8 ms·
American Apparel Files for Bankruptcy
- chris_wot 11y agoThey've been doing sexually exploitative advertising for ages. I for one won't be shedding any tears.
- kaffeemitsahne 11y agoWhat do you mean, prostitution or sex slavery or what?
- chris_wot 11y agoI reckon the following article sums it up best: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-american-apparel-descended-into-pornography-a-study-in-pictures-definitely-nsfw-2011-1#one-decade-ago-not-so-bad-2001-1 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-american-apparel-desce... Cool to disagree, it's my opinion of American Apparel. Lots of people would disagree, and that's fine. I'm merely expressing my distaste of their ethical standards (or lack thereof).
- nacs 11y agoAds like these (NSFW obviously): http://www.buzzfeed.com/angelamv/the-28-raciest-american-apparel-ads-ever http://www.buzzfeed.com/angelamv/the-28-raciest-american-app...
- soylentcola 11y agoI don't think I ever bought clothes there. When I was younger I couldn't afford it and when I got older with more disposable income for nicer clothes, I was out of the target demo and went straight to looking for things that were more classic/classy and lasting. Basically once I could afford more than JCPenney or H&M prices I was more concerned with how long it would last, how well it fit, and how long it would look reasonably fashionable and not faddish or outdated. But... their ads never really did anything for me one way or another. It's not news that you sell clothes to young people (and plenty of older people) by convincing them that the clothes will make you look and feel sexy. AA advertising just seemed to beat around the bush a bit less. Maybe it's a bit too blatant for the more puritanical shoppers out there but they're hardly the only place where you see advertising that says "buy our stuff, you will be sexy and desirable".
- AJ007 11y agoNudity and partial nudity
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoDon't pretend that bad things aren't bad because worse things exist. Edit: Downvoters, if you've got a different interpretation, I'd like to hear it. By pretending not to know what chris_wot means by "sexually exploitative advertising", kaffeemitsahne is clearly implying that it's not real because no one is literally being forced to have sex for money or survival.
- drdaeman 11y agoI wouldn't say it's "clear". Sometimes others have really different views and awareness about various things. Seriously, that stuff happens and (in my own perception) when talking with strangers on the Internet it happens way too frequently. You've implied something kaffeemitsahne had never said.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ironsides 11y agoThe campaign in question was referenced in a book "Trust me I am laying" by Ryan Holiday and is an excellent read on media manipulation strategies. Its fascinating to read how they never actually "ran" many of those ads, but the shock journalists had a field day and created a huge PR blitz for them on a few strategically placed sham ads on the file server.
- intopieces 11y agoI have trouble with this. I'm not the target audience of these ads. I understand that many people find nudity or sex offensive in advertising, but why is it expoloitative? I'm always hesistant to tell a woman she shouldn't/"can't" do something, and that includes modeling for AA. I understand the accusations of racism (they had a rice-paddy hat a few years back that really didn't belong) but at what point are these criticims of sex-in-ads just veiled criticisms of the choices the women have made?
- sliverstorm 11y agoYou're misunderstanding the use of "exploitation". Think more of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_film
- intopieces 11y agoNow I'm even more confused. Exploitation films are a cornerstone of "genre pictures." They focused on a certain subject/group. This is just sexy ads -- sexy ads have been around for ages (Abercrombie and Fitch did nude ads in the early 2000's). I guess I'm not sure what makes this company so different from the others, aside from their founder making news. Is this more like a prime example of advertising going to far?
- chris_wot 11y agoDidn't see a single plus sized model, nor anyone over late-20s I guess they decided that wasn't a market they cared about. Maybe why they are bankrupt now.
- intopieces 11y agoThese are valid observations but they don't answer my question. Lots of brands target a particular audience. What makes AA particularly egregious as to warrant being called "exploitative"? Or are there more exploitative companies and I'm not aware of them? (Genuine question).
- chollida1 11y agoIssues with the founder aside, This is the default for most fashion brands that make their mark by being "edgy". Your cool for a while until its the brand that your dorky older sister used wear and then you just become another brand. A similar analogy can be made for Facebook, it was cool in 2008, in 2014 when your mom and grandma want to friend you, not so much. Atleast tech companies like Facebook stand a chance of keeping their users as they age. Not many 30 year olds have both the body and the mentality to wear the American Apparel clothes that they bought when they were in university. Restaurants are very similar, which is why they tend to start to group together under uber companies that run each brand as stand alone entities. Fashion also tends to follow this playbook. This atleast lets companies diversify their risk among multiple brands. Its been said that tech companies need to reinvent themselves every 15 years to stay relevant, in fashion, its more like every 4 years and that's depressingly quick.
- volaski 11y agoWell if you look at a lot of top fashion brands that still stick around after decades, they all started out by being "edgy". You can't stand out if you make what everyone else makes.
- assface 11y ago> Not many 30 year olds have both the body and the mentality to wear the American Apparel clothes that they bought when they were in university. Speak for yourself. http://i.imgur.com/C4C9Llb.jpg http://i.imgur.com/C4C9Llb.jpg I'm going to grave with these on. These colors don't run!
- npkarnik 11y agoSame thing with nightlife (except it's closer to 2-3 years), since the target demographics are the same, but the people going to (or used to go to) clubs/bars get older.
- samstave 11y agoI call this the Disney/toys r us business model... Fuck the people leaving the age bracket; people always have kids and there is fresh targets moving into your market daily. Disney has mastered this
- navait 11y agoBeing an extremely small person, American Apparel appealed to me for making clothes that fit me well. Yet, AA always sold clothes that to me appeared garish( I'm never was into the punk hipster look of their models) and flimsy quality of the clothes I did like made it difficult for me to buy more from them. While the management problems, debt issues and slowing demand were problems, it seems they never really tried to bring in different consumers. I hope they consider different markets in their reorganization.
- smcl 11y agoThat's a strange coincidence, I'm tall (6 feet 2) and their clothes hit the sweet spot for me fit-wise, I know of a handful of others the same. Personally I hope they stay open purely so I can keep ordering their hoodies and long sleeve tshirts
- curiousjorge 11y agoUgh. What a piece of shit. An article in Jane, a now-defunct magazine, recounts that Mr. Charney masturbated during an interview with the reporter, who is a woman. The article portrayed him as an enthusiastic Lothario who preyed upon his staff. zero feels from me. this company was founded buy a perverted old man.
- nostromo 11y ago> Still, the bankruptcy would wipe out American Apparel’s current shareholders, including Mr. Charney, whose stake in the retailer that he founded in 1989 was worth about $8.2 million as of Friday. That's a shockingly low number for a founder of such a huge business.
- thenipper 11y agoWell it was worth 12 cents a share on Friday so it's not that surprising that even if he had a majority of the shares it'd be worth so little.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 11y agoGoogle Finance says their current market cap is $20.47M, so he's got 40% of the company. The stock has seen more than 99% of its value go away since 2007.
- rhino369 11y agoUnless they come out of bankruptcy without having to screw creditors, his stake is worth $0. Equity is the first to get wiped out in bankruptcy.
- shostack 11y agoHow does that work exactly? Does the value of the equity simply go away, or is ownership of the company literally handed over to the creditors? Just listened to a Planet Money episode on the benefits of bankruptcy, and it seems like while you will have every single document and decision reviewed/approved by creditors and the judge if you try to make a deal and pay it off, you'd still retain ownership. Not familiar enough with the details though to know how that works in various scenarios.
- ChuckMcM 11y agoWell in a recapitalization the board votes to issue all new shares in the company, sometimes previous shares are "converted" and sometimes simply new options/grants are handed out. Under the auspices of a bankruptcy proceeding you're basically out of business so it's a matter of everyone agreeing on what the right course of action is to move forward. If you are ever bored and want to see how convoluted these things can get, look at some of the GM filings when they were bailed out by the government :-)
- ChrisArchitect 11y agoother than the whole hipster/fashion story of this (which is hardly relevant these days/that's old news) -- there is another side of note: AA is a significant wholesaler of plain tees to printers/startups etc.... I know there are a handful of other brands on the market, AA maybe was more significant in previous years, but that's still gotta be a thing
- Animats 11y agoBrandy Melville is taking over their market segment, selling solid-color clothes for thin teens. Abercrombie and their surf-poser Hollister brand are more about the logo. The Iconix Brand Group has made a business of buying up hip brands in decline and turning them into JC Penny/Walmart/Kmart labels. They own about 25 once-cool brands, including Danskin, Ocean Pacific, Joe Boxer, and Peanuts. Maybe they'll pick up American Apparel. [1] http://www.brandymelvilleusa.com/clothing/tops.html http://www.brandymelvilleusa.com/clothing/tops.html
- narrowrail 11y agoThey filed for chapter 11, which is a reorg. I believe they intend a comeback.
- ececconi 11y agoAbercrombie and Hollister are moving away from logo designs now that their CEO Mike Jefferies was removed from office. Source: a college roommate of mine works at the corporate office.
- Animats 11y agoAbercrombie seems to have done that.[1] But without the logo, what have they got? Their jackets look like everybody else's jackets. [1] http://www.abercrombie.com/shop/us/womens-jackets-and-coats http://www.abercrombie.com/shop/us/womens-jackets-and-coats
- samstave 11y agoAmerican apparels issue was the price. They used edgy marketing to promote bland products with inflated prices... We talk about needing a basic income, but I propose that we need the modern equiv of "40 acres and a mule" == a basic wardrobe and a basic pantry that anyone should be able to sign up for... It gives some standard clothing and a set base of foods to a family and is subsidized across the board in specifically corporate tax (you shouldn't tax the people for this, you should tax industry only)... But I'd love to hear any argument for or against this concept EDIT: obviously the down votes are "arguments against" without the ability to articulate your opinion...
- modfodder 11y agoI'm with you except for the complaint about the price of the clothing. The cheaper a piece of clothing the more likely it was made with slave or underpaid labor in horrible conditions. American Apparel's manufacturing was the one good thing it had going for it, US based garment factory and above industry average wages was a step towards reversing decades of overseas sweatshop production in the fashion industry.
- nosuchthing 11y agoOne of American Apparel's selling points was the Made in America vertically integrated production center in downtown LA. They didn't cut corners by offshoring to sweatshop factories, and the paid the working class factory staff living wages. Vertical integration by definition shrinks a company's carbon footprint, as the materials are not shipped back and forth internationally, across thousands of miles, in the production process. As you can imagine, most garments you buy are the sum of disparate entities - knitted in one place, dyed in another, sold wholesale somewhere else and finally cut and sewn in unethical, sweatshop conditions. American Apparel, in contrast, is made in the USA by highly skilled workers we consider our friends and family. When you buy a t-shirt from American Apparel, a smaller portion of the margins goes towards fuel, trans-ocean container ships, middlemen, boxes, pallets and entropy. Instead we're able to spend that money on paying living wages to our workers, higher-quality materials for our garments, and investing in the future of our company. By centralizing our manufacturing operations, we're not only increasing efficiency, we're being held accountable and responsible for our actions, because our name is on the side of the building. We do our own knitting, dyeing, cutting and sewing in-house which means we can ensure adherence with US environmental regulations with regards to effluents, waste disposal, airborne particulate matter, and many others. Fashion labels who sub-contract their labor and sewing to dozens of shadowy third-world factories never even need to know the names of the environmental codes intended to keep run-off from polluting local drinking water. Our average factory worker makes $12 to $14 dollars an hour -the highest pay worldwide for the manufacturing of apparel basics, and significantly more than California's minimum wage. For us, higher pay means heightened efficiency, a better and more consistent quality of work, stronger employee morale, and ultimately, retention rates of skilled operators. For them, higher pay is often a path to the American Dream for their families. We don't have to do things this way, we just believe it's the right way. We employ more than 5,000 people in our LA area manufacturing facilities, making us one of the largest apparel manufacturing employers in the country. This, in a state with unprecedented unemployment and an unprecedented budget deficit. American Apparel keeps Californians, keeps Americans, working, and in doing so contributes millions of dollars annually to the State and country's tax base, as well as the local economies in which our employees live. Some of these initiatives may fall under the banner of "Sustainability." Others may be closer to "Corporate Responsibility." To us, these are the natural results of our business model, which encourages responsible and informed decisions, alongside innovation.
- bruceb 11y agoEdgy or not, part of the problem is the macro environment. There is simply a ton of apparel option for consumers now.
- perlpimp 11y agoI haven't seen any specific indicators, but isn't running up debts and then selling company for debts is the definition of hostile takeover? article seems to be running this thread through entire article without calling it.
- pfooti 11y agoThe real important question is: are there other sources for made-in-america clothing? Alternatively: sweatshop-free, living-wage clothing not necessarily made in America? I am not AA's target demographic, but I tend to buy their t-shirts because I would like to avoid supporting the pretty terrible working conditions most fashion companies create in their factories. For example, I buy really nerdy-looking blue jeans from Duluth Trading Company [0] because they're american-made. [0]: http://www.duluthtrading.com/store/product/mens-ballroom-5-pocket-jeans-made-in-usa-84011.aspx http://www.duluthtrading.com/store/product/mens-ballroom-5-p...
- mikikian 11y agoFor those interested, here's the voluntary petition ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5k5SQee7k5pcW0zUmlYdmFKc1k/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5k5SQee7k5pcW0zUmlYdmFKc1k... ) Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition . Fee Amount $1717. Filed by American Apparel, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1Board Resolutions # 2Top Creditors with Certification # 3Creditor Matrix # 4Verification of Creditor Matrix # 5Corporate Ownership Statement) (Jones, Laura Davis) (Entered: 10/05/2015) and the docket ( https://www.inforuptcy.com/filings/debke_160493-1-15-bk-12055-american-apparel-inc-bankruptcy https://www.inforuptcy.com/filings/debke_160493-1-15-bk-1205... )
- CyberDildonics 11y agoDid filing for bankruptcy become suddenly kitschy and ironically hip?