They've been doing sexually exploitative advertising for ages. I for one won't be shedding any tears.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
http://www.buzzfeed.com/angelamv/the-28-raciest-american-app...
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".
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.
You've implied something kaffeemitsahne had never said.