Abercrombie & Fitch has had a substantial history of unethical
methods of operation, many resulting in lawsuits. Racial, religious and gender
discrimination, sexual harassment charges and offensive remarks made by CEO
Mike Jeffries have all contributed the store's controversial past and the consequences
it has met. According to Buzzfeed, Women's Abercrombie and Fitch brand clothing
sales have declined by 30% in the last quarter, adding to the company's reported
10% total deficit. In this
article, I want to consider the company's representation of gender as it has
weighed on this issue because women's sales in specific have decreased.
In my middle school and earlier high school years, my friends
and I pretty much shopped at Abercrombie and Hollister stores exclusively. I
did not care that the walls were covered with what was essentially soft-core pornographic
images because that was the kind of thing our moms may as well criticize. I think
this attitude I shared with other young shoppers dwindled as the brand remained
focused on their sexual appeal and perhaps less on the merchandise itself.
While the clothes themselves are never too racy, the company's appearance in
the media capitalizes on communicating objectified portrayals of both women and
men such as their prevalent method of featuring semi-nudity. This technique may
be replicating the trends of advertising sex in high fashion campaigns because
Abercrombie and Fitch is a self-proclaimed luxury brand; however, they are still
mainstream retail.
Magazine ads, emails and social media communication promoted
by Abercrombie & Fitch brands have constantly featured suggestive innuendos
and gender objectification. For example, a recent article on the brand in Bust Magazine's website drew attention to an ad by Gilly Hicks (a lingerie brand by Abercrombie
& Fitch) pictured below:
The Bust article also notes the somewhat creepy lines the company declares:
“Gilly Hicks makes the hottest Push ’Em Up bras and the cutest Down Undies for
young, naturally beautiful, confident girls.” The way this claim
sexualizes young girls reminds me of when Abercrombie Kids introduced a line of
thong underwear in preteen children's sizes (which was later discontinued in
response to protests).
The approach A&F has taken in conditioning women-especially
younger girls-with sexualized campaigns may be a factor in the stores recent
shortcomings considering it the brand has employed it far more than actual
product promotions. Stores that are currently performing better in sales to
women like H&M, Forever 21 and Charlotte Russe do not use these promotional
methods to the same degree as A&F, which may indicate that they have less
influence on female consumers now. Fortunately, A&F brands have progressed
in some ways such as abandoning racial discrimination in their advertisements.
Hopefully, since A&F brands are still alive and have some power potential,
they will choose to employ healthier representations in advertisements to
resume the influence they used to have.
I too used to shop at A&F during the beginning of high school and middle school because I wanted to fit in with all of the other girls in the school. Everyone was into brand names. Like you said we never really took into account their pictures on the walls that showed semi pornographic images. Now that we understand it we can tell that they objectify women and even men sometimes more so than women in their pictures around the walls. I feel like most of the girls only went to shop in stores like Hollister and A&F because of the pictures they had up. They would always have pictures of men very sexualized who were muscular, handsome, and had the look of confidence. Not to mention the defined abs on the men. These were the first pictures you would see when you walked into the store. These stores knew that their pictures would get the people walking in. But what happens when we begin to realize how they portray the people in the pictures or people in general. All the people that work there are always very thin and have the so called "perfect shape". Awhile ago I actually tried to get a job at A&F but during the interview is when I realized how judgemental they were. They told me I wasn't allowed to wear makeup and other minor things. If you are going to tell me what I have to look like in order to work here then I didn't want to be a part of it. They said they wanted natural beauty, but what exactly is their definition of natural beauty? It seems to me like they are following the rules of gender too closely. Men are supposed to be strong and muscular, women are supposed to be pretty and thin. Hollister and A&F very much follow the stereotypes of the ideal man or woman. No wonder why they lost so many shoppers at their retail stores.
ReplyDeleteI never shopped at A&F more than maybe five times. It was way too dark and way too loud. The clothes looked good (to me in middle school) but were way out of my price range. The cool kids wore A&F so I wanted to wear them to be "cool." That's the problem. Little 13 year old kids can't afford $25 T-shirts and parents shouldn't be spending that much on their kid in the first place either. Also, how does a piece of cloth make you cool again? What does this teach little girls and boys? Girls especially should have the importance of education emphasized more and more these day, not told they need to go out and buy A&F to "survive" middle school.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with this article, and both of these comments. I work across from A&F and we can hear and smell their store even across the hall of the loud mall. The way that they objectify women is horrifying. I remember being in 9th grade and going in their with one of my friends. We were both just shopping and minding our own business and a girl that worked there came up to us and asked my friend if she'd be interested in working there. She told her how pretty she was, and didn't even acknowledge the fact that I was standing with her. That honestly affected me for a while.. its silly, but I convinced myself that by them asking her for a job and not even noticing me that I wasn't pretty. The fact that that is the way they recruit their employees, solely off their looks, is ridiculous. Lately in the news has been the owner of A&F and the way he talks about his company, and the types of people he wants in his clothes is the polar opposite of his own appearance. I read somewhere that the company burns their clothes that don't sell because they don't want people who can't afford the brand to be wearing it. The list of ridiculousness goes on and on.
ReplyDelete