Post # 197
@Atalanta: I agree with you.
(Apologies if someone’s made this point, I didn’t read all the replies)
1. A&F have a well established customer base. By virtue of their sizing and marketing this is clearly designed to be exclusive, rather than inclusive.
2. By publicly stating the type of customer he wants, the CEO has reinforced the brand value that ‘only certain people are good enough to shop at A&F and wear their clothes’
3. Is this new? No. Did everyone know this? Of course. BUT…
4. A&F is financially struggling. They need to sell more. Rather than ‘dilute’ the brand by making it more inclusive they have sought to reinforce the exclusivity point in the hope of gaining more repeat business from existing customers and attracting new customers who will fit into their ideal type.
5. Long story short, the people who care about being good enough to wear A&F is who this is aimed at, not those who were never the target in the first place.
Post # 198
@peachacid: I think 5-7-9 is still around.
Post # 199
@BrooklynWife: “They had a “look book” on how to wear the clothes, we were told to only help “pretty people” on the floor, and “keep an eye on minorities” when they came in the store. There were posters in the back spelling this out, and incentives if you recruited a hot person to work there.”
OMG that’s terrible.
I never shopped there even though in HS I was a size 0, their clothes are just pretty boring to me and always have been. I never liked those name brand stores period and I still don’t shop at any of them.
Now my son is coming close to pre teen years and he’s tall and thin and probably the type they want to shop there. I’ll be buying his clothes elsewhere thanks to these comments he made and how they treat their staff and people who aren’t model worthy. It’s sick.
They may not care about losing my business since I never shopped there to begin with but they might care about losing my sons business since he’s their ‘target consumer’. I’m raising my son to see bullying is hate and hate is wrong. I’m going to go ahead and guess I’m not the only mom who won’t be wasting money there so they hurt themselves.
Post # 200
@peachacid: See my other post # 189. I didn’t know.
Post # 202
Post # 203
I was just going to post this here. It’s a pretty interesting idea.
Post # 204
lol Same here.
I especially like #FitchTheHomeless
Post # 205
Clever ground roots protest method…but isn’t this kind of disrespectful to the homeless?
Post # 206
@peachacid: I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the whole “real women dollars” thing is in responce to how plus-sized women are treated and the names they’re called — whales, walruses, etc. As a group, plus-sized women are rarely treated as “women.” They’re treated as medical problems, as anti-pin-ups, as invisible people. So the “real women” part of it is perhaps not to say that skinny women aren’t women. Skinny women are glorified culturally as the feminine image, the sexual ideal, the default, normative image throughout Western media. Plus sized women are invisible. So to underscore that they’re also women, also real, also visible, is part of Lane Bryant’s marketing tool to convince plus sized women that they can shop there. Which is not to excuse how the whole “real women have curves” thing has been used to hurt thin women. But frankly, thin women’s experiences in the marketplace and the media are vastly different than plus-sized women, and while individual thin women have difficulties and are treated badly, on the whole, thin women remain visible and catered to, where plus-sized women frequently are not. Hence the marketing tool of “realness.”
Post # 207
@cooperlove: That is funny. I would donate but don’t own any 😛
Post # 208
@Stoich: I don’t think anyone can argue that homeless people fit into the “look” the CEO wanted, so no.