So, Woody Allen is suing American Apparel. Huh.
It’s funny … give our industry one celeb and people go crazy. (And by crazy, I mean that in the entire history of our e-newsletter, that item had pretty much the highest click-through rate, well, ever).
I’m finding it increasingly hilarious that no one can seem to decide which of the involved parties is more distasteful: Woody Allen, for well-publicized reasons, or a company founded by a guy with, shall we say, a less-than-savory reputation.
My coworkers make fun of me because I have “views” about American Apparel. Yes, I cover the company in articles, put their stuff in our showcases—I’m even the owner of a free sample or two (or 12). And I’m down with the company’s social responsibility, don’t get me wrong. There are good things going on there.
But the retail advertisements. I don’t consider myself puritanical by any stretch, but for some reason, they just don’t sit well. Is it absolutely vital to the sale of T-shirts for some of those images to be out there?
I think if the ads showed guys in compromising positions, like they do with the female models, I might not have as big a problem with it. It still wouldn’t necessarily be my taste, but whatever.
Anyway, personal preferences aside.
For once, American Apparel chose to circumvent the overtly sexual, locker-room-esque images that typically sell the shiny leggings in favor of Woody Allen. I realize that, for a particular generation, the image of Allen is just as objectionable and polarizing due to a few of his questionable (and certifiably creepy) life choices. If the comments the PM staff got on that news tidbit are any indication, many of our readers aren’t willing to overlook past transgressions.
But as a member of American Apparel’s target demographic, I have to say that Allen inspires none of the same feelings for me.
Instead of the usual showing of young girls in knee-high socks and not much else, they put an image of a guy who likes young girls. I get it. But is it that controversial? If Allen hadn’t sued, would anyone have cared? I’m going to go out on a limb and say the average American Apparel-buying 25-year-old wouldn’t have. Despite its supposed connotations, and the parallels they were obviously trying to draw, I don’t really see what the point was, other than the potential of media coverage once Allen realized he was the new advertising mascot.
Because famous people don’t want their mugs all over the world promoting brands they’re not getting paid to promote. It makes sense. Yet despite the obvious publicity stunt, my vote is for Mr. Allen to take one for the team and promote the greater good of society. Let the ad stay up there. Because if I had to choose between looking at him or looking at, well, you know … I’m gonna choose him.
The best part of all this is, even if American Apparel loses the suit and pays the $10 mil, they’ve probably made all that back and more in free publicity. So who’s the real loser here?
