It took her only half a year to ruin everything!

Funny, it was probably a pretty desperate financial situation to begin with though. I'm more interested in how Abercrombie does now that their CEO wants to sell to fatties.

(04-17-2015 03:04 PM)memcpy Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 02:04 PM)germanico Wrote:  

Quote:Feminist CEO takes over American Apparel

You cared enough to post a meme instead of typing it out?

Meme game is the forum's currency.

I can't imagine how sad it must be to have your life's creation first hijacked, then subsequently destroyed by worthless, incompetent feminists. Economy itself is being twisted by these freaks; what sad state of affairs, when will this bizarro world come to a halt?

It looks like share prices are going down.



American Apparel could sell expensive plain t-shirts because their brand was edgy. By a feminist CEO making it into a feminist brand, it's thus generic so the brand will have less appeal.

(10-06-2015 08:36 AM)Snowflake Wrote:  when will this bizarro world come to a halt?

This bizarro world will come to a halt when we finally create enough crazy unemployed young men to form an army and destroy us.

This has been the male/female dynamic for a million years:

=======

1. Feminists/lesbians (or whatever they were called in past societies) sometimes get wholesale control of a society

2. They run it into the ground and turn men into outcasts

3. Young men grow up outcasts; organize into warrior gangs (see ISIS)

4. They attack and rip the society to shreds. A very small number of suicidal/homicidal young men can destroy any society, no matter how powerful.

5. They form a radical new society which ruthlessly enslaves all women, feminist or not

6. Non-feminist women, seeing how badly they've gotten screwed by feminists, launch a pogrom to root out and destroy any vestige of feminism or lesbianism. Remember the prototypical "horrible ugly witches" who lived in the forest and ate children? Remember how they used to burn witches at the stake? These were social memes, created by non-feminist women, to warn their daughters against following feminist memes.

=========

Personally I dread all of this.

(10-06-2015 12:48 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  =======

1. Feminists/lesbians (or whatever they were called in past societies) sometimes get wholesale control of a society

2. They run it into the ground and turn men into outcasts

3. Young men grow up outcasts; organize into warrior gangs (see ISIS)

4. They attack and rip the society to shreds. A very small number of suicidal/homicidal young men can destroy any society, no matter how powerful.

5. They form a radical new society which ruthlessly enslaves all women, feminist or not

6. Non-feminist women, seeing how badly they've gotten screwed by feminists, launch a pogrom to root out and destroy any vestige of feminism or lesbianism. Remember the prototypical "horrible ugly witches" who lived in the forest and ate children? Remember how they used to burn witches at the stake? These were social memes, created by non-feminist women, to warn their daughters against following feminist memes.

=========

Personally I dread all of this.

1. Not feminists. "feminism" is just the flavor of the month. In every society, there is a disruptive element in the elite that isn't satisfied with merely being richer and more powerful than the rest of the population: they feel that they have to have CONTROL over every aspect of everyone else's lives.

They exist in every society but the useful idiots they use to further their cause are different every time. In the former Russian monarchy they used Bolsheviks, in Medieval Europe they backed "Protestant" religious factions to disrupt society, and so on back through history. SJW's and feminists are merely this cycle's deluded footsoldiers. They're not the causes of it. The reality of the situation, in sharp contrast to the masterminds of change they view themselves as, is that they're little more than tools wielded by evil hands.

(10-06-2015 09:08 AM)tynamite Wrote:  American Apparel could sell expensive plain t-shirts because their brand was edgy. By a feminist CEO making it into a feminist brand, it's thus generic so the brand will have less appeal.

This.

Despite the narrative, most people adopt products to signal social status. The exclusivity of a brand rather than its inclusivity will always make the brand 'hot'. (Apple may seem to be about social consciousness, but their brand has always been about elitism, which is why they appeal to the aspirational middle class and status-insecure hipsters).



"Our brand is young, hip and sexy. Old fuddy-duddies need not apply".

So when a company now does things like this, the brand is colder than ice, because the majority of people don't want to adopt a brand that reads as dysfunctional:





^ It's still not enough for them. There was outrage over them using the terms 'transsexual' and 'transgendered' instead of the correct 'transgender'.

I have no idea why Capitalist companies think the way to sell products is to adopt the advice of Violent Anti-Capitalists, but, again and again they seem to fall for it. This is my issue with Gamergate: why on earth do companies think a Mental Environmentalist like Jonathon McIntosh is trying to help them sell more games, when his political investment is in the destruction of mass media messages? (I'm starting to think I should hire myself out as a consultant to tech companies to explain the goals of Anti-Authoritarianism Marxists).

Something to consider: Dove's 'Real Beauty' campaign involved the hiring of Pascal Dangin, the highest paid photo retoucher in the world.

Quote:I mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual “real women” in their undergarments. It turned out that it was a Dangin job. “Do you know how much retouching was on that?” he asked. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive.”

(10-06-2015 02:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

It gets worse.

Tone deaf edgy.

For those of you who don't already know, this is where they originally found this kid, having a vogue inspired mental breakdown, in the corner of the shot, at the opening of a mall in Las Vegas.

Feminism is just another term for female consumerism (a kind of portmanteau word). Women are "empowered"....to spend money. That's what it's always been about. They are ready and willing slaves to fashion, conformism, and corporatism. Thus, the wisdom of the ancients regarding their proper role is confirmed every day. Feminism is the ultimate misogynism.

(10-06-2015 03:16 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

It gets worse.

Tone deaf edgy.

For those of you who don't already know, this is where they originally found this kid, having a vogue inspired mental breakdown, in the corner of the shot, at the opening of a mall in Las Vegas.

When Dov Charney owned the company, he would find models by checking his email and picking from the hundreds of emails of women who'd sent them their photos. He chose people who looked coked up and stoned. He chose hipsters. For a feminist CEO to choose random people from the street or a crowd, and it be a man who looks feminine, it ruins the brand.

Cultural marxism does not work for fashion brands. Why should I buy clothes that uses male "models" who look feminine, when I can go to Primark buy cheap clothes from stores that don't use models.

American Apparel lays off hundreds of workers and considers outsourcing some manufacturing
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-am...story.html

Quote:The downtown L.A. company began layoffs last week. So far, about 500 local employees have lost their jobs, said Nativo Lopez, a senior advisor with Hermandad Mexicana, which is helping workers in unionizing efforts. The company has about 4,600 employees in Southern California.

...

On Tuesday, Charney characterized the latest moves as a betrayal of American Apparel’s foundation. He was ousted as chairman and chief executive after an investigation uncovered allegations of misuse of company funds and inappropriate behavior with employees.

“They are doing exactly what American Apparel fought against,” Charney said. He said he had always resisted “outsourcing and searching for ways to pay people less money.”

...

Lopez, the labor organizer, said the general mood among workers is “doom and gloom.”

Laid-off employees were given a severance package of two months' pay. They also were offered an additional $800 if they waived their right to file any claims against the company, Lopez said.

Since it emerged from Chapter 11, the company has appointed new board members, including Susan Davidson, chief executive of Zac Posen and fashion boutique Scoop.

I bet Charney still feels pain every time he sees another female-initiated fuck-up destroying the company he built.

Oh well… Expect the company to go bankrupt in the not too distant future.

Interesting business case, too bad, I was a fan of their shirts and advertising. My favorite redhead pornstar Faye Reagan agrees:



Related - Official Donald Trump shirts are printed on American Apparel. I was pleasantly surprised, the mediums fit snug and let me show off my Trump pride and swole pride at the same time.

Maybe Donald is trying to revitalize the brand???

#MAAGA
Make American Apparel Great Again

Nah, fuck American Apparel, let them burn down and go bankrupt.

They push the lefts agenda.

American Apparel unlike Hanes is a quality made plain shirt. Many people use the blanks to print on as you know you are getting 100% USA made. The irony is that AA is so deep in their own feces right now they would not dare say anything about Trump as he is probably ordering thousands upon thousands of blanks from them wholesale.

They actually started an ETF for investors of companies with "strong" female leadership. If Marissa Mayer at Yahoo or Meg Whitman at HP is any guide, this will lead to hilarious results.

He's down to a 100k.

That misses the point that he has a 100k!!!

(10-19-2015 08:43 AM)tynamite Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:16 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

It gets worse.

Tone deaf edgy.

For those of you who don't already know, this is where they originally found this kid, having a vogue inspired mental breakdown, in the corner of the shot, at the opening of a mall in Las Vegas.

When Dov Charney owned the company, he would find models by checking his email and picking from the hundreds of emails of women who'd sent them their photos. He chose people who looked coked up and stoned. He chose hipsters. For a feminist CEO to choose random people from the street or a crowd, and it be a man who looks feminine, it ruins the brand.

Cultural marxism does not work for fashion brands. Why should I buy clothes that uses male "models" who look feminine, when I can go to Primark buy cheap clothes from stores that don't use models.

Good lord.

Why doesn't that guy just start another apparel company? He already knows how to do it, manufacturing company contacts, etc., make it wholly American, american manufacturing base, american clientele, american workers. "By Americans, For Americans."
Boom profit.

(10-06-2015 08:36 AM)Snowflake Wrote:  I can't imagine how sad it must be to have your life's creation first hijacked, then subsequently destroyed by worthless, incompetent feminists. Economy itself is being twisted by these freaks; what sad state of affairs, when will this bizarro world come to a halt?

Charney is a textbook example of a great entrepreneur who isn't that good of a CEO. He should have cashed out his millions and stepped out to a cozy spot on AA's board, and moved on to his next startup.

Quote:When Dov Charney owned the company, he would find models by checking his email and picking from the hundreds of emails of women who'd sent them their photos. He chose people who looked coked up and stoned. He chose hipsters. For a feminist CEO to choose random people from the street or a crowd, and it be a man who looks feminine, it ruins the brand.

Cultural marxism does not work for fashion brands. Why should I buy clothes that uses male "models" who look feminine, when I can go to Primark buy cheap clothes from stores that don't use models.

Not really. American Apparel has always pushed the cultural marxist line, if you can't see that, you don't understand cultural marxism. Their brand is not so much about "elitism", it's about slutty carousel-riding degenerate trust fund bitches straight out of "Girls" and effeminate men in low-cut V tees.

Where any of you planning on buying clothes from this brand?

Or stock?

No? Nobody?

(04-14-2016 10:30 AM)redbeard Wrote:  

I didn't pay attention to all these "words" cluttering up this thread...

But I paid attention to that Red head and she made me stand at "full attention"

(04-15-2016 12:56 AM)germanico Wrote:  Where any of you planning on buying clothes from this brand?

Or stock?

No? Nobody?

No, but I'm still planning to bang the kind of girls who would have taken style cues from their pre-Feminist advertising.



The retro style hits my late 1970's sweet spot. You younger guys missed out.

(04-15-2016 06:25 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  The retro style hits my late 1970's sweet spot. You younger guys missed out.

^^^ Good God that ticks every box on my checklist.