Last week, while tired U.S. election news finally began to wane on the side of repugnance and Halloween festivities were dampened by the last leg of midterms, the heavens concocted something exciting for media circuits and laypeople alike to discuss. Her name was Hurricane Sandy, and as of early last week, she was headed for the East Coast. To many, an imminent storm means stocking up on potato chips and booze, lighting a couple of candles, and watching Law and Order for three days straight on generator power. If you are able to back your car out of the driveway, it can mean going shopping on the day you have off from school or work. Back while Sandy was still a ‘hybrid storm,’ clothing retailer American Apparel profited from the hype, and sent an e-mail to shoppers in states located in Sandy’s projected path, offering a 20 per cent off discount with a witty promo code—“SANDYSALE.”
But all the fun came to a screeching halt when Sandy made landfall in Atlantic City, New Jersey on Oct. 29. Sandy hit the coast as a category one hurricane, causing an estimated $50 billion in damages and killing over one hundred people in the U.S., two in Canada, and at least 70 in the Caribbean islands. The effects of the freakishly large ‘superstorm’ are undoubtedly tragic across the eastern half of North America. This left some, even before the storm was over, outraged at the American Apparel advertisement, which offered customers something to do “in case you’re bored during the storm.” Shortly after the e-mail was sent, anger permeated Twitter, blogs, and television, in opposition to the perceived exploitative nature of the sale.
Was this truly a deviant scheme of corporate greed? If so, American Apparel is not alone in its devices. While the Los Angeles-based retailer—founded by Montrealer Dov Charney—received the brunt of the criticism, several others took advantage of the weather event without suffering nearly as much protest. Among them was Urban Outfitters, which sent out a similar e-mail, as well as Long Island retailer Singer22. Even the Gap and Sak’s Fifth Avenue encouraged online browsing and purchasing to quell antsy East Coasters stuck indoors.
Charney, in an interview with Businessweek following the controversial ad, addressed the needs of his employees at stores in the affected states and the nature of the retail business: “We’re here to sell clothing … What’s really important right now is to put people back to work as soon as possible.” The clothing brand has been controversial in the past, but for the most part has had a progressive, activist affiliation— with campaigns for legalizing gay marriage in California and immigration reform. In most instances, the company appears to be concerned with local issues—it’s not out to exploit the destruction of thousands of homes and businesses, or the losses of hundreds of lives. “We weren’t out to offend anyone. Our heart is in the right place,” Charney said.
Past philanthropic efforts for disasters such as Hurricane Katrina—after which American Apparel sent 80,000 tee shirts to New Orleans and raised money for the relief effort—as well as the 2010 Haitian earthquake—to which the company donated $400,000—only foreshadow likely efforts by the firm in the Sandy aftermath. Charney has made it clear that such involvement is a likely endeavor for American Apparel. It should be noted that, along with storm-themed sales, charitable donations can be a form of advertising too. Most customers probably wouldn’t be critical of that in the wake of disaster.
American Apparel, as well as the other retailers, simply acted in honest terms. While Sandy has left a horrendous mark on the East Coast, nobody knew for sure if it was going to be a tragedy or a repeat of last year’s Irene—a bit of a dud—like most storms that make it so far north. As Charney said, “the reality was there were a lot of people stuck at home in front of the Internet.” The ad was harmless, and created with the expected, if not good, intentions.
