Woody Allen is suing American Apparel for using his likeness in its advertising without his permission. A familiar story. But the twist here is American Apparel’s counter-argument to Allen’s claim, and when I read it, all I could think was: My God, what a bunch of ****s (insert expletive of your choice). The retailer’s position is essentially: “Woody, your reputation isn’t worth exploiting,” and according to news reports, the lawyers have at least considered bringing Mia Farrow and Soon-Yi Previn into the fracas to prove their point. Gah! Let’s not even get into the fact that this argument is ridiculous (if his image is worthless, why put him on your billboards?). What irritates me more is the meanness of this approach in the face of Allen’s perfectly reasonable objection. This is schoolyard bully behavior; it’s like they’ve pantsed him in front of the entire student body because he objected when they took his lunch money.
I don’t shop at American Apparel, so my opinion doesn’t hurt them. But retailers have flirted with controversy time and again (what’s up, Calvin Klein?), and always the question looms: Is it going to be good for business, or bad?
This case is an interesting one because – for once – the American Apparel ad itself is not particularly shocking. But whether you’re creating provocative imagery or taking provocative legal stances, you have to consider your brand’s image with the customer you’re after. If your core market is defined by young, rebellious trendsters, something like Abercrombie’s pec-tacular campaign may very well be effective, no matter how much other groups (i.e., the trendsters’ parents) hate it. But American Apparel is a company that actively promotes its fair labor and environmental practices and supports various rights groups. Doesn’t its malicious dismissal of Woody Allen’s rights seem hypocritical?
Whether or not its customers care about that remains to be seen. But if they do, at least American Apparel now has a way in with the underserved “menacing thug” market.