Sign up to get full access to all our latest content, research, and network for everything customer contact.

Abercrombie & Fitch's "Mistake" - Is It About Customer Management or Political Correctness?

Add bookmark
Brian Cantor
Brian Cantor
05/14/2013

Publicity stunt or not, when Abercrombie & Fitch publicly asked "Jersey Shore" star Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino to stop wearing its clothing, few criticized the brand’s philosophy.

Some certainly questioned the logic of refusing free exposure from an individual who, at the time, was one of TV’s most recognizable personalities, but no one deemed Abercrombie "out of line" for wanting distance from "Jersey Shore." No one felt Abercrombie was "out of touch" for wanting to maintain an aspirational brand or for believing that Sorrentino did not serve as a suitable brand ambassador.

Fast forward to 2013, when Abercrombie’s desire to market to "cool, good-looking people" and disinterest in carrying larger clothing sizes are being condemned as customer management mistakes.

Are the two situations so wildly different? In both cases, Abercrombie & Fitch is implementing a policy of exclusion. In both cases, Abercrombie & Fitch is worrying about how any loosening of its idealistic image will affect marketplace perception and, ultimately, customer loyalty.

In both cases, Abercrombie & Fitch is thinking about how a marketing decision will impact its connection to customers. That sounds more like the essence of customer management than an affront to it.

Why, then, is Abercrombie & Fitch’s aspirational strategy suddenly worthy of intense criticism? Why, then, is Abercrombie & Fitch suddenly out of touch with the marketplace?

The answer is simple: political correctness.

For proof, look no further than Business Insider’s assessment: "Abercrombie is sticking to its guns of conventional beauty, even as that standard becomes outdated."

According to whom? We live in a society that debates whether Beyonce’s legs are too thick and whether supermodel Kate Upton’s stomach is too soft. We live in a society that associates the impossibly-thin Victoria’s Secret "angels" with a more voluptuous breed of model.

The new Maxim Hot 100 list ranked thin entertainers Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez—rather than more fully-figured (and talented) ones like Adele and Melissa McCarthy—as the world’s top-two-hottest. Even someone like "Mad Men" star Christina Hendricks, who serves as something of a throwback to the curvier models of past generations, became a sex symbol as a consequence of her hourglass figure and proportions rather than just her size.

Yes, beauty is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. But society is still startlingly superficial, and any assertion otherwise is dangerously-naðve. Worse, it is dangerously harmful when attempting to evaluate an aspirational fashion brand’s market positioning.

Notably absent from Business Insider’s condemnatory commentary is an assessment of how catering to a broader demographic would impact Abercrombie & Fitch’s brand. The commentary reflects on the powerful plus-sized market—and notes that brands like H&M now cater to larger customers—but it does not consider what loosening the restrictions would do to Abercrombie’s image and relationship with customers.

Is there truly a significant demand for plus-sized Abercrombie & Fitch lines? And even if so, is that demand large enough to compensate for the consequences of transforming A&F from an aspirational brand into a normal one?

Through the models it casts, the store representatives it hires and the audience it targets, Abercrombie & Fitch hopes to align itself with the American ideal for looks and social status. Young customers are vain and obsessive about social hierarchy, and in order to feed off those qualities, Abercrombie & Fitch assures that those wearing its clothes feel like they are part of a "cool, good-looking" club.

Interestingly enough, that is why customers—including plus-sized ones who do not fit the Abercrombie & Fitch mold—are so interested in buying the clothing. Though not poor, fabric quality and comfort are not key elements of Abercrombie’s value proposition. Abercrombie’s marketability is tied to aspiration, and the second the floodgates open on who can wear the clothes is the second that aspirational element is forever compromised.

"Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either," said CEO Mike Jeffries in an interview with Slate.

That is not to say A&F cannot make changes. It is not to say A&F should not be concerned with identifying new growth avenues. But it is to say that the oppositional viewpoint is a myopic one; it does not consider the negative associated with being more inclusive. It does not consider that Abercrombie’s existing customers—not simply an arrogant, insulated executive team—also value the brand’s restrictions.

Those with even the slightest hint of marketing knowledge know that product quality is not the only differentiator, especially in today’s socially-driven world, which mandates a greater alignment between brand identity and customer identity. Status counts as well, and it is why so many brands are comfortable with—and in fact prefer—being exclusionary.

Even though there is a far greater pool of customers aiming to spend $25,000 or less on a car, Porsche does not price its automobiles below $50,000. Not everyone can afford to spend thousands of dollars on a watch, but Rolex does not offer a $49.99 "value" line. Ruth’s Chris and Morton’s have not followed TGI Friday’s in offering three-course meals for under $15 despite the fact that such a price point is far friendlier to the typical customer’s budget.

As a brand works to align itself with the target customer base, revealing who does not belong is as important as—if not more than—articulating who does belong. Aspirational brands know the inherent value of making customers feel better, and they exist outside of fashion and rely on tactics beyond restricting clothing options to slimmer sizes.

But complaints about aspirational pricing strategy never seem as prominent. Many customers would like to drive a Porsche or wear a Rolex, but they do not feel entitled to such privileges. Why, then, do certain customers feel Abercrombie & Fitch must cater to all demographics at the expense of the ones it actually targets?

It, again, comes down to political correctness. We, as a society, react so aggressively to Abercrombie & Fitch’s standpoint because it seems to come from a more overt place of judgment. Through its CEO’s unfiltered statements—and its very real marketing tactics—Abercrombie & Fitch makes it very clear which demographics it wants and which demographics it does not want in its customer base.

Consider a scenario in which an unattractive, unpopular boy wants asks the "it" girl to prom. She does not want to go with him, but if she already has a date and literally cannot say yes, she can decline the invitation without technically rejecting him and thus without coming across as hurtfully-exclusionary. If she does not have a date but still plans to go, she has to outright reject him, and in doing so, must make a negative quality judgment about who he is.

Because price does the work for them, luxury car and jewelry brands do not have to be quite as overt in their exclusionary marketing strategies. Make no mistake—these brands do invest in the illustration of their ideal customers, just as the popular girl makes it clear what kind of guy she prefers—but they also get to avoid the awkward, political challenge of explaining why certain customers are unworthy of their brand.

But unconventionally-attractive, overweight, "uncool" customers can typically afford A&F’s clothing, which means A&F cannot rely on that innocuous means of exclusion. Abercrombie must more explicitly demonstrate why they do not belong and thus must more directly play into the superficial, "high school" conceptions of looks and status that ruffle feathers.

It is an unfortunate, politically-incorrect task, but it is not at all reflective of a poor customer management philosophy.

Exclusionary, aspirational marketing makes sense given our society, and brands skilled in the strategy often have millions—if not billions—in profit to show for it.

That is not to say aspirational marketing is always effective. But if one wants to prove an aspirational marketer wrong, he needs to focus not on the political incorrectness or "bullying" of the message but on the merits of the brand’s segmentation.

As far as its bottom line goes, it is certainly conceivable that Abercrombie is focusing on the wrong demographics. But A&F is certainly not wrong to focus on demographics.


RECOMMENDED