Fitch Please

What’s wrong with exclusion on demand?

Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries. stated that “We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends,” Salon.com in 2006

His shameless admittance to his target market is received negatively. But if an absolute  free market approach is taken then his declaration should not be considered offensive.

Elitism is what drives brands. One does not simply buy clothing but buy into the cultural assertions. One  ascribes to the lifestyle. One buys labels of certain social, cultural hegemony. One ascertains their “standing on their hierarchies.

Jeffries, indirectly ascertains that his brand offers exclusivity.

The recent attempts by Greg Karber to distribute Abercrombie clothing to the homeless in an attempt to “damage” the exclusivity is poorly executed. It succumbs to the same hierachies that it purportedly seeks to destroy.

Mr Karber’s attempt is ineffective, not only because the profits of Abercrombie remain unaffected but because it insinuates that if Abercrombie is worn by homeless people, it would damage brand exclusivity.

Whilst this is a noble idea, it’s execution is terrible as it dehumanises the homeless people. They are shown to be mere pawns of political exchange between the aspiring middle class and those that set the criteria.

Read more about the Abercrombie and Fitch debacle here.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/fashion/man-mission-clothe-homeless-abercrombie-article-1.1344587