American Apparel was not necessarily destined for greatness when its founder – then just a high school kid – had a business idea: He would sell t-shirts. Yet, within the past ten years, American Apparel has been in the news consistently for the past decade for a variety of reasons. There were the scandalous advertising campaigns, for which the brand has become known; there was the news of its early financial success; and its staunch dedication to manufacturing in downtown Los Angeles.

Certainly, its racy ad campaigns have received the vast majority of press coverage – at least until recently – but maybe even more noteworthy is the rise and subsequent fall of its affordable fashion empire, complete with the ouster of its founder and chief executive officer Dov Charney (who has developed a reputation that has been likened loosely to that of photographer Terry Richardson), a handful of ugly sexual harassment lawsuits, two Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings, and its delisting from the New York Stock Exchange. The question is: How did a company that less than ten years ago was deemed one of the fastest growing companies in the United States, boasting a rate of growth of 440% over a three-year period at one point and annual revenues that topped $211 million, get to this point?

THE MAKING OF AN ALL-AMERICAN BRAND

To determine how a company with so much promise could come crashing down so very publicly and disastrously, we have to start at the beginning, in 1989, when Charney got his start selling t-shirts out of his dorm room at Tufts University near Boston, only to ultimately drop out before graduation to pursue the endeavor full time in South Carolina. After settling in Los Angeles in 1997, Charney began to make waves, challenging the labor standards of the local garment industry by paying higher wages (two times higher than the standard wage at times) and providing benefits for his laborers, while touting his company’s mission of removing exploitation from the garment manufacturing process.

As of 2000, American Apparel was operating primarily as a wholesale business, selling ethically-manufactured blank t-shirts, and “related garments, such as panties” as it noted in an early marketing flyer, which included photos of scantily clad girls and Charney, himself (pictured below). The ethos of quality (both in terms of the garments and the experience of its factory employees) and overt sexuality run to the core of company, dating back to its earliest days.

The company opened its first store in 2003, expanding to 143 stores in 11 countries by 2007, with garments and accessories for men, women and children lining its shelves. It would become known for its unbranded and moderately priced t-shirts, sweatshirts, jeans, and undergarments. It would become known for others things, too, as illustrated in a 2004 feature in Jane magazine, entitled: “Meet Your New Boss,” which detailed the brand’s real estate expansion plans, its choice of models, and Charney’s pattern of lusting after his employees. As of the time of publication, around the same time Charney was named an Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year, he had been in serious relationships with three employees. The most talked-about aspect of the article, however, was certainly the part where writer Claudine Ko noted that Charney openly masturbated in front of her during their interview.

In an attempt to find the “necessary financial foundation to give us the opportunity to realize our bigger dreams,” Charney announced in December 2006 that Endeavour Acquisition Corporation, a publicly traded investment company (that praises Charney as a revolutionary businessman) had bought American Apparel. Still a “relatively new company in the U.S. clothing business,” as MarketWatch noted at the time, American Apparel had managed to take on larger competitors, such as the Gap, thanks to its branding-free garments and its edgy advertising. Yes, by this time American Apparel ad campaigns were thoroughly dominated by provocative young girls wearing next to nothing. A girl wearing just socks appeared in one ad. In another, a girl posed in a sheer bodysuit. Charney seemed unfazed by the influx of criticism that followed, calling the scandalous ads “fashionable” and “trendsetting.”

By 2007, American Apparel had become the largest T-shirt manufacturer in America. One of only a few clothing companies exporting "Made in the USA” products, it sold about $125 million of domestically manufactured clothing outside of America. That same year, the Economist published an article on the company. The first line, “Dov Charney courts controversy,” did not just refer to the company’s racy ad campaigns but the growing number of sexual harassment lawsuits filed against Charney. In 2005, the company was facing three sexual harassment lawsuit filed by former employees, alleging that Charney, then age 36, “used crude language and gestures in the office, hired women in whom he had sexual interest, and conducted job interviews in his underwear,” amongst other claims, thereby creating a hostile work environment. Charney’s take on the lawsuits: “It is a testimony to my success, the fact that I'm a target for baseless lawsuits."

FROM SELLING T-SHIRTS TO SELLING SEX

All the while, the company’s ads became even racier and more controversial – Charney made occasional cameos. The ads, which the company's former director of marketing and online advertising strategist Ryan Holiday, says “have been provocative and interesting from day one,” are part of the brand’s strategy to compete with other faster and trendier retailers. Long known for its risqué advertising, American Apparel’s suggestive ads eventually became more blatant as it was forced to compete in a marketplace that was becoming saturated with retailers offering cheap, trend-driven garments and accessories that were being delivered to stores in an increasingly sped up timetable. As such, suggestive ads eventually became more blatant. Instead of showing a scantily clad girl, American Apparel managed to out do itself by posting online banner ads with fully topless models beginning in 2005, right around the time it started featuring porn stars, like Lauren Phoenix, Faye Reagan, and Sasha Grey, posing as “real girls.” Of its more bold direction, Holiday, said: "We photograph models in a way that's honest. We aren't so constrained by the rules."

The British Advertising Standards Authority, an independent regulator of advertising across all media, stepped in repeatedly, banning ads that it deemed inappropriate for “sexualizing” models that appeared to be underage or that were pictured in “vulnerable” or compromising positions.

American Apparel was not shy to announce that its choice of “models” were usually not actually models at all. No, these were not girls you would see walking during Paris Fashion Week. In lieu of traditional agency-signed models, American Apparel openly opted for “real girls,” ones that Charney spotted on the street or that worked in the brand’s stores. According to the company’s website, “We find our models all over the world, through online submissions, word of mouth, and in retail stores, where we've been known to do an impromptu test shoot or two.” In one ad, Kelley, an American Apparel employee, is pictured posing for an array of photos, in one she wears just a thong. According to the ad’s caption, the photos were taken “by a fellow employee at the company apartment in Mexico city […] Kelley chose and re-enacted her favorite poses from vintage porn mags.” Another ad, entitled, “Pantytime,” features another female American Apparel employee, who is posing topless in bed – wearing nothing but the brand’s panties, of course.

Speaking about the company’s advertising strategy, their U.K. operations manager Brent Chase, said in a statement: "Our models are real girls who are often employees or friends of the company. The images aren't Photoshop-ed. Sometimes, people are made uncomfortable by this, and it occasionally causes an unfortunate reaction."

While street casting is not problematic on its face, and is, in fact, utilized by an array of high fashion brands, after being pioneered largely by Raf Simons in Antwerp, Belgium, in the mid-1990’s, American Apparel took it a step further, allowing Charney to photograph the models himself. The results were rather trailblazing. All of the ads shared a candid, amateur vibe – evoking the snapshot aesthetic that Lisette Model pioneered and which Terry Richardson and Juergen Teller had a strong hand in bringing to the mainstream. A far cry from the polished, traditionally glamorous ads that big fashion houses were putting out at the time, there were no glammed up models, professional sets or recognizable faces. Instead, there were a lot of beds, couches, and white walls, and provocatively posed models that looked like the girl next door. As indicated by the British Advertising Standards Authority, the results were also highly controversial, as the ads were often “overly sexual,” “voyeuristic,” and “offensive and irresponsible.”

Controversy regarding American Apparel’s choice of models did not stop there, though, as critics began to question just how “real” its "real people” actually were. Writing for Jezebel, former model, Jenna Sauers, took a stand: “The story that American Apparel tells about its models — that they are, to a (half-naked) woman, employees, friends of Dov Charney, ‘real people’ and never professional models — is one much cherished by the company. It's also a lie.” It turns out, “American Apparel's gaggle of utterly conventionally beautiful and slender women are not ‘factory workers.’ They may be ‘friends of Dov,’ but many of them do not work for the company he founded. You will not bump into an American Apparel model working the register at the store nearest you.” Instead, Sauers writes that “many are really ‘professional models,’ and some are adult film stars and actresses.” In fact, she says she is friends with a number of professional models “who've moonlighted for American Apparel for a quick buck.”

ivory bridesmaid dresses | junior bridesmaid dresses