4 ms·

You'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 ago
Now 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 ago
  Didn'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 ago
    These 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).
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      I find lots of other brands exploit sex to sell, and I find them all exploitative. AA were particularly egregious, and this article is about them going bankrupt, so I'm talking about them here as they are the subject of the article. Don't assume that because I didn't mention other fashion labels that I don't care about their practices either. I say they are exploitative because they reduce women to mere objects with which to sell clothing. As has been pointed out in a number of sources, many of the ads they ran were literally just soft porn, in fact many of the women didn't have much if any clothing on at all. This in turn exploited the minds of young women to make them want to fit the type of ultra-skinny, skimpily clad models who appeared to want to have sex at the drop of a hat. They were just one of the brands who helped increase raunch culture, made many women feel their bodies were inadequate and, though they may protest, did not portray a positive message about sex. If they were going to show a positive message about sex, then they could have at least shown models with a variety of body types. But then again, you've got to ask why sex seemed to be their ONLY real hook to sell their clothing. So that's my reasoning, feel free to disagree but I think a large number of people across the globe tend to agree with my assessment of American Apparrel, including the UK Advertising Standards Board who repeatedly made them take down their ads.
      - intopieces 11y ago
        I agree with you 100%. What role do I, as a man, play in this discussion? I want to criticize this practice, but I also don't have a place in telling a woman what she should or should not do.
        chris_wot 11y ago
        I don't really see a problem with expressing the view to a woman that another human being is more than just an object to be desired. Note that I'm not saying desire is bad in itself, but the issue is when you reduce someone by objectifying them for your own sexual gratification and ignore their personhood then that is the point at which a person mistreats the other person. I'm not immune, incidentally. I have to remember this every time I see an American Apparel advertisement. I speak out against AA exploitation because those ads debase sexuality by triggering in the viewer the urge for selfish sexual gratification. It can only do this because the viewer allows it to be so. The viewer is ultimately responsible for their own actions, but the advertiser is responsible for deliberately attempting to manipulate the viewer with their images. In my view, this exploits the viewer as well as the one being objectified. It's insidious, and whilst AA couched their advertisement in terms of not exploiting their workers, they used sexual objectification for one purpose only: to sell their clothes and make a profit.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    An adage I've heard from sales & marketing: Consumer purchases are fundamentally aspirational. So you advertise a dream, a goal, a desire. You don't sell to them "a nice sweater". You sell to them all the things they could be if only they had this sweater. Since nobody aspires to be old or plus sized, you don't see models selling how old you could be if only you had this sweater.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      So they sold a lie, like everyone else. My contempt remains!

intopieces 11y ago

Now 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 ago
Didn'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 ago
  These 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).
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    I find lots of other brands exploit sex to sell, and I find them all exploitative. AA were particularly egregious, and this article is about them going bankrupt, so I'm talking about them here as they are the subject of the article. Don't assume that because I didn't mention other fashion labels that I don't care about their practices either. I say they are exploitative because they reduce women to mere objects with which to sell clothing. As has been pointed out in a number of sources, many of the ads they ran were literally just soft porn, in fact many of the women didn't have much if any clothing on at all. This in turn exploited the minds of young women to make them want to fit the type of ultra-skinny, skimpily clad models who appeared to want to have sex at the drop of a hat. They were just one of the brands who helped increase raunch culture, made many women feel their bodies were inadequate and, though they may protest, did not portray a positive message about sex. If they were going to show a positive message about sex, then they could have at least shown models with a variety of body types. But then again, you've got to ask why sex seemed to be their ONLY real hook to sell their clothing. So that's my reasoning, feel free to disagree but I think a large number of people across the globe tend to agree with my assessment of American Apparrel, including the UK Advertising Standards Board who repeatedly made them take down their ads.
    - intopieces 11y ago
      I agree with you 100%. What role do I, as a man, play in this discussion? I want to criticize this practice, but I also don't have a place in telling a woman what she should or should not do.
      - chris_wot 11y ago
        I don't really see a problem with expressing the view to a woman that another human being is more than just an object to be desired. Note that I'm not saying desire is bad in itself, but the issue is when you reduce someone by objectifying them for your own sexual gratification and ignore their personhood then that is the point at which a person mistreats the other person. I'm not immune, incidentally. I have to remember this every time I see an American Apparel advertisement. I speak out against AA exploitation because those ads debase sexuality by triggering in the viewer the urge for selfish sexual gratification. It can only do this because the viewer allows it to be so. The viewer is ultimately responsible for their own actions, but the advertiser is responsible for deliberately attempting to manipulate the viewer with their images. In my view, this exploits the viewer as well as the one being objectified. It's insidious, and whilst AA couched their advertisement in terms of not exploiting their workers, they used sexual objectification for one purpose only: to sell their clothes and make a profit.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  An adage I've heard from sales & marketing: Consumer purchases are fundamentally aspirational. So you advertise a dream, a goal, a desire. You don't sell to them "a nice sweater". You sell to them all the things they could be if only they had this sweater. Since nobody aspires to be old or plus sized, you don't see models selling how old you could be if only you had this sweater.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    So they sold a lie, like everyone else. My contempt remains!