The latest Levi’s campaign to re-brand the dying apparel company leaves us frustrated and a little angry. A campaign by Wieden+Kennedy that was supposed to target Generation O seems to have ignored all the participation and multi-culturalism that this Obama-era is supposed to represent. Instead, we find lone white young men and women running through the hills and towards waves reflecting a misplaced interpretation of freedom.
Levi’s and its campaign don’t connect with the great things that are happening in this country, the radiant mix of cultures evolving within it nor the reality of its past.
Probably the most appalling ad in the campaign is the one where a young girl runs through a meadow by the words “This Country Was Not Built By Men In Suits”. Now, some of us here (me) didn’t spend a lot of time studying US history but I know that the people who built this country couldn’t even run freely in the fields. Agency Spy spotted graffiti daubed on the ad in New York’s subway which spells out who a little more clearly: “By Slaves”.
Ex-PSFKer Christine Huang points out her reaction to the graffiti on her blog:
I saw one of these ads in NYC’s Spring Street 6 subway station. The copy read, “This country was not built by men in suits” – which someone added to in matching handwritten scrawl: “IT WAS BUILT BY SLAVES”. Up to that point, I hadn’t been able to put my finger on what it was about the campaign that made me feel so uneasy. But with that bit of graffiti, it all came together. Levis (or rather W+K) is glorifying these centuries old American ideals – Optimism! Egoism! Manifest Destiny! – while making paltry gestures towards the reality of American history and what America is today. Besides the few ethnic actors in the video, their print campaign is disappointingly monochromatic and seems almost apologetically alienating. It would have been really amazing to see Levis pay homage to the symbols of true individuality from our past – the freedom riders, abolitionists, suffragists, veterans.”The Frontier” is sexy and all, but how about some real American heroes?
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
It is also vaguely reminiscent of an Abercrombie & Fitch ad circa 1998.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Sorry, I meant Hollister Co.- They did more “free spirited on the beach” and Abercrombie was always a little more “shirtless rugby playing and lounging”.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I am angry! Angry that i wasn’t part of making this campaign. I rather like it. This blog entry is puzzling to me. How can you get so angry at an ad? I interpreted that “Suits” ad as a statement about feminism. Oh well, to each his/her own.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
this commercial doesn’t feel very white to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzEsdMdjP94
July 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
your negative rants on wk are getting boring.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Personally, I like the campaign- it’s intelligent. I don’t believe it suffers from the Abercrombie problem; it’s diverse and seems to drive at a deeper idea that goes beyond what one usually sees from fashion companies.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
When you reference the route you would have preferred to have seen taken do think you’re describing the direction loosely taken by Lee Jeans?
Interested on your views of how you would position Levi’s among Lee, Replay, A&F etc. All hold an aspect of American heritage to varying degree.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
It is a totally lame campaign, though.
So it is rather hard to defend.
Benign. Boring. Bland. Outdoor? 100% White.
Makes me think – Who cares? Except for people in the ad biz.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
In other words – SHOW ME THE REVOLUTION!
Not some neutralized, generic, homogenous marketing images.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Mary Bonn – I’ve gone and checked the video on YouTube (it doesn’t appear on my commute so I wouldn’t have known about it otherwise). Yeah – 2 cute black kids, 2 old black men and a black guy kissing a white girl. That’s a rather lame attempt if it’s a hat tip to modern diversity in this country.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Megan – I’m sure my rants against WK could sound boring to you – you do work at Wieden Kennedy after all – (COMMENTER IP: 65.197.140.131 , extmail.wk.com)
The funny thing is, I don’t set out to comment about W+K. You guys keep doing stuff worth commenting negatively about. And I don’t seem to be writing too much about anyone other agency. So, who’s issue is this. Mine or yours?
July 8th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
It’s wallpaper IMHO.
Anyway, I was intrigued about Levi’s sponsorship of a new HBO show. It seems oddly incongruent. I spotted some posters of grubby looking hipsters and a link here:
http://www.comedyfetish.com/
PF – I just sent you some pictures, see what you make of it…
July 8th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Thanks for striking up the conversation here, Piers!
As you aptly put it – the campaign just fails to reflect the America – country of “pioneers” and fearless individualists – it’s claiming to represent. It just fails to connect. Perhaps WK was going for timelessness, but all I see is irrelevance. Today’s “Pioneers of America” aren’t shirtless waifs walking into the sunset, and this ‘new world’ is a lot more interesting, and built on much more heritage, than these empty images communicate.
It’s interesting to see how some people are reducing the issue to one of race-blindness vs multiculturalism. I don’t think anybody is saying all ads needs to have a multicultural message – but one that purporting to celebrate the American spirit – in this day and age – arguably should.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Honestly, the ads aren’t terrible and they will get some attention. I do agree that they missed the boat on culture and the “new America,” but hey, its just to sell some jeans.
I think the Subway graffiti is actually smart. That one banner was not very well thought out, especially knowing the rise of urban street wear and the positioning of the ads in a NYC Subway. Oh well. Another ad agency bites the dust.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I dont want to start a flame war (do we have those anymore?)
There is a very clear divide in these comments between people who have studied the history of this country through the lens of the mainstream, and the people who have studied the growth of this country through the lens of those groups who have been marginalized and underrepresented in historic texts.
except for groups who were brought here forcibly, most large migrations came to this country because of the promise of a better life. Many of those groups — Chinese, Mexican, Filipino, Irish, Italian — have walked off the boat into virtual enslavement. These people have provided the bulk of the muscle which has built this country. In fact, in all of history, the only great monument that was built by people who were working on their one free will, is the Acropolis.
I actually think it suffers from trying to be more then A&F. A&F makes no bones about what kind of people it is trying to attract. It doesnt seem like a good strategy in today’s market, but that’s them. I think this is working hard to be something else, that fell flat on its face.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I thought Levi’s were made in China?
July 8th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I think it’s kind of disingenuous to slam W&K – sure they create the content, but at the direction of the client. Who knows how much control Levi’s had over the message? There are two parties to this message, and one of them is working for and getting paid by the other. Perhaps some of the responsibility for the message should go to Levi’s, who commissioned, approved and paid for the ads?
July 8th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
In my opinion this post is blowing things way out of proportion. I don’t believe advertisers have an obligation to “connect with the great things that are happening in this country, the radiant mix of cultures evolving within it”. Doing so could possibly increase their sales, as it would make their brand more relevant to more people, but I don’t think that it is their duty to do so. They exist to sell a product, not to provide sociology lessons. White people make up almost three quarters of the US population, so I don’t think it’s really that far-fetched to try to target that demographic. Also, while I can see your point regarding the “This country was not built by men in suits” phrase, I think that it is a very reactionary response to a somewhat vague connotation. If anything, the connotation that the country wasn’t built by men, but by women is much stronger than what is suggested in this post. It is easy to find racial overtones in virtually any photo that is taken to convey a message. The fact that we do actually belong to various races makes it impossible to take a picture of anyone in a commercial setting and avoid racial overtones. The connection in this photo is vague enough that I seriously doubt that Levi’s is intending to imply an alternate history where the country was only created by white people.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I agree with Christine. Levi’s was a great brand. And quite sadly it seems to have missed the boat. And I’m not just talking about America. In Europe, Asia etc. youths don’t go for Levi’s like we used to.
As for the campaign, while it looks rather modern, the idea and messages is shockingly backward. Feels like a 40 year old gatecrashing into a rave/indie party.
And the best part is it’s the same photographer as the critically acclaimed Wrangler ads.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I’m sick of feeling like I have to apologize for being white.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:45 am
These photos are by Ryan McGinley. It’s not surprising that he featured young white adults–if you’re familiar with his work, this is exactly what he delivers with consistency. That said, Levi’s should know better than to limit their diversity in this campaign. Funnily enough, McGinley did a similar campaign for Wrangler, which just won a Cannes Lions award.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Sigh.
Take the Levi’s logo off and this could easily be a campaign for Abercrombie/American Eagle/Tommy Hilfiger/Lee’s/Hollister/ Aeropostale/Hair the Musical.
Levi’s has the unique advantage of actually being an iconic American brand, and instead of capitalizing on this in a timely manner, these ads seem to just copy other brands that are trying to, um, become iconic American brands themselves.
Oh, Levi’s campaign. You could have been so much more. Alas, you are a pager in a world of iphones.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I bet all of you who don’t see what the big deal is about these ads being so White are, well White. Which is exactly the problem with the today’s advertising industry as well as corporate America. The fact that in this day in age any brand, or ad agency, who is attempting to sell products to US citizens at large, would not think to include a single person of color is ridiculous and completely offensive.
If you don’t care, now, about reflecting the growing population of non Whites who make up over 30% of this country and spend over $10 trillion then you’re an idiot. In the not so distant future this consumer base will grow to over 55% of our population…
Thanks Levi’s, I can add you to my list of brands and companies who simply do not get it and thus will not be getting my $$$$.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
No offense to anyone but when you’re selling jeans, especially to women, they don’t want to see a “real” woman wearing jeans, they want to see a hot thing like Brooke Shields famous Calvin Klein ad…”nothing gets between me and my Calvin’s” which was THE most successful marketing for jeans campaign. On the race issue, yes I agree…they could have been more authentically American but then are we getting a little Sesame Street by being overly sensitive and placing the black guy, the asian guy, the white guy, the old guy? It’s a lose/lose situation. You put all the races in, you get pinged for stock characters. You don’t, you get pinged for leaving all of them out. I say it’s an ad about getting out there and doing something and that’s what is great about our country. Love the dirty butt. How unfashion that is.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:24 am
@abarber: It’s not so much that I’m saying reflecting the growing proportion of nonwhites isn’t important; even from a purely business perspective it definitely is, because as you pointed out, nonwhites make up a large and growing percentage of the market. What I am primarily getting at is that if the company chooses to align themselves with one particular demographic (in this case, blue-collar white people) I see no reason why they shouldn’t from an ethical perspective. True, they may be alienating a percentage of the population, but that is their decision to make. If anything, I think that is far less offensive than going the route Mara was mentioning; the 1990’s “equality” route where it is mandated that every image has someone representing each racial and cultural minority, as long as they aren’t “too minor”. The token stereotypes that are thrown in for bonus points strike me as being much more artificial.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
GW/Mara, I’m in no way saying Levi’s (or any brand) has to include the multi culti rainbow with every single race represented. That might be a bit hokey (but then again I don’t know, I don’t see enough of it). And yes, if a brand wants to be the “White” brand and alienate non White consumers, then by all means go for it but a brand, such as Levi’s, which clearly bills itself as an inclusive, Democratic, all-American brand should at least make an attempt to show a single person of color. I mean give me a break the models are shot from behind! A slightly brown person’s back would have given Levi’s the much used, easy/lazy way out – is he/she Hispanic, African American, or Asian…?
July 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
we are trading company ,and wholesale exporter nike adidas jordan lv gucci puma shoes,bag hat watch and brand clothing….
if you have time ,please see it my website ,
msn(1):majun8030@hotmail.com
we sincerely hope we can have a good cooperation with our customers at home and abroad and create a bright future together.
http://www.lvlve.com
July 10th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
curious just who the commenters think is an ideologically acceptable jeans brand. is it about representation, practice or space? perhaps the real “problem” is not the representation, but the media planner’s purchase of subway promotional space. most other jeans advertising I see is not all that dissimilar from this because of the type of media placement in which I- as a reader and brand target – am most likely to encounter. perhaps those excluded from this “representation” (such an old school idea in the first place) should take it up w/ media planning rather than creative.
interesting that no one’s picked up the Whitman references in some of the ads. not to mention the ambiguous sexuality of the campaign (yes, a very McGinley-esque sense of style). finally – Levi’s has continued to champion a series of initiatives, representations and campaigns re: gay rights. which other jeans company has measured up on that score?
July 11th, 2009 at 8:10 am
@abarber: Haha, yeah, that is a very good point, and I do agree with you overall. I just think the severity of Levi’s ads’ transgressions is being really over-sensationalized by this article, that’s all.
And @tyto: Admittedly, I don’t really apply much ideology to my choice in pants.
July 12th, 2009 at 12:09 am
we’re having a conversation now that levi’s is out of touch? oh my, levi’s have been out of touch pretty much for the last 20 years. i can’t remember the last time i purchased a pair of levis without a hint of irony.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
They are just pants…
You guys act like there is a deep social commentary or great injustice in these advertisements. It’s a marketing campaign that is intended to reclaim a demographic which has historically been Levi’s target market. The stigmata of levi’s has recently been that of an older man wearing his jeans on the weekend. They are trying to appeal to younger workers and women (hence the ‘men in suits’ comment, applies to both of those).
To read anything more into and apply the label of racist to these ads is ridiculous. Some people will find fault/file suit with anything and those people should be greatly ashamed of themselves.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
uhh….. the dude the wrote this needs a vacation from city life.
he immediately stop analyzing ad campaigns. they’re just walls dude. you’re staring at walls and interpreting what they mean. have you seen the new calvin klein ads? its about drugged out kids, high and fucking. high on the billboards on houston street. ALL WHITE. ALL HIGH. ALL FUCKING. except the one dude that’s passed out. he might not be fucking. but i definitely think he’s high. or maybe he’s gay. you see how stupid it sounds to analyze ads. the writer is making a more common error in the current political situation. so lets get the record straight, shall we? THE ABOVE ARTICLES AND BLOGS WERE ALL WRITTEN BY WHITE PEOPLE, LIVING AND BENEFITING IN A COUNTRY BUILT, BEING BUILT AND BEING MAINTAINED BY SLAVES. these same people are called FREEDOM WRITERS we’ll say. meaning that they have enough money to sit in new york city and rant on in blogs, twitters, facebooks, etc. etc. and what not about who’s insensitive and who’s a slave and what not. these people have never worked a day in their lives, probably went to nyu, and probably are just as clueless about reality as the big enough fools we are to respond to their bullshit.
so go have a frappacino, served by a slave, and keep denying and/or obliviously living in a western society built and maintained by poor people for your false sense of comfort.
yes you. the last thing is that if you think you are not a slave because you are white, you’re probably wrong. the concept of black slave was placed in your mind to make you think that because you’re white that you have some sort of freedom while you’re working at a desk, analyzing billboards for twelve hours a day. soon to be fired or downsized with nothing.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:45 am
American Levi’s advertising has been tediously anodyne for years, nowhere near the work that BBH pioneered over the last 20 years in the UK. It needed something big and iconic, as befits the brand, and it got it. This kind of debate reflects a reaction to something worth discussing, and that reaction has to be a good thing for Levi’s.
The print work for this is not to my taste… it’s okay at best, but a agree McGinley did a way better job for Wrangler (although note that’s completely white).
I think the TV is the type of timeless epic which W+K has long done with Nike. And that hasn’t worked out that badly has it?
I’m slightly baffled by the sniping. The TV ad is multicultural (not quite sure what more you wanted people), about hope and struggle and a pioneer spirit as embodied by the stirring words of an American icon.
As an important aside to all the debate about this ad in relation to the very, very real problem of diversity in advertising, Dan Wieden is one of a TINY minority in advertising to speak out about this, including slamming the industry very publicly this year at the 4As. It’s far more than words though: he proactively promotes diversity at Wieden’s offices and has run since ‘96 a summer camp for inner city kids (Caldera) to support that effort going forward. http://multicultclassics.blogspot.com/2009/04/6695-wieden-says-industry-is-screwed-up.html
You may not like the ads, and i’d be the first to say that taste is personal, but saying they’re somehow racist? Really?
July 15th, 2009 at 11:27 am
The audience to whom this campaign speaks was never listening to Levi’s, and I can’t imagine that they’ll listen any better after seeing this stuff. They may scoff, recognizing the lack of authenticity. But probably not listen. The target audience knows Levi’s are old person’s jeans. Showing pictures of young people frolicking in their pants will not make real young people want to do the same. Reclaiming this lost audience will take more effort and time. Invite them to participate in product development, work through influencers on the street, do some serious listening. Meanwhile, if you want to get to the 30+ year-old people like me who stuck with the brand, maybe ads of a different sort would remind me it’s about time to get another pair. But these ads just show me yet another brand that’s lost its way and is trying too hard to be relevant.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Tragic waste of money.
Go Forth and what? buy a lame pair of jeans that don’t fit well?
July 17th, 2009 at 7:46 am
I think these are definitely white cowboy ads, pretending to be all of America when they are actually just “all-American.” They are prettily shot, dreamy, attractive. Maybe even inspiring. And that’s exactly what makes this sort of campaign pernicious–more normative media pressure to aspire to be “all-American,” i.e. hearty, healthy, white.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
As a mixed ethnicity male, I do think one of the ads speak to me. It says, hey this girl has a great ass…and I wonder if her knees have dirt on them also. And I wish she’s turn around. But that’s about all.
Even with graffiti it doesn’t say anything about how slavery built this country (actually it didn’t since slavery was so inefficient, that the backwards people living off it got trample by the free-labor north -but that’s another thread).
It doesn’t tell me how I’m supposed to act as a mixed ethincity male in our modern multicultural society.
No ad ever does, or should.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:44 pm