Abercrombie Wants Only the Cool Kids

[Stephen Daidalus]

So what precisely is the difference between that and Cinderella's message that ugly/uncool/etc individuals are evil and are not to be trusted?

I don't remember Cinderella ever saying that. But I admit, it's been almost four decades since I read the story.

 

[Two Bears]

I don't remember Cinderella ever saying that. But I admit, it's been almost four decades since I read the story.

Cinderella lives with her fat, ugly stepmother and stepsisters. Her life would be great, except for the fact that they are holding her back. Once they're out of the picture, life is great for the ideal figure of Cinderella. In fact, in virtually every Disney animated film the protagonist is an image of ideal physical beauty, while the antagonists are depicted as being outside that ideal. You're telling me you've never put that together?

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

Cinderella lives with her fat, ugly stepmother and stepsisters. Her life would be great, except for the fact that they are holding her back. Once they're out of the picture, life is great for the ideal figure of Cinderella. In fact, in virtually every Disney animated film the protagonist is an image of ideal physical beauty, while the antagonists are depicted as being outside that ideal. You're telling me you've never put that together?

You are still missing the point.

If I say I like beautiful people and I don't like ugly people, that's douchy, but it is not at all the same thing as saying that I like rich, thin, white people because everyone else is ugly.

The first tells you that I have superficial and shallow preferences as a human being and that you probably don't want to know me, but it makes no judgment about YOU.

The second tells YOU that if YOU are not rich, thin, and white, YOU are ugly.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Cinderella lives with her fat, ugly stepmother and stepsisters. Her life would be great, except for the fact that they are holding her back. Once they're out of the picture, life is great for the ideal figure of Cinderella. In fact, in virtually every Disney animated film the protagonist is an image of ideal physical beauty, while the antagonists are depicted as being outside that ideal. You're telling me you've never put that together?

I don't think anyone's disputing that 'sex sells' and the idolization of physical beauty has long been a social component. Again, though, the whole notion as it applies to A&F begins to take on water when we look to other companies that are also almost wholly reliant upon sex appeal to sell their products - like Victoria's Secret - who do not seem to operate with such blatant exclusivity. Yes, we all know that only the Angels will look like the Angels in the clothing, but that sure doesn't stop VS from hawking it all with strong appeals to glamor and sexiness to eager consumers of varying sizes, and it certainly doesn't stop said consumers from buying it, year after year.

I maintain that there is a difference, as Stephen said, between companies utilizing people deemed "conventionally beautiful' for commercials and ads and even catalog modeling, and declaring - making it a cornerstone of their brand, even - that they do so because to use and sell/cater to anyone outside of their stated paradigm incapable of 'belonging' to and in their label is unacceptable. And worse, still, is the reason why, that they offer - which is that they hold that everyone 'incapable' is too physically unattractive.

 

[Two Bears]

You are still missing the point.

If I say I like beautiful people and I don't like ugly people, that's douchy, but it is not at all the same thing as saying that I like rich, thin, white people because everyone else is ugly.

The first tells you that I have superficial and shallow preferences as a human being and that you probably don't want to know me, but it makes no judgment about YOU.

The second tells YOU that if YOU are not rich, thin, and white, YOU are ugly.

Oh, no, I didn't miss the point. You're missing the big picture. In the end, Cinderella and Abercrombie are saying the same thing. You are ugly if you don't fit into the ideal. This is as old as marketing itself, going back all the way to when Grog sat at the entrance to the cave selling Brownrock ™, The Sexy Rock for Sexy Neanderthals.

 

[Two Bears]

I don't think anyone's disputing that 'sex sells' and the idolization of physical beauty has long been a social component. Again, though, the whole notion as it applies to A&F begins to take on water when we look to other companies that are also almost wholly reliant upon sex appeal to sell their products - like Victoria's Secret - who do not seem to operate with such blatant exclusivity. Yes, we all know that only the Angels will look like the Angels in the clothing, but that sure doesn't stop VS from hawking it all with strong appeals to glamor and sexiness to eager consumers of varying sizes, and it certainly doesn't stop said consumers from buying it, year after year.

I maintain that there is a difference, as Stephen said, between companies utilizing people deemed "conventionally beautiful' for commercials and ads and even catalog modeling, and declaring - making it a cornerstone of their brand, even - that they do so because to use and sell/cater to anyone outside of their stated paradigm incapable of 'belonging' to and in their label is unacceptable. And worse, still, is the reason why, that they offer - which is that they hold that everyone 'incapable' is too physically unattractive.

And again, there is no difference between Abercrombie and the Coke commercial, other than the fact that this particular brand and product touched a nerve with you specifically. And that is normal, I've been there too. As cold as it sounds, however, you have to understand that the cliché holds up; it isn't personal, it's just business.

 

[Docta Corvina]

And again, there is no difference between Abercrombie and the Coke commercial, other than the fact that this particular brand and product touched a nerve with you specifically. And that is normal, I've been there too. As cold as it sounds, however, you have to understand that the cliché holds up; it isn't personal, it's just business.

Dude, I must have missed the commercials that told me, with subtitles and in no uncertain terms - and likely using Morgan Freeman's voice, even - that I'm an ugly fl*ff that doesn't deserve to live, let alone even look at a can of Cherry Coke because I prefer Pepsi.

I understand what you're saying, but the blatancy really is unmatched.

 

[Two Bears]

Dude, I must have missed the commercials that told me, with subtitles and in no uncertain terms - and likely using Morgan Freeman's voice, even - that I'm an ugly fl*ff that doesn't deserve to live, let alone even look at a can of Cherry Coke because I prefer Pepsi.

But you have seen 5 secrets that women/men/banks/the IRS/whatever don't want you to know right?

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

Oh, no, I didn't miss the point. You're missing the big picture. In the end, Cinderella and Abercrombie are saying the same thing. You are ugly if you don't fit into the ideal. This is as old as marketing itself, going back all the way to when Grog sat at the entrance to the cave selling Brownrock ™, The Sexy Rock for Sexy Neanderthals.

Again. Sorry. I don't watch Disney films, so I can't comment on them. Nor can I comment on Grog, since I have no idea what or who that is.

I don't think not fitting the ideal was ever the definition of ugly. Attractiveness is, and always has been, a continuum. It was never so black & white. A&F are making it so, however, by drawing heavy lines around an extremely narrow definition THAT THEY CREATED.

 

[Two Bears]

Again. Sorry. I don't watch Disney films, so I can't comment on them. Nor can I comment on Grog, since I have no idea what or who that is.

Strange that you brought up Disney as an example if you were not prepared to have that example scrutinized. And Grog is a metaphor for time immemorial.

I don't think not fitting the ideal was ever the definition of ugly. Attractiveness is, and always has been, a continuum. It was never so black & white. A&F are making it so, however, by drawing heavy lines around an extremely narrow definition.

And I have never disputed that. I merely content myself to point out that they are not first to do it, and will certainly not be the last.

 

[Docta Corvina]

But you have seen 5 secrets that women/men/banks/the IRS/whatever don't want you to know right?

LOL, everyone's got them. This is certainly true. But until I start being blatantly insulted and rejected by companies/merchants I actually utilize, I'm content to call a spade a spade, regarding A&F.

As we've all pointed out, they're dying a slow death anyway. I'd like to think it has to do with their chosen method of operation and resulting brand, rather than simple bad luck.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

And again, there is no difference between Abercrombie and the Coke commercial, other than the fact that this particular brand and product touched a nerve with you specifically. And that is normal, I've been there too. As cold as it sounds, however, you have to understand that the cliché holds up; it isn't personal, it's just business.

Touched a nerve? You can read minds now?

 

[Nocte Aeterna]

Fortunately, their clothing is hideous enough that I wouldn't shop there to begin with.

 

[Two Bears]

Touched a nerve? You can read minds now?

I don't argue for pages on end about things that don't care about or find uninteresting. Do you?

 

[Docta Corvina]

I don't argue for pages on end about things that don't care about or find uninteresting. Do you?

Well, as it appears we all presently find it interesting at least as we've been here for pages, I suppose we're all in good company.

 

[Two Bears]

LOL, everyone's got them. This is certainly true. But until I start being blatantly insulted and rejected by companies/merchants I actually utilize, I'm content to call a spade a spade, regarding A&F.

As we've all pointed out, they're dying a slow death anyway. I'd like to think it has to do with their chosen method of operation and resulting brand, rather than simple bad luck.

My point in that is that those people set up an adversarial scenario: Look man, only a few select people will ever know this, and The Man totally doesn't want you to be let in on the secret. How about some money?

Abercrombie is doing the same: Look, only a select few are sexy enough to wear our merchandise. We have standards, and The Man doesn't want you wearing our clothes, but damn if you aren't sexy enough to wear it, so screw them. How about some money?

I agree with you that it is douchy. I also agree that it is repugnant. I hope it comes back to bite them. But this approach really isn't new. Nihil sub sole novum.


EDIT:

Well, as it appears we all presently find it interesting at least as we've been here for pages, I suppose we're all in good company.

Absolutely. I find this topic very interesting.

 

[Nocte Aeterna]

When Docta and Grim are involved, we're always in good company.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

Strange that you brought up Disney as an example if you were not prepared to have that example scrutinized. And Grog is a metaphor for time immemorial.

And I have never disputed that. I merely content myself to point out that they are not first to do it, and will certainly not be the last.

Grog is a drink. How you're using that as a metaphor isn't so clear to me.

Disney may use culturally insensitive subliminal messages -- as do almost all businesses -- but it is worlds away from saying outright, "Sorry, no ugly kids allowed in the cinema for this movie."

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

I don't argue for pages on end about things that don't care about or find uninteresting. Do you?

So what about what we've been saying has touched a nerve with you?

 

[Two Bears]

So what about what we've been saying has touched a nerve with you?

I'm a "big picture" guy, and it irks me when people don't look at it. And you?