By now, you’ve heard plenty about the latest
discriminatory nonsense to tumble proudly out of the mouth of Abercrombie &
Fitch’s CEO, Mike Jeffries, about who should and shouldn’t wear the brand’s
clothing and why they don’t carry what some might call “plus” sizes. The
backlash has been sizable, loud, and widespread. To be perfectly honest, my
reaction was similar. I vividly remember the last shirt I purchased from
A&F when I was still a teenager, an XL t-shirt. I didn’t try it on,
confident that an XL at Abercrombie would be similar to a Large at any other
store. I remember taking it home, putting it on, and not being able to move my
arms. This is how I learned that A&F’s definition of what is “extra large”
is bizarre. I had worn many Larges and XLs from many other stores, including
their direct competitors, and they had all fit. So, I just assumed that A&F
was weird, returned the shirt, and never bought anything there again. Which,
looking back on it, was an incredible statement about my body image, even
though at that time I hated being overweight. (Still not a huge fan, but it
doesn’t seem as devastating as it once did.)
Now that I’ve pondered and pontificated, I’m
finding more and more gray areas with how reprehensible CEO Jeffries might
actually be. Hear me out.
A few years ago, Planet Fitness ran a successful
series of TV commercials about being a judgment-free zone, going so far as to
have one of the gym’s employees lead a rather muscular man out the door because
he didn’t belong at the gym, essentially for only caring about lifting things
up and putting them down. By saying that Planet Fitness is not a place for
super-huge dudes who only care about getting huger, they made a statement about
being exclusive, about being a place for only a certain type of person. In
essence, they were stating that their brand of gyms is only for a certain group
of people and those who don’t fit will be judged as such (especially the “Lunk
Alarm” they have that goes off when people are hardcore lifting/grunting). When
you get right down to the most basic elements, there isn’t a ton of difference
between the exclusivity and judgment of Abercrombie and Planet Fitness.
Except, there kind of is a little bit of a
difference, depending on where your moral compass points. The message that
A&F is sending out to the world is that being skinny and pretty are the
most important things in the world, regardless of how you attain those things,
and that only those who are those two things should wear their clothes. This is
an extremely shallow and downright terrible message to send, especially with
the ballooning number of eating disorders and mental health issues running
rampant in children. The message that Planet Fitness is putting out there is
more positive, albeit still a bit insensitive: Huge dudes at the gym grunting,
swearing, and mouth-breathing while they power through their 10th
set of bench presses can come off as anti-social and can create a tense
atmosphere; we don’t like that atmosphere in our fitness centers. It’s still
somewhat shallow, judging others based on their appearance, how they exercise,
and what their health goals are, but its intentions are headed in the right
place. But as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
So, what is a brand supposed to do? There’s no way
for every brand to appeal to everyone of every kind, all the time. Brands have
to define themselves, and part of that definition means excluding some people.
Even mass-appeal products have their detractors: Apple, Google, and Coca-Cola all have their
share of haters who are never in short supply of Haterade. It’s impossible to
win over everyone. However, that doesn’t mean you have to go right out and tell
people your brand is not for them, which is exactly what CEO Jeffries just did,
and what Planet Fitness did a few years ago. That decision, ultimately, should
be left up to the consumer. Brands should have well-defined target audiences
and standards to measure all of their communications against in terms of
appealing to those audiences. That being said, it isn’t always best to share
those standards with the world, or take those standards to their furthest point
of execution and actively cut out people who want to give you money in exchange
for goods and/or services.
My guess is that some of the brand managers at
A&F face-palmed when they read their CEO Jeffries’ interview. At least, I
hope they did. There are right ways and wrong ways to convey exclusivity.
A&F’s most recent effort was the wrong way. Many are pushing back, as they
should. Still, it remains to be seen how much those comments will actively
affect the company’s bottom line. My guess is those comments wouldn’t have come
out had A&F not been confident that their core target would either agree or
wouldn’t care. Not that any of that excuses or justifies what CEO Jeffries
said. In the end, he’s still a colossal jerk.
