Abercrombie Wants Only the Cool Kids

[Stephen Daidalus]

But this approach really isn't new.

No one said it was.

 

[Two Bears]

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."

Grog is also commonly used as a caveman name.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

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

You're making an assumption there. Of course I looked at it and decided to focus what I was saying in this thread rather than spew everything that might be going through my mind. I couldn't type fast enough to do that anyway.

If your point is businesses have been doing this, get over it, it hardly seems worth so much effort to get it across.

 

[Two Bears]

You're making an assumption there. Of course I looked at it and decided to focus what I was saying in this thread rather than spew everything that might be going through my mind. I couldn't type fast enough to do that anyway.

If your point is businesses have been doing this, get over it, it hardly seems worth so much effort to get it across.

You didn't answer my question, but went into full attack mode. Nice ad hominem.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

You didn't answer my question, but went into full attack mode. Nice ad hominem.

Attack? Where?

 

[Two Bears]

Attack? Where?

You're making an assumption there. Of course I looked at it and decided to focus what I was saying in this thread rather than spew everything that might be going through my mind. I couldn't type fast enough to do that anyway.

If your point is businesses have been doing this, get over it, it hardly seems worth so much effort to get it across.

Ouch. That wasn't very nice.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

Ouch. That wasn't very nice.

No. You're making another assumption. I didn't say, nor did I imply, that you were spewing anything. I merely stated that I wasn't going to do that but was instead focusing what I was saying.

If you felt that referred to you, that was you making an inference. Not me saying or implying it.

 

[Two Bears]

No. You're making another assumption. I didn't say, nor did I imply, that you were spewing anything. I merely stated that I wasn't going to do that but was instead focusing what I was saying.

If you felt that referred to you, that was you making an inference. Not me saying or implying it.

Actually, I think that it implies it rather obviously. That you may have not intended it doesn't alter the fact that it could easily be construed that way in the colorless, expressionless medium that is discourse on an internet forum. It is, in fact, very easy to get signals crossed in that way.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

Just as you saying 'that touched a nerve' implies that Docta Corvina has a particular reason to feel strongly about an issue related to attractiveness and body ideals?

That wasn't very nice either.

 

[Docta Corvina]

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.

Is the favoring of physical beauty and using it as part of a business model implicit in the advertising of other companies? Of course it is. All we need is look at the models used and we can get a fairly good idea of who the target audience is. What I can't wrap my head around is coming out and saying, publicly, "if you are not x, y AND z, you are not only not welcome to buy our clothes but you're also essentially worthless as a human being, have a nice day!".

Seems like all they're doing is alienating the greater portion of society, their potential consumer base, in favor of clinging to this douchey exclusivity paradigm. Seems like a dumb move, if their financial woes are any indication. They can have whoever they want as their consumer focus, by only carrying up to a certain size, etc. But to publicly and shamelessly pride themselves on openly demeaning people who don't fit into their contrived paradigm is something I find troubling. And I DO hope it sinks into the ground sooner rather than later.

Hell, Victoria's execs may well laugh amongst themselves about the more varying sizing of their clothing. But at least they're not saying things like, "Don't look like the Angels? GTFO, you fat cows". That's the difference in all of this.

 

[Two Bears]

Just as you saying 'that touched a nerve' implies that Docta Corvina has a particular reason to feel strongly about an issue related to attractiveness and body ideals?

That wasn't very nice either.

Yes, I was implying just that. A woman is subject to societal objectification to a degree that I, as a man, am not. As such, had I grown up in an environment when I was constantly being subject to that objectification I would be extremely sensitive to it. If I were female, the Abercrombie marketing scheme would be far more offensive to me than it is to me as a male, as I have not walked a mile in her shoes. As such, the fact that it touched a nerve is understandable.

I know that you are tying to play tit for tat, but you are in effect making nothing into something. Stop it.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

Yes, I was implying just that. A woman is subject to societal objectification to a degree that I, as a man, am not. As such, had I grown up in an environment when I was constantly being subject to that objectification I would be extremely sensitive to it. If I were female, the Abercrombie marketing scheme would be far more offensive to me than it is to me as a male, as I have not walked a mile in her shoes. As such, the fact that it touched a nerve is understandable.

I know that you are tying to play tit for tat, but you are in effect making nothing into something. Stop it.

 

[Two Bears]

Is the favoring of physical beauty and using it as part of a business model implicit in the advertising of other companies? Of course it is. All we need is look at the models used and we can get a fairly good idea of who the target audience is. What I can't wrap my head around is coming out and saying, publicly, "if you are not x, y AND z, you are not only not welcome to buy our clothes but you're also essentially worthless as a human being, have a nice day!".

Seems like all they're doing is alienating the greater portion of society, their potential consumer base, in favor of clinging to this douchey exclusivity paradigm. Seems like a dumb move, if their financial woes are any indication. They can have whoever they want as their consumer focus, by only carrying up to a certain size, etc. But to publicly and shamelessly pride themselves on openly demeaning people who don't fit into their contrived paradigm is something I find troubling. And I DO hope it sinks into the ground sooner rather than later.

Hell, Victoria's execs may well laugh amongst themselves about the more varying sizing of their clothing. But at least they're not saying things like, "Don't look like the Angels? GTFO, you fat cows". That's the difference in all of this.

Again, I totally get it and I agree that it's not cool. I hope the company sinks too, and before my girls reach the age where they would be potential customers, as I don't want them stewing about body image. I just don't think what they are doing is all that different than what has been done.

 

[Two Bears]

Ah, the image macro. No, no jimmies are rustled. Just trying to keep you from running wild here. It seems that I am failing there.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

Ah, the image macro. No, no jimmies are rustled. Just trying to keep you from running wild here. It seems that I am failing there.

Running wild?

Dude, you have no idea. Seriously. No idea.

All I am doing is disagreeing with you. That's all.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Again, I totally get it and I agree that it's not cool. I hope the company sinks too, and before my girls reach the age where they would be potential customers, as I don't want them stewing about body image. I just don't think what they are doing is all that different than what has been done.

Really, I think had the CEO and whoever else made such comments just kept their mouths shut, some of it might have flown over most people's heads. There have been articles on the nature of A&F's ads and chosen models, but I think that the very public statements by the execs will either give more people more reason not to shop there, and at best, will encourage the people who currently do to keep going - because it inflates their ego all the more.

 

[Two Bears]

Running wild?

Dude, you have no idea. Seriously. No idea.

All I am doing is disagreeing with you. That's all.

And as your aggression has increased over the past few posts, I have deliberately made my responses as neutrally worded as possible to refrain from provoking you further. I just don't understand why you think I am angry.

 

[Two Bears]

Really, I think had the CEO and whoever else made such comments just kept their mouths shut, some of it might have flown over most people's heads. There have been articles on the nature of A&F's ads and chosen models, but I think that the very public statements by the execs will either give more people more reason not to shop there, and at best, will encourage the people who currently do to keep going - because it inflates their ego all the more.

I agree. The problem is that CEOs seem to have a real issue about keeping their mouths shut and not saying anything stupid. That problem, at least, seems to be universal.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Yes, I was implying just that. A woman is subject to societal objectification to a degree that I, as a man, am not. As such, had I grown up in an environment when I was constantly being subject to that objectification I would be extremely sensitive to it. If I were female, the Abercrombie marketing scheme would be far more offensive to me than it is to me as a male, as I have not walked a mile in her shoes. As such, the fact that it touched a nerve is understandable.

I appreciate that you and others recognize the implications for self-esteem of women in society. But honestly, for me, it goes beyond just women. "If you're not a beefy manly man with washboard abs, don't shop here! If you're not "cool" and you lack a great movie star face, in addition to a great body, don't shop here!"

I'm irritated on everyone's behalf, man.

I know that you are tying to play tit for tat, but you are in effect making nothing into something. Stop it.

Oh come on, it's all very tame in here. It's far worse in General Discussion as of late, lol.

 

[Stephen Daidalus]

And as your aggression has increased over the past few posts, I have deliberately made my responses as neutrally worded as possible to refrain from provoking you further. I just don't understand why you think I am angry.

I don't think you're angry. Since you're calling me aggressive, it does seem that you're projecting that on to me, so maybe you really are angry. I don't know. I don't like to presume these things. But I don't see why you accused me of ad hominem in a post that was about me. So I am perplexed at that, and at the fact that you seem intent on making this personal, beginning with your thinly veiled jab at Docta Corvina -- which she is too agreeable to confront you over and which I initially ignored in order to give you the benefit of the doubt -- and continuing with your misinterpretation of my post. But there's no aggression, unless you think disagreeing with you is some sort of attack.