True to Nature & True to Form
A Zeitgeist Criticism of American Apparel
A Zeitgeist Criticism of American Apparel
AmericanApparel is a clothing company founded in 1989 by entrepreneur Dov Charney.Originally started as a “door-to-door” wholesale apparel company that suppliedseveral clothing stores and businesses, American Apparel quickly moved into theretail market in 2003, opening stores in LA, NYC and Montreal. The huge successof these stores generated enough revenue and popularity to make AmericanApparel one of the fastest growing companies in America. As of today, it is thelargest clothing manufacturer in the United States and is home to more than 200stores worldwide.
The American Apparel logo iseasily identifiable by semi-fashionable, hip, young Millennial Generation kids.The mark is simply the name of the company, written in a ubiquitous Helvetica75 bold typeface. Although it does present a very clean and straightforwardattitude, the use of this incredibly legible, modernist typeface seems toremove any sort of personality within the logo. Its tight but not touching, perfectkerning of letters, leaves the mark of a solid, reliable, even trustworthyimpression. But why would a new company even consider Helvetica when thisoverused typeface can be seen on every corner while walking the streets ofmajor cities and while driving in and out of suburbia? I rarely enjoy seeing a corporateidentity written in Helvetica because I almost immediately attribute thatcompany with the 70s and 80s, where one couldn’t design a corporate logowithout Helvetica. At first, the use of such a frequently visible typeface appearedlike a complete afterthought decision by Charney and others who continue to usethe typeface, who seem to lack any sort of design skill (well, he could haveused Comic Sans). However, after careful thought and due credit, the logomark’s attitude could be defined as reasonably snarky and ironic. This makes alot more sense. "These designers are using Helvetica in a cheeky way.They're aware of major companies' use of the typeface and how the font isallied to the business world," says Christian Larsen, curator of the MoMAexhibit on the history of Helvetica.
Charney’sdecision to use Helvetica becomes clearer when you realize how absolutely noneof their clothing has a single visible mark to identify their brand. It’s as ifthe company wants to be invisible. The interesting thing is that after visitingthe AA store and shopping there a handful of times, one can easily identifysomeone wearing an American Apparel outfit. And that’s not because anyone isvain or superficial – but because people can recognize the make and quality oftheir products. Therefore, the success andsignificance behind the American Apparel identity isn’t expressed in any logoor lack thereof, but rather by an experience.
The experience must start withinone of American Apparel’s vast number of retail stores across the world.Shopping in one of AA’s retail stores feels different from other competitorssuch as H&M, A&F and Urban Outfitters. For one thing, the entire storeis splattered with overwhelming color – not from decorative elements but fromthe actual selection of clothing. You can find almost any color for each pieceof clothing, in each size. Thisincredible array of options might be intimidating to some but the appeal toothers must be the seemingly endless combination choices of clothing that canbe worn with any outfit. Remember, there are usually no markings or logosacross any of the clothes, so constant layering and repetition of outfitcombinations are highly encouraged. Examples of American Apparel’s brandlesscolor layering fashion can be explained by any one of their store’s mannequins.Positioned in very relaxed, slouching and sitting naturalistic poses,mannequins here are very different from stiff straight-standing “attitudeassuming” mannequins from other retail stores. This total visual experience ofcolor and style throughout their stores must clearly appeal to a young, hip andprogressive generation.
Thegenius behind American Apparel’s branding is their repetition of color and materialthroughout their line of genuine, simple and form-fitting unisex clothes.Ironically, a company built off selling logo-less apparel for applying customdesigns, became a retail giant exactly because of that so-called “lack ofidentity”. Their clean, primary colored and brandless designs are actually whathelped American Apparel stand out among the vast array of competitors."People are sick of being walking advertisements for clothing. Bystripping brands of logos and of pretense, by being more subtle in your cues,you are saying that you are more about quality than image," said AlexWipperfürth, a partner in Plan B, a marketing firm in San Francisco.
Inaddition to focusing on expressing their firm loyalty towards genuinesweatshop-free factories in downtown LA and stressing how workers receivenearly double minimum wage, American Apparel’s ad campaigns ceaselessly raisebrows from all sorts of passersby. Usually gritty and subtly provocative, mostof the ads feature normal looking, young men and women in very bare outfitshighlighting one or a few articles of the American Apparel line. Sure, one can arguethat the company is objectifying and exploiting women but it hardly reaches theheight of highly charged sexually controversial advertising. Brands such asBenetton and Calvin Klein have been doing it for years.
CalvinKlein became widely successful for their edgy and controversial advertisementsin the 1980s. The very straightforward black and white photos of unclothedsexual couples, naked models exiting showers and barely clothed men on beaches,brought photographer Bruce Weber as well as Calvin Klein worldwide attention. Thedifference between American Apparel and Calvin Klein’s approach to provocativeunderwear advertising is the natural, seemingly invisible “design” aspect. CalvinKlein ads depict fantasy, while American Apparel ads depict reality. In the AAads, none of the models are supermodels, nor do they wear excessive makeup orundergo hours of Photoshop retouching. Some ads even keep the model’s redeyecaused by the camera flash. The strikingly authentic and confrontationally sexynature of these ads generally call attention to a younger generation of, asMark Morford describes it, “hot urban chicks and lesbians and DJs and club kidsand sporty types and grungy '70s-inspired dudes who like to wear floppy hair”.
Ratherthan leaving all their advertisements to shallow sexual imagery, AmericanApparel likes to acknowledge and demonstrate their firm beliefs on certainsocial issues and controversies. A predecessor to American Apparel and a brand whoset the stage for such socially and politically charged advertisements, UnitedColors of Benetton, had produced lots of controversy in the 90s for theirseries of ad campaigns targeting stereotypes. Benetton gained lots ofrecognition for being one of the first brands to challenge free speech byfocusing on the “impossibility of co-existence,” and the differences thatseparate rather than unite. This quickly resulted in Benetton developing apersonality as well as a social image – one that helped identify their brand.Much like Benetton, American Apparel has also been in effort to develop theirpersonality by demonstrating a similar passion in their ads. “Legalize LA” and“Legalize Gay” are two campaigns AA started while participating in severalimmigration and gay rights protests. This advocacy campaign has spread to theirwebsite, where news and articles pertaining to immigration reform can be found,as well as on their t-shirts, bus ads and billboards.
AmericanApparel is setting a trend. One could describe it as staying “true to natureand true to form”. If one has ever had a gripe with a particular logo, it mightvery well be because of their experience with the product or the service thatparticular company has offered. American Apparel’s strategy embraces the factthat if the product is good, the brand will succeed. American Apparel had noneed to hire a designer to develop an extremely expensive and crafty logo – onethat encompasses the entire philosophy of a company – so they could spread itacross their shirts and along 50-ft billboards. The New York Times notes how part of the success of Charney’syouth-oriented t-shirt chain is its lack of a logo. “It sounds like sciencefiction – suddenly not having a brand makes you the coolest brand around.” AAstays humble and keeps their mark inside their clothes, on tags. Their mark isadded subtly near the bottom of poster ads as to not distract from the product– or maybe the model. Rather than a company tirelessly embedding a mark in ourheads, American Apparel would rather embed a feeling – synonymous with comfortand design – through youthful desire and actual human experience, rather thanvisually via a logo.
Customerexperience is everything to American Apparel. Building a brand around a logo isa fairly dated approach to corporate identity, thus AA has pushed the ideaaside and re-conceptualized a type of “anti-brand”. Call it trendy andephemeral if you must, but American Apparel sets a wonderful standard of how acompany should feel about their products. You can tell they’re proud of theirapparel because they let their clothes reveal a reality, rather than how adesigner label invokes a fantasy. A good brand is more than just a good logo. Asdesigner Paul Rand puts it, “the subject matter of a logo is of relativelylittle importance,” and great symbols usually stand for great products. A goodlogo doesn’t make up for a bad product. More companies should act upon thistruthful and humanistic approach to corporate identity and allow the product todevelop the image, rather than masking that image behind a logo.
The American Apparel logo iseasily identifiable by semi-fashionable, hip, young Millennial Generation kids.The mark is simply the name of the company, written in a ubiquitous Helvetica75 bold typeface. Although it does present a very clean and straightforwardattitude, the use of this incredibly legible, modernist typeface seems toremove any sort of personality within the logo. Its tight but not touching, perfectkerning of letters, leaves the mark of a solid, reliable, even trustworthyimpression. But why would a new company even consider Helvetica when thisoverused typeface can be seen on every corner while walking the streets ofmajor cities and while driving in and out of suburbia? I rarely enjoy seeing a corporateidentity written in Helvetica because I almost immediately attribute thatcompany with the 70s and 80s, where one couldn’t design a corporate logowithout Helvetica. At first, the use of such a frequently visible typeface appearedlike a complete afterthought decision by Charney and others who continue to usethe typeface, who seem to lack any sort of design skill (well, he could haveused Comic Sans). However, after careful thought and due credit, the logomark’s attitude could be defined as reasonably snarky and ironic. This makes alot more sense. "These designers are using Helvetica in a cheeky way.They're aware of major companies' use of the typeface and how the font isallied to the business world," says Christian Larsen, curator of the MoMAexhibit on the history of Helvetica.
Charney’sdecision to use Helvetica becomes clearer when you realize how absolutely noneof their clothing has a single visible mark to identify their brand. It’s as ifthe company wants to be invisible. The interesting thing is that after visitingthe AA store and shopping there a handful of times, one can easily identifysomeone wearing an American Apparel outfit. And that’s not because anyone isvain or superficial – but because people can recognize the make and quality oftheir products. Therefore, the success andsignificance behind the American Apparel identity isn’t expressed in any logoor lack thereof, but rather by an experience.
The experience must start withinone of American Apparel’s vast number of retail stores across the world.Shopping in one of AA’s retail stores feels different from other competitorssuch as H&M, A&F and Urban Outfitters. For one thing, the entire storeis splattered with overwhelming color – not from decorative elements but fromthe actual selection of clothing. You can find almost any color for each pieceof clothing, in each size. Thisincredible array of options might be intimidating to some but the appeal toothers must be the seemingly endless combination choices of clothing that canbe worn with any outfit. Remember, there are usually no markings or logosacross any of the clothes, so constant layering and repetition of outfitcombinations are highly encouraged. Examples of American Apparel’s brandlesscolor layering fashion can be explained by any one of their store’s mannequins.Positioned in very relaxed, slouching and sitting naturalistic poses,mannequins here are very different from stiff straight-standing “attitudeassuming” mannequins from other retail stores. This total visual experience ofcolor and style throughout their stores must clearly appeal to a young, hip andprogressive generation.
Thegenius behind American Apparel’s branding is their repetition of color and materialthroughout their line of genuine, simple and form-fitting unisex clothes.Ironically, a company built off selling logo-less apparel for applying customdesigns, became a retail giant exactly because of that so-called “lack ofidentity”. Their clean, primary colored and brandless designs are actually whathelped American Apparel stand out among the vast array of competitors."People are sick of being walking advertisements for clothing. Bystripping brands of logos and of pretense, by being more subtle in your cues,you are saying that you are more about quality than image," said AlexWipperfürth, a partner in Plan B, a marketing firm in San Francisco.
Inaddition to focusing on expressing their firm loyalty towards genuinesweatshop-free factories in downtown LA and stressing how workers receivenearly double minimum wage, American Apparel’s ad campaigns ceaselessly raisebrows from all sorts of passersby. Usually gritty and subtly provocative, mostof the ads feature normal looking, young men and women in very bare outfitshighlighting one or a few articles of the American Apparel line. Sure, one can arguethat the company is objectifying and exploiting women but it hardly reaches theheight of highly charged sexually controversial advertising. Brands such asBenetton and Calvin Klein have been doing it for years.
CalvinKlein became widely successful for their edgy and controversial advertisementsin the 1980s. The very straightforward black and white photos of unclothedsexual couples, naked models exiting showers and barely clothed men on beaches,brought photographer Bruce Weber as well as Calvin Klein worldwide attention. Thedifference between American Apparel and Calvin Klein’s approach to provocativeunderwear advertising is the natural, seemingly invisible “design” aspect. CalvinKlein ads depict fantasy, while American Apparel ads depict reality. In the AAads, none of the models are supermodels, nor do they wear excessive makeup orundergo hours of Photoshop retouching. Some ads even keep the model’s redeyecaused by the camera flash. The strikingly authentic and confrontationally sexynature of these ads generally call attention to a younger generation of, asMark Morford describes it, “hot urban chicks and lesbians and DJs and club kidsand sporty types and grungy '70s-inspired dudes who like to wear floppy hair”.
Ratherthan leaving all their advertisements to shallow sexual imagery, AmericanApparel likes to acknowledge and demonstrate their firm beliefs on certainsocial issues and controversies. A predecessor to American Apparel and a brand whoset the stage for such socially and politically charged advertisements, UnitedColors of Benetton, had produced lots of controversy in the 90s for theirseries of ad campaigns targeting stereotypes. Benetton gained lots ofrecognition for being one of the first brands to challenge free speech byfocusing on the “impossibility of co-existence,” and the differences thatseparate rather than unite. This quickly resulted in Benetton developing apersonality as well as a social image – one that helped identify their brand.Much like Benetton, American Apparel has also been in effort to develop theirpersonality by demonstrating a similar passion in their ads. “Legalize LA” and“Legalize Gay” are two campaigns AA started while participating in severalimmigration and gay rights protests. This advocacy campaign has spread to theirwebsite, where news and articles pertaining to immigration reform can be found,as well as on their t-shirts, bus ads and billboards.
AmericanApparel is setting a trend. One could describe it as staying “true to natureand true to form”. If one has ever had a gripe with a particular logo, it mightvery well be because of their experience with the product or the service thatparticular company has offered. American Apparel’s strategy embraces the factthat if the product is good, the brand will succeed. American Apparel had noneed to hire a designer to develop an extremely expensive and crafty logo – onethat encompasses the entire philosophy of a company – so they could spread itacross their shirts and along 50-ft billboards. The New York Times notes how part of the success of Charney’syouth-oriented t-shirt chain is its lack of a logo. “It sounds like sciencefiction – suddenly not having a brand makes you the coolest brand around.” AAstays humble and keeps their mark inside their clothes, on tags. Their mark isadded subtly near the bottom of poster ads as to not distract from the product– or maybe the model. Rather than a company tirelessly embedding a mark in ourheads, American Apparel would rather embed a feeling – synonymous with comfortand design – through youthful desire and actual human experience, rather thanvisually via a logo.
Customerexperience is everything to American Apparel. Building a brand around a logo isa fairly dated approach to corporate identity, thus AA has pushed the ideaaside and re-conceptualized a type of “anti-brand”. Call it trendy andephemeral if you must, but American Apparel sets a wonderful standard of how acompany should feel about their products. You can tell they’re proud of theirapparel because they let their clothes reveal a reality, rather than how adesigner label invokes a fantasy. A good brand is more than just a good logo. Asdesigner Paul Rand puts it, “the subject matter of a logo is of relativelylittle importance,” and great symbols usually stand for great products. A goodlogo doesn’t make up for a bad product. More companies should act upon thistruthful and humanistic approach to corporate identity and allow the product todevelop the image, rather than masking that image behind a logo.
