Abercrombie & Fitch Faces Protests, Backlash for Not Selling Larger Sizes

[Jake Izzy]

Source: ABC News

Add Kirstie Alley to the list of Abercrombie & Fitch critics who take exception to the company’s refusal to carry clothing in larger sizes.

The Former “Cheers” actress and “Dancing With the Stars” competitor slammed the store Tuesday, telling “Entertainment Tonight” she would “never buy anything from Abercrombie.”

The popular casual-clothing retailer is under fire for filling its shelves with products for the smallest of customers.

Protestors gathered outside the retailer’s Michigan Avenue store in Chicago Monday, outraged about the store’s not carrying clothes in a size 14, the size worn by the average U.S. woman. Plus-size shoppers now make up 67 percent of U.S. consumers.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/05/abercrombie-fitch-faces-protests-backlash-for-not-selling-larger-sizes/

---

Their CEO said "are we exclusionary? Absolutely.

[KamaAina]

1. A guy in L.A. has figured out a truly epic way to fight back

he scares up A&F clothes at thrift shops and gives them to the homeless!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022847248

[KurtNYC]

47. There is also this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022845895

[KamaAina]

48. Sweet!

What color clashes with orange? Put Boner in it!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Well, if they don't want to sell their clothing to 67% of U.S. consumers

because they want to preserve their reputation as the preferred source of clothes for the cool, beautiful people, that's just a stupid marketing decision that will eventually bite them right in their skinny, fashionable asses.

[dipsydoodle]

3. They're not into volume selling

incase you hadn't noticed so selling to the remaining 33% whatever probably suits them.

[Elmergantry]

4. So should we also protest Elaine Bryant?

They only cater to fat people..

Not Fair!

[dipsydoodle]

6. Same as Big and Tall

don't cater for weenies.

[dembotoz]

5. baby gap does not sell large sizes either(at least i don't think so....0

if a company chooses to be jerks they can be jerks

it is up to us not to shop there.

same thing with fancy expensive nightclubs
if they do not want my money?
sucks to be them

[alp227]

55. Uhh...shouldn't it be obvious about Baby Gap?

Really? Bring that up as comparison with A&F?

[snagglepuss]

7. It's idiotic to respond to A&F's antics. They did this for free airtime

imo it's stupid to give them any attention. NO attention would really hurt the fuckers

[SunSeeker]

12. Exactly. Their stock has only gone up since the controversy erupted. nt

[LiberalFighter]

8. I could care less that they are exclusionary in that respect.

I don't see why anyone wants any of their products. There are plenty of other stores that offer products for those of other sizes.

[Half-Century Man]

9. I ask..

Even if they start carrying larger size clothing, why would you buy it? Just do everything you can to have Abercrombie and Fitch join the Dodo bird.
As Matt Helm taught: Kill one and get the attention of the others.

[Skittles]

10. they are pandering to fat-phobes

fuck 'em; I've never worn a double digit size but I've never shopped there either

[FreeState]

11. I don't have a problem with this

I struggle finding clothes in my size all the time - and not because I'm bigger, but because I'm smaller. I can find shoes with smurfs and superman on them to fit me. No one makes "adult" shoes in my size, yet alone my width. Kids clothes are not cut right either.

It's their business they get to choose what they market.

[KamaAina]

13. In other news, Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)

has dumped his running mate, former NBA coach Bill Fitch, from the ticket.

[matt819]

14. More manufactured outrage

I know A&F has been controversial. Maybe it's been stupidity or maybe it's part of their marketing plan.

But if they don't want to sell to larger sizes, well, that's their choice. My local food co-op won't sell mass marketed process food. Should I bitch and moan about that or go to the regular grocery store? For whatever reason - demographics, marketing, finances - they have concentrated on their market. It's not against the law.

In contrast, another current manufactured consumer crisis are the bakers who refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. That may well be their choice, but that particular choice is against the law, at least in some jurisdictions. So the shop-owners may have no recourse.

True, those who oppose this gay cake moratorium can fight it in the marketplace with boycotts and such. And Kirstie Allie can do the same, I suppose. But in the case of the clothing, it really is outrageous to demand a retailer sell what is not part of their marketing plan.

[mac56]

18. Seriously, you're comparing the A&F CEO's prejudiced statements

with the mission statement of a food co-op: to provide healthier food options to the community?

[matt819]

20. No.

I hadn't seen the comments, but they don't really matter. As I wrote, whether it's out of a deliberate marketing plan or outright stupidity, a company can sell what it wants. In this case, the CEO is being an idiot about it, but that doesn't diminish the fact that he can sell what he wants. Not every retail CEO can be Tony Hsieh.

[cosmicone]

15. Why can't a private business sell to whomever they want?

Will there be a protest in Baskin Robbins that they don't have ice cream fit for diabetics?

[Bonhomme Richard]

17. The can sell to whoever they want and people can complain

about the policy.
At the end of the day it will all shake out in the company's bottom line.

[mac56]

19. Where did all the Abercrombie and Fitch employees on this thread pop out of?

There must have been a corporate memo from the CEO. Written tastefully on the finest French tissue-thin paper, of course.

[cosmicone]

22. I don't work for A&F

I simply detest that mobs can try to take away a private corporation's liberty.

If you don't like it, don't shop there and take your dollars elsewhere.

[antigone382]

25. Nobody's "taking away their liberty."

Nobody that I know of has proposed a state law or a constitutional amendment to force A&F to sell large sizes or have their executives face jail time. That would be taking away their liberty. People are using word of mouth and social media to express their view that A&F's choice, and their expressed reasons for that choice, are morally bankrupt, and they deserve to be ostracized.

They can still sell clothes and people who want those clothes can still shop there. The general public just may not think they're as "cool" as they want us to think they are.

[cosmicone]

29. Just sounds like

anerxophobia to me.

There are many companies who sell products that don't suit me. I don't have this visceral desire to attack them for it.

If A&F was the only clothing supplier, I'd understand the rage but there are hundreds of other places where fat people can buy clothes. Who cares what A&F sells?

[antigone382]

49. It's not just that they don't sell those sizes. It is their stated reasons for doing so.

Have you read the words of Mike Jeffries in relation to his company's practices? The goal is to cultivate a sense of coolness that directly depends on there being rejects in the world, people who just aren't good enough to cut it. His business model thrives on the kinds of exclusionary and dehumanizing attitudes that justify bullying.

Such an outlook may be inevitable, especially among the teenagers to whom A&F markets, but encouraging and celebrating that attitude is grotesque, and it is going to be shamed in today's world. The fact is we live in a world of social media, and people start movements all the time out of that. If your brand isn't smart enough to avoid statements that can incur the wrath of the general public, then you just might face consequences in the modern world. For A&F to decline the opportunity to do so reveals the dated nature of the brand.

And as far as "anerxophobia" (does that reference fear of slender people?) no one I have heard of in this scandal has said that slender people are inherently less cool, incapable of being socially accepted, and therefore unworthy of a market.

[babylonsister]

52. Thank you for that explanation.

I missed this story and what Jeffries said, the scum.

[TygrBright]

26. Thanks, YES. I'm all in favor of "mobs taking away a private corporation's liberty."

I think that we mobs (also known as "citizens," "communities," "neighbors," etc., should be able to take away that private corporation fertilizer dealer in Texas' liberty to store hazardous materials.

I think that we should be able to take away:

• Private resource extraction companies' liberty to acquire control of vast amounts of non-renewable resources and exploit them without regard to the well being of the shared environment, the health of their workers, and the future of human life on this planet.
  
• Private housing development corporations' liberty to only sell houses to people of the skin color they prefer.
  
• Private recreation/entertainment corporations' liberty to turn away families with gay members.
  
• Private food corporations' liberty to shovel any kind of creepy processed substances into a container and sell it as edible without telling us what's in it, where it came from, and how it was processed.
  
• Private education corporations' liberty to purchase politicians, create astroturf propaganda mills, and compete unfairly with public schools in the area of staff compensation, student selection, and dozens of other areas.
  
• Private pharmaceutical corporations' liberty to make tiny cosmetic changes in the composition or structure of a medication that's about to run off-patent, and re-patent it and market it as an entirely new and expensive medication without telling us that it's functionally no different at all from the about-to-be generic substance.
  
• Private banking corporations' liberty to process huge numbers of legal filings against mortgage and credit card holders using electronic signature machines and no due diligence.
  
• Private prison corporations' liberty to use lobbying muscle to pass laws and demand enforcement that results in the world's highest incarceration rate.

Oh, the list can go on and on and on.

Yep. Take those "liberties" away NOW.

I think the liberty of my grandchild to grow up in a safe, healthy world where we care more about each others' well-being than about the profits of our Beloved Oligarchs trumps the "liberty" of private corporations to bend us over and buttfuck us without lube, thanks so very much.

Yep. All in favor of it.

adamantly,
Bright

[cosmicone]

31. Non sequiteur

Nothing in your list is relevant. A&F is not storing hazardous materials, it is not shoveling unhealthful food in your throat, they are not purchasing politicians any more than any other company, they don't sell pharmaceuticals and so on.

Stick to the issue here instead of unloading talking points on me.

As I said above, it all sounds like anerxophobia or anerxo-envy.

This outrage can be summed up in "I can't lose weight and I'm jealous of all those cool people wearing cool clothes while I am shopping for clothes in uncool walmart and target."

[TygrBright]

38. If you're going to claim it, learn to spell it.

And it's not a non-sequitur.

You expressed opposition for having private corporations' "liberty" curtailed. I pointed out that there are defensible justifications for curtailing such "liberty," regardless of whether such liberty is de facto conferred by Citizens United. And even if "private corporations" are entitled to such benefit with respect to economic activity, Citizens United is silent on a whole range of other non-economic liberties which apply only to individuals, such as the liberty to engage in douchebaggery.

That particular liberty (to engage in douchebaggery) is only guaranteed to individuals, not to corporations, and then only insofar as the specific douchebaggery engaged in does not cause material, economic, or physical harm to, or infringe on the rights of, the individual or class of individuals who are being subjected to the douchebaggery.

And the individual(s) subjected to said douchebaggery also enjoy a protected right to expose the nature of the douchebaggery to which they are being subjected, protest said infliction, and retaliate insofar as that retaliation does not cause material, economic, or physical harm to, or infringe on the rights of, the aforementioned douchebag.

Isn't this fun? We could do it all day.

amusedly,
Bright

[cosmicone]

43. You don't consider freedom to sell to whatever market

as part of liberty?

Or is every freedom that you disagree with a "douchebaggery" as your neologism suggests?

[TygrBright]

50. Got it in one. The freedom to "sell to whatever market" is not/should not be a protected liberty.

But that's not the same as the liberty to engage in douchebaggery, which, in fact IS a guaranteed liberty for individuals as stipulated above, but NOT for private corporations.

Perhaps some of the highly entertaining huffing and pearl-clutching in this thread, (present interlocutory partner excepted, naturally!) is related to the conflation of two liberties which are so frequently confused on Democratic Underground as to be very nearly an institutional norm.

We see here the confusion between:

1. Abercrombie and Fitch's liberty to sell only certain sizes of clothing (legitimately protected in my opinion); and

2. Abercrombie and Fitch's CEO's liberty to engage in spectacluar public douchebaggery by flapping his pie hole and, in the process, attaching the concept of "douchebaggery" to the brand identity of his business.

We also, as usual, see the standard quota of "because that particular variety of douchebaggery doesn't offend ME, I'll defend to the death the right of anyone to engage therein without the dreadful persecution of being called out for it by those who ARE offended thereby.

Which is what has ME in an ongoing bubble of amusement.

And, by the way, in the ongoing interest of brilliant communication, let me suggest that your scathing final shot might have been more scathing had it been better-targeted. While I choose to adopt "douchebaggery" to describe this behavior as a reference to the original video, it's hardly that much of a "neolog" as words go (I can't even claim credit for it, it's been in the Urban Dictionary for a decade or so.) It is, however a "characterization" applied at my discretion, so your incisive sarcasm might have more impact if next time you re-phrase it thus, emphasizing that it is my choice and my label and therefor obviously invalid.

appreciatively,
Bright

[cosmicone]

63. Again, you are creating a straw-man.

I have not defended the A&F CEO's statement. The only principle I am supporting is that if a store wants to only sell small sized red T-shirts, it should be able to. What that store's CEO said is not being defended here.

[TygrBright]

69. Wait, now you lost me.

What does that have to do with the mobs oppressing the corporate victims, again?

confusedly,
Bright

[cosmicone]

73. ummmm

It is manifestly clear that you won't ever get it. Your ideology is hard-wired into your synapses with its "protesting mobs = good, corporations = bad" simplicity.

Let's just agree to disagree. Peace.

[alp227]

56. "ake away a private corporation's liberty"...err, did DU get hacked today? n/t

[dipsydoodle]

27. I doubt anyone here is applying any more than common sense

Stores sell what they see fit and sink or swim accordingly.

[Mosby]

28. are they public or private?

Someone upthread said their stock is going up, that would make them a public co.

[cosmicone]

32. Private as in "non-governmental"

If they were government owned or supported, I'd support the protest.

[LanternWaste]

30. What leads you to believe that is not the case?

"Why can't a private business sell to whomever they want?"

What leads you to believe that is not the case?

It most certainly is... as is the concomitant-- that every public business must accept the consequences of their business and marketing decisions-- regardless of whether those consequences include a negative and highly publicized backlash against the company.

I kinda thought every trout-brained idiot knew that... maybe I was wrong.

[cosmicone]

40. I may be dumber than a trout-brained idiot

but I only see a bunch of overweight women protesting venomously. No one else seems to care much either way.

It is not a broad-spectrum movement like for civil rights or gay rights.

[mac56]

44. Yes, you may be at that.

"A bunch of overweight women protesting venomously"?!

I'm in neither of those groups. And I care a lot about this.

Er, pal... your misogyny is showing. May want to shell out for an A&F All-Season Weather Warrior Jacket. If you're cool enough to be allowed in the store, that is.

[antigone382]

54. Yeah, like the average sized guy running the "Fitch the Homeless" campaign...

...which granted, I'm not totally comfortable with...but boy does he fit in with the "whiny-fat-girls" image you're cultivating, Mikey.

[Dr. Strange]

33. They can.

Will there be a protest in Baskin Robbins that they don't have ice cream fit for diabetics?

If anyone at Baskin Robbins was stupid enough to say that won't sell to diabetics, because diabetics aren't "attractive," then I suspect there would be a protest.

[mac56]

41. ^ THIS ^

[Kolesar]

16. Free publicity for their grotesque stores...eom

[BainsBane]

21. They stop at size 10

Two or three sizes below the average sized American woman. Yet they stock clothing for larger men.

[FreeState]

23. Actually they dont - the sizing for men stops before average too

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm

Measured average height, weight, and waist circumference for adults ages 20 years and over
Men:
Height (inches): 69.3
Weight (pounds): 195.5
Waist circumference (inches): 39.7

Women:
Height (inches): 63.8
Weight (pounds): 166.2
Waist circumference (inches): 37.5

Mens bottoms go to a waist size of 36 - 2 1/2 smaller than the average US male.
The women's waist size stops at 31 - 6 1/2 inches smaller than the average US female.

The women's definitely is smaller, but both are smaller than the average by quite a bit.

However, these averages are based on all adult average, Abercrombie's target marketing group is younger than the average adult US citizen, so the above average numbers are not comparable, we would need the average for 20-30 year olds, their target market.

[BainsBane]

24. Only women's clothes aren't measured by the waist

sizes are 2, 4, 6, etc . . . I was just going on an article I read last week about this guy's stupid remarks. That piece said they carried XL for men but only to size 10 for women. 10 is a medium. I have never been in one of those ridiculous stores so I have no personal knowledge about this.

[FreeState]

39. Abercrombie uses waist size for women on their sizing chart

http://www.abercrombie.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CustomerService?textKey=HELP_SIZECHART&catalogId=10901&langId=-1&pageName=size-charts&storeId=10051

[BainsBane]

61. Yes, all charts do

but for many of us hips and bust are the more important size measurement.

[David__77]

35. 39.7? Really?

One thing to consider is that that average accounts for all age groups above 20. Their line is not marketed toward people above a certain age either. What's the average for men in their 20s? I'd venture to guess it's less than 36... I'm not "defending" this chain - I have no opinion really...

[FreeState]

42. And if you look at the ideal they are inline

yes Americans are overweight, the sizes Abercrombie offers are within the US governments guidelines for a healthy adult (of any age).

[NickB79]

34. Constantly amazed how few good plus-sized clothing stores there are

My wife can NEVER find anything she really likes in her size that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. With 67% of Americans plus-size, it seems like there's a huge unserved market out there for clothing makers.

[alp227]

57. If companies like McDonald's, Yum Brands, etc can profit off loading everything

with extra fat and HFCS and sugar and other fattening fillers, I don't understand why there are "few good plus-sized clothing stores" and then the CEO of A&F asserts that kind of clothing isn't profitable.

[Redford]

36. My husband has some 20 year old A & F sweatshirts that are XXL

He finally put one in the giveaway bag last week.

A & F was popular in my kids high school and college 2 or 3 years ago. Now, the rage is Ralph Lauren Polo and Sperry's. Those were also popular when I was in high school 30 years ago.

[sir pball]

37. Not that I agree with that asshat at all, but..

If 67% of" consumers" are plus size...there probably needs to be less "consuming".

[mac56]

45. Seriously?!

You think excess food consumption is the only reason people are larger than average?!

[sir pball]

68. Of course not.

It was a pithy remark, didn't have time to expound. I realize "larger than average size" can be caused by many things, plenty of which are entirely out of conscious control.

But NOT 67%. That's ridiculous IMO.

[Mopar151]

64. some of this has to do with vanity sizing - and some with ethnicicity

And it's not just that plus size folks are bigger around - but we are a wide variety of shapes and proportions, and are much less likely to be a standard size.
I'm a big guy, and dress blue collar - there are no clothing stores for me in a mall, unless it's special order from Penny's, or a regional (shoe) chain who know their customer's tendencies.

[jberryhill]

46. Who gives a shit?

Honestly, is this about "I want my overpriced crap from Asian sweatshops to be 'inclusive'"?

How about we do this:

We line up poor people from the shitholes their clothing comes from so that we can all just piss on them directly.


....and make DAMN SURE that the line is handicapped accessible and has directions in Braille.

[Megalo_Man]

51. Ahh, the entitlement mentality strikes again.

[alp227]

58. What entitlement? The idea that fat people are actually human beings?

Wow, is this Free Republic right here? This topic brings out some of the bigots in our crowd.

[Megalo_Man]

59. "Fat people" as you called them aren't forced to buy clothes at A&F.

A&F are entitled make clothes in whatever sizes they want to make them, and "fat people" are entitled to boycott them if they don't like it. Do you hear about any dwarves or midgets boycotting clothing stores? I am a "fat person", and I think this is ridiculous. I buy most of my clothes at specialty stores, and try to lose weight in the mean time. I don't go around harassing businesses because they don't make clothes in my size like a spoiled 8 year old who didn't get what they wanted for Christmas.

[mac56]

62. You're missing the point by a mile.

A&F is perfectly entitled to make and sell any size clothing they choose. As someone wrote upthread: it's not that they only sell those sizes. It is their stated reasons for doing so.

The issue is that the CEO made it clear their business model relies upon their being "losers" in the world who aren't worthy to shop, let alone work, in his stores. His business model thrives on exclusionary and dehumanizing attitudes.

Did he break any laws? No, of course not.

Was he being an ass? Yup.

Does he, and his company, deserve to be called out on it? You bet. He was stupid, and he deserves his lumps.

[Nye Bevan]

66. Did he use the word "losers"? Or did he just describe his target market? (nt)

[mac56]

67. Neither.

He clearly stated what kind of people he does not wish to see in his stores.

[mac56]

71. There are plenty of clothing stores out there.

The ones run by assholes don't need my money.

[tblue]

53. Do they sell clothes?

All their poster-size display photos are of 3/4 naked people. I've never entered their store because I don't want to dress 3/4 naked. What the hell are they selling? People with shirts open to the navel and jeans unbuttoned?

[upaloopa]

60. I remember when the only labels people wore

were Oshkosh Begosh, Levi's and Wrangler.
It's the label that identifies the clothes so quit with caring about the label.

[Nye Bevan]

65. What a stupid campaign. Why can't companies choose which niche they wish to market to?

Several stores cater to the more amply proportioned. Why aren't skinny people protesting these establishments?

[mac56]

70. Um.. because the CEO of those stores

didn't come right out and say skinny people aren't worthy of his merchandise?

[Marrah_G]

72. I think their clothes are ugly