‘Advertising is 85% confusion and 15% commission.’ — Fred Allen
Faced with a $10 million lawsuit over a short-lived advertising campaign last year, American Apparel defended its use of iconic actor Woody Allen’s image on two billboards in New York and Los Angeles, claiming the stunt “was meant strictly as a social parody.”
In a statement to DNR, American Apparel company representatives said although it normally uses the two billboards for commercial purposes, “we also use them as a vehicle for non-commercial, social and political commentary. (…) We had no intention of selling garments through the use of Mr. Allen’s image … We will make every effort to resolve this with Mr. Allen in an amicable way,” company representatives said. (…)
Yiddish text reading “the Holy Rebbe” accompanied the ad, as did American Apparel’s company name. (…)
In 1987, Allen sued Men’s Wear Outlet, which had featured a Woody Allen look-alike model in an ad promoting the apparel store. Two years earlier, Allen had obtained a $425,000 settlement from a national video retailer that had also used an Allen impersonator for a magazine ad.
{ DNR | Continue reading | Huffington Post }
Clearly, movie director Allen does not want to be associated with chronic inappropriate masturbator and accused sex harasser (and fellow Jew) Charney. Because then, you know, people might think Allen had weird sexual issues.
We see images every day of airbrushed, photoshopped models placed in the most sexual of positions—remember Dolce & Gabbana’s “gang rape” ad? And thanks to technology, models are nothing more than objects to be shaped and molded by marketers, fashion editors and photographers. Moles and acne are erased, eyes enlarged, ears trimmed, hairlines filled, teeth straightened and necks and waists lengthened and stretched. “We’re always stretching the models’ legs and slimming their thighs,” a Manhattan photo retoucher recently told Newsweek. And in some cases hands, feet and even legs are replaced when a subject’s parts don’t add up to a perfect whole.
So why then am I so offended when I see real-looking women who choose to display themselves for American Apparel—the rare company that doesn’t airbrush, manipulate or otherwise alter the photos in their ads? Shouldn’t I view them as brave, sexual, confident? Refreshing, even? (…)
Former porn star turned Ph.D. sexologist Annie Sprinkle says American Apparel’s promotions tap into American culture’s contradictory views about sex. “They can be fun, sexy and positive,” Sprinkle says, or they can be a turnoff—depicted as dirty and ugly. “But that’s why it’s a great ad campaign,” she says. “As a feminist, I like the ads and I like the graffiti [the New York billboard was defaced with]. It makes us think about how we view sexuality.”
related { Landing strip on Lafayette and Great Jones }
