| Re: American Apparel full-page ad, back cover, May 25-31, 2006.
I don’t know… call me puritanical, but maybe, just maybe, the recent American Apparel (AA) ads are a tad too risque? Although I sort of admire the business model of founder Dov Charney, do we really need to walk such a fine line between healthy sexuality and outright kiddie porn?
While I admit that most of AA’s ads are brilliant, constantly pushing the boundaries of advertising and changing the landscape of the print medium, I fail to see how two pre-pubescent girls in bikinis sells clothing. Does a 13-year-old Twinkie in tightey-whiteys, holding a bottle of O’Douls (because he’s too young to drink real beer!), up against his cock make guys want to throw away their boxers in exchange for something out of their daddy’s 1970s underwear drawer?
While Charney would defend his position, citing "empowerment of sexually charged youth," I maintain that it’s just another lame attempt at shock value in order to move truckloads of what amounts to basic clothing. United Colors of Benetton figured it out when ads filled with condoms and syringes translated into plunging sales and market share. Hopefully American Apparel will, too.
F. Robert Konopaki, Calgary
|
Copyright ©2006 FFWD. All rights reserved.