American Apparel: Timeline & Key Moments
How American Apparel used sex in its advertising, how that played into the company’s identity, and how it all unravelled.
Origins & Rise (Late 1990s – Early 2000s)
-
Founding: Dov Charney founded American Apparel in the late 1990s after dropping out of Tufts. The Business of Fashion+2Encyclopedia.com+2
-
Early Ad Strategy: From very early on, Charney used provocative ads. According to marketing-case-studies, he sometimes personally photographed models (often non-professionals, “real girls,” even employees) in raw, minimalist setups. Marketing Case Studies
-
Soft-Porn Aesthetic: The imagery courted comparisons to soft-core pornography. But Charney framed it as honest, unairbrushed, and “real” — part of the brand’s rebellious, anti-establishment identity. The Business of Fashion+1
-
Ethical / Labor Branding: At the same time, AA claimed “sweatshop-free” manufacturing in Los Angeles, positioning itself as progressive in labor ethics. The Business of Fashion
Peak & Controversies (2005–2012)
-
Growth: The brand grew rapidly; by mid-2000s they expanded stores and visibility. Encyclopedia.com+1
-
Use of Models: They used a mix: porn actors (e.g., Sasha Grey) and non-models, often very young-looking. Wikipedia+1
-
Regulatory Pushback:
-
In 2012, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned several AA ads for being “gratuitous,” voyeuristic, exploitative, and focusing more on nudity than clothing. The Guardian
-
Another 2012 ASA ruling banned an image in Vice Magazine that “appeared to sexualise a model who looked underage.” The Guardian
-
-
Public / Cultural Critique: Critics argued the ads objectified women, used amateur / voyeuristic styling, and pushed the boundary of age-appropriate sexuality. (E.g., Berkeley Women in Business analysis.) Berkeley Women in Business
Decline, Scandals & Fall (2013–2015)
-
Charney’s Behavior: Over the years, Charney’s personal conduct drew fire: allegations of sexual harassment, claims he was “creepy,” and a toxic work environment. The Guardian+2The Guardian+2
-
“Porn Chic Fatigue”: By 2014, some commentators believed the shock-sex strategy was wearing thin. The Washington Post
-
Firing of Charney: In 2014, Charney was removed from his CEO / Chairman roles by the board, citing misconduct. The Guardian+1
-
Financial Collapse: Around the same time, the company was struggling financially. Fashion-industry critics linked part of AA’s decline to its hypersexualized brand identity, suggesting that the “sex sells” model had limits. FashionUnited
Legacy & Reflection
-
Documentary / Retrospective: In 2025, Trainwreck: The Cult of American Apparel (Netflix) came out, exploring Charney’s influence, the workplace culture, and the fallout. Wikipedia
-
Cultural Impact: American Apparel’s “indie sleaze” aesthetic — minimal, raw, amateur but sexual — influenced fashion and advertising beyond just their own brand. The Business of Fashion
-
Critique on Ethics: Many analyses (academic / activist) frame AA’s strategy not just as edgy marketing, but as ethically fraught — using real women, often young, in sexual contexts, and linking that to a brand philosophy of “authenticity” that masked deeper power issues. Berkeley Women in Business
-
Business vs Aesthetic Tension: While the ads got a lot of attention and built brand identity, they arguably couldn’t sustain long-term growth without cost: reputational, moral, and regulatory. CliffsNotes+1
Key Themes & Analysis
American Apparel as a case study:
-
Sex as Branding
-
Charney didn’t just use sex — he made it part of what American Apparel was. The “porn chic” aesthetic was central. The Business of Fashion
-
But sex was also a double-edged sword: it drew audience and controversy, and eventually may have contributed to brand fatigue.
-
Authenticity vs Exploitation
-
The brand claimed authenticity: models were not super-glamorized or styled, they were “real” people, often employees. Marketing Case Studies+1
-
Critics argue this “authenticity” was a thin veneer: the images still sexualized women in ways that played into voyeurism and exploitation. Berkeley Women in Business
-
There are feminist / ethical critiques around objectification, consent, and the power dynamics of Charney (founder/photographer) shooting people he worked with.
-
-
Regulation and Public Morality
-
ASA bans show that there was a limit to what was acceptable in mainstream (or at least regulated) advertising. The Guardian+1
-
The “voyeuristic” label from regulators underscores how the amateur, candid style can be read as exploitative when combined with sexuality.
-
-
Leadership and Personal Brand
-
Charney’s personal identity was deeply tied to the brand’s identity: his beliefs, his photographic style, his behavior. The Guardian
-
When he was ousted, part of the question was: can the brand keep its sex-forward identity without the man who shaped it?
-
-
Cultural Influence & Legacy
-
American Apparel left a lasting mark: its aesthetic influenced “indie sleaze” fashion, and its story is now part of broader conversations about sexual ethics in business. Wikipedia+1
-
The brand’s rise and fall also serve as a cautionary tale: sex can drive attention, but maintaining brand value requires balance, ethics, and adaptability.
-
Plus Shaming
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3090389/She-doesn-t-lace-panties-doesn-t-know-wipe-butt-good-Furious-mother-13-year-old-girl-pretended-19-online-posed-photos-lingerie-shames-viral-Facebook-video.html
Did they really use this?
Where is the ad in the history books?
