By Tom Ryan
American Apparel has been running ads over the last month charging that the U.S.'s immigration policy "amounts to an apartheid system" and should be overhauled to create a legal path for undocumented workers to gain citizenship.
Most advertisers avoid any controversy, particularly divisive political issues such as immigration. Benetton and Nike have run ads about social causes in the past, and many companies today address environmental concerns in their ads. But, advertising executives said those issues were not as divisive as immigration tends to be.
"This is an issue that elections are being decided on," Greg Stern, chief executive of Butler, Shine, Stern & Partners, an advertising agency, told The New York Times. "But, of course, they're a very radical company."
Indeed, American Apparel certainly doesn't skirt controversy. Many critics claim its ads featuring scantily clad young women are pornography. But Dov Charney, founder and CEO of American Apparel and himself an immigrant from Canada, said the issue reflects his personal ideals around freedom. And while other large companies privately lobby the government over various policies, he would rather be open about his position.
"Let me be clear who makes our clothes. It is a collaboration between American-born people and non-American-born people," he said. "I don't think supporting immigration reflects negatively on my brand, and in fact, it makes it look like we're a responsible business."
American Apparel, which operates the largest garment factory in the U.S., has long advocated fair treatment of workers and in the past has run ads in local publications about immigration. Mr. Charney said the company has received numerous letters of support for the new, broader campaign, which has run in the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times.
But some immigration experts said it amounted to an admission that American Apparel uses illegal immigrants.
"It is self-serving propaganda to perpetuate cheap labor policies that are in violation of American law," Vernon M. Briggs Jr., a professor emeritus at Cornell who specializes in immigration policy, told the Times. "This is not 'apartheid.' This is simply law-breaking. 'Apartheid' is an emotional term that is designed to inflame the issue."
The company said despite the campaign, it has been careful to make sure that its workers present the necessary documentation for employment.
Alicia Schmidt Camacho, an associate professor of American studies at Yale, called the advertisement "brave" and said she largely supported its statements.
"What I think is startling is that this is a partisan advertising campaign that advocates for workers and is not advocating for the consumer," Ms. Schmidt Camacho said. "It's an appeal that is based on their brand and identification with particular values."
Discussion Questions: Should retailers or consumer brands be coming out with ads promoting social causes? Are certain topics okay (e.g., fighting aids or breast cancer, environment) and others too divisive? Has American Apparel crossed the line in this case and what will this campaign mean to its business?