Founded (in earnest) in 1997, American Apparel flew mostly under the radar for a half decade. Producing high quality, fitted, modern (but blank) t-shirts, the brand specialized in wholesaling to designers and others who would slap graphics on, or otherwise customize, the t’s. AA’s product was in demand because of the great amount of attention the company put into quality and fit. With an AA product as a building block or blank canvas, the end customer was sure to be pleased. To this day, AA’s shirts, jerseys, sweatshirts, t-shirts, contain no marks, logos, insignias or anything that would directly identify them as an American Apparel product.

Then, a few years ago AA began turning its attention toward the retail market. Based in Los Angeles, AA opened its first retail location there. Shops were soon opening in New York, Montreal and Berlin with plans to move into Miami, Tokyo and London among others. In 2003, AA reported US$ 80 million in revenue and plans to grow that to US$ 150 million by the end of 2004.

AA’s amazing growth is aided by the attention the brand gets for being “sweatshop free.” Indeed, all of AA’s products are produced in the US under such sweat-free conditions as above-minimum-wage pay and (limited) health benefits. Consequently, AA is a pin-up model for both capitalists and do-gooders, the former stressing that being profitable can have principles, the latter that being principled can have profits. Much of AA’s press would have you believe its very existence makes possible the dream of someday living in a socio-economic utopia. Too bad it’s a load of crap. But sometimes crap is genius.

American Apparel’s “sweatshop free” claim is a bit like saying brandchannel is “illiteracy-free.” Here’s what I mean and why it’s true: There’s no denying AA makes high-quality garments, but to do this it needs to be in close control of the process as well as have access to skilled labor. Most developing nations on the “sweatshop-circuit” either do not, or make it very difficult to, fulfill either of these prerequisites. And while AA does pay above average garment industry wages, it is essentially claiming something that could be said by almost any other clothing brand legitimately made in a developed nation. In fact, during AA’s infancy, “sweatshop free” was never part of the brand’s promise. Then, AA press releases started carrying the subheading “Los Angeles Based Sweatshop Free T-Shirt And Apparel Company….” It was a great sleight of hand and the media bought it hook, line and sinker.

AA is fully aware that its sweatshop-free course is a zero-sum game in which it has no brand ownership (i.e., if all brands suddenly stopped using sweatshop labor, AA’s image would become irrelevant). Distancing itself from its sweatshop-free claims (no 2004 press releases have the above subheading), AA’s founder Dov Charney recently said, “I think [being sweatshop-free] is a secondary appeal and I'm getting a little bored with it myself. I’m de-emphasizing it” (Los Angeles Business Journal, May 2004) . Compare that to an American Apparel press release from less than two years ago: “Charney’s vision has proven that it is possible to still produce quality garments in the United States without having to resort to the unsavory business practices that permeate the apparel industry globally.”

The best part of AA’s socially responsible image is that it is really just a big red herring when it comes to the brand’s success. There are numerous clothing brands that identify themselves exclusively as sweatshop free or some such thing. Two notable ones are SweatX and No Sweat, neither of which boasts anything near AA’s success. (The SweatX online store was closed “temporarily” at publication time.) It would be surprising to learn that even 25 percent of AA customers know about any sweatshop free stance. (In an non-scientific survey of acquaintances who own AA stuff, only one did.) So besides making a quality product (which many, many marginally successful brands also do) why is AA so popular?

To look at an American Apparel catalog or ad is to look at the closest thing there is to amateur porn without it actually being amateur porn (though it may qualify as fetish photography and certainly flirts with being lecherously barely-legal). If Victoria’s Secret is the closest the apparel industry has to mainstream, overproduced, surgically-enhanced porn, then American Apparel is its raw, posed-to-not-look-posed, seemingly inexperienced but no-less-erotic amateur cousin. With emphasis on the prurience of voyeuristic reality, AA ads feature “real women”— sometimes in bathtubs or beds — but always in intimate conduct. As has been forever said about sex: it sells. In finding a unique way to be sexy, American Apparel found a new way to sell.

Despite too much ink having been spilled on his ego already, it should be said that AA’s founder Dov Charney is himself the greatest threat to American Apparel’s future. The brains and brilliance behind the brand, Charney’s behavior (such as masturbating for a Jane magazine reporter) can only be described as “misguidedly rock-n-roll” (and potentially actionable). And while it does seem that his maniacal antics actually appeal to some lowest-common-denominator hipster ironists, it could someday hurt the brand. Remember that incomprehensive survey of acquaintances — well, after learning about Charney, all said they would think twice about buying any AA in the future.

Abram D. Sauer lives in New York City.