January 21, 2008
American Apparel Rallies for Immigration Reform
By Tom Ryan
American Apparel has been running ads over the last month charging that the U.S.’s immigration policy “amounts to an apartheid system” and should be overhauled to create a legal path for undocumented workers to gain citizenship.
Most advertisers avoid any controversy, particularly divisive political issues such as immigration. Benetton and Nike have run ads about social causes in the past, and many companies today address environmental concerns in their ads. But, advertising executives said those issues were not as divisive as immigration tends to be.
“This is an issue that elections are being decided on,” Greg Stern, chief executive of Butler, Shine, Stern & Partners, an advertising agency, told The New York Times. “But, of course, they’re a very radical company.”
Indeed, American Apparel certainly doesn’t skirt controversy. Many critics claim its ads featuring scantily clad young women are pornography. But Dov Charney, founder and CEO of American Apparel and himself an immigrant from Canada, said the issue reflects his personal ideals around freedom. And while other large companies privately lobby the government over various policies, he would rather be open about his position.
“Let me be clear who makes our clothes. It is a collaboration between American-born people and non-American-born people,” he said. “I don’t think supporting immigration reflects negatively on my brand, and in fact, it makes it look like we’re a responsible business.”
American Apparel, which operates the largest garment factory in the U.S., has long advocated fair treatment of workers and in the past has run ads in local publications about immigration. Mr. Charney said the company has received numerous letters of support for the new, broader campaign, which has run in the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times.
But some immigration experts said it amounted to an admission that American Apparel uses illegal immigrants.
“It is self-serving propaganda to perpetuate cheap labor policies that are in violation of American law,” Vernon M. Briggs Jr., a professor emeritus at Cornell who specializes in immigration policy, told the Times. “This is not ‘apartheid.’ This is simply law-breaking. ‘Apartheid’ is an emotional term that is designed to inflame the issue.”
The company said despite the campaign, it has been careful to make sure that its workers present the necessary documentation for employment.
Alicia Schmidt Camacho, an associate professor of American studies at Yale, called the advertisement “brave” and said she largely supported its statements.
“What I think is startling is that this is a partisan advertising campaign that advocates for workers and is not advocating for the consumer,” Ms. Schmidt Camacho said. “It’s an appeal that is based on their brand and identification with particular values.”
Discussion Questions: Should retailers or consumer brands be coming out with ads promoting social causes? Are certain topics okay (e.g., fighting aids or breast cancer, environment) and others too divisive? Has American Apparel crossed the line in this case and what will this campaign mean to its business?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Hooray for American Apparel here is a company that is willing to live by it values. This did not seem to hurt Ben & Jerry’s in the past and has not hurt a lot of other companies. At least people know where they stand. They can either decide this is someone they want to do business with or not.
One point that the writer made is that here is a company that most likely supports hiring of illegal immigrants. I would bet that the government is going to be taking a hard look at them. I also wager that they are a lot cleaner on this issue then most other employers.
A brand has to live within its defined parameters. While some social causes might be controversial for some outside their core target consumer, it will simply be status quo for loyalist. Further, additional exposure will simply bring new customers into the franchise.
A brand might alienate folks with their socio-political stance, but keep in mind, that brands and companies don’t live off those who don’t purchase them.
To summarize, certain topics are off-limits: Don’t support the issues your core consumer opposes.
The point is that American Apparel has a very clear vision which includes being controversial and outspoken. This ad is congruent with that vision and their values. Therefore, the ad is appropriate.
I do not think that most retailers or consumer brands would do well with stepping out boldly on social and political issues. Not because it is inappropriate for companies to get involved in such discussions, but rather because it would not be congruent with most companies’ vision and values. The most important thing a company does is define itself: purpose, vision, mission and values. Every day in every way companies must behave in accordance with their true selves or risk confusing and alienating employees and customers alike. Whether we agree with American Apparel’s positions or not, I think we can agree that their behaviors are consistent and congruent with their values. Good for them.
I’m in no position to speculate on the status of American Apparel’s workforce. And I love that the company engages with this topic head-on–somebody needs to.
American Apparel has a long history of asserting its position on immigration. While others go out of the country and have underaged, underpaid workers making product, American Apparel has made it a point to promote itself as using US employees. They area controversial brand and appeal to buyers for whom this controversy is a badge of honor, not a negative. The bottom line is that controversial brands should speak out for their causes. Just expect to alienate those who disagree with you. That comes with the territory.
Brand alignment around social causes is nothing new, though it’s gaining traction.
Anita Roddick and Body Shop, and Kenneth Cole were early adopters who wisely saw the value in weaving social causes into the fabric of their brand voice.
Most recently, Gap, Apple, Motorola, Hallmark and several other brands collaborated on the (RED) campaign for AIDS awareness with a high degree of success.
When executed intelligently, it cuts through the clutter of today’s marketing messages and offers a reason for customers to feel a deeper, values-based connection to the company. The key is understanding the difference between social cause marketing and alignment with highly charged, political issues, which may easily backfire.
Not a good path for anyone to take. When brands or retailers start taking political positions, it rarely turns out good. The only time a brand or retailer should is when they are not concerned about whatever the fallout might be, and the fallout is always far different than what people expect; both good and bad.
American Apparel’s ads charging that the U.S. government’s immigration policy “amounts to an apartheid system” are ineffective because the position taken is “extreme” which means it will appeal only to a small minority of citizens and consumers who already agree with the extreme point of view.
This type of communication is dangerous if the retailer also desires mass market appeal, independent of its political views. There are better and more subtle ways to lobby for a “cause” without putting extreme politics in front of good marketing practices. The same is true for religion. Too many CEOs want to push political and religious agendas with business, and it’s almost always an arrogant mistake to do so. Keep your politics and religious beliefs separate from your marketing message, unless you desire to sell your products and services to a small group of only the people that agree with you about everything you believe.
American Apparel and Kenneth Cole are both relatively small brands with big ambitions. One way to turbocharge an ad campaign: controversy. Both companies have gained tremendous free publicity via their provocative ad positioning, both erotic and political.
The awful clutter in every medium makes it hard for any ads to stand out and be noticed. Furthermore, neither American Apparel nor Ken Cole need more than a small market share to be very successful. So it doesn’t matter if a large portion of the audience gets offended. The market they’re trying to reach may enjoy offending certain segments.
While the use of the term “apartheid” is very unfortunate, American Apparel has every right to invest some of its marketing dollars to advocate for what it believes to be social justice. It should do so with a consciousness, however, that every employee may not agree with its stance and that some of its customers and trading partners may react, positively or negatively.
In this respect a corporation is not like a private citizen–the decisions of management have consequences for stakeholders that must be considered when advocating for a political position. Diverse opinions will surely exist within the ranks–and among the customer base.
Something to ponder: Which companies are better citizens of our fragile democracy–the rare few like American Apparel who address issues in the public forum, or those who work furtively in the back channels of government to influence policy?
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Hooray for American Apparel here is a company that is willing to live by it values. This did not seem to hurt Ben & Jerry’s in the past and has not hurt a lot of other companies. At least people know where they stand. They can either decide this is someone they want to do business with or not.
One point that the writer made is that here is a company that most likely supports hiring of illegal immigrants. I would bet that the government is going to be taking a hard look at them. I also wager that they are a lot cleaner on this issue then most other employers.
A brand has to live within its defined parameters. While some social causes might be controversial for some outside their core target consumer, it will simply be status quo for loyalist. Further, additional exposure will simply bring new customers into the franchise.
A brand might alienate folks with their socio-political stance, but keep in mind, that brands and companies don’t live off those who don’t purchase them.
To summarize, certain topics are off-limits: Don’t support the issues your core consumer opposes.
The point is that American Apparel has a very clear vision which includes being controversial and outspoken. This ad is congruent with that vision and their values. Therefore, the ad is appropriate.
I do not think that most retailers or consumer brands would do well with stepping out boldly on social and political issues. Not because it is inappropriate for companies to get involved in such discussions, but rather because it would not be congruent with most companies’ vision and values. The most important thing a company does is define itself: purpose, vision, mission and values. Every day in every way companies must behave in accordance with their true selves or risk confusing and alienating employees and customers alike. Whether we agree with American Apparel’s positions or not, I think we can agree that their behaviors are consistent and congruent with their values. Good for them.
I’m in no position to speculate on the status of American Apparel’s workforce. And I love that the company engages with this topic head-on–somebody needs to.
American Apparel has a long history of asserting its position on immigration. While others go out of the country and have underaged, underpaid workers making product, American Apparel has made it a point to promote itself as using US employees. They area controversial brand and appeal to buyers for whom this controversy is a badge of honor, not a negative. The bottom line is that controversial brands should speak out for their causes. Just expect to alienate those who disagree with you. That comes with the territory.
Brand alignment around social causes is nothing new, though it’s gaining traction.
Anita Roddick and Body Shop, and Kenneth Cole were early adopters who wisely saw the value in weaving social causes into the fabric of their brand voice.
Most recently, Gap, Apple, Motorola, Hallmark and several other brands collaborated on the (RED) campaign for AIDS awareness with a high degree of success.
When executed intelligently, it cuts through the clutter of today’s marketing messages and offers a reason for customers to feel a deeper, values-based connection to the company. The key is understanding the difference between social cause marketing and alignment with highly charged, political issues, which may easily backfire.
Not a good path for anyone to take. When brands or retailers start taking political positions, it rarely turns out good. The only time a brand or retailer should is when they are not concerned about whatever the fallout might be, and the fallout is always far different than what people expect; both good and bad.
American Apparel’s ads charging that the U.S. government’s immigration policy “amounts to an apartheid system” are ineffective because the position taken is “extreme” which means it will appeal only to a small minority of citizens and consumers who already agree with the extreme point of view.
This type of communication is dangerous if the retailer also desires mass market appeal, independent of its political views. There are better and more subtle ways to lobby for a “cause” without putting extreme politics in front of good marketing practices. The same is true for religion. Too many CEOs want to push political and religious agendas with business, and it’s almost always an arrogant mistake to do so. Keep your politics and religious beliefs separate from your marketing message, unless you desire to sell your products and services to a small group of only the people that agree with you about everything you believe.
American Apparel and Kenneth Cole are both relatively small brands with big ambitions. One way to turbocharge an ad campaign: controversy. Both companies have gained tremendous free publicity via their provocative ad positioning, both erotic and political.
The awful clutter in every medium makes it hard for any ads to stand out and be noticed. Furthermore, neither American Apparel nor Ken Cole need more than a small market share to be very successful. So it doesn’t matter if a large portion of the audience gets offended. The market they’re trying to reach may enjoy offending certain segments.
While the use of the term “apartheid” is very unfortunate, American Apparel has every right to invest some of its marketing dollars to advocate for what it believes to be social justice. It should do so with a consciousness, however, that every employee may not agree with its stance and that some of its customers and trading partners may react, positively or negatively.
In this respect a corporation is not like a private citizen–the decisions of management have consequences for stakeholders that must be considered when advocating for a political position. Diverse opinions will surely exist within the ranks–and among the customer base.
Something to ponder: Which companies are better citizens of our fragile democracy–the rare few like American Apparel who address issues in the public forum, or those who work furtively in the back channels of government to influence policy?