“Getting a little bored” with sweat-free: the ethics of American Apparel
is a secondary appeal
and I’m getting a
little bored with it.” – Dov Charney
CEO of American Apparel*
Clamour Magazine has unveiled a scathing report on the business ethics of the hip, socially-conscious U.S. clothing company American Apparel, including criticisms of its sexual ad campaigns, union-busting activities, and accusations of a culture of sexual harrassment. The report, which appears in the mag’s current issue, is comprised of three articles, which can be found here. According to Clamour’s blog, AA is planning to sue. Adbusters is also following the story. Here’s an excerpt from one of the articles:
The real story of American Apparel’s ads is how the company has used the bodies of its barely legal employees to shore up its appeal to the progressive left by implanting anti-sweatshop shtick into every article generated by its low-budget, sexist ads. And the AA demographic – low-wage-worker-defending (but high-wage-earning), guilt-ridden lefties who want nothing more than to assuage their own angst-ridden middle-class anxiety about having succeeded in the capitalist world by consuming with conscience (and the more conscience, the better: sweat-free, fair-trade, organic, vegan, and sustainable) – ate it up.[...]
American Apparel’s fame as an anti-sweatshop hero company is rooted not in ideology, but in the cut-throat clothing industry. Charney had just opened American Apparel’s first retail store in downtown L.A. when he learned that another T-shirt-and-tank-top outfitter, the late SweatX, aimed to open a retail outlet right next door. “He saw a threat from SweatX, so all of a sudden he realized that there was press – lots of it – so he played that angle,†says [Adam] Neiman [CEO of No Sweat Apparel, AA’s main anti-sweatshop (and pro
union) Tshirt-and-tank-top competitor].“Dov had never shown any interest up to this time in the sweatshop issue whatsoever,†Neiman says. “It was all about sex – sexy tees, sexy tees, sexy tees – was it.†Sex is still the central concern for Charney. Wherever Charney goes, rumors and insinuations follow. Stories about workplace nudity, inappropriate come-ons, and outright sexual harassment seem to sprout out of Charney.
But it’s also a whole lot more than just sex. It is the cynical positioning of those female bodies over a backdrop of progressive causes, an incomplete and cognitively dissonant seduction that seems, nonetheless, to have worked well enough that almost every shirt I’m tempted to buy has that tell-tale three-circle logo of American Apparel. And no wonder: American Apparel is, ironically, the brand of choice for any number of progressive organizations who decide to do a little T-shirt marketing.
The most complete source for more information that I have seen remains Knowmore.org’s American Apparel profile which has bestowed a decidedly negative rating to the company.
Years ago, when I first heard of American Apparel I was excited by their project, but this is further evidence of the irreformability of capitalism and how we simply cannot rely on these “super-savior” companies that like to appeal to the conscience of progressive types and market it right back to them using the same old tactics. The key to fighting capitalism from a Catholic perspective is not to assuage our guilt by purchasing more and more American Apparel products. The sweatshop phenomenon is, at its heart, a spiritual problem and we need to attack capitalism at its root by resisting the manufactured desire that these corporations produce. The answer is not buying more “guilt-free” AA products. The answer is simply buying less shit, and this is, of course, not a part of American Apparel’s gameplan.
why buy anything new? right?
Jane magazine did a piece with Mr. Charney a couple of years ago, in which he masturbated in front of the reporter during the interview. (I think I sent it to Emily.) I walk in that store sometimes, just to take in all the shiny, bright-colored unitards…I can’t justify the prices, or the policies, but so many people seem to. I heard they hire models and tell them to “come to work whenever you feel like it.” but this is, of course, not documented.
this type of information just drives me further into the DIY mindframe. why spend $50 for a lousy t-shirt when you could make your own shirts and have it be just as cool AND personal. and it’s not like it would take that much time or resources..
oh capitalism.. what will you think of next.
Your post demonstrates clearly the weakness of the Clamor Magazine hatchet pieces. They quoted an American Apparel competitor as an authoritative voice on American Apparel’s tactics? Adam Neiman, whose own marketing tactics play up his company’s alleged sweatshop free status, is also an expert on Charney’s state of mind? Hmmm… these articles would be bad if they appeared in a high school newspaper and hardly merit the attention they’ve gotten, unless… Unless you have an axe to grind and have already made up your mind on the issue. That might also explain Clamor’s use of a union activist to write about a very contentious union issue. Bias is ok in an editorial, but this was presented as laudable journalism. Yikes!
The company for its part has actually linked to the knowmore article on its own Web site. That article presents a far more nuanced appraisal of the company. You don’t have to shop at or like American Apparel. But you ought to recognize that the company provides valuable employment to thousands of people. At least for the sake of the innocent workers, try to be fairer in your judgements.
Hi Cole – thanks for your comments.
1) The Clamour piece did not quote Neiman as an “authoritative voice,” but as someone who would have an opinion on the matter.
2) You compare AA marketing to No Sweat’s marketing its own “alleged sweatshop free status,” as if No Sweat is being dishonest. Whereas there are significant reasons to have concerns with AA’s practices (apparent anti-union history, Charney’s own quote about being “bored” with sweat-free status), no such evidence exists for No Sweat. If you were to produce some evidence, I will post that information for my readers.
3) As far as the authorship of the articles (one of the three articles was written by a union activist – the others were not), I see no conflict of interest here.
4) “But you ought to recognize that the company provides valuable employment to thousands of people.” This is the same sort of defense that companies like Wal-Mart use… “At least we’re giving people jobs.” I don’t buy that line of reasoning.
5) Your comments read like guerilla PR following a short list of talking points right off of Charney’s desk.
Look, I was a more or less a fan of AA before I read the Clamour pieces and the Knowmore.org profile. I didn’t “have my mind made up,” or an axe to grind. Sure, I have always thought their clothes were overpriced (suspiciously close to what The Gap charges for clothes) and I have never liked their advertising. Both of those factors have always made me a bit suspicious of the company. These pieces put me over the edge in deciding that I’d rather not support the AA project, least of all someone like Charney.
I think I’m being completely fair in a) linking both to the Clamour articles and the Knowmore.org profile, and b) in my own general comments on consumerism.
ColeK – I think your dismissal of the insights of union organizers is small minded and specious reasoning at best, red baiting at worst. Furthermore, I think your presupposition that Charney speaks more to the opinions and interests of his employees than a free association of textile workers and their advocates speaks to your bias. I suppose as with most things it comes down to definitions. I define a sweatshop as a workplace where workers do not have an independant and protected voice for the democratic persuit of thier interests. Therefore, even in countries like Mexico or China where workers may be represented by some a government controlled organization or “company union” I believe they have sweatshops. And though workers may be getting paid a lot more in a country like the U.S.A., if they work at the arbitrary whimsey or “will” of their boss, they are no less sweatshop workers. As for myself, I do not discriminate against Mr. Charney. I do not purchase any sweatshop clothes, his included. But I will be happy to shop there once he recognizes the rights his workers have to participate in their working lives. For those who are interested, there are other options for people who want to support sweat-free manufacturing, including No Sweat Apparel…
http://nosweatapparel.com/
Mikey – As much as I agree with your sentiment that we should buy less stuff, that will not solve the problem either my friend. The church very clearly, consistently, and vociferously endorses unions as the solution to issues of exploitation.
http://www.iwj.org/materials/materials_ctrwtxt.html
For people who wish to use consumer power to support workers’ right to organize, please visit…
http://www.studentsagainstsweatshops.org/
Zach – I wasn’t trying to de-emphasize the importance of workers’ rights, nor the Church’s insistence on unions. I was merely trying to emphasize the capitalist-consumerist mentality that is also part of the problem. Are they not like two sides of the same coin, in that this system encourages us to treat persons like things and things like persons?
Even if AA cleaned up its act as far as workers are concerned (and of course, I think they
shouldmust), I would still consider disordered any mentality that would substitute buying tons of sweatshop products with tons of sweatshop free products. The pseudospirituality of consumption is still present, and still problematic.m wrote:
Hi Cole – thanks for your comments.
You’re most welcome!
1) The Clamour piece did not quote Neiman as an “authoritative voice,†but as someone who would have an opinion on the matter.
Well, the article in question quoted from barbara findley, a “feminist lawyer” who spoke to legal issues related to sexual harassment suits. That’s fine. I mean she has a particular ideological orientation but that’s ok. We also get to hear from Adult entertainer Susan Wayward who brings up interesting points about how a sexually hostile work environment is measured by a subjective standard – i.e., what might be deemed acceptable in the adult entertainment industry might not be deemed acceptable at say, a middle school library. Allena Gabosch, executive director of the Seattle Sex Positive Community Center weighs in on the scope of a theoretical sex-positive work place. There was mention of rumors by a couple of anonymous AA employees, and then we have competitor Neiman who hypothesizes on Charney’s state of mind as well as how the company functions. Neiman talks about “Charney’s narrow-sightedness” and the article states that “The reason American Apparel’s model fails its female employees, according to Neiman, is that Charney retains all the power for himself while the women he employs have a faux sense of liberation that exists strictly within the rules, or lack thereof, that the mastermind has created.” How on earth would Neiman know this? And how does this jibe with reports that upwards of 60% of AA’s upper management is female? I have a passing interest in American Apparel and I know of Pat Honda who runs customer support, Cynthia Semon who is their top PR person, Alexandra Spunt heads communication which deals with ad placement and copy, Iris Alonzo is the top designer at AA and Carolina Crespo heads the graphics department. The VAST majority of store managers are female as well. These people have very real power. Neiman’s assertion implies that Dov makes all the decisions for all these bubbleheads who have been fooled into thinking that they have any say in how the company runs at all. That’s kind of insulting to them too isn’t it?
2) You compare AA marketing to No Sweat’s marketing its own “alleged sweatshop free status,†as if No Sweat is being dishonest. Whereas there are significant reasons to have concerns with AA’s practices (apparent anti-union history, Charney’s own quote about being “bored†with sweat-free status), no such evidence exists for No Sweat. If you were to produce some evidence, I will post that information for my readers.
The evidence is on NoSweat’s Web site as they are an “open source” manufacturer and claim to provide full and complete information about all their suppliers. I’ll just quote from a comment analyzing this information on Clamor’s blog:
Of the shops that they do provide real information about, unionized Universal Sportswear pays its employees less than American Apparel does and uses no organic cotton. Just Garments in El Salvador needed the help of Georgetown students to raise $16,000 just to stay afloat – and there is no information about their wages and benefits on the site. The most comprehensive information relates to the Bata factory in Indonesia that makes NoSweat’s awesome sweatshop free running shoes. You know, the one’s advertised with the scantily clad woman lying on the ground and the guy standing ominously above her? The unionized workers in that shop make less than $120 a month. That’s what an employee at American Apparel can make on a good day. The rest of the suppliers are given a pass by mere dint of the fact that they are unionized. Little more information is offered about them.
There’s a little more info for you. All independently verifiable I might add. Which is more than I can say for anything Neiman stated.
3) As far as the authorship of the articles (one of the three articles was written by a union activist – the others were not), I see no conflict of interest here.
Look, there’s nothing wrong with a union activist expressing his or her opinion. But there is in Journalism, a difference between News and editorial. Most of Clamor’s reporting was simply editorial. There’s nothing wrong with that but it does end up being somewhat less authoritative. They haven’t presented any new facts at all. Going back to our union buddy, you’ll notice that the knowmore article you cited provides a far more nuanced picture of the situation. Nowhere in Clamor does it mention the Union’s long history of corruption. Neither Clamor nor Knowmore discuss the historical role played by Unions in California in the movement to discriminate against Latino employment – the fear was that they’d take jobs away from white people.
4) “But you ought to recognize that the company provides valuable employment to thousands of people.†This is the same sort of defense that companies like Wal-Mart use… “At least we’re giving people jobs.†I don’t buy that line of reasoning.
You are again correct. However, if you read “Nickled and Dimed” you’ll know that WalMart does not provide a living wage. American Apparel provides more than a living wage which was pegged at $8.20 an hour in 2000. It would most certainly be a shame to lose those jobs. It’s not like the company is taking jobs away from Mom and Pop operations. There are hardly any manufacturers of apparel left in the US. The WalMart comparison is not at all apt.
5) Your comments read like guerilla PR following a short list of talking points right off of Charney’s desk.
That’s a nice way of negating the validity of my points without addressing them. My initial comment was admittedly general but this is just a blog comment, not an entire article! So I’ve provided you with some more substance – information hat took me five minutes to find on the Internet. I would hope that before publicly condemning a company and potentially jeopardizing the livelihoods of thousands of people, you’d at least have the courtesy to investigate the matter a little more. And I assure you, I am nowhere near Dov Charney’s desk. You can check my IP address – we’re not even in adjoining continents!
Look, I was a more or less a fan of AA before I read the Clamour pieces and the Knowmore.org profile. I didn’t “have my mind made up,†or an axe to grind.
I don’t think I ever questioned your objectivity. I just questioned the information provided by one of your sources. The Clamor magazine articles are, in my opinion, badly written and below acceptable journalistic standards. They are mere opinion pieces that bring nothing new to the debate. The knowmore piece is significantly more nuanced and exhaustively detailed. I don’t agree with the final rating they gave AA but I’m not one to quibble especially since so many of the other articles about American Apparel are not as well researched and written.
Sure, I have always thought their clothes were overpriced (suspiciously close to what The Gap charges for clothes) and I have never liked their advertising. Both of those factors have always made me a bit suspicious of the company. These pieces put me over the edge in deciding that I’d rather not support the AA project, least of all someone like Charney.
Well, American Apparel in my experience is made up of a lot more people than just Dov Charney. He has his faults but who doesn’t? I don’t want to go on another big tangent. Also it’s fine to take issue with the pricing. The Advertising is what it is – the sexiness is standard for the industry, although the use of normal people in the ads isn’t and I kinda like that. I guess it’s a matter of taste and sensibility. I for one am far more offended by impossibly thin models promoting an impossible to acheive image of beauty and desirability. Too many bulimic friends… Finally, no one says you MUST support the company. Just do it on the basis of solid facts and also be prepared to drop your support for companies that are similarly not up to your standards – ie companies who use factories where employees make under $120 a month for instance.
I think I’m being completely fair in a) linking both to the Clamour articles and the Knowmore.org profile, and b) in my own general comments on consumerism.
Sure. The issue wasn’t the linkage. the issue was a complete lack of any critique against a really bad set of articles – Clamor, not knowmore. As for your other comments, I really don’t know any large companies that can live up to your standards and stay in business. In such a case buying used clothing or even making your own is a fine and noble alternative. It makes sense, it’s logical and its eco-friendly. What doesn’t make sense is lauding stuff you read in Clamor and actively working to destroy the only somewhat major player in the apparel industry that is trying very hard with much demonstrable success, to run a more ethical corporation.
So Dov Charney hired Robert Greene (author of “The 48 Laws of Power”) to be a consultant for American Apparel.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-48laws12jul12,0,1132704.story?coll=la-home-headlines
This gives us a useful window into Charney’s ideology, which seems to value image manipulation, above all else. A few of the relevant “Laws of Power…”
http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/Courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm
See especially #’s 6, 7, 25, 27, 32. 37 and 45
Which of these Laws of Power will be the next “provocative” ad slogan? Stay tuned…
Jayme and I visited the American Apparel in Columbus about six months ago. Before I read the knowmore editorial on them about two months ago (was it the IM sent you with a link to it that prompted you to write this by the way?).
All these issues aside, I think what jayme said to me on the way out sums up AA to a T (pun intended).
“I should have to choose between sweatshop free and dressing like a cheap whore.”
When progressive labor practices starts to conicide with conservative fashion (i.e. the sort of clothes you would find in a Target), then we’ll look again, until then we’re approaching most sweatshop free clothing with a bit of skepticism.
That should read “shouldn’t have to choose”
DUH!
Adam—I don’t recall getting that link from you on IM, but maybe I got it and didn’t have a chance to look at it. What prompted me to blog about it was my semi-regular click over to Clamour magazine, which I quite like. I thought you would appreciate the info. :)
Of course I agree with you that consumerism is a significant problem Mikey. Lust for material wealth leads to the violation of our covenant with God and just relations with others. However, coming from an organizing background, again I want to stress how important popular, intellegent, and faithful ORGANIZATIONS are to the spread of a successful counter-culture.
Zach – Then we agree! :)
One of the things I hate is clothes with a bunch of labels. I mean, American Apparel is great because you don’t look like a freakin’ walking ad. No little WASPs playing polo on my shirts. AA is bringing awareness to where our clothes come from and the process from cotton in the field to folded t-shirt. So there are a few bumps while trying to make things better – at least they’re moving in the right direction. I mean, Before The Body Shop bunnies were wearing eyeliner…