Comments on: Woody Allen Vs American Apparel

By: Phew what a Review

Phew what a Review — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:38:23 +0000

Why did AA go ahead and do it without crossing Ts and dotting Is? Do companies really budget in lawsuits as part of their ad campaigns? I’ve never heard of anything so risky. Actually I have. But they always seem to originate in the US!

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 03:59:12 +0000

I do not think Woody’s name or face will get him 10M, but the fact that AA went outside of the law for the purpose of personal gain will most likely cost them more than expected. I’m certain a lawsuit WAS part of the budget for this ad campaign. Hopefully Woody will be awarded the full 10M to set an ethical example for companies looking to capitalize at the expense of others.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:01:21 +0000

Then its a good thing this isn’t Time magazine or the copy editor would be canned!

I also find it ironic that you are checking my spelling then type maybe without the e.

Just sayin.

By: Darek-T

Darek-T — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:48:36 +0000

Ok maby it’s because I’m in school right now but the biggest thing that stuck out to me in this post was that you used the wrong “their” when you said “I suspect their may have been some deliberate fabricated scandal here”. The correct form would be there.

By: leeloo

leeloo — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:33:47 +0000

woody allen gives me the serious eewwws.
i dont know how anyone would want to work with him or for him or be associated with anything he does.
eewww.

By: Meli

Meli — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:24:16 +0000

Considering AA didn’t even ask for permission before hand this is the consequence they must pay. Woody Allen’s price to endorse any product is $10mil. I wonder if his asking price is not so much what he thinks his image is worth, but the dollar amount in which he will sell out and endorse a product? It may also deter companies from approaching him too.

By: Mr A

Mr A — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:08:36 +0000

It’s hard to say on Woody’s side. I agree with him, but the amount is high. Then again, looking at the reaction that AA is having, they deserve it. Besides which, truthfully, AA is pretty sleazy itself, the owner who, in the beginning was the photographer, shot his female models in seductive ways and sometimes topless. If you search for it, you can find, trust me, it’s out there.
So maybe, with that in mind, Woody is their poster child.
He should have been like Clint Eastwood. Sue for a dollar, essentially on principle alone.

By: GODFATHER

GODFATHER — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:32:43 +0000

At first, I thought the same: $10 Mil for a week? That’s insane! But the more I read, I feel Woody could go for more. It seems AA was only out for the propaganda and news that this fiasco would generate, and by putting Woody in several different, (probably) computer generated looks, they took on his personal image and used it for their benefit. I bet AA thought they’d get a million dollar fine and make more than that with all the publicity. If I were Woody, I’d bump the number to $50 to teach the fuckers a lesson they’d never forget!

By: methos

methos — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:27:18 +0000

wow, thats some serious coinage

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:14:30 +0000

This is a hard one to figure out for me. I want to side with Woody because I think that is very wrong what they did, but $10 Million!!! I mean jeese, that is a lot of money for that. I guess when you Woody Allen you can sue someone for that reason and for that much. If it were someone else, like me, I’d be suing for $7K haha.