Despite all the craziness that keeps getting produced at American Apparel, we’ve always been able to say this: At least it’s a strong brand.

But alas, we may need to start wondering about that.

A strong brand, after all, maintains strong sales. But the downtown L.A. clothing maker’s recent earnings report revealed a surprising plunge in revenue. Net sales in the third quarter were down more than 5 percent, the biggest drop in four years. If you look a little deeper, you’ll see that retail sales – the heart of American Apparel’s brand – were down 7 percent. At the same time, sales for retailers as a whole were up more than 4 percent.

This could just be a temporary dip, a fluke. But I wonder if American Apparel has lost its edge. Millennials may consider it a has-been brand with overpriced basics; they appear to have moved on to new retailers.

American Apparel’s founder, Dov Charney, was ousted in June after years of allegations of sexual shenanigans. It seemed directors had tired not only of those escapades but of his self-produced ads that were soft-core porn (well, OK, medium-core porn) and financials that were a wreck. But the company’s sales under Charney were usually good. He had the knack, the magic, for appealing to youthful buyers who apparently weren’t much put off by the company’s in-your-face rebellious stance.

Interestingly, the new bosses at American Apparel (who still haven’t picked a permanent chief executive) pointed to the better financial performance of the company – adjusted EBITDA was up 38 percent in the third quarter! – even as sales slid alarmingly. In other words, they reported improving financials but declining sales; the opposite of Charney’s record.

This all reminds me of what some used to call Detroit disease. Back in the day, automakers seemed stuck in a rut in which they could have either good sales or sound financials but not both. When the car companies were under the control of creative boundary-expanders, they’d dream up captivating, exciting models. (Who still doesn’t swoon for late-’50s fins?) Sales were brisk but financial discipline languished. Then the bean counters would be put in charge. They approved excruciatingly sensible but banal models. (K-car, anyone?) Sales swooned even as fiscal order was restored.

Maybe American Apparel’s sales in the latest quarter were just a one-time aberration. But if they continue going south, we may have to conclude that the company is suffering Detroit disease. Order may reign in a corporate way, but sales may suffer. And the brand would no longer be so strong.

• • •

For those of us concerned about the long-term prospects at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the article on Page 7 of this issue won’t give you comfort.

It says some shippers, frustrated by the slowdown of union workers at the ports, have begun shipping stuff by air. To Chicago.

Shippers have long groused about the port complex. It’s expensive to operate there and given to labor disruptions, they say. Especially leading up to the important holiday season.

The big longstanding fear is that if they have a chance, a reasonable alternative, shippers may bolt to other ports. That fear has been no more than a bogeyman because, after all, there are not many alternatives for shipping lines.

But with the widened Panama Canal set to open in 2016, they will have alternative ports. Good alternatives.

And the more we force shippers to send stuff to Chicago by air today, the more likely they are to shift some of their operations to other ports tomorrow.

Charles Crumpley is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at [email protected].