Skip

"I don't like hiding the body."
July 20, 2009 10:54 AM   Subscribe

American Apparel's Next Top Model (SLYT, mildly NSFW)
posted by pxe2000 (56 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
This is so old that even Dov Charney wouldn't sleep with it.
posted by allen.spaulding at 10:56 AM on July 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


allen.spaulding: This is so old that even Dov Charney wouldn't sleep with it.

You mean it's over the age of 15?
posted by shakespeherian at 11:02 AM on July 20, 2009 [3 favorites]


What is the most common spelling of "ugh?"
posted by Mister_A at 11:06 AM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


What is the most common spelling of "ugh?"

D-O-V.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:10 AM on July 20, 2009 [4 favorites]


I didn't realize MADtv still existed.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:14 AM on July 20, 2009


Having been subjected to way more Top Model than I would have liked, I enjoyed this.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 11:15 AM on July 20, 2009


I've never watched Top Model and have only the vaguest idea who Dov Charney is, but it was still pretty funny. Probably the sweatshop-free labor and 100% cotton....moustache.
posted by DU at 11:19 AM on July 20, 2009


I didn't realize MADtv still existed.

It doesn't now--the last show was in May of this year.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:55 AM on July 20, 2009


It doesn't now--the last show was in May of this year.

So this is just some old skit?

Can I put the churchlady on the blue...or maybe even eddie murphy doing mr rogers neighborhood?
posted by hal_c_on at 12:00 PM on July 20, 2009


Can someone explain why we're supposed to hate American Apparel? Because the CEO is a sexist douche? If that's the case you'd better stop shopping just about everywhere.
posted by Roman Graves at 12:01 PM on July 20, 2009


A thousands wrongs make an all right?
posted by defenestration at 12:04 PM on July 20, 2009


Can I put the churchlady on the blue...or maybe even eddie murphy doing mr rogers neighborhood?

I believe that's Mr Robertson's neighborhood.

And before you ask - no Bill Murray lounge singer. Ever.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:05 PM on July 20, 2009


OK, I'm officially installing a greasemonkey script that *makes* me preview before submitting. Typo-city.
posted by defenestration at 12:05 PM on July 20, 2009


You believe wrong, Mr. Gerson. It is Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood.
posted by Mister_A at 12:09 PM on July 20, 2009


Not Rogers, at any rate.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:19 PM on July 20, 2009


I'm headin' off to Ginger Roger's neighborhood, where everyone is dancing and tipsy and well-dressed.
posted by The Whelk at 12:26 PM on July 20, 2009


I second Whelk's idea. Ginger Rogers was second only to MaryAnne Faithfull in hotness. The Professor was surely tupping them both. Farnsworth, you old goat!
posted by Mister_A at 12:43 PM on July 20, 2009


keeel my landlord
posted by From Bklyn at 12:45 PM on July 20, 2009


Don't you guys mean Mrs. Robinson?

Can someone explain why we're supposed to hate American Apparel?

Because we're Metafilter! Please do keep up.
posted by Devils Rancher at 12:45 PM on July 20, 2009


Roman Graves: "10Can someone explain why we're supposed to hate American Apparel? Because the CEO is a sexist douche? If that's the case you'd better stop shopping just about everywhere."

1. The CEO is a sexist douche.
2. The clothes are ridiculously overpriced.
3. The company positioning isn't exactly taking the conventional path to pushing boundaries for women. If you even want to call it that.

There are other reasons I'm sure. If anybody can elaborate on this list, I'd be curious to read about it.
posted by iamkimiam at 12:55 PM on July 20, 2009


Can someone explain why we're supposed to hate American Apparel? Because the CEO is a sexist douche?

I really can't think of another company whose entire public image and ad campaign revolve around sexist doucheyness. Can you tell me why I'm supposed to like them?
posted by roll truck roll at 12:55 PM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


Perfect, thanks Devils Rancher!
posted by iamkimiam at 12:57 PM on July 20, 2009


I know this is trite and obvious, but there's also something to be said for an overpriced clothing company that features ads of naked girls. It's almost like, "Shit, somebody buy that girl some clothes!" But I also get the weird feeling that that's not what they're trying to tell us.
posted by iamkimiam at 1:01 PM on July 20, 2009


Can someone explain why we're supposed to hate American Apparel? Because the CEO is a sexist douche? If that's the case you'd better stop shopping just about everywhere.

He's kind of a whole new level of sexist douche, though, to the point that he thinks that society is the one with the problem for thinking he's a sexist douche in the first place.

Plus his "we're not a sweatshop" claims are actually a little suspect, from what I've heard.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:04 PM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


Can you tell me why I'm supposed to like them?

Because their shirts are made here by folks who make more money than I do? I figure that's more important than racy billboards or suing Woody Allen; and is ridiculously overt sexism worse than the subversive kind a million other companies employ?

EmpressCallipygos, I've not heard that about their factory, but if you have links I'd be very interested.
posted by Roman Graves at 1:16 PM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


The key problem with this is that Dov Charney for all of his sleezy reputation is a guy that is both not well known and in his actual mannerisms not anything like this. This sketch centers too much around the Dov Charney impression which is seriously piss poor. So what we have is a Dov Charney who repeatedly says "This is American Apparel!" "This is 100% cotton!" "This is made in the USA!" and "I'm Dov Charney!" because that and a general sort of lecherousness is all that is recognizable about the man. The thing is Dov Charney does have some really distinctive quirks in the way he actually is rather than just how he's about.
posted by I Foody at 1:22 PM on July 20, 2009


I'm a little sad that CreepyChan didn't win. I cannot bear to watch the ritual humiliation shows (aka, reality TV), but I was rooting for her all the same.

CreepyChan, if you're out there, you're the winner to me — in my mind you're standing on the winner's podium ... showing your dead white shins and staring at me like a raccoon who has just embarked on his first acid trip. Just staring.
posted by adipocere at 1:29 PM on July 20, 2009


Can someone explain why we're supposed to hate American Apparel?

Come on people! Please read your Metafilter Manual. Paragraph 4 under Section C of the sub-heading Spices, Garnishes, & other Accouterments clearly states:

Outrage! is a necessary supplement to any hearty suppositions and/or assertions made during a heated exchange over trivialites, frivolousness, trifles, platitudes, and things of such magnitude and critical nature.56b

In addition to that, the Endnote referenced visa-a-vie the aforementioned paragraph:

56b. If you do not have the means to acquire Outrage!. Outrage! can, and will be, supplied in the appropiate situations or upon request through proper channels. See 83, Section F, Acuiring and Using Supplemental Panopoly, Munitions, Parcels, & Parphanelia.
posted by P.o.B. at 1:30 PM on July 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


Because their shirts are made here by folks who make more money than I do? I figure that's more important than racy billboards or suing Woody Allen; and is ridiculously overt sexism worse than the subversive kind a million other companies employ?

Yes. American Apparel employs both ordinary workplace sexism AND crazy over-the-top workplace sexism.

It's also a non-union and, some have alleged, anti-union shop.

If you would like fair-wage, union-made clothing that doesn't have repulsively misogynist advertising or a sexual harasser as a CEO, let me recommend No Sweat. If you would like fair-wage clothing that doesn't have repulsively misogynist advertising or a sexual harasser as a CEO, let me recommend Royal Apparel. Royal Apparel also has some pro-environment initiatives underway.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:48 PM on July 20, 2009 [10 favorites]


Also, I hate it that when people voice cogent objections to something (BoingBoing, American Apparel, arrant racism) there's this smug "OH HA HA OUTRAGEFILTER" backlash.

Because really, we should just sit passively around not worrying about anything that happens for fear of looking uncool, I guess.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:49 PM on July 20, 2009 [3 favorites]


Plus his "we're not a sweatshop" claims are actually a little suspect, from what I've heard.

There was a huge investigation that was done a while ago and posted here on metafilter. The basic takeaway is that the employees are treated really well, and really like working there (there is a huge waiting list to get a job there) but the company opposed unionization and people do work very hard. here is the thread about the article.
posted by delmoi at 1:59 PM on July 20, 2009


The basic takeaway is that the employees are treated really well

Except for the ones who are sexually harassed in front of reporters. But that was in 2004, so perhaps Charney has changed his masturbating-in-the-office ways since then.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:04 PM on July 20, 2009


The basic takeaway is that the employees are treated really well

I was talking about factory workers (i.e. the ones who would be in the sweat shop)
posted by delmoi at 2:12 PM on July 20, 2009


Obviously, MADtv had nothing to do with this. There's no laugh track.
posted by 534154414E at 2:18 PM on July 20, 2009


Sidhedevil, could you reprint the specific parts where it says he sexually harassed women in front of the reporters?
posted by P.o.B. at 2:19 PM on July 20, 2009


It's also weird to me that American Apparel sells vibrators (made in Japan) online. Just sayin'
posted by iamkimiam at 2:25 PM on July 20, 2009


One [employee] claims he invited her to masturbate with him and that he ran business meetings at his Los Angeles home wearing close to nothing. Another says he asked her to hire young women with whom he could have sex, Asians preferred. All describe him using foul language in their presence, much of it demeaning to women. Says Keith A. Fink, an attorney for one of the women suing: "The work environment there makes Animal House look like choir practice."

...The suits follow a bizarre article last year in the women's magazine Jane. Charney was described as engaging in oral sex with a female employee and masturbating in front of the reporter. Charney doesn't deny taking part in any of the activities described in the article. He says he befriended the writer over the course of the two months it took her to research the piece. "I've never done anything sexual that wasn't consensual," Charney says. The reporter, Claudine Ko, confirmed his take on events to
BusinessWeek.
posted by pxe2000 at 2:32 PM on July 20, 2009


But the shirts...they fit...oh, never mind...
posted by futureisunwritten at 2:40 PM on July 20, 2009


If you would like fair-wage clothing that doesn't have repulsively misogynist advertising or a sexual harasser as a CEO, let me recommend Royal Apparel.

Although even Royal Apparel feels like the proper image for their About Us page is a sultry redhead in a tank top giving you bedroom eyes.
posted by smackfu at 3:16 PM on July 20, 2009


Aaaaannnd no answer from the person who called other people smug.

I really can't think of another company whose entire public image and ad campaign revolve around sexist doucheyness. Can you tell me why I'm supposed to like them?

Victoria's Secret? Abercrombie & Fitch? Have you seen an Urban Outfitters catalog lately? Much less any other brand name cologne or large retailers (Macy's and others has just as racy advertising)? The list goes on. I'm not going to tell you to like them, because that's your business, but they make a quality product and I'm not becoming best friends with the owner by buying from him.

I think it's a little odd that people don't reeeaaallly have a finer point than "this guy's a sexist douche. Ban his company!" My earlier comment may have been a snarky little joke but I don't think it's without merit if nobody can come up with more than Outrage! about this guy. So excuse me if I find fault with these arguments, especially when characterizing other people uncharitably and lying about facts.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:55 PM on July 20, 2009


Yet more manufactured controversy to distyract people from the fact that they're clothes are really kind of boring.
posted by jonmc at 4:15 PM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


My earlier comment may have been a snarky little joke but I don't think it's without merit if nobody can come up with more than Outrage! about this guy. So excuse me if I find fault with these arguments, especially when characterizing other people uncharitably and lying about facts.

....erm, delmoi linked to an earlier post about how they engaged in union-busting. Did you not see that?

Another thing: a letter obtained at The Consumerist blog (although, later pulled at the writers' request), is a resignation letter from a senior employee, dated 2005, which makes such claims that they sometimes gave employees Blackberry phones instead of paying wages.

And here's a 2008 piece from the Wall Street Journal about a former accountant who filed a wrongful termination suit because he was asked to cook the books and said no.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:20 PM on July 20, 2009


Sendups of reality TV shows don't work because the original is always such a scripted and staged mess to begin with.

A reality show already has the parody (unintentionally) built-in to it.
posted by Zambrano at 4:35 PM on July 20, 2009


Ironically, though that was terrible and I can't imagine why it was posted, I watched it all the way through because the girls were cute.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:43 PM on July 20, 2009


pxe2000, sorry for skipping over what you quoted but that's not what Sidhedevil said, and I could care less that he consensually masturbated in front of a reporter. Besides that reporter was quoted as saying she actually enjoyed her time with Dov.

...Uhm, Union-busting? Yeah, it's not that cut and dry. Here is the actual (not-dead) link, I suggest you give it a look over:

Both Dov Charney and Steve Wishart of UNITE have admitted to making mistakes during the 2003 union drive. Three years later, the resulting debacle has served neither UNITE, American Apparel, nor L.A. garment workers in the least...
...

All we've got from the letter you linked to:

• Delightful mix of socialist-capitalism, whenever it suits the company best.
• AA advertising, "cashing in on what you assume a generic public will perceive as subversive and political."
• Senior management still lives at home with parents.

*yawn*

WSJ? Eight months ago? Let me know how that turns out. Innocent until proven guilty right?

Is anybody else psyched jonmc is back?
posted by P.o.B. at 4:54 PM on July 20, 2009


Sidhedevil, thanks for the No Sweat link. Those shirts are damn cheap.

The thing about the anti-AA bandwagon, as PoB points out, is that a lot of it appears to be smoke and mirrors. A friend told me he read somewhere that someone heard the working conditions are horrible, etc. So maybe the guy is really strange, and maybe he is a sexual harasser of women (because that's the only concrete charge you can level at the guy)...that's why you're boycotting American made, fair-wage clothing? So instead all of y'all are buying clothes from places like No Sweat, right? I didn't think so.

While you're at it you might as well boycott almost every hip clothing company out there because they all have ads featuring sexed up young girls with bedroom eyes. And stop buying household cleaning products because the majority of those are still marketed exclusively to women in a patriarchal, sexist, fashion. He supposedly might be a shady businessman? Fuck, I hope you don't have a bank account because we wouldn't want to support those guys. The list goes on and on. It's very easy to be morally outraged when it doesn't impact your life too much, and of course when everyone else is doing it too.

Or you could just get off the bandwagon and weight the benefits of a company that pays decent wages to Americans and makes a quality product against the supposed personal attributes of its CEO.
posted by Roman Graves at 5:13 PM on July 20, 2009


So instead all of y'all are buying clothes from places like No Sweat, right? I didn't think so.

See, why would you act so childish? Why the obvious derision? "Didn't think so"? Really?

Clearly, some of us do buy clothes from places like No Sweat. Some of us buy mostly used clothes. Some of us buy clothes from people who actually had a hand in the production process. Some of us know how the people who make our clothes are treated because we've talked to them. And instead of thinking that buying from a jackass CEO is some sort of necessary evil, we buy them from CEOs who live in our neighborhoods, go to our churches, and shop at our farmers markets. But even if we don't so any of those things, we can still dislike American Apparel.
posted by roll truck roll at 5:30 PM on July 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


That was NSFW because it's embarrassing right?
posted by mattoxic at 5:32 PM on July 20, 2009


No talking down to was intended, roll truck roll, and I apologize for the tone. That being said, you know that people like yourself are in the minority. And sure, if people don't do any of the things you mentioned, they can still dislike American Apparel, but I don't see it as being a logical, and more importantly informed, position to take.
posted by Roman Graves at 5:37 PM on July 20, 2009


WSJ? Eight months ago? Let me know how that turns out. Innocent until proven guilty right?

Number one, legal proceedings take a while to complete themselves, typically.

Number two, there are an awful lot of legal proceedings of various stripes against this company that find a way of getting dropped or "settled" or one thing or the other, which we all know sometimes means that maybe the perpetrator actually did something but just paid the accuser enough money to drop the case. Sure, maybe we don't know either way, but it's suspicious enough for me to not want to shop there.

I mean, if the fact that Michael Jackson's one suit getting dropped wasn't enough to stop people from making accusations against him, I think that I'm justified in AA's multiple suits making me suspicious.

Dov Charney does pay a decent wage, I'll give you that. He also has some ideas about treatment of his employees that are good, I'll also give you that. But he also has some ideas that I find AREN'T so good -- his offering counseling to employees who have had relationship breakups just seems indicative of an employer who's a LIIIIIIIITTLE too involved in the personal lives of his employees -- and he seems to have an awful lot of "misunderstandings" surrounding him (UNITE, this suit from the accountant, etc.), and for my own self, that just makes me want to pursue other options. He may be on this side of the legal line, but it strikes me that he's only JUST, and I'd prefer someone a little more clean, myself.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:57 PM on July 20, 2009


And that's understandable when "problems" seem to keep popping up around the same guy. BUT, beyond this Accountant that filed suit, I only know of one(?) other legal preceeding where he cleared it up by paying a whole lotta money to some women.
In one sense I get it. In another sense, I think there is a kind of dogpile effect. Especially for a guy who kind of acts spastic anyway, as seen in the link I Foody made above. He's an easy target. He's open with his sexuality, probably too open with it. So, yeah, it makes him douchey, creepy, and probably threatening to some people also.
I also think you're right that this guy does put a bit much into his ownership of his company, but I think from a certain angle it makes sense. This is a guy who started this company ground up. I can see him getting really defensive when other people intervene in "his business."
Is Royal Apparel a better company? Maybe. But I haven't seen anybody make a valid point about American Apparel not being a good company and a better choice from the other 90+% of competitors out there.

As far as MJ, I don't think he could've done anything to clear his name. That means anybody could've said anything and it would've immediatley set off alarm bells.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:29 PM on July 20, 2009


CreepyChan, if you're out there, you're the winner to me — in my mind you're standing on the winner's podium ... showing your dead white shins and staring at me like a raccoon who has just embarked on his first acid trip. Just staring.

Adipocere, have you seen these videos?

Because they will make you love her more.
posted by louche mustachio at 11:13 PM on July 20, 2009


Clearly, some of us do buy clothes from places like No Sweat. Some of us buy mostly used clothes. Some of us buy clothes from people who actually had a hand in the production process. Some of us know how the people who make our clothes are treated because we've talked to them. And instead of thinking that buying from a jackass CEO is some sort of necessary evil, we buy them from CEOs who live in our neighborhoods, go to our churches, and shop at our farmers markets.

So, how do you two know each other?
posted by ActingTheGoat at 6:25 AM on July 21, 2009


Last night, I spent a good couple hours reading through the Knowmore profile and other materials. If you haven't read the profile, do; it's definitely worth a thorough look. A number of things are becoming clear to me that really weren't yesterday:

1. How you feel about AA - and moreover, how you talk about AA - depends a lot on how you prioritize labor issues and women's issues (at least in terms of your buying decisions). If you read back through this thread, you can see a lot of people basically talking past each other by coming back to their own arguments rather than responding to the issues each other are bringing up. Self included.

2. AA workers do, indeed, have better work conditions than the majority of the garment makers in the world. One might wish that Dov would be more amenable to unionization, because he'd be such a great endorsement.

3. Therein lies the problem. UNITE has had its share of troubles, and clearly wanted the public-image boost that an AA unionization would entail. I think Dov sort of knew that and sought to make an example of them. Their attempts may well have included the kind of dirty politics that Dov alleges. That wouldn't necessarily surprise me, but I'm not sure it means the same thing to me that it does to him.

4. When you read statements like, "Being sweatshop-free is a secondary appeal and I'm getting a little bored with it. I’m de-emphasizing it," you get this kind of unsettling feeling that Dov thinks about labor issues the same way he thinks about what kind of lightbulbs to install in his stores. It's about image, and it can change with public opinion.

Is that saying that his good working conditions somehow don't count? No. That would be like the proverbial lady scolding her dog for requiring a treat to do a trick.

5. It's tough for me to take seriously AA's claim that they had nothing to do with the anti-union rally. But even if you do take that at face value, the fact that they use footage of the rally in promotional materials gives me a queasy feeling. It betrays a real lack of seriousness and historical understanding around labor issues.

6. The infamous personal-assistant blowjobs and masturbating in front of interviewers don't exist in a vacuum. They're part of a deeper work culture. But more importantly (and I think this is a point some people are missing), they were intended to signify part of a deeper work culture. AA puts a lot of effort into this image of a workplace where women use sex to get recognition. Dov did these things in interviews so that the interviewers would write about them.

And that's the rub. Yes, bad things happen behind closed doors in many large companies, but when those bad things become a central part of a company's self-identification, buying and wearing their products is an endorsement of that image.

7. I don't feel bad for the people who work on the floors at AA. And in fact, I don't even feel bad for the assistants that Dov and upper managers reward with company gifts. But I do feel bad for everyone else. I feel bad for those who work for CEOs who get the message that cool companies shouldn't negotiate about work conditions. I feel bad for PAs who've read the interviews and learned what it takes to move up in a hip company.

Is this too much to pin on AA alone? Yes, it is. But when they consistently advertise these points about themselves, it makes them an easy target.

On a completely unrelated note, I've known of Bernard Dolan through the spoken word community for years, and I've known about Knowmore for some time, but I never knew that the two were connected to each other. That's pretty cool.
posted by roll truck roll at 9:32 AM on July 21, 2009 [5 favorites]


5. It's tough for me to take seriously AA's claim that they had nothing to do with the anti-union rally. But even if you do take that at face value, the fact that they use footage of the rally in promotional materials gives me a queasy feeling. It betrays a real lack of seriousness and historical understanding around labor issues.

6. The infamous personal-assistant blowjobs and masturbating in front of interviewers don't exist in a vacuum. They're part of a deeper work culture. But more importantly (and I think this is a point some people are missing), they were intended to signify part of a deeper work culture. AA puts a lot of effort into this image of a workplace where women use sex to get recognition. Dov did these things in interviews so that the interviewers would write about them.

And that's the rub. Yes, bad things happen behind closed doors in many large companies, but when those bad things become a central part of a company's self-identification, buying and wearing their products is an endorsement of that image.


Yes. You've summed up precisely why AA makes me vaguely uncomfortable -- because every last decision they make seems to be about the marketing of a corporate image first and foremost. It feels like the biggest reason that Dov Charney pays his employees well actually isn't about paying his employees well -- it is about wanting to make himself look good. He knows that paying his employees well is something that will make him look good, therefore he does it. The actual well-being of his employees in and of itself doesn't seem to be something that enters his consciousness in the slightest, and it just feels like all it will take is one marketing study that 'actually a lot of people don't care whether you pay minimum wage or not' to change that.

The entire corporate culture at AA seems to be about Dov Charney's image, and how he sees himself, personally and professionally. Dov Charney's self-image of himself is that of an "enlightened businessman," and his personal image of himself is akin to "retro 70's free love bachelor without hangups" -- and he is running his company in such a way to cater to his his own personal conception of himself. It seems to be inexorably tied up to his own ego to a degree that just feels far too incestuous.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:42 AM on July 21, 2009 [2 favorites]


5. It's tough for me to take seriously AA's claim that they had nothing to do with the anti-union rally. But even if you do take that at face value, the fact that they use footage of the rally in promotional materials gives me a queasy feeling. It betrays a real lack of seriousness and historical understanding around labor issues.

I agree RTR. But so was the shit (allegedly) UNITE was pulling.

6. The infamous personal-assistant blowjobs and masturbating in front of interviewers don't exist in a vacuum. They're part of a deeper work culture.
But more importantly (and I think this is a point some people are missing), they were intended to signify part of a deeper work culture. AA puts a lot of effort into this image of a workplace where women use sex to get recognition. Dov did these things in interviews so that the interviewers would write about them.


No, she wrote about it so she would have a scandalous piece of writing. Charney was being the skeevy creep he is. Just so we get the full view of what took place between the reporter and Dov:

In response to the Jane article, Charney claims that Claudine Ko told only half the story. "We had a relationship, you know. ... We got jiggy. It was a beautiful thing," Charney told me laughingly. "Then I see this article and she's written all these things about me."
As for Ko, she has publicly agreed with Charney's version of the story, telling one blogger after the fact, "Whenever I see a picture of Dov I can’t help but smile and think fondly of him. That reporting experience was fun, engaging, stimulating and interesting. Dov Charney is a mad man and I like that." Ko also told Businessweek magazine her relationship with Charney was entirely consensual.


And that's the rub. Yes, bad things happen behind closed doors in many large companies, but when those bad things become a central part of a company's self-identification, buying and wearing their products is an endorsement of that image.

THIS is where the rubber meets the road on this issue, and the resulting discussion is what EmpressCallipygos wrote. "Here's my opinion." Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so I'm not dismissing what you have to say (and I wouldn't even say I disagree with it). But when people start mincing up the facts with opinions then it becomes real hard to follow the progression. I'm all for having a discussion about these things and I thought you were pretty spot on for most of your last post there Roll Truck Roll, but I just cant buy into the wet blanket argument with the "You're supportin' terrorists!" I think it just starts to degrade everything into a mire and moral highground duality that all seems to be built on upon a sandbank argument. The part that sets it off somehow, is people keep inserting their personal opinion about some skeevy dude into the larger picture. So I guess I do think the company and the owner are two seperate entities. What's more interesting is the very notion that seems to turn people off from AA, is also what makes it such a huge selling product. I realize that doesn't make it right but there is sense of hyprocrisy when people start sorting out certain beans in favor of another. Of course it's cliched to say sex sells, but that's what this dude is betting on - and winning.
Something that I do think is related is that his whole 'American Made' slogan is exactly that. A soundbite to help sell his clothes.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:06 PM on July 21, 2009


« Older Historian of a rich and terrible past   |   Will Pique Your Curiosity in... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post