Abercrombie and Fitch does not want their brand on fat people

[Chuck S]

If that were simply the case, it would be fine.

However, the CEO said they only want "cool kids wearing their clothes. That's why they do not sell any women's sizes above a large". However, they do carry XL and XXL men's clothing.

They are saying that anyone who's female and wears a size larger than a 10 is not worth/desirable/"cool". And, that is what people are taking issue with.

Not that they cater to certain sizes, but what Mike Jeffries said.

Perhaps, but it is also pretty sad if women or teens base their opinions of self worth and self image on a retailer's opinion. The retailer is marketing their opinion of "cool" as being something very important.

It isn't important at all. A & F's opinion of "cool" is just about as relevant to the world as J C Penney's opinion of "Hip" or Wal-mart's opinion of "Fashionable."

It is what they want to sell you, just be smart enough and confident enough not to buy into it. Life will be much happier for you.

 

[usd2bmd]

If the comments by this CEO didn't hurt the company 7 years ago when he made them they won't now. I have a feeling the people offended by them aren't their target market anyway so they don't care if they shop there or not. Heck, they explicitly told them not to shop there.

They may not be their "Target Market" but they are the ones who buy the clothes for the target market. It was in poor taste and it's offensive.

Because visible underwear are inappropriate at any stage. My DD has some not-quite-thong but still rather skimpy underwear as well as some boy shorts to wear under certain items that are prone to underwear showing through (ie white baseball pants). Regular underwear in her baseball uniform frankly calls attention to her rear end, and I don't think there's a such thing as too young to teach kids how to avoid certain universally bad looks like that one.

My daughter wears compression shorts under her uniforms when playing sports.

 

[okeydokey]

I think the CEO is stupid to anger the folks who hold the purse strings. Not many teens can afford to buy a lot of $29 thin crappy t-shirts by themselves.

 

[LiveYourLife]

This stance isn't anything new for them though.

I *think* she meant that there would be some sort of back-peddling-esque type statement released.

However, I agree with you, A&F has had this marketing mind-set for quite some time. It makes me wonder on the timing of it all. Shock value to increase earnings? You know what they say "bad press is better than no press".

Luckily, no one that I buy gifts for (nieces/nephews) care for A&F clothes. Like someone said upthread, they keep putting out the same clothes as they did 10 years ago.

 

[Colleen27]

Perhaps, but it is also pretty sad if women or teens base their opinions of self worth and self image on a retailer's opinion. The retailer is marketing their opinion of "cool" as being something very important.

It isn't important at all. A & F's opinion of "cool" is just about as relevant to the world as J C Penney's opinion of "Hip" or Wal-mart's opinion of "Fashionable."

It is what they want to sell you, just be smart enough and confident enough not to buy into it. Life will be much happier for you.

It is easy for us all to say that as adults, but keep in mind who the target audience for this message is - tween and young teen girls who for the most part don't yet have the maturity to put the ridiculous body image messages they're getting in their proper place. Kids that age are very conscious of peer opinions, and it is unconscionable that anyone would think it is acceptable to build a brand on encouraging the meanness and exclusionary crap that goes on among kids that age.

 

[MrsPete]

Anyone remember shopping at the 3-5-7 store in the 80s?
They carried three sizes: 3, 5 and 7.

I do remember that girls wanted to shop there, and it was something of a status symbol to have a shopping bag with the 3-5-7 logo to carry your gym clothes or clothes for an overnight.

Remember, too, the saying: No publicity is bad publicity.
For every person who says, "How offensive! I will never spend a penny in that store!", you could find someone else -- probably a teenager -- who'd think, "Oooh, exclusive! I want that!"

 

[penn19]

I *think* she meant that there would be some sort of back-peddling-esque type statement released.

However, I agree with you, A&F has had this marketing mind-set for quite some time. It makes me wonder on the timing of it all. Shock value to increase earnings? You know what they say "bad press is better than no press".

Luckily, no one that I buy gifts for (nieces/nephews) care for A&F clothes. Like someone said upthread, they keep putting out the same clothes as they did 10 years ago.

The resurrection of the CEO quote isn't from Abercrombie. Someone wrote a book with that quote in it. The author is promoting the book and so the excerpt is getting press.

 

[lisaviolet]

I haven't read all of the posts or the article. I started to get really mad at A&F.

Then I thought "wait, it's a business not a government agency. They have the right to target whoever they want." Is Catherine's exclusionary because they don't carry clothes for smaller women? Is Ferrari exclusionary because only the rich can buy them? Yep. But no one is ranting against them. The only difference is they aren't coming right our and saying it. Every free market business has a choice to market and provide products to whomever they choose. A&F just made the mistake of saying it publicly and obesity is a very sensitive topic.

Hmmm. But it's not all about obesity or lack of health or anything.

The fact of the matter is that there are some girls that have a body type that God gave them that would never fit some of these stores. They can be fit and athletic as well. And nope - never fitting.

So that's that. Can't change bones. And now they are being told they are not cool either. To top it all off. At a young impressionable age. So can't get clothes where their friends go because they were born with a body type. Can a business do whatever they want in this area? Of course they can - but we can show it's not right.

And the irony is that it is that exact body type that often becomes fat/overweight at a younger age because why bother when your exact body will never be *cool*/excepted as just another body type. It's so ridiculous. Or more eating disorders.


And comparing it to a plus size clothing store, and their exclusion, is ridiculous as well. Why do they even exist? Not to exclude. They exist so that larger people have actual clothes to put on their bodies. Smaller people have the options already.

 

[flowerboy]

Oddly enough more people die and are sick from obesity than from anorexia and body image. I love their sweats. Oddly enough I starting wearing them all the time while I was pregnant with a fat growing belly. great quality, warm, comfortable lasts for years. In fact lost 10 pounds and used an old abercrombie sweater as motivation. I know shallow shallow, but it worked for me.

 

[lisaviolet]

Oddly enough more people die and are sick from obesity than from anorexia and body image. I love their sweats. Oddly enough I starting wearing them all the time while I was pregnant with a fat growing belly. great quality, warm, comfortable lasts for years. In fact lost 10 pounds and used an old abercrombie sweater as motivation. I know shallow shallow, but it worked for me.

But it's not JUST shallow flowerboy that's the issue. (And once again this is not all about obesity so I won't even touch the other comment.) Actually, there's nothing wrong with using clothing as a motivation to get where one wants to get - if that's a healthy point for one's body. T

Here's the issue:

It's not seeing that, besides being lean (good for you - no sarcasm - and quite possibly with hard work/dedication), you were also born with a specific body type too. Luck of the draw on that for you.



_______________________

I doubt Beyonce and Jennifer Lopez and Pink, despite both being totally fit and healthy bodies, could fit into their clothes.

I don't shop there - I'm simply going from other posts about sizing.

Wouldn't it be great if any of these three came out with some kind of comment about what's *cool*.

 

[Sgt Mickey]

Anyone remember shopping at the 3-5-7 store in the 80s?
They carried three sizes: 3, 5 and 7.

I do remember that girls wanted to shop there, and it was something of a status symbol to have a shopping bag with the 3-5-7 logo to carry your gym clothes or clothes for an overnight.

Remember, too, the saying: No publicity is bad publicity.
For every person who says, "How offensive! I will never spend a penny in that store!", you could find someone else -- probably a teenager -- who'd think, "Oooh, exclusive! I want that!"

I remember shopping there. I bought my prom dress there. I don't remember keeping the bag though I didn't know to care

 

[elaine amj]

As an aside, I am SO GRATEFUL when I find a girls' swimsuit with a padded top. My tween only fits in girls' sizes but needs more coverage on top than a non padded suit can provide. There is an early stage of breast development where coverage is especially critical to "smooth" things over. Sorry if TMI!

sorry, I should have said push up bikini top. Like you, I have now problem with some discreet pads to ensure proper coverage. Heck, I need them myself. What offended me was the sexualized push up and padding meant to make young girls look "bigger". UGH!

Thankfully my tween DD is very modest and even refused to wear a perfectly decent swimsuit I bought her because it felt a little low. I made her wear it once because she had nothing else but she was so uncomfortable I packed it away and bought her a new one.

 

[MarineVet]

Anyone remember shopping at the 3-5-7 store in the 80s?
They carried three sizes: 3, 5 and 7.

I do remember that girls wanted to shop there, and it was something of a status symbol to have a shopping bag with the 3-5-7 logo to carry your gym clothes or clothes for an overnight.

Remember, too, the saying: No publicity is bad publicity.
For every person who says, "How offensive! I will never spend a penny in that store!", you could find someone else -- probably a teenager -- who'd think, "Oooh, exclusive! I want that!"

That came along after I was too old and heavy for their styles. Isn't it funny though, while these sizes were popular enough to drive an entire clothing store chain, they are now considered too big? I do remember a large size clothing store named Catherine's Stout Shop. Hows that for a enticing store name? They are now known simply as Catherine's. Stout used to be a polite word for fat. What would be a good name for a store with only the smallest sizes available?

 

[Jey12]

Perhaps, but it is also pretty sad if women or teens base their opinions of self worth and self image on a retailer's opinion. The retailer is marketing their opinion of "cool" as being something very important.

It isn't important at all. A & F's opinion of "cool" is just about as relevant to the world as J C Penney's opinion of "Hip" or Wal-mart's opinion of "Fashionable."

It is what they want to sell you, just be smart enough and confident enough not to buy into it. Life will be much happier for you.

But their target audience isn't normally known for their ability to make smart decisions, especially ones that relate to self worth. Tweens and teens put a lot of value in peer influence and mentally they are not able to understand that the entire world is not looking at them at all times. Children of these ages really do believe they are on a stage of some sort and they are being looked at and judged for everything they do. Many kids this age try to wear the same brands and styles as the peers they deem to be cool. So the store directly telling them you are not cool enough to shop here only hurts their self image more. Walmart is not normally a store teens strive to copy the style of so I am not seeing where that is comparable. If you look at the current happenings with JC Penney you will see what happens with a CEO who decides what is cool vs. what the consumers want.

Again, and it's been stated several times in different ways throughout the thread. The problem is not in the lack of upper sizes of clothing for females in the store. It is the message that the CEO is sending to children. Are you ok with someone telling your child, their friends, nieces, nephews or anyone between the ages of 9 and 15 that you care about, that they are not cool, they are not good enough to buy certain clothing items? As a parent it is hard enough to find the line between telling your child they are amazing and teaching them everyone is not always a winner in life. I don't need, nor like, a CEO of a store complicating things more with ignorant statements regarding cool crowds.

Maybe they should rename the store Heathers? For those of you who understand the reference, you'll see I'm showing my age.

 

[lauris87]

Just chiming in with my two cents...
The abercrombie article that is buzzing the internet is repulsive to me. How a CEO can say those things, and get away with it, makes me so angry! Who does he think he is??? The funny thing is... I looked up a picture of him... and he is SCARY looking! Kind of ironic when all he wants is "thin and beautiful" to shop at his stores, but he himself is not the stereotypical "beautiful" by any means.... I wonder if he knows this... lol...
And... it makes me even more sad that kids (and their parents who are buying them the clothes!) still flock to this store!
This company's mantra is so SHALLOW that it's disgusting...
What a great message to send to kids "you are not worth anything unless you are a size 00 to size 10".... ugh....
I guess it comforts me to know that I don't see kids wearing much of abercrombie clothes any more... and I work at a high school, so I see teenager's clothes every day... so... let's hope they go out of business.... these kids shouldn't be spending $60 on a shirt anyways... that's just plain ridiculous...
...

 

[nathalee81]

I am so glad that I was a teen during the grunge phase in fashion history.

We wore jeans and flannel shirts. We were comfortable. I loved my "mom" jeans (which, of course, were just jeans at that time). You know the jeans that covered your butt-ah, good times.

I can't stand Abercrombie and Fitch. It is loud and smells nasty...and, yes, I am OLD. Also, it always so dark when I look in the store, what is the point of that? So, no one will be able to read the outrageous price tags on the clothes?

This thread reminds me of an old 30 rock episode where someone suggests that Liz Lemon go to Abercrombie and she puts her hands over her ears and says "It's so loud in there!"

 

[Sabeking]

That's funny about Liz Claiborne, because, in my experience, her clothes now are so vanity-sized.

I normally wear a size 8 (w/ my height, I'm currently trying to lose), & her 6's fit me & are sometimes too big.

You mean I'm not really a size 10 ??

 

[Colleen27]

Anyone remember shopping at the 3-5-7 store in the 80s?
They carried three sizes: 3, 5 and 7.

I do remember that girls wanted to shop there, and it was something of a status symbol to have a shopping bag with the 3-5-7 logo to carry your gym clothes or clothes for an overnight.

Remember, too, the saying: No publicity is bad publicity.
For every person who says, "How offensive! I will never spend a penny in that store!", you could find someone else -- probably a teenager -- who'd think, "Oooh, exclusive! I want that!"

It was 5-7-9. They're still around, and their 9s are bigger than anything that Abercrombie sells. And I'm not a fan of them either. Even when I could wear size 7 jeans I couldn't shop there because my chest hasn't been the "cute A cup" they market to since I was 12 years old. That was THE "in" shop for prom/homecoming when I was a teen and I felt like a cow in my dresses from Sears because I was the only one of my friends "too fat" to shop there.

I agree with your second paragraph, though. And that's another aspect of why it rubs me the wrong way, because the whole concept of exclusive marketing is sure to appeal to the "mean girl" element in middle school. Adults shouldn't be encouraging kids to engage in that sort of thing, much less modeling it themselves.

 

[mhsjax]

Seriously? While I wouldn't suggest that a child wear red underwear under white pants, I also wouldn't worry about panty lines in 5th grade! It's a little too "I see London! I see France!" for me.

I agree with Colleen. Panty line are inappropriate and ugly at any age. Why is it so wrong for a young girl to wear a thong. my DD got several pairs of Victoria Secret thongs at the ripe old age of 12. Some thing she just prefers to wear them. It is her body and her underwear is her choice, I could care less what type she wears and long as I don't see lines.

For you it is a little too much, for others it isn't.

 

[rigs32]

Why even bother with a thong? It doesn't cover the tush. The lady bits aren't completely covered. Why not just go without?