CEO Mike Jeffries of Abercrombie & Fitch experienced what mirrored a Mitt Romney moment when, in a unguarded moment during an interview seven years ago, he spoke openly and honestly about the consumer market his clothes are intended to attract:
“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool-kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kids 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!”
A popular youth brand bragging about the fact that it’s exclusionary, implying that unattractive geeks can't wear its clothes? Honest perhaps, but it’s an off-putting marketing message that has sparked a major backlash against the chain. The retailer’s apologies have yet to quell the firestorm of condemnation from offended teens, celebrities and others. Is the outrage justified, or is it a case of modern political correctness run amuck?
First, let’s acknowledge that what Jeffries said, while candid, was also painfully obvious. One look at Abercrombie’s over-sexualized advertising featuring athletically fit and handsome young male jocks, and there’s no mistaking who the chain is marketing to. There’s also nothing controversial about a retailer or advertiser targeting a particular niche market of consumers; what retailer doesn‘t? But what Jefferies said during his ill-expressed moment of candor went beyond merely defining his brand and needlessly offended consumers his brand doesn‘t cater to.
In today’s more culturally diverse and inclusive society, it’s not good policy nor good business to promote ideas of exclusion or to suggest that some people aren’t welcome or “don’t belong.” Besides, why turn away consumers who may aspire to be the people a brand celebrates?
Imagine retailer Victoria Secret saying that they only market their stylish lingerie to thin, beautiful women who like to feel sexy. Implied message: fat, ugly women should look elsewhere. But, in truth, some fat women may want to feel sexy, too. And if they are willing to spend money on clothes that aren’t intended for them, so be it. The retailer makes a profit either way.
The flap over the comments by Abercrombie’s CEO isn’t about suggesting that apparel retailers should cater to every type of consumer in the marketplace, which is both unreasonable and unrealistic, as well as being adverse to the ideals of free market enterprise. The flap, however, is about denouncing a corporate message that seemed to insensitively dismiss or demean “the wrong type” of desired customers.
Efforts by teen groups trying to pressure the chain to expand it sizes or tone down its sexualized advertising are perhaps well-intended but misguided. Abercrombie forces no one to shop at it stores. Teens offended by its brand or marketing message can simply choose to shop elsewhere, or even encourage other teens to boycott the store if they choose.
Yes, all clothing styles aren’t made for all body types and sizes. And we have all seen people who fail to grasp that concept in their fashion choices. But Abercrombie as well as other apparel retailers are well-advised to let consumers decide for themselves what clothes they “belong in.”
Exclusion is an unwise marketing message for almost any retailer, and Abercrombie’s seemingly out-of-touch CEO now knows why, as some shoppers will likely “exclude” his store from places they prefer to shop.
G. Chaise Nunnally is a senior proposal editor and freelance writer in Southern California. He can be reached at gcnunnally@aol.com.
