Teens and twenty-somethings are Urban Outfitters’ target demographic, so it’s no surprise that many of us college students want Urban’s entire store in our closets. I have a hard time resisting their bohemian cred and hipster quirk, but if their outrageous prices weren’t enough of a turn off, Urban’s questionable morals have steered me away from supporting their business.
Koerner’s design is on the left, and Urban Outfitters’ is on the right.
First of all, Urban Outfitters rips off independent designers. In 2011, Urban found themselves at the center of a highly publicized design scandal when Stevie Koerner, a seller on Etsy, accused Urban of ripping off her original necklace design. It was hard to ignore the parallels between her work and Urban’s product, especially when Urban barely even tweaked the necklace’s name: Koerner’s necklace was called “I Heart New York” and Urban’s line was called “I Heart Destination Necklaces.” In a blog post, UO denied having plagiarized the necklace, but given the product’s staunch similarity to Koerner’s necklace and Urban’s already established reputation for ripping off designers, the public was skeptical, and rightfully so. This 2010 article in The Village Voice claims that Urban steals concepts from fashion designers who sell their products in the Brooklyn Flea Market, and this piece on Stylelist exposes another case of UO thievery.
They’ve marketed racist, homophobic, and sexist clothes. Does Urban mistake blatant ignorance for edginess? In the last ten years alone, Urban Outfitters has been under fire for a number of controversial clothes and products, including a Monopoly-like game called Ghettopoly, a shirt that read “Everyone Loves a Jewish Girl” surrounded by dollar signs, a pro-anorexia shirt with the phrase “Eat Less,” and a t-shirt with a six-pointed star eerily similar to the star Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany (above). While Urban responded to public outcry in each of these cases by taking these products off the market, the fact that the company was confident enough to market them in the first place is incredibly disconcerting. On UO’s Wikipedia page, you can find a comprehensive list of product controversies along with their respective sources.
Finally, they’re guilty of cultural appropriation. Unfortunately, the folks at Urban Outfitters don’t seem to understand that cultures can’t be trademarked or branded. Though UO isn’t the only company who capitalizes on the Navajo trend nowadays—you can find similar prints at stores like Target and Forever 21—Urban Outfitters stores are littered with cheap, imported “Native American-inspired” travesties. In 2012, The Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit against UO after Urban began to market the “Navajo Flask” and “Navajo Hipster Panty,” and since then, Urban has agreed to stop using the word “Navajo” but has continued to recycle the Navajo design. Not only are these products disrespectful to Navajo people, they reinforce white superiority by implying that white people are allowed to take Navajo culture for their own.
I wish I could still go into Urban and feel comfortable giving them my money. Nevertheless, I’m glad these issues are out in the open. It gives shoppers a chance to be conscious buyers and it also creates a platform to talk about social issues and corporate corruption (because, let’s be honest, UO isn’t the only morally problematic company out there). Will you shop at Urban despite these controversies?