Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Abercrombie and Fitch CEO and the subsequent Hashtag " Fitch The Homeless"

2»

Posts

  • JurgJurg Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    This discussion also seems to miss an important aspect of the A&F controversy, at least to me. It's not simply that A&F have their vision of "cool" and only want to cater to that; that's no different from what you find in any high school. Nor that their CEO made comments that sound like they were inspired by the bad guy in Revenge of the Nerds II; he could go around dressed in black twirling his moustache and rubbing his hands together and start every board meeting with an evil laugh for all I care.

    The problem is the social impact. You have a major company that caters to teenagers saying "looking like this is cool, looking like that is uncool and we don't want you in our stores". In a country that's already plagued by all kinds of eating disorders and a body-image obsession, this attitude can be seen, at best, as praying on the sick, and at worst as actively making the problem worse for profit. In either cases it's completely unacceptable to have a company behaving like this. Capitalism is not a license to act in a socially irresponsible or damaging way for short-term profit.

    I agree with what you're saying, but I think, instead of focusing energy on making better advertising, we should be teaching kids that advertising is bullshit. Even if we made better ads, giving ads that legitimacy to affect how we feel is dangerous.
    sig.gif
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    In a country that's already plagued by all kinds of eating disorders and a body-image obsession, this attitude can be seen, at best, as praying on the sick, and at worst as actively making the problem worse for profit. In either cases it's completely unacceptable to have a company behaving like this. Capitalism is not a license to act in a socially irresponsible or damaging way for short-term profit.

    I would like to see some proof that A&F or any company is forcing this image on the society at large. I fail to see, as I might have mentioned before, that those who ate themselves to obesity without it being genetic by eating McDonalds every single day and drinking big gulps are being forced to do so because of their failures at achieving the methods of A&F.

    I didn't say "force", I said "enforce" and "exploit". A&F didn't create eating disorders and self-damaging body image standards. But they are exploiting them for profit and being rudely open about it like it's a point of pride for them to prey on the sick.
    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • ElkiElki Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Quid wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    He's a jackass. Also, don't spend 'charity' money on expensive clothing.
    Seriously, you could buy one A&F shirt or a shirt, a meal, and god knows what else for the same price. Terrible idea.

    The guy actually got all the clothes from a thrift store so I doubt any of it was particularly expensive.

    Cool.
    Jafar-Panahi_sig2.jpgroyalist_pasig.jpg
  • Cameron_TalleyCameron_Talley Registered User regular
    If I were A&F, I would be worried about the future of my business model given that nearly 2/3rd of the country is overweight, and that problem doesn't seem to be improving. One wonders if their profits would increase if they included sizes for larger people (I myself couldn't wear anything that's in the store, according to their online size charts).
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    It's going to be hilarious if it turns out this protester is a antishill, and is using homeless as walking billboards for A&F as a protection racket.
    eg: pay me X dollars or I start dressing the homeless in your clothes. Or auction "highest bidder picks the brand the homeless will wear for x months!"
    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    if I was a billionaire, dressing all the homeless in A&F is the kind of thing I would do
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jurg wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    This discussion also seems to miss an important aspect of the A&F controversy, at least to me. It's not simply that A&F have their vision of "cool" and only want to cater to that; that's no different from what you find in any high school. Nor that their CEO made comments that sound like they were inspired by the bad guy in Revenge of the Nerds II; he could go around dressed in black twirling his moustache and rubbing his hands together and start every board meeting with an evil laugh for all I care.

    The problem is the social impact. You have a major company that caters to teenagers saying "looking like this is cool, looking like that is uncool and we don't want you in our stores". In a country that's already plagued by all kinds of eating disorders and a body-image obsession, this attitude can be seen, at best, as praying on the sick, and at worst as actively making the problem worse for profit. In either cases it's completely unacceptable to have a company behaving like this. Capitalism is not a license to act in a socially irresponsible or damaging way for short-term profit.

    I agree with what you're saying, but I think, instead of focusing energy on making better advertising, we should be teaching kids that advertising is bullshit. Even if we made better ads, giving ads that legitimacy to affect how we feel is dangerous.

    I think that this is a subtle form of victim blaming. We shouldn't be looking to excuse preditation.
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Nox+Aeternum.gif
    Damn straight and I'm not giving up any of my crazy ground to some no talent hack.
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Jurg wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    This discussion also seems to miss an important aspect of the A&F controversy, at least to me. It's not simply that A&F have their vision of "cool" and only want to cater to that; that's no different from what you find in any high school. Nor that their CEO made comments that sound like they were inspired by the bad guy in Revenge of the Nerds II; he could go around dressed in black twirling his moustache and rubbing his hands together and start every board meeting with an evil laugh for all I care.

    The problem is the social impact. You have a major company that caters to teenagers saying "looking like this is cool, looking like that is uncool and we don't want you in our stores". In a country that's already plagued by all kinds of eating disorders and a body-image obsession, this attitude can be seen, at best, as praying on the sick, and at worst as actively making the problem worse for profit. In either cases it's completely unacceptable to have a company behaving like this. Capitalism is not a license to act in a socially irresponsible or damaging way for short-term profit.

    I agree with what you're saying, but I think, instead of focusing energy on making better advertising, we should be teaching kids that advertising is bullshit. Even if we made better ads, giving ads that legitimacy to affect how we feel is dangerous.

    I think that this is a subtle form of victim blaming. We shouldn't be looking to excuse preditation.

    How is attempting to create a brand via exclusivity predation? It's like the exact opposite, you are excluding people aka NOT having them as customers.


    If you are really looking at harm done to the population as a whole, I'd say all the vanity sizes are way worse. My GF hasn't gotten larger or smaller in the last 6 years, but she's went from being an M at most stores, to buying XS at some department stores. The difference in size in old medium(now XS) and new medium(old L/XL?), is probably about the same difference between a health weight and obese.

    You see the same thing in mensware with "Slim Fit", aka the old fit. And 'Regular fit', for those of us toting a keg around. I'm sure if someone looked at it those waist "inches" have been getting subtly larger as well.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    So have sizes changed in like the same brand over the years? I have noticed my pants vary considerably in size, I have a pair of size 40s thats smaller than a pair of 36s I also own
    override367 on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    20120407_BRC864.png

    http://www.economist.com/node/21552262
    Measurements vary by brand, but research by The Economist finds that the average British size-14 pair of women's trousers is more than four inches bigger at the waist today than they were in the 1970s (see chart), and over three inches wider at the hips. A size 14 today fits like a former size 18, and a size 10 fits like an old size 14.
    ....

    Such inflation mainly affects women's clothing, since most men's trousers are sized in inches rather than arbitrary units. But men are not immune. Studies in America and Britain have found that some brands of men's trousers labelled “waist 36 inches”, say, are in fact up to five inches bigger. Size inflation flatters customers, but the danger is that it encourages overweight people to dismiss health risks and reduces the incentive to diet. For the roughly three-fifths of adult Britons who are overweight, size really does matter.


    So are A&Fs W-Larges the size of another stores small because they are the size of a small? Or because other stores smalls are now the size of larges?

    e:

    here has an interesting explaination on why this is happening. http://www.vanitysizing.com/archive/interview-why-have-retailers-changed-clothing-sizes/
    Now, switching gears back to fiddling with sizes on the part of manufacturers, let’s talk about the size medium or size 10. The function of the size 10/M is really arcane, its value is not obvious to consumers because 10/M is a standard yardstick that manufacturers use to calculate costing and allocation (amount of fabric needed) for all the other sizes. Necessarily, the medium is the midpoint of the size range. So if you sell five sizes, the middle size is a M (or 10, same thing). You have two smaller sizes and two larger ones off to either side of it. When we lay out our fabric to cut it, the smaller sizes are paired with larger sizes so you don’t waste so much fabric. This means that for every large, you need a small to prevent waste. For every XS, you need an XL, mediums cancel each other out.

    This means that for costing purposes, the sale of mediums tells you how much fabric you need to buy and what it will cost.

    Now, suppose one day you discover that you’re not selling as many mediums anymore, you have more demand for larger sizes… your yardstick is out of whack now and you have a lot more waste because you have less demand for the smalls that take up space the larges leave behind in the fabric spread. With all these larges and not enough smalls selling, You don’t know how much fabric you need, not as readily as you once did. So what manufacturers do is grow that medium to be a little larger than it was. When you do this, that increase in larges falls back again so they will be evenly balanced by the smalls (and you’re selling more mediums).

    tinwhiskers on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    If the guy had said that the expanding waistline of the public was a health issue and A&F wasn't going to contribute to the problem by marketing misleading vanity sizes, no one would care or be upset.

    The issue is that he was just being a dick.

    Newsflash: Capitalist enterprise doesn't magically protect you from the ramifications of being a huge dick.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User regular
    Does anyone think this will actually hurt AFs image? They literally hire dudes to stand outside the stores wearing jeans and no shirt. Their catalog is known for being borderline potnographic. The music is so loud you can go dead walking past one. In short, it is a lifestyle brand, selling the image of "popular kids" and I don't see that market drying up anytime soon.


    "There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
    SKFM annoys me the most on this board.
  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning Registered User regular
    Does anyone think this will actually hurt AFs image? They literally hire dudes to stand outside the stores wearing jeans and no shirt. Their catalog is known for being borderline potnographic. The music is so loud you can go dead walking past one. In short, it is a lifestyle brand, selling the image of "popular kids" and I don't see that market drying up anytime soon.

    there's a universe of difference between the image of the the "cool kids" and the image of "people who think of themselves as the cool kids". a&f doesn't want to be associated with the latter. it's never cool to be "inauthentic" or to be seen to be trying too hard.
    "All models are wrong; some models are useful."
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    And I think part of the Fitch The Homeless campaign is that he is readjusting the brand by giving the clothing to homeless people which do not fit into the CEOs standard of beauty/elitism, but it makes me want to throw up in my mouth because I think he chose homeless people not because of their need but because of their general appearance and class status.

    Pretty much, yeah.

    But on the plus side, he's literally clothing the homeless. He's doing it for all the wrong reasons, but it is having a small positive impact. Doesn't that count for something?

    No it doesn't. He is exploiting the Homeless for his own needs. Do you think this sort of charity is needed? I would say no it isn't. What he could have done was to contribute in some meaningful way that eliminated their being on the streets.

    Instead he choose to give the man a fish instead of teaching him how to fish.

    You're about as well versed on the problems facing the homeless as you are on capitalism.
  • DeebaserDeebaser Way out in the water See it swimmin'?Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The interview was years ago...

    People keep saying this, and its partially true... but the only reason the interview resurfaced is because the company very recently reaffirmed their position that fatties can't wear their clothing because fat people aren't cool.
    ."

    Link?
    My understanding is that some chucklefuck at Business Insider walked into an Abercrombie and noticed a lack of Women's XL. They then contacted a "business analyst" not associated with the company who provided a "no fatty's" quote and dredged up the ancient interview. The business Insider article was then place died by douchebag website elite daily (that some people in chat inexplicably read) and the whole thing went viral.

    What recent thing has The company or CEO said about their Douchey lifestyle branding?
    #FreeThan
    #FreeScheck
    #FreeSKFM
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    I am shocked that the AF CEO made a statement playing up how 'cool' and exclusive his product is.

    I bet no one will buy it now.
    Quid wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    He's a jackass. Also, don't spend 'charity' money on expensive clothing.
    Seriously, you could buy one A&F shirt or a shirt, a meal, and god knows what else for the same price. Terrible idea.

    The guy actually got all the clothes from a thrift store so I doubt any of it was particularly expensive.

    Oh, good. When I read the OP I thought some well-meaning goose was funneling the money right back at the guy he was mad at.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    I mean don't get me wrong, he probably could have bought more since I'm sure the thrift store is aware that A&F can sell for a bit more.

    But his primary goal was to rag on A&F. Which is fine. That his primary goal could also help the homeless is also a good thing.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Does anyone think this will actually hurt AFs image? They literally hire dudes to stand outside the stores wearing jeans and no shirt. Their catalog is known for being borderline pornographic. The music is so loud you can go dead walking past one. In short, it is a lifestyle brand, selling the image of "popular kids" and I don't see that market drying up anytime soon.

    My understanding is actually that they've been in secular decline for awhile now as the 'cool kids' have fled them for being old, and have only manged to buoy themselves up by creating new shell brands on the same cheap cloth 2 stores down. H&M is eating their lunch. Along with most other fast fashion retailers.
    tea-1.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    20120407_BRC864.png

    http://www.economist.com/node/21552262
    Measurements vary by brand, but research by The Economist finds that the average British size-14 pair of women's trousers is more than four inches bigger at the waist today than they were in the 1970s (see chart), and over three inches wider at the hips. A size 14 today fits like a former size 18, and a size 10 fits like an old size 14.
    ....

    Such inflation mainly affects women's clothing, since most men's trousers are sized in inches rather than arbitrary units. But men are not immune. Studies in America and Britain have found that some brands of men's trousers labelled “waist 36 inches”, say, are in fact up to five inches bigger. Size inflation flatters customers, but the danger is that it encourages overweight people to dismiss health risks and reduces the incentive to diet. For the roughly three-fifths of adult Britons who are overweight, size really does matter.


    So are A&Fs W-Larges the size of another stores small because they are the size of a small? Or because other stores smalls are now the size of larges?

    e:

    here has an interesting explaination on why this is happening. http://www.vanitysizing.com/archive/interview-why-have-retailers-changed-clothing-sizes/
    Now, switching gears back to fiddling with sizes on the part of manufacturers, let’s talk about the size medium or size 10. The function of the size 10/M is really arcane, its value is not obvious to consumers because 10/M is a standard yardstick that manufacturers use to calculate costing and allocation (amount of fabric needed) for all the other sizes. Necessarily, the medium is the midpoint of the size range. So if you sell five sizes, the middle size is a M (or 10, same thing). You have two smaller sizes and two larger ones off to either side of it. When we lay out our fabric to cut it, the smaller sizes are paired with larger sizes so you don’t waste so much fabric. This means that for every large, you need a small to prevent waste. For every XS, you need an XL, mediums cancel each other out.

    This means that for costing purposes, the sale of mediums tells you how much fabric you need to buy and what it will cost.

    Now, suppose one day you discover that you’re not selling as many mediums anymore, you have more demand for larger sizes… your yardstick is out of whack now and you have a lot more waste because you have less demand for the smalls that take up space the larges leave behind in the fabric spread. With all these larges and not enough smalls selling, You don’t know how much fabric you need, not as readily as you once did. So what manufacturers do is grow that medium to be a little larger than it was. When you do this, that increase in larges falls back again so they will be evenly balanced by the smalls (and you’re selling more mediums).

    Which is why clothing should be standardized to be labelled by in/cm instead of letters/random number groups. The sizing will still be different based on the model and where the proposed waist line/gather/boning/whatever is meant to sit, but you can at least have an idea of what they're talking about before putting the damn thing on. Also, I'd be able to buy my girlfriend something with at least a little bit of confidence.
    tea-1.jpg
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    As someone who works in fashion, I find this slightly hilarious. You know what sort of clothing is the most common? Freaking XLs. For the love of Odin, 90% of the market is flooded with that stuff. They really had to make a fuss over one of the few places that don't?

    In the end, fashion is generally about image and branding, with a big helping of exclusivity (perceived or real). What exactly do you think the difference is between a $1700 Prada pump and a $298 Cole Haan pump, technically speaking? It's not comfort or quality, that's for damn certain. ItI don't find it surprising A&F is sticking to their status quo here. They have the image that goes with their brand, and that's just about the only thing they have. They are replaceable in literally every other aspect.

    But yeah. They should drop all that. Would totally go well for them.
  • syndalissyndalis Aballah Can Tah Advancing the Human ConditionRegistered User regular
    As someone who works in fashion, I find this slightly hilarious. You know what sort of clothing is the most common? Freaking XLs. For the love of Odin, 90% of the market is flooded with that stuff. They really had to make a fuss over one of the few places that don't?

    In the end, fashion is generally about image and branding, with a big helping of exclusivity (perceived or real). What exactly do you think the difference is between a $1700 Prada pump and a $298 Cole Haan pump, technically speaking? It's not comfort or quality, that's for damn certain. ItI don't find it surprising A&F is sticking to their status quo here. They have the image that goes with their brand, and that's just about the only thing they have. They are replaceable in literally every other aspect.

    But yeah. They should drop all that. Would totally go well for them.
    I don't think I or anyone else here in the forum at least is asking them to make stuff they don't want to make, and if they are they should reconsider that argument.

    It is more in how they present their reasons for not making plus sized clothing. When you target teenagers and you hang your marketing on the rather dangerous hook of body image issues, you are in some part playing into the massive anorexia / bulimia / body image issues in this country. And that is bullshit.

    H&M manages to sell skinny clothes to skinny people without causing this kind of upset or rage.
    meat.jpg
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Does anyone think this will actually hurt AFs image? They literally hire dudes to stand outside the stores wearing jeans and no shirt. Their catalog is known for being borderline pornographic. The music is so loud you can go dead walking past one. In short, it is a lifestyle brand, selling the image of "popular kids" and I don't see that market drying up anytime soon.

    My understanding is actually that they've been in secular decline for awhile now as the 'cool kids' have fled them for being old, and have only manged to buoy themselves up by creating new shell brands on the same cheap cloth 2 stores down. H&M is eating their lunch. Along with most other fast fashion retailers.

    A&F was cool back when I was in school, and I've still got a couple pairs of cargo shorts that have held out extremely well after a decade - decade and a half. Of course, a $70 pair of shorts damn well better last for a while.

    I'm pretty sure it's hard to be the 'cool thing' appealing to today's teens when dads in their mid-30's stopped wearing most of their A&F branded stuff years ago because they didn't want to look stupid. I'm pretty sure that if I had a teenager, just telling them 'that's what I thought was cool when I was in school' would keep them from ever buying a $45 t-shirt there.

    And man that store fucking stinks. Just walking by it the last time I went to the mall made me want to throw up. As expensive as they are, their cologne smells like ass + skunk.

    /get off my lawn
    steam_sig.png
  • wahaywahay Your Handicapped Hero Cincinnati, USARegistered User regular
    I respect transparency, even when that happens to include A&F-type opinions.
    "Sorry ladies, I give my everything to Sallie Mae."
    My Artist Corner Thread
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    As someone who works in fashion, I find this slightly hilarious. You know what sort of clothing is the most common? Freaking XLs. For the love of Odin, 90% of the market is flooded with that stuff. They really had to make a fuss over one of the few places that don't?

    In the end, fashion is generally about image and branding, with a big helping of exclusivity (perceived or real). What exactly do you think the difference is between a $1700 Prada pump and a $298 Cole Haan pump, technically speaking? It's not comfort or quality, that's for damn certain. ItI don't find it surprising A&F is sticking to their status quo here. They have the image that goes with their brand, and that's just about the only thing they have. They are replaceable in literally every other aspect.

    But yeah. They should drop all that. Would totally go well for them.
    I don't think I or anyone else here in the forum at least is asking them to make stuff they don't want to make, and if they are they should reconsider that argument.

    It is more in how they present their reasons for not making plus sized clothing. When you target teenagers and you hang your marketing on the rather dangerous hook of body image issues, you are in some part playing into the massive anorexia / bulimia / body image issues in this country. And that is bullshit.

    H&M manages to sell skinny clothes to skinny people without causing this kind of upset or rage.

    You do remember the Lagerfield incident, right?
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Nox+Aeternum.gif
    Damn straight and I'm not giving up any of my crazy ground to some no talent hack.
  • LoveIsUnityLoveIsUnity Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Does anyone think this will actually hurt AFs image? They literally hire dudes to stand outside the stores wearing jeans and no shirt. Their catalog is known for being borderline pornographic. The music is so loud you can go dead walking past one. In short, it is a lifestyle brand, selling the image of "popular kids" and I don't see that market drying up anytime soon.

    My understanding is actually that they've been in secular decline for awhile now as the 'cool kids' have fled them for being old, and have only manged to buoy themselves up by creating new shell brands on the same cheap cloth 2 stores down. H&M is eating their lunch. Along with most other fast fashion retailers.

    A&F was cool back when I was in school, and I've still got a couple pairs of cargo shorts that have held out extremely well after a decade - decade and a half. Of course, a $70 pair of shorts damn well better last for a while.

    I'm pretty sure it's hard to be the 'cool thing' appealing to today's teens when dads in their mid-30's stopped wearing most of their A&F branded stuff years ago because they didn't want to look stupid. I'm pretty sure that if I had a teenager, just telling them 'that's what I thought was cool when I was in school' would keep them from ever buying a $45 t-shirt there.

    And man that store fucking stinks. Just walking by it the last time I went to the mall made me want to throw up. As expensive as they are, their cologne smells like ass + skunk.

    /get off my lawn

    Yeah, regardless of how I feel about their clothes, A&F is a terrible store. I have a friend who is really tiny and shops there, and I will generally go in with her and tell her how stuff looks, but at some point the cologne starts to get to me, and I have to get some fresh air for a while. One time, while I was out front attempting to clear my sinuses, a group of middle aged women started touching the shirtless model out front who proceeded to freak out. It only took about three seconds for security guards to grab them and get them away. I asked the model, and apparently it's pretty common.

    Also, I'm a bit surprised by the longevity that A&F has already experienced. I remember their clothes being popular when I was in high school about 15 years ago.
    sig.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.