My visit to American Apparel

http://venturehacks.com/articles/american-apparel

by peter123 • 18 years ago

63 86 18 years ago

blurry12• 18 years ago

I am sick of stories of how American Apparel is such an ethical company because they pay above minimum wage and make their clothes in the US.

Yes, the clothes are manufactured in LA and the workers get above minimum wage. However, at $25,000/yr that doesn't put them anywhere near a livable wage, and the fact AA makes and promotes what is essentially child porn far outweighs any benefits.

This guy said it best (with actual photos):

http://www.cracked.com/blog/american-apparel-ads-make-me-wan...

arockwell2• 18 years ago

What do you consider a livable wage? $25,000/yr is actually pretty good considering median household income is about $50k: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income.

blurry12• 18 years ago

My main point wasn't the exact amount... I rather wanted to point out that the puff piece describes their pay as "significantly above minimum wage" while in fact it's a measly $25,000/year. I may be wrong on this one but I live in New York and I know LA is only slightly cheaper... there is absolutely no way one could live in New York on $27,000 (got the figure via a cost-of-living city-to-city calculator). I mean, it's theoretically possible but not without subjecting yourself to Dickensian living conditions.

josefresco4• 18 years ago

What is more ethical; Employing workers for pennies in foreign countries or employing workers here in the US for several dollars above min wage?

The foreign workers are probably elevated much more (in comparison to their peers) because of their job than their counterparts here in the US are, but exploiting this difference in living wage is not ethical in the least.

sokoloff• 18 years ago

Is embargoing the foreign workers, who are perfectly willing (an understatement in many cases) to work for the wages being offered, ethical? I would say no.

I personally feel that free trade is far more ethical than nationalist isolation/protectionism. (It's not just Americans that are "entitled" to a high standard of living.)

fallentimes2• 18 years ago

American Apparel's just marketing towards the people who hate outsourcing and think buying "Made in America" is important. Most people fall for it; some do not.

A better question: why is an American more entitled to a job than someone living in another country? The problem with most of the outsourcing arguments I've heard is that they come down to value judgments.

potatolicious3• 18 years ago

I think the most cogent (and only) argument for nationalistic job protectionism is the fact that others are doing the same thing. If other countries are reluctant to export their jobs to you, you would obviously avoid exporting jobs to them in the vain effort to keep employment in your country alive.

I do agree though - I dislike the "Buy American" argument. Other countries are out-doing us in many industries; instead of pledging allegiance to buying inferior goods and services, we really should be fighting back by innovating and simply making our stuff better.

Jebdm3• 18 years ago

I'm not necessarily saying that AA doesn't "make and promote what is essentially child porn", or that I'm siding with them in any way, but "child porn" is a pretty heavy accusation and you should back it up.

The link you provided doesn't count. First of all, it's on a humor site, and the article definitely seems to belong there. But more importantly, it provides no evidence that the models are underage, the photos it shows don't appear to be me to be of underage girls, the photos aren't quite pornographic anyways (though admittedly fairly close), and it doesn't even provide any evidence that AA attempted to represent them as underage.

I'm completely willing to hear that AA is making child porn--I have no affiliation with them or anything like that--but you haven't provided any evidence and therefore you shouldn't make the claim.

blurry12• 18 years ago

Jeb

I agree with you that the models are not technically underage. Moreover, I know from previous articles about AA that they make the models sign releases confirming they are of age. However, I think that makes it worse and I'd like to explain why.

We already know that what constitutes porn is in fact subjective and was "officially" defined as such by the Supreme Court:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

So what I'd like to point out is that the very reason that AA needs that little signature is because they know they are (1) making pornographic ads and (2) using models that look underage. If either of those two were untrue, the free-wheeling, open-minded people at AA would surely not resort to legal means to cover their ass.

As far as not providing evidence, what is harder evidence than actual photos of AA ads? I don't see how it's relevant what website they are posted on. Photos are photos.

But hey, I am happy to link to more. If you don't think these are prime pedophile material, I don't even know what to say... you must be one "open-minded" dude.

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006_07_10_9.jpg http://www.wasuvi.com/images/scan0004.jpg http://www.adrants.com/images/the_tap_panty.jpg http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/aaad.jpg http://www.jenisfamous.com/uploaded_images/leggings-720878.j... http://www.trendhunter.com/images/phpthumbnails/21343_1_230....

utsmokingaces4• 18 years ago

Have you seen their clothing? They are bland and tasteless. They are wal-mart clothes for 3x the price.

Having "American" in this brand will make countries laugh at how unsophisticated we are.

You are going to make something in America at least make something good like New Balance. We don't care to known for making neon green tights.

eru3• 18 years ago

I do not know if you are right about the laughing. A lot of German companies have "Deutsche" in their name. Take Deutsche Bank for example.

josefresco4• 18 years ago

"wal-mart clothes for 3x the price"

Did you ever stop to think that maybe Wal-Mart clothes are 1/3 the price of what they should be?

And I don't think we as Americans needs to worry about other countries perceiving us as unsophisticated because of AA. There is plenty of low hanging fruit in that category already.

utsmokingaces4• 18 years ago

You are trying to get into the ethics of global trade. I am sure glad I can get a plain t-shirt for $6 instead of $20 for AA. But that is a long debate.

Checkout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_%28clothing%29 They are a Spanish company that do not outsource their manufacturing. They are able to keep their costs down and deliver the most trendy clothes to their customers. AA on the other hand made clothes that look like 1970s gym clothes.

potatolicious3• 18 years ago

Having worked in the manufacturing industry I can tell you this with utmost confidence:

Wal-Mart clothes are precisely as expensive as they should be.

All other clothes are also precisely as expensive as they should be.

There's a very good reason why Wal-Mart clothes are 1/3 the price of other chains, and that word starts with a capital Q. Most people who've never worked in manufacturing call bullshit on this, but they really, really don't know the reality of things. You do get what you pay for.

gamache2• 18 years ago

"Bland and tasteless"? What exactly are you expecting from a T-shirt? I appreciate that there is a manufacturer of cotton casualwear which does not feature logos. I don't want to pay for the privilege of wearing a billboard.

And on the "make something good" tip -- AA makes the highest quality and best-fitting T-shirts I have ever found. MILES ahead of the crap on sale at Walmart. And they do it in America, so they've earned the right to put it in their name.

Company politics and alleged lechery aside: they make a damn fine product, without cutting corners.

utsmokingaces4• 18 years ago

Having a logo or not has nothing to do with the fact AA looks ugly as hell. Many great clothing brands do not show their logos on some of their clothes.

"I don't want to pay for the privilege of wearing a billboard."

Your are paying $20 for a plain grey t-shirt. You don't think you are paying for the AA billboards that are everywhere??

Chocobean• 18 years ago

gamache, I think he's referring to the AA retail store and the various brightly and unusually coloured offerings inside of it, while you seem to be referring to AA's T-Shirts.

I am the owner of an AA tagged T-shirt; black, with a modest picture of a prinny on it, of good quality. So I see your point about the stuff being "good." But as to what's on display in the retail stores, their "designer fashion" is really truly gawd awful. I wouldn't call it "bland and tasteless" though--it is a full-on assult on one's sensibilities.

jonknee• 18 years ago

Have you worn their clothing? Their tri-blend and 50/50 blends are the most comfortable shirts you can buy. Wear one of their shirts and you won't compare them to Wal-Mart again.

And if you don't want to pay retail, just get them on Amazon. You can get yourself a basic shirt for $6 (and the aforementioned tri-blend for $9). There's a reason why a huge number of bands/artists print on AA shirts, they are top end.

dgabriel• 18 years ago

I own about 4 of these skirts, in various colors: http://store.americanapparel.net/rsa7302.html . It's the most versatile, comfortable, awesome piece of clothing I own. I also have several of their dresses and leggings & socks, though I tend to stick with neutral colors and veer away from shiny.

Anyone who dresses themselves according to mannequins styled by 20something art school students is bound to look slightly ridiculous to those who are not 20something art school students. Most of the clothing is great and reasonably priced for what you get.

ojbyrne4• 18 years ago

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_26/b3939108_...

'But BusinessWeek spoke with seven former workers who say they were offended by what they called a highly sexual atmosphere at American Apparel. They told stories of senior managers who pursued sexual relationships with less senior colleagues and rewarded their favorites with promotions, company cars, and apartments. "It was a company built on lechery," says a former stock person. "I thought it was a male contemporary perspective on feminism, but it turns out to be just a gimmick," says another ex-employee. And another: "I made sure to stay away from the store when I knew [Charney] was coming into town. It's not one person -- he's aiming for all women.'

I generally have little patience with these kinds of feel-good PR-ish stories.

tptacek• 18 years ago

He didn't write about whether he received a dildo. Like many American Apparel visitors apparently do.

josefresco4• 18 years ago

The negative Business Week article you referenced is doing the same thing as the source article, just the other way around. We can cherry pick negatives all day long, and the other side can do the same with positives.

Take the lessons learned from AA and make your company better. Just because Charney is a little nutty doesn't mean the entire company/model/approach is bad. In fact I think the business world could use more people like Charney with an open mind and free (if not overly-sexual) spirit.

blurry12• 18 years ago

Forcing sexual relationships on people who work for you (or forcing a reporter to watch you have sex and masturbate) is hardly "overly-sexual".

You said yourself that AA workers could not get the same money anywhere else... surely you don't think it's acceptable for Charney to ask his employees for sex in a situation where (according to you) he has so much power?

In general, I think good/legal vs. bad/illegal behavior is not just a simple sum of its parts where, say, 3 good deeds outweigh 1 rotten deed by 2. After all, when your neighbor turns out to be a child predator, are you going to say, oh well, that's ok because he's been a good church-going fella for the past 30 years?

ojbyrne4• 18 years ago

Personally I think ethics are important. Its ok (in fact recommended) to be nutty. But it's not ok to be evil.

Though I agree with you about the business press. That's a whole other problem (much related to what I just said).

ojbyrne4• 18 years ago

This is actually a good article on AA: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive...

It reminds me (as your comment did) of my basic premise on journalism over the last 20 years - which is that the business section is full of complete hosebags who've demolished the entire industry in the name of PR and capitalism.

biohacker422• 18 years ago

For what it's worth, when I first stepped of the plane from Europe, one of the things about America, that was most obvious, was the highly nonsexual atmosphere.

I've since grown completely accustomed to it, and now don't even notice it, except when I go back to Europe.

eru3• 18 years ago

Where in Europe did you live?

ojbyrne4• 18 years ago

I don't think that's quite correct. The US is very sexualized, strip clubs, pornography, it's everywhere. But it's repressed sexuality. It's like the "war on drugs" - repression means that there's more money to be made.

mwerty• 18 years ago

I'm embarrassed that I got past the first two paragraphs.

nazgulnarsil• 18 years ago

I tend to ignore any news story whose aim is breeding righteous indignation.

vote with you dollars, not a gun (courts and legislation).

dmv• 18 years ago

I'm being prompted for a twitter account and password when loading that page. Anyone else?

Looks like it is this script: http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/venturehacks.json?...

Seems a little rude. I don't like a generic dialog box popping up asking for my credentials to an unrelated site...

Zev• 18 years ago

I didn't get said twitter box - and I generally have to login to twitter every time I browse there due to Twitterrific nuking the cookie.

nivi2• 18 years ago

Hi dmv,

Are you still having a problem? Sometimes the Twitter widget in the sidebar at http://venturehacks.com gets a little wacky. I believe it is an intermittent problem with Twitter.

I thought it was very rare but perhaps it is more common than I thought? Is anyone else having this problem? I couldn't recreate it. Thanks!

cpr• 18 years ago

Just have to say, "T-shirts are underwear."

(Watch this get downmodded out of oblivion.]

mattmaroon• 18 years ago

I think he says:

"This should embarrass the heck out of any executive who thinks he has to outsource in order to find cheap labor. Or at least call into question his fundamental competence as a leader. If American Apparel can manufacture low margin clothing efficiently enough to beat the sweatshops (in California no less), then anyone should be able to. If they try hard enough."

I think he's misunderstanding why their business model works. Sending your commodity product to China to be make extra-cheaply is one strategy. Building a high quality product that proudly displays it's Made-In-America-ness and tugs at our patriotic heartstrings while charging 2x the price as the Chinese-outsourced competition is another. There is room, in almost every industry, for both a Kia and Lexus.

And you do have to outsource to find cheap labor. $12-$15/hr with full benefits is not cheap for a factory. I'm guessing he just misphrased what he meant on that one.

nivi2• 18 years ago

Thanks Matt, it is poorly phrased. I will change it.

brandonkm• 18 years ago

American Apparel is an amazing company.

'A 5,000 person, $500 million low margin clothing company, operating from a single factory in the least business-friendly state of one of the highest "cost" manufacturing countries. Beating the overseas sweatshops and still growing rapidly.'

/article

My visit to American Apparel

Related Stories