Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International

Journal
The impact of advertising message strategy – fair labour v. sexual appeal – upon Gen Y
consumers' intent to patronize an apparel retailer
Karen Hyllegard Jennifer Ogle Ruoh-Nan Yan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Karen Hyllegard Jennifer Ogle Ruoh-Nan Yan, (2009),"The impact of advertising message strategy –
fair labour v. sexual appeal – upon Gen Y consumers' intent to patronize an apparel retailer", Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. 109 - 127
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612020910939914
Downloaded on: 24 February 2016, At: 20:47 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4967 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Fang Liu, Hong Cheng, Jianyao Li, (2009),"Consumer responses to sex appeal advertising:
a cross-cultural study", International Marketing Review, Vol. 26 Iss 4/5 pp. 501-520 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330910972002
Svante Andersson, Anna Hedelin, Anna Nilsson, Charlotte Welander, (2004),"Violent advertising in fashion
marketing", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp.
96-112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612020410518727
Iain R. Black, George C. Organ, Peta Morton, (2010),"The effect of personality on response
to sexual appeals", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Iss 9/10 pp. 1453-1477 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561011062925

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:393177 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

ACADEMIC PAPER Impact of

advertising
The impact of advertising message
message strategy – fair labour v.
109
sexual appeal – upon Gen Y
consumers’ intent to patronize an Received August 2007
Revised November 2007
Accepted April 2008
apparel retailer
Karen Hyllegard, Jennifer Ogle and Ruoh-Nan Yan
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine Gen Y consumers’ responses to American
Apparel’s use of two advertising message strategies – fair labour and sex appeal, using the theory of
reasoned action to predict intent to patronize American Apparel and comparing the utility of the
classic reasoned action model with an extended model that included variables external to the theory.
Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire was administered to 425 consumers, who were
randomly assigned to one of four advertisement exposure groups. Group 1 evaluated an American
Apparel ad (Ad No. 1) that promoted fair labour practices. Groups 2, 3, and 4 evaluated Ad No. 1 as
well as one of three additional ads that featured messages employing sex appeal of varied intensities.
Findings – Participants’ attitudes toward American Apparel were more positive when they were
exposed to the fair labour message, only, than when they were exposed to the fair labour message in
conjunction with one of the three sex appeal messages. In the classic reasoned action models, intent to
patronize American Apparel was consistently predicted by attitude toward the retailer. Extending the
models increased the explained variance for Groups 1, 2, and 3, with several variables adding
predictive utility.
Research limitations/implications – A fair labour message may contribute to positive
evaluations of apparel advertisements and may build positive attitudes toward apparel retailers.
Thus, when appropriate, apparel retailers might consider using a fair labour message strategy, rather
than a sex appeal message strategy.
Originality/value – The study explores consumer responses to two distinct advertising message
strategies not often used simultaneously by a single company within the contemporary marketplace
and examines the influence of these responses and other variables on patronage intention.
Keywords Advertising, Advertising effectiveness, Garment industry, Retailers
Paper type Research paper

The globalization of the textiles and apparel industry in the second half of the 20th
century wrought a number of adverse labour and environmental conditions that came Journal of Fashion Marketing and
to the political and social forefront of the industrialized world in the 1990s. Increased Management
Vol. 13 No. 1, 2009
awareness of these conditions spurred a movement among businesses, consumers, and pp. 109-127
academics to envision, develop, and adopt alternative or “socially responsible” modes q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1361-2026
for the production, distribution, and consumption of textile and apparel goods (Dickson DOI 10.1108/13612020910939914
 JFMM and Eckman, 2006; Littrell and Dickson, 1997). In turn, the emergence of these
13,1 alternative business models has prompted the use of message strategies designed to
promote socially responsible business practices for the purposes of building brand
image and generating sales and profits (Dickson, 2001; Knight and Greenberg, 2002;
Stabile, 2000).
The present study focuses upon the advertising message strategies used by
110 American Apparel, a global apparel retailer recognized for its socially responsible
production practices, and in particular, for its commitment to fair labour[1] (Joergens,
2006). Founded in 1997 as a wholesale tee-shirt company, American Apparel targets
Gen Y consumers – and, in particular, young, educated, urbanites – with its line of
‘70s inspired knitwear in fitted and updated styles (DiNardo, 2006). Today, the
company operates as a vertically integrated clothing manufacturer and retailer with
production facilities located in Los Angeles (DiNardo, 2006; Ordoñez et al., 2006).
American Apparel prides itself as a “fair labour enterprise” operating on US soil
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

(DiNardo, 2006) and often highlights its production ideology in its advertising
campaigns, which draw attention to the company’s unparalleled employee benefits and
wages and its clean, modern LA factory. As a leader in fair labour practices, the
company has won the admiration of industry insiders, consumers, and the news and
entertainment media (Ordoñez et al., 2006; Washington, 2006).
This admiration for American Apparel’s socially responsible approach to apparel
production has been tempered, however, by highly charged criticism that the company
has received for the frequent use of sexual and provocative imagery and text within its
advertisements (Savoie, 2006; Straub, 2006, The Economist, 2007). For instance, many
American Apparel advertisements feature photographs of company employees in
overtly sexual poses and various states of undress. Within these advertisements,
models are often identified by name, and the text, which typically emphasizes themes
of sexual objectification and activity, is framed as the “biography” or the “real life
story” of the featured model. When taken alongside their seemingly progressive
approach to labour issues, American Apparel’s use of sexual imagery and text as an
advertising strategy has fueled the impression of a company that embodies the
“bizarre contradictions of postmodern consumer capitalism” (Straub, 2006, para. 4). It
is this contradiction that is the focus of the present work. More specifically, the purpose
of this study was to examine Gen Y consumers’ responses to American Apparel’s use
of two conceptually disparate advertising message strategies to promote apparel
goods: one strategy in which the company describes their use of fair labour practices
and another strategy in which the company invokes sexual imagery and text. Of
particular interest was the impact of Gen Y consumers’ responses to these advertising
strategies upon their intent to patronize American Apparel.

Related literature
Consumer responses to advertising
It is a commonly held assumption that advertising has the potential to shape
consumers’ beliefs and behaviors. Although the impact of advertising upon consumer
behavior is understood to be cumulative, researchers have devised models to
demonstrate the hierarchical effects of advertising on purchase intention. Much of this
work builds upon that of Mitchell and Olson (1981), who extended classic attitude
 theories (e.g., Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) to examine the ways in which attitudes toward Impact of
advertisements may influence brand attitudes and purchase intentions. advertising
Although several different models of advertising effects have been proposed, most
posit: message
.
that brand awareness or attitudes may inform consumers’ attitudes toward
advertisements; and/or
.
that attitudes toward advertisements may generate brand awareness or
111
contribute to development of brand attitudes.
In turn, when taken together, consumers’ attitudes toward advertisements and their
attitudes toward brands may shape their purchase intentions (see De Pelsmacker and
Van Den Bergh, 1996; Mackenzie et al., 1986; Mitchell and Olson, 1981; Percy and
Rossiter, 1992; Shimp, 1981). Further, and as is discussed below, there is evidence to
suggest that advertising message strategy (i.e. appeal) may influence consumer
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

behavior, including purchase intention.

Sexual appeals. Advertisers’ reliance upon the use of sexual imagery and text to
attract consumer attention is increasingly common in today’s saturated media culture
(LaTour and Henthorne, 1994; Reichert, 2007; Reichert and Carpenter, 2004; Severn
et al., 1990; Streitmatter, 2004). Research suggests that both the frequency and
explicitness of sexual content in advertisements have intensified, with graphic
depictions of provocatively dressed models, nudity, and sexual intercourse becoming
increasingly common, especially in advertisements targeting young adult audiences
(Reichert, 2003; Reichert and Carpenter, 2004; Soley and Kurzbard, 1986). Young adult
members of Gen Y, especially, tend to respond more positively to messages employing
sex appeal as compared to older consumers (Loroz, 2006). This approach to advertising
– in which sexually explicit and often disquieting messages are purposefully invoked
to challenge social mores – is an example of provocative or “shock” advertising
(Andersson et al., 2004; De Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh, 1996; Vézina and Paul,
1997).
The use of shock advertising, and in particular, the use of overtly sexual appeals, is
especially prevalent within the apparel industry. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that
many of the studies examining the impact of sexual content in advertisements upon
consumer behavior have focused upon apparel as a product category (e.g., Grazer and
Keesling, 1995; LaTour and Henthorne, 1994; Severn et al., 1990; Vézina and Paul,
1997). Although Bailey and Hall (1992, p. 15) have identified shock advertising as “one
of the most effective” approaches to selling commodities in the contemporary
marketplace, empirical evidence about the efficacy of sex appeal as an approach to
promoting consumer goods – including apparel products – is mixed. For example,
Severn et al. (1990) found that the use of a sexually-oriented appeal produced a more
positive attitude toward an advertisement for sports shoes, which, in turn,
strengthened consumer intention to purchase the shoes. At the same time, however,
consumers rated the sexually-oriented advertisement to be more offensive as compared
to a nonsexual advertisement. Further, Severn et al. (1990) concluded that when
advertising appeals were overtly sexual, consumers’ cognitive processing focused
more upon the execution of the message (i.e. its sexual nature) than upon the product,
itself. In another study, consumers evaluated overt sexual appeals in an advertisement
for jeans less favorably than they did more restrained sexual appeals, with mild
 JFMM appeals generating more positive attitudes toward the featured brand as well as
13,1 stronger purchase intentions (LaTour and Henthorne, 1994).
Still other work (e.g., Alexander and Judd, 1978; Panda, 2005) suggests that
consumers may respond most favorably to a “moderate” level of sexual intensity in
apparel advertisements. Advertisements featuring lower levels of sexual intensity may
fail to attract consumers’ attention, whereas those featuring higher levels of sexual
112 intensity may distract the consumer from focusing upon the product being promoted
(Alexander and Judd, 1978). In a similar vein, Grazer and Keesling (1995) found that
among male participants, intention to purchase jeans was highest when the product
was promoted at a moderate (versus asexual, low, or high) level of sexual intensity.
Findings indicated no differences in brand recall among male consumers exposed to
high and low levels of sexual intensity in advertisements, however, leading the
researchers to speculate that perhaps consumers have become accustomed to a social
climate rife with sexually suggestive advertisements. Finally, efforts to compare male
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

and female responses to sexual appeals in advertising have suggested that women
typically respond more negatively to advertisements featuring mild sexual appeals or
content that alludes to rape or violence. Both men and women, however, react
negatively to the use of blatantly overt sexual appeals (Andersson et al., 2004; LaTour
and Henthorne, 1994).
Fair labour appeals. Very little scholarly attention has been directed toward the use
of socially responsible production appeals in the advertising and promotion of textile
and apparel products. A few studies have examined the utility of corporate codes of
conduct as well as “no sweat” and “eco” labels in the marketing of apparel products
and the impact of these strategies upon consumers’ purchase intentions (e.g., Dickson,
2001; Iwanow et al., 2005; Nimon and Beghin, 1999). Taken together, these findings
suggest that such marketing strategies may have a limited reach; may be effective for
selected ethical practices, only; and may not be as salient for many consumers as are
other product attributes (e.g., price or quality). Although Dickson (2001) reported that
women were more likely than were men to be influenced by “no sweat” labels,
researchers have not yet explored the influence of gender on consumer response to fair
labour advertising appeals and subsequent purchase intentions. Finally, researchers
have found that generational cohorts (i.e. members of the Baby Boomer generation and
members of generation Y) do not differ in their responses to eco appeals used in
advertisements for non-apparel products (e.g., cars and shampoo) (Loroz, 2006).

Consumer perceptions of apparel attributes and production practices

Research suggests that among Gen Y consumers, apparel represents a spending
priority. Older members of this cohort – college students aged 18-30 – spend 12
percent of their discretionary income on apparel and footwear (Crane, 2007). Younger
members of Gen Y – teens aged 12-17 – spend an even greater percentage their
discretionary income on apparel, with male consumers allocating 52 percent of their
expenditures and female consumers allocating 75 percent of their expenditures to
apparel purchases (Paul, 2001; “The Gen Y budget,” 2002). Beyond advertising and
promotional communications, these apparel purchases may be driven in part by factors
such as perceptions about product or brand attributes and perceptions related to
business practices, specifically apparel production methods.
 Consumer perceptions of apparel attributes. There is much evidence to indicate that Impact of
apparel attributes – or those objective and abstract characteristics a user ascribes to a advertising
given product (Johnson, 1989; Wilkie and Pessemier, 1973) – contribute in important
ways to consumers’ product evaluations and intent to purchase. Previous work has message
identified a number of intrinsic and extrinsic apparel attribute categories that may
impact decision-making at varied stages of the purchase process (Abraham-Murali and
Littrell, 1995; Eckman et al., 1990). For example, research suggests that intrinsic 113
attributes such as product aesthetics, appearance, styling, fit, color/pattern, fabric, and
quality often are critical in shaping consumer evaluations of apparel (Abraham-Murali
and Littrell, 1995; Eckman et al., 1990; Iwanow et al., 2005; North et al., 2003). Extrinsic
attributes that may shape consumer intent to purchase apparel include price, brand,
and production location/practices (Abraham-Murali and Littrell, 1995). Among these,
price often emerges as one of the most significant factors in determining whether or not
a consumer makes an apparel purchase (Iwanow et al., 2005; Joergens, 2006; Fadiga
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

et al., 2005; North et al., 2003). For Gen Y consumers, in particular, brand may be an
especially salient factor in shaping purchase decisions (Morton, 2002).
Consumer perceptions of production practices. Researchers also have examined
whether consumers’ perceptions of apparel production practices may shape their
purchase patterns. This work has focused upon two primary issues: country of origin
and fair labour. Findings from several studies have suggested that country of origin
plays a significantly less important role in shaping consumers’ apparel purchase
decisions than do other attributes such as price, aesthetics, and quality
(Abraham-Murali and Littrell, 1995; Eckman et al., 1990; Ettenson et al., 1988;
Forney et al., 1993; Gipson and Francis, 1991; Hester, 1989; Hester and Yuen, 1987;
Lang and Crown, 1993). Similarly, although findings from an early study suggested
that a majority of consumers would avoid purchasing apparel produced in sweatshops
(Marymount University, 1995), findings from more recent work have indicated that
only a small percentage of consumers would use a “No Sweat” [shop] label in making
apparel purchase decisions (Dickson, 2001). Likewise, Joergens (2006) found little
evidence to suggest that fair labour issues had an impact upon consumers’ apparel
purchase decisions, and Iwanow et al. (2005) found that apparel price, quality, and style
had a greater effect on consumers’ apparel purchase behavior than did their concerns
about ethical production practices (e.g., wages, working conditions). Conversely,
Littrell et al. (2005) found that participants from varied generational cohorts (Gen X,
Baby Boomer, and Swing) assigned a high degree of importance to fair trade practices
associated with the production of apparel, including wages, workplace conditions, and
the environment. Researchers have begun to examine Gen Y consumer responses to
fair labour (and/or labour abuse) practices (Valor, 2007), but have not yet examined this
cohort’s response to the use of fair labour appeals to promote the sale of apparel.

Theoretical framework
This study was informed by the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980;
Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), which suggests that human behavior can be predicted by an
individual’s stated intention to behave in a given way. Two factors, an individual’s
attitude toward a given behavior and his/her subjective norm (i.e. his/her perception of
the desirability of the behavior to important others), contribute to an individual’s
behavioral intention. The following equation is used to express this relationship:
 JFMM BI ¼ ðAB Þw1 þ ðSN Þw2
13,1 where BI denotes behavioral intention, AB denotes attitude toward the behavior, SN
denotes subjective norm, and w1 and w2 denote the weights[2] of the respective factors.
Attitude toward a given behavior is calculated as the summed product of belief
strength (bi) and belief evaluation (ei):
114 X
AB ¼ bij eij :

Belief strength is the extent to which an individual believes a behavior and/or its
outcome to be true or probable, whereas belief evaluation is the importance or
desirability of the belief to an individual. Subjective norm is the summed product of
normative belief (NBi) and motivation to comply with others (MCij):
X
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

SN ¼ NBij MCij :

An individual’s perceptions about what others think or believe constitute his/her

normative beliefs. One’s motivation to comply refers to the extent to which an
individual wants to do what others think that he/she should do. As such, behavioral
intention can also be expressed algebraically as:
X X
BI ¼ bij eij þ NBij MCij :

In this study, the theory of reasoned action was used to predict consumers’ intent to
patronize American Apparel. In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of
the varied factors that may influence consumer patronage behavior, the classic
Fishbein and Ajzen model was extended to include variables external to the theory.
The variables added to the model were consumers’ pre-existing awareness of American
Apparel (i.e. brand awareness or recognition), evaluations of American Apparel
advertisements, consumers’ preferences for apparel attributes, gender, and monthly
apparel expenditures. As noted in the literature review, these variables may explain
some additional variance, beyond that explained by the classic reasoned action model,
in consumers’ behavioral intentions to patronize American Apparel. Thus, like
Mitchell and Olson’s (1981) seminal work, the present study examines the way in
which consumers’ intentions to patronize a given retailer are shaped by their salient
beliefs about this retailer (e.g., beliefs about the company’s business practices) as well
as by their evaluations of that retailer’s advertisements.

Methods
Sample
University students were recruited to participate in this study using an intercept
survey method. Surveying university students about their behavior related to apparel
consumption is a common practice in academic research (e.g., Belleau et al., 2007; Ha
and Lennon, 2006; Valor, 2007) because college students spend a higher percentage of
their discretionary incomes on apparel than do other segments of the population[3] and
because they tend to be concerned about issues pertaining to the socially responsible
production and marketing of apparel and other consumer goods (Alloy Media þ
Marketing, 2006; Cone Inc., 2006). Also many apparel brands and retailers, such as
 American Apparel (which operates retail outlets in urban areas and upscale college Impact of
towns), specifically target this demographic (i.e, young-adult, educated consumers). advertising
To obtain a diverse sample, participants were approached at various sites on a
university campus, including the student center, academic buildings, and residence message
halls. The resulting sample included 425 university students ranging in age from 18 to
27 years (the mean age for the sample was 21.26 years). A total of 163 participants were
male (38.4 percent), and 261 were female (61.4 percent); one participant did not report 115
gender. The sample represented diversity in academic major and the ethnic
composition of the sample mirrored that of the university community from which it
was drawn. The majority of the sample, 83.8 percent, self-reported
Caucasian-American (or white) ethnicity, 6.1 percent of the sample self-reported
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, 3.5 percent of the sample self-reported African-American
ethnicity, 2.4 percent of the sample self-reported Asian-American ethnicity, 2.8 percent
of the sample self-reported “other” ethnicity (e.g., Native-American, Pacific Islander)
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

and the remaining 1.4 percent did not report ethnicity. Reported expenditures for
apparel ranged from $0 to $1,000 per month, with a mean of $101.33.

Instrument and stimuli

The questionnaire comprised three sections. The first section included demographic
items such as age, ethnicity, gender, and monthly apparel expenditures (as a proxy for
income); a measure of consumers’ preferences for apparel attributes; and a measure of
pre-existing awareness of American Apparel. In section two, participants viewed and
evaluated one or two American Apparel advertisements. Section three included
measures for variables based upon the theory of reasoned action, including consumers’
beliefs about American Apparel’s socially responsible business practices (belief
strength), perceived importance of those beliefs (belief evaluation), normative beliefs
about socially responsible business practices, motivation to comply with others, and
intent to patronize American Apparel. For all multi-scale items, reliability was
estimated by using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.
Section one. Consumers’ preferences for apparel attributes were assessed using
eleven items measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 5 very unimportant, 5 5 very
important). Principle component analysis with Varimax rotation was used as a data
reduction technique. A minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 determined the number of factors
extracted. Items loading equal to or greater than 0.60 on a given factor and less than
0.30 on other factors were retained to ensure unidimensionality. Analyses revealed
three separate factors: fit/quality factor, brand name/fashion trends factor, and socially
responsible (SR) production factor (a ¼ 0:53; a ¼ 0:62; a ¼ 0:61, respectively).
Although the Cronbach’s alpha for the fit/quality factor was slightly lower than the
recommended standard of 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), the factor was retained because
previous research has suggested that fit and quality contribute to consumers’ apparel
purchase decisions (Abraham-Murali and Littrell, 1995; Eckman et al., 1990; Iwanow
et al., 2005).
Consumers’ pre-existing awareness of American Apparel (i.e. brand awareness or
recognition) was assessed using three items in which consumers were asked whether
they were familiar with the retailer, had ever shopped at the retailer, and/or had ever
purchased products at the retailer. Awareness scores ranged from 0 to 3 and were
 JFMM calculated by summing the number of “yes” responses for each participant. Cronbach’s
13,1 alpha for this scale was 0.81.
Section two. Participants’ evaluations of advertisements were assessed using a nine
item, 7-point semantic differential scale. In addition to using items adapted from
previous work (e.g., Sciglimpaglia et al., 1979), new items were developed to establish a
more comprehensive evaluation of the advertisements. The nine items, or endpoints,
116 were appealing/unappealing, appropriate/inappropriate, effective/ineffective,
ethical/unethical, informative/uninformative, interesting/disinteresting, truthful/
untruthful, convincing/unconvincing, not offensive/offensive. In five instances,
individual items were reverse scored so that higher scores indicated more positive
evaluations. Items were summed to create a total assessment score for each
advertisement (possible range: 9 to 63). Cronbach’s alphas for this scale were 0.78, 0.84,
0.83, and 0.83 for ad exposure groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
Each participant viewed and evaluated one or two advertisements based upon
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

random assignment to one of four ad exposure groups at the time of recruitment.

Participants in Group 1 viewed Ad No. 1, only, whereas participants in Group 2 viewed
Ad No. 1 and Ad No. 2, participants in Group 3 viewed Ad No. 1 and Ad No. 3, and
participants in Group 4 viewed Ad No. 1 and Ad No. 4. The four American Apparel ads
(i.e. stimuli) selected for participant evaluation are described below. The varied
combinations of stimuli selected for the ad exposure groups allowed the researchers to
explore consumer responses to American Apparel’s use of disparate advertising
message strategies (i.e. fair labor, only, versus fair labor and sex appeal):
.
Ad No. 1. In this advertisement, American Apparel promotes itself as “a pioneer
of industry standards in social responsibility” and describes its vertically
integrated structure and US location. The large text across the top of the
advertisement, which is positioned above an image of the Los Angeles skyline,
reads “Legalize LA”.
.
Ad No. 2. This advertisement features four frames of a young woman standing
in a shower touching her breasts. She is clad in a wet white tee-shirt and black
panties. The text for the advertisement makes reference to a her status as the
unofficial winner of a wet tee-shirt contest held at an American Apparel
apartment as well as to the company’s Los Angeles location and vertically
integrated manufacturing ideology. The large text across the top of the
advertisement introduces the young woman by name, “Meet Melissa,” seemingly
personalizing her as a subject by presenting part of her “biography”.
.
Ad No. 3. This advertisement features a young woman who is identified as the
co-creator of a porn magazine for women. She is dressed in a pair of jogging
shorts and a hooded sweatshirt and is shown in a kneeling position. As is the
case in Ad No. 2, the text simultaneously promotes themes of sexuality –
referencing imagery found in porn magazines – and the company’s vertically
integrated manufacturing system. Here, again, this model is introduced by name,
“Meet Micole”.
.
Ad No. 4. This advertisement features a partially clothed male and female model
(i.e. wearing underpants, only) in bed, with the female model straddling the male
model and touching his stomach and chest. The focus of the photograph is on the
models’ torsos; the faces of both models have been cropped out of the image
 frame. The bold text for the advertisement reads, “Playtime.” As is the case in Ad Impact of
No. 3, the smaller-sized text at the bottom of the advertisement addresses the advertising
company’s Los Angeles location and vertically integrated manufacturing
approach. message
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted as a manipulation check to
examine participants’ perceptions about the degree of sexiness portrayed in the 117
advertisements used as stimuli. Participants rated the perceived degree of sexiness of
each advertisement viewed on a 7-point semantic differential scale (1 ¼ notsexy,
7 ¼ sexy). Mean scores of perceived sexiness for Ads No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 were
1.87, 5.40, 3.84, and 4.88, respectively. Analyses revealed that participants rated Ad
No. 1 to be significantly less sexy than ads No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 ( p , 0.001).
Additionally, participants evaluated both Ad No. 2 and Ad No. 4 as sexier than Ad
No. 3 ( p , 0.001). Based upon these results, three levels of sexual intensity in the
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

selected advertisements were identified: no/low (Ad No. 1), moderate (Ad No. 3), and
high (Ad No. 2 and Ad No. 4).
Section three. Consumers’ beliefs about American Apparel’s engagement in a range
of socially responsible business practices (i.e. belief strength) were assessed using five
items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree).
In particular, consumers were asked to rate their level of agreement with American
Apparel’s use of fair labour practices, avoidance of offensive imagery, use of
environmentally friendly practices, avoidance of sexually explicit images, and
promotion of healthy body images. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.56. Perceived
importance of beliefs (i.e. belief evaluation) was measured using the same 5-point scale
used to assess belief strength. Here, participants were asked to rate their level of
agreement with the statement that, “It is important for apparel companies to . . . ” use
fair labour practices, avoid offensive imagery, use environmentally friendly practices,
avoid sexually explicit images, and promote healthy body images. Cronbach’s alpha
for this scale was 0.84. Consistent with the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen, 1985;
Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980), attitude scores were calculated by summing the products of
participants’ responses to all belief-strength items and the related belief-evaluation
items.
Normative beliefs about socially responsible business practices were measured on a
four item, 7-point semantic differential scale. Participants were asked to indicate their
perceptions about whether they believed that others who are important to them
thought that they should be concerned about:
.
fair labour practices;
.
environmentally friendly production practices;
.
use of offensive imagery of people in advertisements; and
.
use of sexually explicit imagery in advertisements.

Endpoints for the scale were “I should not” and “I should.” Cronbach’s alpha for this
scale was 0.77. Motivation to comply with others also was assessed using a semantic
differential scale. Participants were asked to respond to the single item, “Generally
speaking, how much do you want to do what other people who are important to you
think?” Endpoints for the 7-point scale were “Not at all” and “Very much”. Subjective
 JFMM norms scores were generated by summing the products of participants’ responses to all
13,1 normative belief items and the motivation to comply item.
Intent to patronize American Apparel was tapped using a three-item, 7-point
semantic differential scale with endpoints, “Definitely not” and “Definitely.”
Participants were asked if, in the future, they intended to:
.
shop at American Apparel;
118 .
purchase goods at American Apparel; and/or
.
tell a friend about American Apparel.

Items were summed to create an aggregate measure of intent to patronize American

Apparel. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.93.

Analyses and results

Diagnostic statistics indicated no multicollinearity among various constructs
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

examined in this study. The variance inflation factor (VIF) for relevant regression
models ranged from 1.05 to 1.64, and the tolerance values ranged from 0.61 to 0.95.
Thus, all of VIF values were less than 10, and all tolerance values were greater than
0.10 (see Hair et al., 1995).
ANOVA was conducted to compare participants’ attitudes toward American
Apparel across the four ad exposure groups. Results showed that the overall model
was significant (F ¼ 17:71, p , 0.001), suggesting that participants’ attitudes toward
American Apparel varied across different ad exposures. Results from a Scheffé post
hoc test indicated that participants in Group 1 held more positive attitudes toward
American Apparel than did those in Group 2 (M ¼ 68:01 v. M ¼ 54.14, p , 0.001),
Group 3 (M ¼ 68:01 v. M ¼ 58:28, p , 0.01), and Group 4 (M ¼ 68:01 v. M ¼ 51:31,
p , 0.001). In addition, participants in Group 3 held more positive attitudes toward
American Apparel than did those in Group 4 (M ¼ 58:28 v. M ¼ 51:31, p , 0.05).
Thus, findings suggest that participants’ attitudes toward American Apparel were
more positive when they were exposed to the fair labour advertising message, only,
than when they were exposed to the fair labour message in conjunction with one of the
sex appeal messages.
For all groups in which participants viewed two ads (i.e. in Groups 2, 3, and 4),
paired sample t-tests were used to compare individual participants’ evaluations of the
two advertisements viewed. Results showed that participants in Group 2 were more
positive in their evaluations of Ad No. 1 than they were in their evaluations of Ad No. 2
(M ¼ 39:74 v. M ¼ 34:57, t ¼ 3:75, p , 0.001). Participants in Group 3 evaluated Ad
No. 1 more positively than they did Ad No. 3 (M ¼ 39:96 v. M ¼ 32:27, t ¼ 6:02,
p , 0.001). Likewise, participants in Group 4 evaluated Ad No. 1 more positively than
they did Ad No. 4 (M ¼ 40:60 v. M ¼ 30:47, t ¼ 6:02, p , 0.001). Thus, across groups,
Ad No. 1 was evaluated in aggregate as being more appealing, appropriate, effective,
ethical, informative, interesting, truthful, convincing, and less offensive than were Ads
No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4, which featured sex appeal messages.
Because gender also may play a role in explaining consumers’ attitudes towards
advertisements and brands, ANOVA was conducted to examine whether there was an
interaction effect between gender and ad exposure on attitude toward American
Apparel. Univariate analysis revealed that gender did not interact with ad exposure in
explaining participants’ attitudes toward American Apparel (F ¼ 1:96, p . 0.05). To
 further explore the possibility of an interaction effect, contrast comparisons of 28 pairs Impact of
of mean attitude scores were conducted. Results from the analysis indicated that 17 of advertising
the 28 pairs of the comparisons showed a gender effect[4]. Specifically, female
participants in ad exposure Groups 2 and 3 showed more positive attitudes toward message
American Apparel than did males in those groups (Mmale ¼ 48:73 v. Mfemale ¼ 56:96,
F ¼ 5:62, p , 0.05; Mmale ¼ 51:68 v. Mfemale ¼ 61:68, F ¼ 7:66, p , 0.01, respectively).
Results showed that both males and females had similar attitudes toward American 119
Apparel after viewing Ad No. 4 ðMmale ¼ 51:84 v. Mfemale ¼ 50:92, F ¼ 0:08, p ¼ 0:78).
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to compare the utility of the classic
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) model with an extended reasoned action model in predicting
consumers’ patronage behaviors at American Apparel. In the classic models, intent to
patronize American Apparel was predicted by attitude toward American Apparel and
subjective norm. In the extended model, intent to patronize American Apparel was
predicted by attitude toward American Apparel and subjective norm as well as by
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

variables external to the theory of reasoned action, including consumers’:

. awareness of American Apparel;
.
evaluations of the American Apparel ads viewed;
.
preferences for apparel attributes (i.e. three factors, including: fit/quality, brand
name/fashion trends, and SR production);
.
gender; and
.
monthly apparel expenditures.

To compare the predictive utility of the classic and extended models (i.e. the significant
difference in the R 2 values), F ratios were calculated (Tsai, 2006). Results of these
analyses are presented as follows by ad exposure group.
Results revealed that for Group 1, the classic model was significant (R 2 ¼ 0:08,
F ¼ 4:19, p , 0.05). That is, among participants who were exposed to the fair labour
advertising message, only, intent to patronize American Apparel was positively
predicted by attitude toward American Apparel (b ¼ 0:23, t ¼ 2:11, p , 0.05), but not
subjective norm (b ¼ 0:10, t ¼ 0:95, p . 0.05). Results also indicated that the extended
model was significant (R 2 ¼ 0:42, F ¼ 6.64, p , 0.001). Participants’ intent to
patronize American Apparel was positively predicted by their attitudes toward
American Apparel (b ¼ 0:23, t ¼ 2:16, p , 0.05), preference for socially responsible
production (b ¼ 0:19, t ¼ 2:11, p , 0.05), and awareness of American Apparel
(b ¼ 0:33, t ¼ 3:24, p , 0.01). Comparison of the classic and extended models
indicated that extended model did have additional explanatory power over the classic
model (F ð7;88Þ ¼ 5:61, p , 0.01) (see Table I).
For Group 2, results indicated that the classic model was significant (R 2 ¼ 0:13,
F ¼ 7:60, p , 0.01). More specifically, for those participants who were exposed to both
Ad No. 1, containing a fair labour message, and Ad No. 2, containing a “high intensity”
sex appeal message, intent to patronize American Apparel was positively predicted by
attitude toward American Apparel (b ¼ 0:36, t ¼ 3:78, p , 0.001), but not subjective
norm (b ¼ 20:00, t ¼ 20:02, p . 0.05). Likewise, analyses revealed that the extended
model was significant (R 2 ¼ 0:42, F ¼ 7:21, p , 0.001), with intent to patronize
American Apparel positively predicted by subjective norm (b ¼ 0:19, t ¼ 1:98,
p , 0.05), awareness of American Apparel (b ¼ 0:43, t ¼ 4:71, p , 0.001), and
 JFMM
Independent variables B SE b t Adj. R 2 R2
13,1
Classic Fishbein and Ajzen model
0.06 0.08 *
Attitude toward American Apparel 0.04 0.02 0.23 2.11 *
Subjective norm 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.95
120 Extended Fishbein and Ajzen model
0.35 0.42 * * *
Attitude toward American Apparel 0.05 0.02 0.23 2.16 *
Subjective norm 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.09
Awareness 1.35 0.42 0.33 3.24 * *
Evaluation of the ad viewed 0.09 0.05 0.18 1.76
Apparel factor (fit/quality) 2 0.24 0.57 2 0.04 2 0.43
Apparel factor (brand/fashion) 0.57 0.46 0.13 1.24
Table I. Apparel factor (SR production) 0.89 0.42 0.19 2.11 *
Predicting intent to Gendera
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

1.13 0.87 0.13 1.29

patronize American Monthly expenditure 0.01 0.01 0.10 1.00
Apparel: Group 1
(n ¼ 98) Notes: a 1 ¼ male and 2 ¼ female; * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; * * * p , 0.001

evaluation of Ad No. 2 (b ¼ 0:41, t ¼ 4:25, p , 0.001). Comparison of the adjusted R 2

values for the classic and extended models revealed that the extended model did have
additional explanatory power (F ð7;102 Þ ¼ 6:01, p , 0.01) (see Table II).
The classic model for Group 3 participants – who viewed two advertisements, one
with a fair labour message and one with a “moderate intensity” sex appeal message
– was significant (R 2 ¼ 0:15, F ¼ 8:09, p , 0.01). Here, intent to patronize American
Apparel was positively predicted by attitude toward American Apparel (b ¼ 0:36,
t ¼ 3:74, p , 0.001), but negatively predicted by subjective norm (b ¼ 20:21,
t ¼ 22:17, p , 0.05). The extended model also was significant (R 2 ¼ 0:48, F ¼ 8:56,

Independent variables B SE b t Adj. R 2 R2

Classic Fishbein and Ajzen model

0.11 0.13 * *
Attitude toward American Apparel 0.13 0.04 0.36 3.78 * * *
Subjective norm 0.00 0.01 0.00 20.02
Extended Fishbein and Ajzen model
0.37 0.42 * * *
Attitude toward American Apparel 0.06 0.04 0.17 1.72
Subjective norm 0.02 0.01 0.19 1.98 *
Awareness 1.99 0.42 0.43 4.71 * * *
Evaluation of the ad viewed 0.21 0.05 0.41 4.25 * * *
Apparel factor (fit/quality) 2 0.94 0.73 2 0.12 21.29
Apparel factor (brand/fashion) 0.39 0.42 0.09 0.93
Apparel factor (SR production) 0.25 0.52 0.04 0.48
Table II. Gendera 1.61 1.00 0.15 1.60
Predicting intent to Monthly expenditure 2 0.00 0.01 2 0.02 20.25
patronize American
Apparel: Group 2
(n ¼ 112) Notes: a 1 ¼ male and 2 ¼ female; * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; * * * p , 0.001
 p , 0.001). Preference for brand name/fashion trends (b ¼ 0:19, t ¼ 2:10, p , 0.05), Impact of
awareness of American Apparel (b ¼ 0:40, t ¼ 4:35, p , 0.001), and evaluation of Ad advertising
No. 3 (b ¼ 0:33, t ¼ 3:58, p , 0.01) positively predicted intent to patronize American
Apparel, whereas monthly apparel expenditures (b ¼ 20:22, t ¼ 22:31, p , 0.05) message
had a negative effect. Comparison of two models once again indicated that the
extended model did have additional explanatory power (F ð7;93Þ ¼ 6:99, p , 0.01) (see
Table III). 121
Analyses revealed that, for participants in Group 4, who also evaluated two
advertisements – one containing a fair labour message and one featuring a “high
intensity” sex appeal message – the classic model was significant (R 2 ¼ 0:07,
F ¼ 3:66, p , 0.05). Intent to patronize American Apparel was positively predicted by
attitude toward American Apparel (b ¼ 0:21, t ¼ 2:12, p , 0.05), but not subjective
norm (b ¼ 0:12, t ¼ 1:18, p . 0.05). Unlike the extended models for the previous three
ad exposure groups, results revealed that, even though the extended overall model for
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

Group 4 was significant (R 2 ¼ 0:20, F ¼ 2:35, p , 0.05), none of the independent

variables predicted participants’ intent to patronize American Apparel. Comparison of
the classic and extended models indicated that the extended model did not have
additional explanatory power (F ð7;102Þ ¼ 1:16, p . 0.05) (see Table IV).

Implications and conclusions

Recent advertising campaigns employed by American Apparel offer a rare opportunity
to compare the efficacy of two disparate advertising message strategies – fair labour
and sex appeal – that are not often used simultaneously by a single company within
the contemporary consumer marketplace. The present examination of consumer
responses to these advertising message strategies provides a unique contribution to
our understanding of the relative “value” of fair labour, as well as sex appeal, in
predicting brand attitude and purchase intention. In particular, this study expands
upon earlier work by exploring Gen Y consumer responses to advertisements
employing diverse message strategies that varied in content as well as in intensity (e.g.,

Independent variables B SE b t Adj. R 2 R2

Classic Fishbein and Ajzen model

0.13 0.15 * *
Attitude toward American Apparel 0.10 0.03 0.36 3.74 * * *
Subjective norm 2 0.02 0.01 2 0.21 22.17 *
Extended Fishbein and Ajzen model
0.43 0.48 * * *
Attitude toward American Apparel 0.04 0.03 0.16 1.74
Subjective norm 2 0.01 0.01 2 0.11 21.19
Awareness 2.24 0.51 0.40 4.35 * * *
Evaluation of the ad viewed 0.15 0.04 0.33 3.58 * *
Apparel factor (fit/quality) 0.15 0.76 0.02 0.20
Apparel factor (brand/fashion) 1.04 0.50 0.19 2.10 *
Apparel factor (SR production) 0.48 0.45 0.09 1.05 Table III.
Gendera 2 0.70 0.90 2 0.07 20.78 Predicting intent to
Monthly expenditure 2 0.01 0.00 2 0.22 22.31 * patronize American
Apparel: Group 3
Notes: a 1 ¼ male and 2 ¼ female; * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; * * * p , 0.001 (n ¼ 103)
 JFMM
Independent variables B SE b t Adj. R 2 R2
13,1
Classic Fishbein and Ajzen model
0.05 0.07 *
Attitude toward American Apparel 0.07 0.03 0.21 2.12 *
Subjective norm 0.01 0.01 0.12 1.18
122 Extended Fishbein and Ajzen model
0.12 0.20 *
Attitude toward American Apparel 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.60
Subjective norm 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.39
Awareness 0.96 0.58 0.19 1.65
Evaluation of the ad viewed 2 0.02 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.48
Apparel factor (fit/quality) 2 0.77 0.70 2 0.11 2 1.11
Apparel factor (brand/fashion) 0.90 0.52 0.19 1.71
Table IV. Apparel factor (SR production) 0.94 0.55 0.17 1.69
Predicting Intent to Gendera
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

0.35 1.05 0.04 0.34

patronize American Monthly expenditure 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.75
Apparel: Group 4
(n ¼ 112) Notes: a 1 ¼ male and 2 ¼ female; * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; * * * p , 0.001

degree of sexiness) and by examining the relationship of these responses, as well as

other variables, to patronage intention.
This research provides evidence that among Gen Y consumers, a fair labour
message may contribute to positive evaluations of advertisements and may build
positive attitudes toward apparel retailers, which may, in turn, influence patronage
intentions. Also interesting to note is that the apparel attributes factor, “preference for
socially responsible production,” only predicted intent to patronize American Apparel
among Group 1 participants, who were exposed to a fair labour message, only. As
such, rather than relying upon the commonly held assumption that “sex sells,” apparel
retailers targeting Gen Y consumers might consider invoking fair labour messages as a
promotional strategy. Future researchers may wish to explore Gen Y consumers’
responses to other promotional messages that invoke themes of socially responsible
business practices. For instance, are promotional messages focused upon themes of
environmentally responsible apparel production (e.g., organic fibers, eco dyes and
finishes) salient for this group?
As noted, prior research suggests that the level of sexual intensity featured in an
advertisement may impact consumers’ attitudes toward the advertisement as well as
their purchase intentions and may be influenced by gender. Findings from the present
work provide mixed support for this previous research and extend understanding of
consumer response to varying levels of sexual intensity in apparel advertisements by
examining the impact of sexual intensity upon brand attitude. In contrast to previous
work (Andersson et al., 2004; LaTour and Henthorne, 1994), the present findings
indicate that women reported more positive attitudes toward American Apparel than
did men when exposed to Ad No. 2 and Ad No. 3, which represented high and moderate
levels of sexual intensity, respectively. At the same time, however, findings also
demonstrate that both males and females exposed to Ad No. 4, which represented a
high level of sexually intensity, reported similar attitudes toward American Apparel.
Here, it interesting to note that women’s attitude scores for Ad No. 4, which includes
graphic imagery and text implying sexual intercourse, were lower than were those for
 any of the other ads, perhaps providing some tentative support for the argument not to Impact of
use blatantly overt sexual appeals in advertisements targeting women (see Andersson advertising
et al., 2004; LaTour and Henthorne, 1994).
Finally, this work provides some support for existing theoretical models of message
consumer behavior, including Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) classic premise that
attitudes predict behavioral intention as well as the generalized notion that consumer
responses toward advertisements may shape intention to buy (De Pelsmacker and 123
Van Den Bergh, 1996; Mitchell and Olson, 1981). Within the classic models tested for
this study, attitude predicted intent to patronize American Apparel across all ad
exposure groups. That attitude – but not subjective norm (with one exception) –
predicted intent is consistent with the notion that the participants were largely
socialized within the US culture, which values autonomy, and thus, were likely to
perceive the self as independent from the influence of others (Triandis, 1995). Further,
findings provided some support for the utility of an expanded reasoned action model
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

in predicting patronage behaviors at American Apparel. Two variables added to the

classic model emerged as predictors across several ad exposure groups: awareness of
American Apparel and evaluation of American Apparel advertisements. In turn,
these findings provide additional evidence in support of prior work examining the
hierarchical effects of advertising on purchase intentions (see Batra and Ray, 1986; De
Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh, 1996; Mackenzie et al., 1986; Percy and Rossiter,
1992). In future work, researchers may wish to consider other variables relevant to
consumers’ apparel preferences and/or purchase behaviors, beliefs about advertising
and promotion, and inclinations toward socially responsible business practices that
could be added to the reasoned action model as predictors of intent to patronize
apparel retailers. Such variables might include participants’ apparel consumption
patterns, fashion orientation, media diet or exposure, media literacy or skepticism,
and attitudes toward apparel production and promotion methods, and personal or
global values.

Notes
1. Under the US Fair Labor Standards Act, fair labor is defined along three dimensions: paying
employees the minimum wage or higher, not employing young children, and not requiring
employees to work for long hours without premium overtime pay (see Goldstein et al., 1999).
2. The relative weights of the factors in influencing a given behavior are assessed across a
group of participants rather than for individuals. Typically, these weights are interpreted to
be the beta weights obtained from multiple regression analysis (O’Keefe, 1990).
3. US college students spend 12 percent of their discretionary income on apparel and footwear
(Crane, 2007), which is approximately three times the amount that the average US household
allocates to apparel expenditures (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007)
4. In total, 28 pairs of contrast comparisons of the mean attitude scores were made based upon
the eight possible combinations for the two levels of gender and the four levels of ad
exposure. The first combination of gender/ad exposure was compared with the other seven
combinations, and the second combination of gender/ad exposure was compared with the
remaining six gender/ad exposure combinations and so forth.
 JFMM References
13,1 Abraham-Murali, L. and Littrell, M.A. (1995), “Consumers’ perceptions of apparel quality over
time: an exploratory study”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 149-64.
Ajzen, I. (1985), “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior”, in Kuhl, J. and
Beckman, J. (Eds), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer, Heidelberg,
124 pp. 11-39.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Alexander, M.W. and Judd, B. Jr. (1978), “Do nudes in ads enhance brand recall?”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 47-50.
Alloy Media þ Marketing (2006), “A very convenient truth: college students ‘tuned in’ to social
responsibility and the brands who they believe are making a difference”, press release,
available at: www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/clientnews/2006_Alloy.pdf
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

(accessed October 30, 2007).

Andersson, S., Hedelin, A., Nilsson, A. and Welander, C. (2004), “Violent advertising in fashion
marketing”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 96-112.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bailey, D. and Hall, S. (1992), “The vertigo of displacement”, Ten.8, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 14-23.
Batra, R. and Ray, M.L. (1986), “Situational effects of advertising repetition: the moderating
influence of motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 432-45.
Belleau, B.D., Summers, T.A., Xu, Y. and Pinel, R. (2007), “Theory of reasoned action: purchase
intention of young consumers”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 244-57.
Cone Inc. (2006), “The millennial generation: pro-social and empowered to change the world –
The 2006 Cone millennial cause study”, Cone Inc., available at: www.solsustainability.org/
documents/toolkit/2006%20Cone%20Millennial%20Cause%20Study.pdf (accessed
December 12, 2007).
Crane, L. (2007), “On campus and beyond: college students today”, Harris Interactive, Trends
& Tudes, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 1-4.
De Pelsmacker, P. and Van Den Bergh, J. (1996), “The communication effects of provocation in
print advertising”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 15 No. 30, pp. 203-21.
DiNardo, A. (2006), “The anti-brand: Che lives! American Apparel is not your average T-shirt”,
Visual Store, available at: www.visualstore.com/index.php/channel/7/id/11242 (accessed
February 13, 2007).
Dickson, M.A. (2001), “Utility of No Sweat labels for apparel consumers: profiling label users and
predicting their purchases”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 96-119.
Dickson, M.A. and Eckman, M. (2006), “Social responsibility: the concept as defined by apparel
and textile scholars”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 178-91.
Eckman, M., Damhorst, M.L. and Kadolph, S.J. (1990), “Toward a model of the in-store purchase
decision process: consumer use of criteria for evaluating women’s apparel”, Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 13-22.
(The) Economist (2007), “The hustler: American Apparel’s unusual flotation is typical of Dov
Charney, its founder”, available at: www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/articles/
20070104economist.html (accessed February 13, 2007).
 Ettenson, R., Wagner, J. and Gaeth, G. (1988), “Evaluating the effect of country of origin and the Impact of
‘Made in the USA’ campaign: a conjoint approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 85-100. advertising
Fadiga, M.L., Misra, S.K. and Ramirez, O.A. (2005), “US consumer purchasing decisions and message
demand for apparel”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 367-79.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to 125
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Forney, J.C., Rabolt, N.J. and Friend, L.A. (1993), “Clothing values and country of origin of
clothing: a comparison of United States and New Zealand university women”, Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 36-42.
(The) Gen Y budget (2002), “The Gen Y budget”, American DemographicsVol. 24 No. 7, p. S4.
Gipson, K. and Francis, S.K. (1991), “The effect of country of origin on purchase behaviour:
an intercept study”, Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, Vol. 15 No. 1,
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

pp. 33-44.
Goldstein, B., Linder, M., Norton, L.E. and Ruckelshaus, C.K. (1999), “Enforcing fair labor
standards in the modern American sweatshop: rediscovering the statutory definition of
employment”, UCLA Law Review, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 983-1164.
Grazer, W.F. and Keesling, G. (1995), “The effect of print advertising’s use of sexual themes on
brand recall and purchase intention: a product specific investigation of males’ responses”,
Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 47-57.
Ha, S. and Lennon, S. (2006), “Purchase intent for fashion counterfeit products: ethical ideologies,
ethical judgments, and perceived risks”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 24
No. 4, pp. 297-315.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hester, S.B. (1989), “Does attitude predict purchase behaviour of apparel products?”, Journal of
Consumer Studies and Home Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 161-74.
Hester, S.B. and Yuen, M. (1987), “The influence of country of origin on consumer attitude and
buying behavior in the United States and Canada”, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 538-42.
Iwanow, H., McEachern, M.G. and Jeffrey, A. (2005), “The influence of ethical trading policies on
consumer apparel purchase decisions: a focus on The Gap Inc.”, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 371-87.
Joergens, C. (2006), “Ethical fashion: myth or future trend?”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 360-71.
Johnson, M.D. (1989), “On the nature of product attributes and attribute relationships”, Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 598-604.
Knight, G. and Greenberg, J. (2002), “Promotionalism and subpolitics: Nike and its labor critics”,
Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 541-70.
LaTour, M.S. and Henthorne, T.L. (1994), “Ethical judgments of sexual appeals in print
advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 81-90.
Lang, J.Q. and Crown, E.M. (1993), “Country-of-origin effect in apparel choices: a conjoint
analysis”, Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 87-98.
Littrell, M.A. and Dickson, M.A. (1997), “Alternative trading organizations: shifting paradigm in
a culture of social responsibility”, Human Organization, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 344-52.
 JFMM Littrell, M.A., Ma, Y.J. and Halapete, J. (2005), “Generation X, Baby Boomers, and Swing:
marketing fair trade apparel”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management., Vol. 9
13,1 No. 4, pp. 407-19.
Loroz, P.S. (2006), “The generation gap: a Baby Boomer vs Gen Y comparison of religiosity,
consumer values, and advertising appeal effectiveness”, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 308-9.
126 MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R. and Belch, G.E. (1986), “The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator
of advertising effectiveness: a test of competing explanations”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 130-43.
Marymount University (1995), Garment Workers’ Study, Report, Center for Ethical Concerns,
Marymount University, Arlington, VA.
Mitchell, A.A. and Olson, J.C. (1981), “Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitude?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 318-32.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

Morton, L.P. (2002), “Targeting Generation Y”, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 46-8.
Nimon, W. and Beghin, J. (1999), “Are eco-labels valuable? Evidence from the apparel industry”,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 801-11.
North, E.J., de Vos, R.B. and Kotzé, T. (2003), “The importance of apparel product attributes for
female buyers”, Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, Vol. 31, pp. 41-51.
O’Keefe, D.J. (1990), Persuasion Theory and Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Ordoñez, J., Romano, A. and Broder, J. (2006), “California hustlin’: urban hipsters love American
Apparel’s ‘sweatshop free’ clothes: can the quirky company find investors?”, Newsweek,
available at: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13390518/site/newsweek/ (accessed February 13,
2007).
Panda, T.K. (2005), “Sex-oriented advertising and its impact on attitude of teenagers: application
of behavioral intention model across product categories”, Vision –The Journal of Business
Perspective, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 15-26.
Paul, P. (2001), “Getting inside Gen Y”, American Demographics, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 42-9.
Percy, L. and Rossiter, J.R. (1992), “Advertising stimulus effects: a review”, Journal of Current
Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 75-90.
Reichert, T. (2003), “The prevalence of sexual imagery in ads targeted to young adults”, Journal
of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 403-12.
Reichert, T. (2007), “Does sex in advertising work? A review of scholarly research informed by
professional opinion”, Advertising & Society Review, available at: http://muse.jhu.edu/
journals/asr/v008/8.2reichert.html, (accessed October 30, 2007).
Reichert, T. and Carpenter, C. (2004), “An update on sex in magazine advertising: 1983 to 2003”,
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 823-37.
Savoie, K. (2006), “F *cking progressives: American Apparel wants you to bend over for its
anti-sweatshop, schtick”, Clamor, available at: www.clamormagazine.org/issues/38/aa/
savoie.php (accessed November 3, 2006).
Sciglimpaglia, D., Belch, M.A. and Cain, R.F. (1979), “Demographic and cognitive factors
influencing viewers’ evaluations of ‘sexy’ advertisements”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 62-5.
Severn, J., Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (1990), “The effects of sexual and non-sexual advertising
appeals and information level on cognitive processing and communication effectiveness”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 14-22.
 Shimp, T.A. (1981), “Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice”, Journal of Impact of
Advertising, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 9-15.
Soley, L. and Kurzbard, G. (1986), “Sex in advertising: a comparison of 1964 and 1984 magazine
advertising
advertisements”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 46-54, 64. message
Stabile, C.A. (2000), “Nike, social responsibility, and the hidden abode of production”, Critical
Studies in Media Communication, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Straub, J. (2006), “Who’s your daddy?: Dov Charney serves up paternalism with a creepy smile at 127
American Apparel HQ”, Clamor, available at: www.clamormagazine.
org/issues/38/aa/straub.php (accessed November 3, 2006).
Streitmatter, R. (2004), Sex Sells!: The Media’s Journey from Repression to Obsession, Westview
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview Publishing, Boulder, CO.
Tsai, J.H. (2006), “Lifestlye vs demographics: is lifestyle a better predictor of patronage
behavior?”, unpublished master’s thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007), “Consumer expenditures in 2005”, US Department of Labor

Report, available at: www.bls.gov/cex/csxann05.pdf (accessed October 30, 2007).
Valor, C. (2007), “The influence of information about labour abuses on consumer choice of
clothes: a grounded theory approach”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Nos 7/8,
pp. 675-95.
Vézina, R. and Paul, O. (1997), “Provocation in advertising: a conceptualization and an empirical
assessment”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 177-92.
Washington, R. (2006), “There’s more to basics brand than meets the eye”, The Plain Dealer,
available at: www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/articles/20060927plaindealer.html
(accessed February 13, 2007).
Wilkie, W.L. and Pessemier, E.A. (1973), “Issues in marketing’s use of multi-attribute attitude
models”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 428-41.

Corresponding author
Karen Hyllegard can be contacted at: Karen.Hyllegard@ColoState.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Ethan Rayner, Stacey M. Baxter, Jasmina Ilicic. 2015. Smoker's recall of fear appeal imagery: Examining
the effect of fear intensity and fear type. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 23, 61-66. [CrossRef]
2. Yunyoung Choi, Chorong Youn, Yuri Lee. 2014. The Depending Effect of Proactive CSR Activity and
the Overcoming Effect of Reactive CSR Activity on Fashion Retailer's Corporate Social Irresponsibility
Crisis. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 38, 455-466. [CrossRef]
3. Karen H. Hyllegard, Jennifer Paff Ogle, Ruoh-Nan Yan. 2014. College students’ responses to prosocial
marketing claims on apparel hang tags. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal 18:3, 269-283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Helen Goworek, Tom Fisher, Tim Cooper, Sophie Woodward, Alex Hiller. 2012. The sustainable
clothing market: an evaluation of potential strategies for UK retailers. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 40:12, 935-955. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Beno Klemenčič, Gabrijel Devetak, Darko Števančec. 2012. Intercultural Differences in the Purchase and
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:47 24 February 2016 (PT)

Information Behaviour of Young Consumers. Organizacija 45. . [CrossRef]

6. Helen Goworek. 2011. Social and environmental sustainability in the clothing industry: a case study of a
fair trade retailer. Social Responsibility Journal 7:1, 74-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]