Comments on: Levi’s Does An Abercrombie & Fitch

By: dude

dude — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:44:25 +0000

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.

By: Alice

Alice — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:51:59 +0000

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.

By: kim

kim — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:46:52 +0000

Tragic waste of money.

Go Forth and what? buy a lame pair of jeans that don’t fit well?

By: WR

WR — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:51:48 +0000

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.

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:27:58 +0000

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?

By: another idiot.

another idiot. — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:45:38 +0000

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.

By: A Conscientious Objector.

A Conscientious Objector. — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:27:21 +0000

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.

By: jennine

jennine — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:26:01 +0000

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.

By: GW

GW — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:09:29 +0000

@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.

By: tyto

tyto — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:10:12 +0000

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?

By: LVLVE

LVLVE — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 02:33:28 +0000

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

By: abarber

abarber — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:35:58 +0000

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…?

By: GW

GW — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:08:37 +0000

@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.

By: Mara

Mara — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:24:47 +0000

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.

By: abarber

abarber — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:46:56 +0000

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 $$$$.

By: gg

gg — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:45:01 +0000

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.

By: photobug

photobug — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:07:15 +0000

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.

By: JS

JS — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:45:36 +0000

I’m sick of feeling like I have to apologize for being white.

By: J

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:49:36 +0000

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.

By: GW

GW — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:13:10 +0000

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.