Hello-Hello, we have hit the middle of the week, the snow is melting (thank you Mother Nature), the sun is shining here in the Corner Condo at the Prepatorium and we’re having a blast with the holiday orders pouring in; in other words, it doesn’t get much better than this.
Frequent readers may recall that in this space over the years we have whined relentlessly occasionally articulated our distaste for Abercrombie and Fitch, one of our Original AntiPreps. It’s not just because when we were growing up the company was more like a blend of Orvis/Cabela’s/Brooks Brothers, and we miss that. (Although I’m sure it relates.) A spot of background for those unfamiliar with the brand’s history, via Wikipedia.
“…the original Abercrombie & Fitch was an elite outfitter of sporting and excursion goods, particularly noted for its expensive shotguns, fishing rods, and tents.”
It’s really more about the brand’s tasteless marketing. Remember when they were selling push-up bikini tops for the 8-14 age group?
Abercrombie & Fitch via the Daily Mail
Or those thongs they sold in 2002, also in Girls sizing? Because you wanted your 8-year-old in a thong that says “Eye Candy,” among other things.
The Dominican Star
Abercrombies’ response to the criticism?
“The underwear for young girls was created with the intent to be lighthearted and cute,” Abercrombie said in a statement. “Any misrepresentation of that is purely in the eye of the beholder.
Silly me, I should have known it was my fault. Apparently I misunderstood, they really didn’t mean to sell the thongs to 7-year-olds, it was meant for a much older age group: 10-year-olds. That word came via the San Francisco Chronicle/SF Gate:
“It’s not appropriate for a 7 year old, but it is appropriate for a 10 year old,” said spokesman Hampton Carney. “Once you get about 10, you start to care about your underwear, and you start to care about your clothes.”
Then there are the ads: the company’s salacious approach has been beyond vulgar.
Abercrombie & Fitch
That same “sex sells” approach applies to store openings.
Abercrombie and Fitch Facebook
But the company is struggling. More from the Wall Street Journal:
….the company’s unwavering support for its preppy polo shirt and denim aesthetic is worrying analysts and investors.
This story includes the phrase that pays:
Getting new merchandise to the floor more quickly is a key part of Abercrombie’s strategic plan. But speed may not be enough unless it does more to overhaul a tired, preppy look, says Richard Jaffe, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus.
The “old Abercrombie” could have been deemed ‘preppy,’ while the existing company couldn’t be more removed from that descriptor. It hasn’t been for decades. That’s how its been perceived though, so nothing could be more wonderful than Abercrombie veering away from its hypothetically-but-not-really-preppy merchandise, like these tees.
Abercrombie & Fitch
It’s not that I consider myself one of the last, true defenders of the prep moniker. Far from it. Most of our friends here at the blog know I am not all that rigid about what is or isn’t a brand with authentic prep credentials. It’s more that this is a company using sleaze to sell merchandise. They have marketed sexist, racist, and highly inappropriate apparel and accessories for years and years. Is the company’s underperformance this year attributable to outrage among shoppers? No. It’s a function of changing lifestyles and economic circumstances for those who were previously diehard Abercrombie customers.
Oh, one more thing. Remember the recent to-do about the company’s disdain for anyone wearing a Size Large and up? A refresher from the Daily News:
Chief Executive Mike Jeffries has stirred controversy in the past by suggesting the company’s clothes were made for “cool” and “attractive” kids and not for “fat” people.
And Salon.com’s story quoting Mr. Jeffries:
“That’s why we hire good-looking people in our stores. Because good-looking people attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don’t market to anyone other than that.A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.
As mentioned above, the retailer is struggling business that is much worse than expected. The effect that poor financial performance is having on Mr. Jeffries’s attitudes about ‘fat people’ is amazing. This week the retailer announced they will start selling ladies clothing in larger sizes by next spring.