smart company

AA knows exactly who their audience is, I've always loved their approach.

Posted by: Gesh on November 21st, 2006.

pride

i can't say that it make me feel all that proud to be an american. looks like some amature stuff on myspace or off of someones camera phone

Posted by: heusinkveld on October 30th, 2006.

ich

It's just tasteless. They make such great clothes, and I think that they may be trying to make a comment about the sexualization of marketing, but I mostly just go: ick. Too many crotch shots for my taste.

Posted by: imisslincoln on October 19th, 2006.

love the magazine

awesome marketing campaign. the ads are interesting as well as a little risque.ineresting.

Posted by: wills425 on October 18th, 2006.

he's not that hairy

jeez. marketing has made hairy guys ugly to the eye. remember the diet coke ad from 1995? sheep.

er. unless i need to get to Bob's House of Depilatories.

Posted by: tectonic on October 18th, 2006.

Tasteless

The first time I saw an American Apparel ad was on a billboard in soho. It featured a young looking girl in her teens, she is sort of upside down with her legs spread wide open. OK we get the point...SEX SELLS. But when are the Ad Agencies going to produce something creative and think outside the box and not "THE BOX" itself!?

Posted by: Truth on October 16th, 2006.

he's thinking...

with his other head.

Posted by: roxie on October 13th, 2006.

HELL

So I was going thru a magazine with my 7 year old niece, and the first one, the Micro Mesh was the center fold. How do you explain that to a child if you don’t get it yourself? What were they thinking? Were they thinking?

Posted by: ArtGirl on October 9th, 2006.

is it the porn? or the prices?

I think people just like plain cotton yes, but with their new line of lame and sheer materials, I think the move into synthetics requiring more than just happy moms and their children frolicking in 100% cotton. Hence, the crotchshots. Here's to you, Memo.

Posted by: forsoreeyesonly on October 4th, 2006.

Sexy in a dirty way but...

I'd think poorly about a person driven by these ads to shop at american apparel.

Posted by: CoolBreeze on October 4th, 2006.

Calvin sleeze for a new generation

Its not artsy, its not new. Its cheap porn. If I am going to look at barely dressed, hot models, at least make it a good, beautiful shot. This just looks icky.

Posted by: martha on October 3rd, 2006.

I second the love/hate motion

This message fails to shock, especially a New Yorker. It does however sell sex more honestly than the average lewd campaign. Unfortunately, that honest sell is a bit repulsive at times (hairy legs, hairy legs!) I like natural beauty on real people, not billboards. So I'm torn: approve or disapprove? I'd like to think I bought the clothes on their own merit, but really, what got me into the store in the first place?

Posted by: christineann.vargas on October 3rd, 2006.

i'm torn

her sweaty pit grosses me out. her sweaty pit turns me on. her sweaty pit grosses me out. her sweaty pit turns me on. her sweaty pit...

Posted by: addinnyc on September 27th, 2006.

ad, porn, whatever

It's fashion, gratuitous sex comes with the territory (though this is more overt than most). at least it's not as bad as the Calvin Klein kiddie porn basement campaign of a few years ago. Also, I do like seeing sweat on the model (if not Memo).

Posted by: camper on September 22nd, 2006.

its not the balls, its the saturation

so they open stores all over the place and they advertise in all the hipster magazines and people actually pack the stores in, and the clothing is basically hanes or fruit of the loom; at least it's not as expensive as juicy couture shit and they don't pay britney or carmen or cameron to wear their clothes. it's a weird one, and it has reached into places the way urban outfitters reaches into suburban malls; I don't know if its the ads but for sure, they are taking a bigger and wider slice of the pie with each of these wankpieces . . . .

Posted by: avisualperson on September 22nd, 2006.

Couldn't care less

Seeing some dudes hairy bag, no matter what he has covering it does nothing for me. I guess I'm completely out of step with why this is considered genius by most.

Posted by: lambeste on September 21st, 2006.

breakthrough my ass

oh yes, us real girls are sexy, in all of our unphotoshopped glory.

as much as i like the product and even the concept of showcasing a product hot, real chicks, this campaign makes me want to spit.

why? because women here are here simply as a sex object for and even taken from the view of men. often just body parts, this campaign totally objectifies women. the mice type "what they're all about" copy doesn't balance the kiddie porn shots.

and ps, we girls don't even get to do the objectifying. we get a crotch shot of memo, who is NOT hot. gee thanks aa.

Posted by: roxie on September 20th, 2006.

photoshop is for suckers.

the brand has some serious caché. somehow people i'd normally consider not to be sexy have major sex appeal. and the reason is because they're everyday people, not models. that right there creates an understanding between the viewer and the ad, and i think they hit us at the perfect time. love it.

Posted by: dsoljacobson on September 19th, 2006.

mmm... girls

i think they're REAL sexy. the morning after, the night before. it shows flaws, blemishes and no photoshopped cleavage.

i like the brand, i like the aesthetic, even if the owner is an alleged slimebag.

Posted by: euroskip on September 19th, 2006.

cheekymonkey

Effective. Original ads so they've got to get points for that.

Would be more effective it the owner wasn't boning his employees.

I don't see him going to hell for the ads, though.

That guy's mad hairy.

Posted by: cheekymonkey on September 19th, 2006.

Can it be?

The biggest and best blue-wash piece of communication that the world has ever seen? "vertically integrated" approach to manufacture fabric and horizontal approach to treat employees. For now I don’t have a clear opinion, time will tell.

Posted by: cubes on September 18th, 2006.

No hate here

Hmmm...I am not finding that I have the same conflict about this. This might be the first time I've seen an advertiser show their clothes with a sweat stain.

I don't know if that's significant...just pointing it out.

Posted by: suzerain on September 18th, 2006.

we love the girls . . .

. . . but we hate the idea. or is it, we love the clothes, but we hate the ads? we hate the clothes, but love the girls? either way, there's something happening here and it's simply a love/hate thing (if that was ever simple at all).

Posted by: avisualperson on September 17th, 2006.