The CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch has made headlines and caused worldwide controversy with his comments regarding people who do (and more importantly, don’t) fit his brand ethos. In 2006, CEO Mike Jeffries noted “We go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive, all-American kid 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.” This inflammatory statement, although made seven years ago, is still making waves. In an era when how you look, and perhaps more accurately, how skinny you are, is paramount, is it up to people like Jeffries to make a difference, or is it his job to merely sell clothes?
Although Jeffries has backtracked on his remark, claiming his words were taken out of context, Abercrombie and Fitch still refuses to sell women’s clothes in sizes XL and XXL- although the equivalent does exist in the men’s sizes. A&F caters to the young, teenage market. It is usually these years when self-consciousness about every aspect of your body is at is most prevalent- should one of the leading retailers really be adding to any insecurities, by not stocking every size? During a recent shopping trip to Gilly Hicks, Abercrombie’s sister brand, this HCX writer found the only size of knickers being sold were a teeny XS, which certainly would have only fit the most miniscule of customers. For those lacking in self- confidence, not being able to squeeze into the minute scrap of lace masquerading as a pair of pants would have certainly been a kick in the teeth. The amount of people actually able to fit into these sizes must be as small as the items of clothing themselves, vastly reducing the number of possible customers, which begs the question, is the image of a company more important than profit? Last year, Abercrombie and Fitch had a net profit of $117.6 million, which is $107 million less than the yearly intake of high street chain New, who sell a popular ‘Plus Sized’ range, as well as the more ‘A&F’ esque sizes.
Brand image is undoubtedly imperative for Abercrombie and Fitch. You only have to walk into one of their nightclub styled stores to understand that. The dark lighting, the pumping music and multitude of beautiful, half naked people all indicate that this isn’t your usual clothes shop. The people who work in these teenage meccas are just as much part of the trademark of Abercrombie as the clothes. Topless men stand outside the shops’ doors for customers to take photographs with and shop assistants have a strict dress code to comply with, including instructions about how to fold the cuffs of your jeans and how to properly scrunch your sleeves. It’s understandable; the gorgeous people who work at their shops are as much of an advertisement as the sepia toned billboards plastered all over the walls. However, when employees are discriminated against because of a disability, it might be time for a rethink. In 2009, a law student working for Abercrombie and Fitch successfully sued the company for relegating her to the back room because, due to a prosthetic arm, she didn’t meet their ‘Look Policy’. Abercrombie didn’t seem to learn their lesson; two years later, they were sued once more for discriminating against an employee who was fired because she wore a hijab to work. It seems the company’s marginalisation of anyone who is not ‘cool’ extends further than their clothing sizes.
CEO Mike Jeffries completely rebranded the company after their bankruptcy in 1988. At the time, he claimed he wanted Abercrombie and Fitch to ‘sizzle with sex’. This he has achieved; you only have to glance at the models on A&F’s website to see that. The rejuvenation of the company is in many ways a success story. Abercrombie and Fitch now has two other outshoots- Hollister and Gilly Hicks, and the company is economically hugely fruitful. It is perhaps now its ‘exclusionary’ ethos which needs a rebranding. Holl
Image Credits: madmikesamerica.com