, but it’s hard to argue that they should be boycotted just because their employees aren’t unionized. They treat them well (certainly many times better than the huge percentage of clothing manufacturers on the planet) and pay them fairly. Have they been suppressing attempts at unionization, or is it just that the organization hasn’t happened? That’s an important distinction.
Of course any company should be criticized for any corporate failings, but it would be helpful to list some alternatives . . . what’s a better company to buy clothing from, for instance?
Personally, my main beef with them is for bringing back Hyper Color.
21 Nov 2008 05:11 pm
Elaina
Levi, I’m not really sure where I’m going with this either. I should have expanded on the idea of “collectivization” a very different concept than unionization. As I noted, unionization doesn’t necessarily accomplish much. These workers are in a fantastic situation….compared with other garment workers. Still, this is not what I would call a “success story.” I also earn twice the state minimum wage and my employer pays all of my health insurance; I live frugally and have no dependents. I can’t imagine trying to raise a family on that sort of salary! Of course, I’m not looking for happy little examples to prove that capitalism is rad for the working class. I don’t expect everyone to have the same impression of this company, their structure, product and marketing. I’m simply sharing my poorly developed opinion.
And Danielle, I don’t identify as a liberal.
24 Nov 2008 12:11 am
Leave a Comment