The Abercrombie Conundrum

[IrishCanadian25]

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/abercrombie-fitch-ceo-explains-why-he-hates-fat-chicks/

News of Abercrombie CEO making very controversial statements about its preferred clientelle have gone viral on Facebook. We live in a very sensitive, anti-bullying world right now where suicide rates and guns in schools have shed some light on the impact bullying has.

In somewhat related news, Chic-Fil-A came under massive scrutiny when its leader came out publically and stated that they were a company of conservative values and did not support homosexuality or gay marriage.

So here's the question - are Abercrombie CEO Mike Jeffries comments way off base and wrong?

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” he told the site. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either,”

Abercrombie & Fitch has lost literally MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars as a result of fines for unfair hiring practices. They've been sued by African Americans, Muslim-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and overweight people because they've been outright denied employment they were qualified for or hired only to be relegated to the stock room because they "don't have the look" of a sales employee.

On the other hand, if a company chooses to make a statement like this that may very well lead many folks to boycott them, isn't that on them? Should our semi-Capitalist economic system dictate their success of failure rather than the government? If they don't want to market to "plus-sized clientelle," shouldn't that be their choice?

Let's see if we can get a spirited debate going on marketing, labor practices, economic system, and overpriced clothes.

 

[Rayne]

You simply CANNOT tell someone how they should and shouldn't be allowed to market themselves. That's the great glory of the free market- we're all free to pursue what we think will help us be successful, so long as no one gets hurt in the process. (Or, so long as you have enough money for a settlement out of court.)

The wisdom of this marketing strategy? I'm surprised people on this board in particular haven't picked up on it, as it's classic modern heel. You say the things your audience wants to hear- "you're part of an exclusive club for cool kids by buying our product", while getting everyone else who thinks that message is bullshit to talk about you. It's like every professional wrestler ever who has talked shit about the IWC in a taped interview.

Smart move, on their behalf. Their core market will like the idea that some people aren't good enough to wear the clothes that they wear.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Elitist.

And well, if you wanna stand out, thats the way to go. Making your line of clothing seem exclusive and for the good looking, will make people want it more. The fat chicks usually wanna be among the popular ones and thats what A&F has done here. Make you want to wear their products and be among the cool. People might decry this all they want, but they have basically come out and said "Cool, pretty people wear Abercrombie & Fitch" . That will go a long way.

 

[Mustang Sally]

On the other hand, if a company chooses to make a statement like this that may very well lead many folks to boycott them, isn't that on them?

Sure, it is. If they choose to practice exclusionary marketing, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If not for today's climate of political correctness, this wouldn't be much of an issue at all.

Of course, if the company claims a right to do this, they'll also understand that other folks have a right to protest, boycott, condemn.....or whatever measures they want to take against it. If the company feels the gains in their targeted market will exceed what the public relations nightmare costs them..... go for it.

It's one thing to be free to do something.....and another to expect it to be consequence-free.

You don't get one without the other.

 

[klunderbunker]

AF has every right in the world to say this if they want to for multiple reasons.

1. It's true. Some people do not fit into certain clothes. I'm a good sized guy and I can't fit into certain sizes of clothes. If I'm at a store and see a shirt I want but they don't have it in my size, I can't buy it because it wouldn't fit me. Should a clothing company make every possible size available in case some people want to wear their clothes? There are big and tall clothing stores all over the place. They're selling clothes to a certain demographic. Are they doing the same thing AF is?

2. As for being elitist, this is a common practice and certainly not against the law. Look at various other ads and you'll see elitism EVERYWHERE. When you see Amanda Seyfried, one of the most stunningly beautiful women in the world, as a spokeswoman for a makeup company, isn't that being elitist? "You don't want to look like all of those common people. You want to look like THIS." It's the same for liquor ("He is the most interesting man in the world."), cars, vacations etc. This is how hundreds of products and services are marketed every day. It may not be marketed to people who look a certain way, but it's certainly marketed to those with more money than others. Elitism in advertising is nothing new and has been around for as long as advertising has been.

When it comes to the hiring practices, that's a different story. You can market your clothes to anyone you want, but saying that someone can or can't perform a job at a high level because of how they look is getting into some VERY shaky territory. If AF says someone can't work out front because they're too heavy, how far of a stretch is that from saying they can't work out front because of the color of their skin? I'm not sure what the solution is to that, but it's not going to work for AF.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Good ol double standard action. Once upon a time wasn't "FUBU" a pretty big clothing brand, and was an acronym for "For Us By Us" ?? I am not gonna go into who the brand was CLEARLY marketed for, but it wasnt attractive, skinny white people. No one shit their pants over that, surprise surprise

Which brings us back to the usual.....Attractive, and white = evil. I dont see anyone bitching about plus-size only stores, do you? Is that not EXACTLY the same damn thing, at the other end of the spectrum?

Most places covet a certain market, it only becomes a big deal when someones stupid wittle feewingggsss might get hurt.

Do a fucking sit-up, quit being such a goddamn bitch. Like the way AF chooses to market their stupid assed adrogynous clothes actually effects your fucking life. Please.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Good ol double standard action. Once upon a time wasn't "FUBU" a pretty big clothing brand, and was an acronym for "For Us By Us" ?? I am not gonna go into who the brand was CLEARLY marketed for, but it wasnt attractive, skinny white people. No one shit their pants over that, surprise surprise

Which brings us back to the usual.....Attractive, and white = evil. I dont see anyone bitching about plus-size only stores, do you? Is that not EXACTLY the same damn thing, at the other end of the spectrum?

Most places covet a certain market, it only becomes a big deal when someones stupid wittle feewingggsss might get hurt.

Do a fucking sit-up, quit being such a goddamn bitch. Like the way AF chooses to market their stupid assed adrogynous clothes actually effects your fucking life. Please.

This may well be the single greatest post in WZ history. I have to post this because I have to spread reputation around before giving it to NorCal again. And here I am trying to be all monogamous.

I have zero issue with a company choosing to produce clothing that appeal to a very specific segment of the market. I also have zero issue with some attractive white people (such as myself) looking at the practices of a place like A&F and choosing on my own volition not to shop there because I don't like their company culture. I don't need to see them shut down, I don't want them to be told what they do or do not have to produce.

If A&F doesn't respect fat people, then what self-respecting fat person wants their stuff anyway?

 

[LSN80]

If A&F doesn't respect fat people, then what self-respecting fat person wants their stuff anyway?

Jeffries was telling the 'self-respecting fat person' publicly what A&F has been telling people for years. If you don't have the measurements, you don't belong in our clothes.

So what? In a perfect world, everything would be equal, both in business practices and people's sizes and shapes. But it's not, and A&F has chosen who they're marketing to quite carefully.

I buy most of my clothing from Express. My jeans, work clothing, and my shirts. Some of it is fitted. I've had several knee surgeries over the past year, and as a result, I've gained weight. My body has adjusted accordingly, and I've gained about 15 pounds. Not a big deal, but enough that I don't fit into some of my clothing any longer.

Is that Express' fault? I knew exactly what I was buying when I bought it, and if I couldn't keep up a certain shape, I wouldn't fit into what I was buying. Should Express adjust to suit me? Heck no.

Neither should A&F. Is Jeffries an ass? Yeah, he is. But he's also a smart businessman who knows his target audience, and how to market to them. Dr. Pepper ran a marketing campaign based on their new soda being 'too manly' for women. Look at who beer commercials target, and when they do so. During sports, where their demographic is mostly men. What about radio stations, who tailor their music to specific audiences as well?

This isn't Vaudeville, the 'something for everyone' mentality is contraindicative to profit. That's the true goal of any company putting out product, is it not?

 

[Барбоса]

Who Abercrombie and Fitch market to is entirely their own choice and as NorCal quite rightly points out, there are plenty of other companies who focus on specific sections of society.

Personally, I find their clothes, while of good quality, to be overpriced and rather boring looking - a textbook case of a named brand not having to do much with their merchandise except put their name on it somewhere.

However, where A+F have slipped up is in the realm of hiring policies. While they might like to have their employees be the kind of people they are targeting their clothes at, the law says that they have to treat every applicant the same regardless of their race, gender or sexuality. They have quite rightly been sued for such discriminatory breaches.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I disagree with most here, it's one thing to market to a certain demographic (the cool) but it's stupid to make such comments. It's not like teenagers are walking around with shirts that scream "I'm Cool! I'm Exclusive! I'm Popular!". Certain teenagers just are those things, and they have friends that may not meet those qualities that they don't want to offend. Do teenagers even use the word 'cool' anymore? On top of that so much of popular culture comes from the African American community and black celebrities, aren't these the people you want wearing your clothes?

Part of me thinks this is an act where the A&F CEO plays the heel, gets press, gets the boot with a golden parachute, company rebrands and gets more press.

Bitch about freedom and free market all you want, this is more of question of tact and marketing.

 

[Rayne]

Part of me thinks this is an act where the A&F CEO plays the heel, gets press, gets the boot with a golden parachute, company rebrands and gets more press.

Bitch about freedom and free market all you want, this is more of question of tact and marketing.

It's not tactful, but it's brilliant marketing. They're defining what their brand is (or reinforcing the definition.) The people who are buying their product aren't going to be pissed off or discouraged from wearing it further. The people who aren't buying it are talking about it, which is better then them not buying it and not talking about it.

Here we are, it doesn't look like a single one of us participating in the discussion shop at A&F, and we're all talking about them. Cue Johnny Carson taking a golf swing. There's a saying that's not entirely true, but it's mostly true- there's no such thing as bad publicity. (See: OJ Simpson, Chris Brown for cases that destroy that rule.) This isn't bad publicity; it's very well managed publicity.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

It's not tactful, but it's brilliant marketing. They're defining what their brand is (or reinforcing the definition.)

But we already knew this. It was an unwritten truth. The loud music, models, attractive sales people made it blantantly clear what they were about.

It hasn't changed for 20 years, the least cool thing you can ever is say you are "cool". Snoopy "Joe Cool" got away with it, but Carlito ans everyone else did not.

The people who are buying their product aren't going to be pissed off or discouraged from wearing it further.

I disagree, they're not that fearless, they're not looking to offend. Sure people will still shop there but his comments are definitely going to alienate some of their regulars. How could it not now that the comments have gone mainstream?

The people who aren't buying it are talking about it, which is better then them not buying it and not talking about it.

Name recognition is not A&F's problem. H&M, Forever 21, Hollister and internet shopping are much bigger problems.

This isn't a religious expression issue, A&F is not a religion, it's a style that isn't going to be championed (like Chick-Fil-A) by anyone short of the Jersey Shore type kids. Who from what I remember were alienated by A&F by previous comments.

Controversy does not always equal cash.

Here we are, it doesn't look like a single one of us participating in the discussion shop at A&F, and we're all talking about them.

I don't know NorCal seemed pretty upset.

Cue Johnny Carson taking a golf swing.

Hey, I'm the old guy who is supposed to use dated references.

There's a saying that's not entirely true, but it's mostly true- there's no such thing as bad publicity. (See: OJ Simpson, Chris Brown for cases that destroy that rule.) This isn't bad publicity; it's very well managed publicity.

Again, I disagree but I'm not going to rehash. We will see when A&F's numbers come out. I will give your argument some credit, their stock is up 2% this morning while the rest of the market is flat.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I saw the CEO's picture and he looks like Gary Busey, I find it hilarious that a guy who looks and acts like Gary Busey is talking about only targeting the cool and popular kids. Really? That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Secondly it's bullshit. There's nothing wrong with marketing your product to a certain demographic, everyone does it. Most clothing stores only show ads of good looking people, this is nothing new but the comments he made are just ridiculous. Targeting good looking people is fine, there's nothing wrong with that, outright saying anyone who isn't cool and popular don't belong in our clothes is something completely different. I appreciate his honesty but how stupid can you be, that's like the NFL coming out and saying "only for jocks", good luck with not getting a backlash with that. FUBU is For Us By Us but they didn't flat out exclude Richie Rich in his big mansion either, I had nerdy white folk sell me FUBU before, not a big deal.

If you want to target good looking, popular kids than go for it, god forbid they aren't the first but don't come out and flat out say fuck everyone else because that's basically what they did.

 

[HBsam31]

First off the smell of cologne coming out of Abercrombie almost makes me throw up everytime I walk into the mall. It is like they spray that shit every 15 minutes through out their store lol. I was more of an American Eagle guy by the way. Now that I got that off of my chest, I think you should be able to market your place any way you want. I don't think it is smart as a business ower to alienate any potetial customers, but they want what they want. There is a certain demographic that as a chef I hate when they come into my place, but you have to cater to them all the same. In this day and age you need all the business you can get. It, to me, is their choice though and it doesn't offend me in the slightest that they took this route.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Name recognition is not A&F's problem. H&M, Forever 21, Hollister and internet shopping are much bigger problems.

Just wanted to add a point of clarification. A&F owns Hollister.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Abercrombie is a brand that, generally speaking, has always been viewed as one that caters to a certain type. In a nutshell, that's pretty much what Jefferies was saying in his statement.

I know that we'd all like to live in a world where everything is fair, people respect the differences of each other and we all basically get along. As a result, I think that, sometimes, we like to do what we can to force that view onto various aspects of life no matter how unrealistic it is. Abercrombie has always been a brand that's primarily sought out the "cool" people. Does that mean you have to be "cool" by the standards the company markets towards? Not at all, but it's part of the image that the company has cultivated. You don't necessarily have to be a "cool" person to wear their clothing but, frankly, that's who they target. I saw an advertisement for The Big Bang Theory just now as I'm writing this and Abercrombie is a company that targets someone like Penny, the gorgeous female neighbor, rather than "nerds" or "uncool" people like Sheldon & Leonard. Does that mean that the "nerds" are a lower quality of people than Penny? Not at all, unless you're someone that has elitist views in the first place and that only certain people "matter".

Image has a ton to do with pretty much everything. When it comes to hardcore rap music, what's the image that's usually portrayed in the videos? How do the recording artists try to get people to see them as? They're marketed as thugs and they frequently do what they can to cultivate that image. Danger & excitement have frequently been connected with one another. These rappers are often portrayed as gun toting, drug dealing, super tough criminals with records a mile long. For many of them, it's simple hype. They're singing about that kind of stuff, so they have to look & play the part. People expect gangsta rappers to be hardcore badasses and that's how record companies market them. Abercrombie markets their product as a superior clothing brand that's marketed towards who they consider to be superior people.

It comes off as elitist but I don't see how it's any different than what any other company in any other business does. In life insurance commercials, the actors hired for the commercials are usually either elderly or middle age with families or some combination of both. You don't often see a bunch of 19 year old college students in commercials talking about if they have enough life insurance.

Jefferies statement is, to one degree or another, probably along the lines of what many other CEOs in many other companies have said in regards to their target audience. But in an age where being politically correct is taken to sometimes ludicrous heights, sometimes at the expense of common sense, you're not really supposed to say things like that. You know, say things that are exactly how the world works?