As we work to bring even more value to our audience, we’ve made important changes for those who receive Ad Age with our compliments. As of November 15, 2016 we will no longer be offering full digital access to AdAge.com. However, we will continue to send you our industry-leading print issues focused on providing you with what you need to know to succeed.
If you’d like to continue your unlimited access to AdAge.com, we invite you to become a paid subscriber. Get the news, insights and tools that help you stay on top of what’s next.
Is this Corona ad flying you to the moon? Rate it on the Rate the Ad-o-mometer's six-degree scale of excellence, with 5 being the top score: 5 World-changing, 4 Great, 3 Good, 2 Fair, 1 Forgettable, 0 Actively Annoying. And feel free to comment on the art direction, the photography, the concept, whatever. Click the ad to play.
Last week's Rate the Ad. Predictably enough, the "pedophile" comments were raining down like an avalanche of Junior Mints on this American Apparel provocation, but hold your My Little Ponies for a second here. A call to American Apparel to verify the age of this model was not returned, but according to a reliable source at Vice Magazine, where the ad also appeared, this woman is a 22-year-old hairdresser from L.A. But outside of Washington, D.C., maybe the appearance of impropriety still counts for something. Most pollees seem to think so, dressing down this baby with a nasty handicapped Good/Bad ratio on the Rate the Ad-o-mometer of 17/83 — which, interestingly, squeaks past the 16/84 that Dakota Fanning for Marc Jacobs pulled in February, though that ad boasted 4% fewer goose eggs. Even the couch came in for a beating here. A special Nitpick of the Week Award to the anonymous entrant who writes, "She looks like she's swimming in a sea of giant sorbet-stained teeth." Anyway, here are the results.
5 World-changing 3%
4 Great 3%
3 Good 5%
2 Fair 6%
1 Forgettable 13%
0 Actively Annoying 70%
And here are the fave responses.
0 Lolita in a leotard. How tasteless some will go to create a stir.
2 Cheap, tacky, and effective — for the purple unitard crowd.
0 Since when is a 10-year-old with a wedgie supposed to sell me something?
4 Campycheesysexycool. With retail locations to boot.
0 While the girl may be older than Dakota Fanning, the pose is worse, and I'm more thoroughly disturbed.
0 Hips don't lie (if she had any).
5 Impossible not to look at . . . and like. It's not sexist, just sexy.
3 It has a vintage feel, but it's not nearly as effective as their online advertising.
4 Retro-modern hotness.
5 She's too young for me, but perfect for AA's demo. (I'm already a fan of their ads.)
0 Way too much showing both front and back for this girl, who looks all of 11 1/2.
3 The website is much better than this particular ad. But she's got great eye contact with the photographer and I love the pose with her foot peeking out from underneath.
0 It looks like her butt is growing a foot!
0 The model looks too young and her facial expression is too suggestive. I'm pretty open-minded and I get the campaign, but I'm also the mother of three young girls.
4 I love the raw, natural look that represents the American DIY attitude, which built this country and this company.
0 Doing the child porn thing used to skate the line between offensive and edgy. Now it's skating the line between boring and unoriginal.
0 I'm sure that American Apparel did market testing and identified a target audience for this ad. I just hope he is arrested before they can run another one.
0 With more than 50% of the American population overweight, this isn't "American Apparel."
0 I'm OK with a little ass showing on a legal-aged model, but what is she, 12? And, yes, we should all wear ropes on our heads when swimming, it's good for a quick tow should a boat go by.
0 Two words: UGH LEE! I hope they're selling the headband. The rest is disturbing!