I don't like to come on my blog and do much of anything but poke fun at life. . . particularly mine. But, every now and again, something comes along that really tweaks my melon and I feel morally obligated to address it. This morning is no exception. In fact, I'm hoping that you know me well enough that if any of you read this article, you immediately jumped to my blog and/or Facebook page to see if I had any commentary on the subject. So, here it is:
As a quick side note, I hate to even draw attention to this story in fear that it will draw added attention to the Abercrombie and Fitch brand. At the same time, there is enough terrifyingly awful commentary made in this bitter diatribe that I think it's important to address it - particularly when discussing a brand's perspective. If this was simply about a personal opinion of the CEO of A&F, I'd leave him to his opinions and let him believe as he may. However, when you take such a flawed perspective and make it your company mantra and, in a sense, refuse service to the masses because of said opinion, you've crossed a line.
In case you don't want to read the article (which is short and incredibly, awfully compelling - it's like watching a train wreck happen right in front of your eyes), the president of Abercrombie and Fitch has stated that they purposefully don't carry any sizes larger than a 'large' to keep fat girls from wearing his clothes; fat girls aren't popular or cool and would taint his brand target - popular and cool kids. He does cater to big boys however, because of course guys that wear these sizes are the athletic type and (clearly) popular.
If you have any sense of moral integrity, I'll excuse you for a minute while you throw up in your mouth. Go ahead. . . I'll wait.
Before I even address the moral ambiguity of these statements, I'd like to stick to a purely economic argument, something that I'm hoping will cross waist-size barriers and make sense to the masses.
The CEO states that brands that try to cater to everyone rather than a skinny, 28" waist are just "vanilla" and will eventually be obsolete. I completely agree with niche marketing - when you have a legitimate niche. Let's take a brand like Skull Candy, for example. They don't advertise to the masses - it would be a waste of money; their edgy product line doesn't typically appeal to the 40+ crowd. . . but they can. Even though an edgy brand like Skull Candy doesn't go out of their way to market outside of their niche audience (which is HUGE, by the way), they don't alienate others from buying their product. First bad move, A&F.
Second, the size of the niche. If I were on the A&F board and had any sense of the American woman, I'd know that the average pant size for women in this country is a 14 - that is two whole sizes larger than you even carry. Two pant sizes isn't close - it's not squeezable and extends way beyond the acceptable muffin top. We are talking not breathable, folks - crushed ovaries. For those at A&F who have trouble with math, let me explain something to you: an average basically means the middle. So, while about half of the people wear a pant size under size 14, about half wear over that. This basically means that you are alienating over 50% of your potential market by not making clothes that are slightly larger for basically the same cost (maybe a difference of pennies on the dollar. . . maybe). How does this make economic sense? If I walked into a meeting and said "I know how to appeal to 20% more of the population with no added hard cost on our goods," I would be made Queen for a Month.
I must profess that I don't work in clothing retail and have little knowledge about the A&F margins. BUT, I have never in my 31 years of living seen a store charge different prices for a size 10 pant vs a size 14, so I have to assume that the additional material cost has to be minuscule enough that no company EVER has though to mark up the larger sizes.
I'm not being irrational here - I'm not saying that A&F needs to delve into the plus-sized clothing model as clearly, it's a niche of its own and does carry significantly more material cost (I'm assuming that's the case anyway otherwise why in the heck am I paying so much for a pair of pants?). I am, however, asking who is looking at this model and thinking it's a good idea?
Lastly, I can see the point about how targeting the masses makes you "vanilla". Hey A&F, I double-dog-dare you to take you earnings over the last six quarters and sit across the table from Wal-Mart and Target and call them "vanilla". Side note: if you are thinking this isn't a fair comparison because of the additional product selection, I say 'fine', just compare your profits to those in the clothing departments only. However, I say that this even further makes my point as both of these stores epitomize diversifying, both in size and product selection which backs my model to another degree. How are those plaid shorts and Polo's going for you, btw?
OK - now comes the more emotionally charged part so if you are left-brained and really just about the numbers, this is where you sign off, agreeing that my math is correct and reason enough that you shouldn't shop at a company with such ridiculous leadership. Adios and see you next time.
For the rest of you that know that I'm about to do a chubby-girl rant, I will try not to disappoint.
The CEO (I accidentally just typed DEO and almost left it there. . . you can infer what the "D" stands for in this instance) states in what I can only hope is part of his resignation letter that "In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are
the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, 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." Let's address this with some personal experience, shall we?
I've never been thin. OK, that's a lie. I was "thinner" once after taking drastic, pill-popping measures to lose the chub and fit in. I was between eighth and ninth grade and had already dealt with about 8 years of thinking that being thinner would make me more popular - the very stereotype that the CEO is trying to pass off as truth. At my thinnest, I could have fit into a pair of A&F pants - at the top end.
Anyway, I got thinner and had a great time doing so and then got fatter again (and had a great time doing so) and I realized something - NOTHING was different. I wasn't any more or less popular because of my pant size. I had the same friends, did the same things, wrote the same papers, tutored the same idiots (that generally shopped at A&F) and earned the same honors that I did when I was thin.
In fact, I would venture to say that I was more popular and cool because I knew what it meant to be chubby. Being chubby made me empathetic to other people's issues and that, in turn, made me a good listener. Everyone talked to me. I got hear all sorts of skinny kid issues over the years - and believe me, the "cool" kids have them.
Being chubby taught me how to laugh and make jokes about life's unfair nature. This put me into the "funny" group that got invited to parties because I could get people laughing and have a great time.
Being chubby let me focus on my school work because I didn't have a date every Friday night. But guess what, neither did the skinny kids. And when they didn't, they were asking me to help them with projects and papers and make it so they could graduate. I was popular in class because everyone knew I could help them get a better grade and have a great time doing it. I would also argue that this focus made me much "cooler" in college as well because I had time to hang out with friends and go and do things because I didn't have a job. . . because I didn't have to. . . because my school was being paid for. Now THAT is cool.
I love that this article pokes fun of the CEO at the end, wondering if he is still longing to be part of the "cool crowd", even though high school (and apparently smarts) waved bye bye to him long ago. While it's a joke, I think it poignantly makes the point "What is cool anyway?" Being thin doesn't automatically make you cool - being an athlete doesn't make you cool; it doesn't not make you cool either. I knew a lot of athletes and "all-American kids" in high school that didn't have friends because they were complete jerks. I knew chubby kids with the same problems. I know people now that were very talented athletes in high school that are even cooler now than they were then. . . not because they went pro (and I don't even know their pant sizes) but because they have stayed steady and are good, incredible people, right to the core. I know chubby kids in the same category. Now THAT is cool.
I hope I've made my point and for the sake of not making this any more of a novella, I'll finish with this:
We already have far too many kids questioning their worth because of their looks and I think that a company coming forward with this POV is just socially irresponsible. At times (not all the time but in a lot of cases), obesity is as genetic as cancer - kids everywhere are suffering with this problem and it's completely beyond their control; they have parent's with bad habits, they are low-income and can't afford healthy foods, their schools don't teach healthy habits, they are genetically pre-disposed- whatever the case, they can't help it. It isn't fair to pigeon-hole them into a category of "not cool" because they are overweight. Side note: I use "overweight very loosely here because remember, we are talking about pant sizes that are well below "average" or "middle" - I don't think you are "over" anything.
Some of the most fun, most witty, smartest, loving, incredible people that I've ever met can't (and I'm hoping never will) shop at A&F. And that's OK.
In honor of chubby people everywhere, I'm going to be bold here and do what I do about once per year:
Abercrombie and Fitch is on Carlee's Black List o' Businesses. Just don't shop there. There are perfectly acceptable substitutes (the article even mentions two of them) that also sell t-shirts and bum-hugging shorts at a lesser price. Do it because it's the right thing to do. Do it because their business practices are ridiculous. Do it for the chubby kids that is helping you with your homework.
Afterthought: I know that there will likely be some parallels drawn between what I'm saying here and other politically and socially charged issues of the day. Although I see the situation as very different, you may be wondering why I haven't written anything about these situations. I'm here to tell you that I didn't take a stand on this just because I am chubby, although I identify.
I think there is a HUGE difference between a CEO/management having personal views about a topic and a business actually taking a position on such. While I do think there is always a need for corporate responsibility and for public figures to be careful with their actions and words, I think (as I said) it crosses a line to make your opinion the practice of the business. These types of alienation have no place in business and I hope that A&F gets exactly what they are hoping for. . . a very, very small population of the most popular kids shopping at their stores. So small, in fact, that they become a distant memory like their biggest supporters, LMFAO.
