Special to BYU NewsNet

Supporting Obscene Marketing Practices? BYU Students and the Apparel Industry

By J. Scott Askew, Owner, Kneeshorts.com

“The way you dress is a reflection of what you are on the inside. Your dress and grooming send messages about you to others and influence the way you and others act.” For the Strength of Youth, p. 14.

You are what you wear. Not long ago, I saw two startling examples. A criminal defendant, charged with drunk driving, came to court to enter his plea. To the astonishment of everyone in the courtroom, he wore a t-shirt advertising a popular beer brand. Amid snickers in the courtroom, the annoyed judge sternly warned the defendant to dress differently for his next court appearance.

Later that same week, a couple of teenage girls were at the gym. One was modestly dressed in loose-fitting sweat pants and a baggy t-shirt. But printed on her t-shirt was the brand name “Hustler.” What was she thinking? Did it occur to her that she was a walking billboard for hard-core porn and aggressive sexual behavior?

BYU students wouldn't wear clothing displaying the brand of a

pornographer. Or would they?

Sexual marketing of apparel – a case study

Recently, the manager of an Abercrombie & Fitch store in Virginia was criminally cited for obscenity. Local police received complaints about explicit photographs displayed in the A&F store. Upon investigation, an officer found two offending posters – one a picture of a shirtless male model exposing the top of his buttocks and another of a topless woman partially covering her breasts with her hands. The police officer determined that the posters violated the city’s obscenity ordinance, and warned the manager to remove them. When the officer returned a day or two later, the pictures were still displayed. So he issued a citation and confiscated the posters. The national media widely reported the incident.

So why didn’t A&F remove the posters? Because A&F profits greatly from its long-standing use of sex, indecency and nudity to market its apparel. The controversy immediately generated national publicity. A&F received millions of dollars worth of free advertising from the news media, as thousands of customers visited the nearest store to check out the revealing pictures.

It may seem illogical that the best way to sell clothing is to show models not wearing any. But it’s hard to argue with the financial results. In 2007, A&F sales were $3.75 billion, up 13% from 2006, in an otherwise tough market for the apparel industry. A recent business article referred to A&F’s success as “genius.”

The incident in Virginia is hardly the first time A&F has come under fire for sexualized marketing. In 2002, A&F marketed pre-teen thong underwear printed with suggestive phrases such as “eye candy.” In recent years, A&F t-shirts have caused controversy by referencing such topics as incest and women’s breasts.

A&F’s most infamous venture into sexualized marketing was its quarterly catalog, discontinued after the Christmas 2003 edition caused a huge uproar. That edition featured 45 pictures of nude or semi-nude models and did not begin advertising clothing until page 120. The pictures portrayed group sex, gay kissing, and teenage sexual activity. And as if the pictures were not enough, an article in the catalog encouraged a variety of sexual experimentation. Despite A&F’s claim that the magazine was sold only to adults, the attorney general of one state documented sales to pre-teens. The catalog was discontinued only after a pro-family group published a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal aimed at informing A&F investors of a boycott.

So what’s next for A&F? It recently announced the creation of a line of lingerie to be sold in a new store targeting its young customer base. And A&F has announced that its controversial catalog will be made available once again in the United Kingdom.

While A&F is definitely a high-profile industry leader in sexualized marketing, it is hardly alone. There are many other multi-national apparel companies that engage in similar practices. Even a purportedly modest shirt company recently resorted to sexual innuendo on a 2007 billboard featuring “tease” (a clever play on “t-shirts’) and the tag line “cover your assets” next to a drawing of a woman pulling down a long shirt over her emphasized backside.

What are BYU students doing (or wearing)?

When it comes to A&F, some pro-family and religious groups have been pro-active. Citizens for Community Values published the Wall Street Journal advertisement that put at least a temporary end to the A&F catalog. The National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, the American Decency Association and Focus on the Family all have been vocal critics. Bob Jones University and other religious schools have forbidden A&F apparel on their campuses or have boycotted A&F.

What about the LDS community and BYU students?

For years LDS consumers have complained that it was difficult to find modest apparel. But while LDS apparel consumers focus on modesty, sleazy marketing is rarely considered.

A few years ago my wife and I were asked to speak to a group of business students at Brigham Young University. Among the topics we discussed was pornographic and sexualized advertising in the apparel industry. Many students to whom we spoke wore clothing displaying the A&F brand name. Many more were wearing A&F apparel with the label safely hidden inside. Can you imagine the reaction of the Honor Code office if one of those students had come to class in shirt with the Playboy logo? A&F shirts are different only in degree, yet they can be seen all over the BYU campus.

It is true that, as compared to direct sellers of pornography like Playboy, sexualized advertising by apparel retailers is secondary to its primary purpose of selling clothing and may “only” fall into the category of soft porn. But does that matter?

Why do LDS consumers tolerate sexualized marketing?

With moral issues, Church members tend to focus on personal righteousness and Church activity, rather than community activism. Abortion is a good example. Church members are firmly anti-abortion, but you don’t see anyone in your ward organizing a picket of Planned Parenthood.

If you ask a Church member to describe the problem of pornography and its solution, the answer may be “Pornography is the sin of someone viewing pornographic images, and the solution is repentance.” Conversely stated, this is the same as saying “Pornography is not my issue because I don’t view it.”

But that attitude ignores two truths when purchasing and wearing apparel from companies that use sexualized marketing. First, we send the message to our family, friends, co-workers, acquaintances and strangers that we support the brand image even if pornographic. Second, we tell the marketer that their immoral advertising works.

If you ask an anti-pornography activist outside the Church the same question, the response may be that pornography is the widespread dissemination of pornographic images; that it adversely affects the community; and that the solution is to create a social, economic and political climate that makes it difficult for the pornographer to do business. This broad view acknowledges we tolerate our pornographic environment, and that we have the power and responsibility to change it.

Maybe Church members are not more involved in the community on moral issues because we believe that there is nothing we can do to stop the world will become ever-increasingly evil?

Can Church members change the apparel industry?

World-wide fashion trends have never been caused by an LDS teenager writing a complaint letter to Dillard’s. That kind of activism may occasionally catch the attention of a public relations department or make the newspaper, but has no impact on fashion trends, production or marketing.

The apparel industry is dominated by profit-driven, publicly-traded companies that have no institutional sense of morality. The industry is not concerned with the needs and desires of local communities, and will continue to sell immodest styles and use sleazy advertising as long as it is profitable.

If LDS consumers are to have any impact on apparel trends and advertising, it will only be through economic power. Where there are large concentrations of Church members, LDS consumers have enough economic strength to prevent objectionable retailers or brands from doing business in their community. While A&F may never change its advertising in response to LDS consumers, it would not keep open its Provo Utah store for very long if no LDS teenager or college student ever shopped there. LDS consumers also can use their economic power to support Utah’s fledgling modest apparel industry, or at least patronize those retailers and brands that don’t flaunt immorality.

Even if LDS consumers can’t change the apparel industry, is that an acceptable excuse for continuing to patronize retailers that profit from sexualized advertising practices? Church leaders do not tell Church members where to shop. They teach correct principles and let LDS consumers govern themselves. Perhaps we could do better in our self-governance.

So, what’s in your closet?

About the Author:

J. Scott Askew and his wife Carol reside in Draper, Utah. They founded KneeShorts Clothing Company in 2001 as the first private-label apparel producer in the LDS community focusing on modest casual clothing. KneeShorts was named to the prestigious Utah 100 Fastest Growing Companies in 2006 and 2007, 23rd and 50th respectively. Scott and Carol occasionally speak to groups about modesty and the apparel industry. They can be contacted through the KneeShorts’ website (www.kneeshorts.com).

Scott grew up in New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Utah and California. He attended Brigham Young University and received a B.S. in accounting (1985) and a law degree (1988). He has been licensed to practice law in Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Washington and Nebraska. After spending ten years in Phoenix, Arizona working in both a large law firm and as Assistant General Counsel at U-Haul International Inc., he moved back to Utah and now manages KneeShorts full-time. He also is a trained mediator. Scott and Carol have two beautiful small children. Scott also has a "brilliant daughter" who studies neuroscience at BYU.

Viewpoints appearing on BYU NewsNet are the opinion of the author.

Copyright Brigham Young University 28 Apr 2008