Date June 14, 2009
(http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/cheeky-ad-campaign-or-sexploitation-20090613-c6sz.html)
A popular clothes retailer using highly sexualised images of young women - many of them company staff -goes too far, say critics. Rachel Wells reports.
LIZ, described as an "American Apparel Melbourne retail employee", lies on her back on a rumpled bed, her red leotard barely covering her modesty. With her come-hither looks, arched back and, in another photograph, an exposed breast, Liz assumes various soft-porn positions in pictures posted on the multinational retailer's website.
To the casual observer, it's hard to tell what exactly Liz — a former employee at the company's Chapel Street store — and the other amateur models used by the company are advertising. American Apparel manufactures colourful clothing — mainly cotton basics such as T-shirts, singlets and socks — but most of the advertising images focus on the sexualised anatomy of the young models, many of whom are company staff.
Even with the mainstreaming of porn, American Apparel, which launched its first store in Australia in Melbourne last March, is raising the ire of those who believe it goes too far, exploiting both its employees and its young customers.
Advertisement In one photograph, white socks are modelled by an otherwise naked woman, lying back, her bottom exposed. In another, a young model has her hand down the front of her unzipped blue pants. Over-the-knee socks provide an opportunity for a close-up of a girl's crotch.
"Hannah Lee", who looks very young, is shown in photographs that have nothing to do with clothes — she's all provocative poses and barely covered breasts.
"It goes without saying that most of the images of women on that website are overtly sexualised and some of them you would have to call pornographic. It's another example of the normalisation of pornography in popular culture," said Katrina George, a spokeswoman for Women's Forum Australia. Male models on the website, she points out, are not bending over or opening their legs in the name of selling socks.
The company is renowned for using staff in its advertising campaigns, which are often shot by its controversial Los Angeles-based founder, Dov Charney. Prospective sales staff, who are asked to submit up to three photographs of themselves as part of the job application process, appear to be chosen for their looks.
Professor Clive Hamilton, the former chief of the Australia Institute, which issued a 2006 report on the uses of sexualised images of children in advertising, called on the Advertising Standards Bureau to "have a close look" at the American Apparel advertisements. It was a clear example of why Australia needed tougher advertising standards, he said.
"Clearly they are using pornographic style images, pornographic style poses in order to promote the product … self-regulation in advertising has manifestly failed and we need a stronger regulation that really does reflect community opinion rather than being judged by people chosen by the advertisers."
Since American Apparel was launched in 1997 — it now has more than 250 stores in 19 countries — Mr Charney has attracted controversy both for calculated sexualised advertising and for his own behaviour. He has been the subject of four sexual-harassment lawsuits brought by former employees, though none have been proved in court.
In 2004, an article in the now defunct US women's magazine Jane accused Mr Charney of masturbating in front of the reporter. He never denied the allegation, saying it was consensual.
At the same time, Mr Charney has been applauded for his anti-sweatshop policy. He pays workers in his Los Angeles factory well above minimum wages and staff are entitled to subsidised health insurance, free English lessons, free parking and subsidised meals.
While companies such as Calvin Klein and Abercrombie & Fitch have used high-profile models in provocative marketing campaigns, American Apparel's style is notably home-spun. Models are often staff or young women who have no modelling experience.
Ms George said that young staff might feel "pressured" to appear in the company's advertising campaigns: "If that particular culture exists in that workplace, then you have to wonder if there are pressures on the staff to then participate in that kind of really highly sexualised modelling."
But a company spokeswoman said staff and fans volunteered for the modelling work. "We also sometimes scout them," she said.
"We very often photograph employees to appear in ads and catalogues, on our website and in-store art. … Photo shoots are often done with members of our creative team or other employees, like in Liz's case."
The head of Victoria's Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, Dr Helen Szoke, said she was concerned about American Apparel's strategy of asking prospective sales staff to submit several photographs of themselves when they applied for a job, but conceded it was not illegal.
"But we would be really concerned if they were going to be used to exclude people simply on the basis of physical appearance."
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/cheeky-ad-campaign-or-sexploitation-20090613-c6sz.html#ixzz2Cxr0pGXX
(http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/cheeky-ad-campaign-or-sexploitation-20090613-c6sz.html)
A popular clothes retailer using highly sexualised images of young women - many of them company staff -goes too far, say critics. Rachel Wells reports.
LIZ, described as an "American Apparel Melbourne retail employee", lies on her back on a rumpled bed, her red leotard barely covering her modesty. With her come-hither looks, arched back and, in another photograph, an exposed breast, Liz assumes various soft-porn positions in pictures posted on the multinational retailer's website.
To the casual observer, it's hard to tell what exactly Liz — a former employee at the company's Chapel Street store — and the other amateur models used by the company are advertising. American Apparel manufactures colourful clothing — mainly cotton basics such as T-shirts, singlets and socks — but most of the advertising images focus on the sexualised anatomy of the young models, many of whom are company staff.
Even with the mainstreaming of porn, American Apparel, which launched its first store in Australia in Melbourne last March, is raising the ire of those who believe it goes too far, exploiting both its employees and its young customers.
Advertisement In one photograph, white socks are modelled by an otherwise naked woman, lying back, her bottom exposed. In another, a young model has her hand down the front of her unzipped blue pants. Over-the-knee socks provide an opportunity for a close-up of a girl's crotch.
"Hannah Lee", who looks very young, is shown in photographs that have nothing to do with clothes — she's all provocative poses and barely covered breasts.
"It goes without saying that most of the images of women on that website are overtly sexualised and some of them you would have to call pornographic. It's another example of the normalisation of pornography in popular culture," said Katrina George, a spokeswoman for Women's Forum Australia. Male models on the website, she points out, are not bending over or opening their legs in the name of selling socks.
The company is renowned for using staff in its advertising campaigns, which are often shot by its controversial Los Angeles-based founder, Dov Charney. Prospective sales staff, who are asked to submit up to three photographs of themselves as part of the job application process, appear to be chosen for their looks.
Professor Clive Hamilton, the former chief of the Australia Institute, which issued a 2006 report on the uses of sexualised images of children in advertising, called on the Advertising Standards Bureau to "have a close look" at the American Apparel advertisements. It was a clear example of why Australia needed tougher advertising standards, he said.
"Clearly they are using pornographic style images, pornographic style poses in order to promote the product … self-regulation in advertising has manifestly failed and we need a stronger regulation that really does reflect community opinion rather than being judged by people chosen by the advertisers."
Since American Apparel was launched in 1997 — it now has more than 250 stores in 19 countries — Mr Charney has attracted controversy both for calculated sexualised advertising and for his own behaviour. He has been the subject of four sexual-harassment lawsuits brought by former employees, though none have been proved in court.
In 2004, an article in the now defunct US women's magazine Jane accused Mr Charney of masturbating in front of the reporter. He never denied the allegation, saying it was consensual.
At the same time, Mr Charney has been applauded for his anti-sweatshop policy. He pays workers in his Los Angeles factory well above minimum wages and staff are entitled to subsidised health insurance, free English lessons, free parking and subsidised meals.
While companies such as Calvin Klein and Abercrombie & Fitch have used high-profile models in provocative marketing campaigns, American Apparel's style is notably home-spun. Models are often staff or young women who have no modelling experience.
Ms George said that young staff might feel "pressured" to appear in the company's advertising campaigns: "If that particular culture exists in that workplace, then you have to wonder if there are pressures on the staff to then participate in that kind of really highly sexualised modelling."
But a company spokeswoman said staff and fans volunteered for the modelling work. "We also sometimes scout them," she said.
"We very often photograph employees to appear in ads and catalogues, on our website and in-store art. … Photo shoots are often done with members of our creative team or other employees, like in Liz's case."
The head of Victoria's Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, Dr Helen Szoke, said she was concerned about American Apparel's strategy of asking prospective sales staff to submit several photographs of themselves when they applied for a job, but conceded it was not illegal.
"But we would be really concerned if they were going to be used to exclude people simply on the basis of physical appearance."
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/cheeky-ad-campaign-or-sexploitation-20090613-c6sz.html#ixzz2Cxr0pGXX
RSS Feed