A World-Class Heel, the Appeal of Elitism, and Satisfaction in Being Uncool
Mike Jeffries, former CEO of men’s fashion retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, is living proof that, in the words of Annie Savoy, the world is made for those who lack self awareness.
A highlight of my Sunday morning are two regular features from one of my favourite publications:
One is:
…and the other is usually titled by whatever theme has been revealed by the memes used to put it together.
On Sunday, May 19, it was the very first image in the post, and the internal ruminations it precipitated along with the examination of the reasons behind said ruminations that led me to begin writing this essay.
My view of the retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has almost always been one with a bit of a jaundiced eye.
When I began my research, I had largely forgotten why, but quickly remembered. It was this all too candid admission from A&F’s CEO in an interview from 2006 that resurfaced in 2013:1
That's why we hire good-looking people in our stores. Because good-looking people attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don't market to anyone other than that. ... In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don't belong [in our clothes], and they can't belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.
This rubbed me all the wrong ways – not because he wasn’t being honest or that A&F wasn’t completely within its rights to effect such a marketing strategy. No, it did so because I was not one of the cool kids in school – I was immediately transported back to when I was in junior high, and learned the hard way.
The cool kids were often bullies, and were frequently given a pass for truly abhorrent behaviour because either their athletic or political prowess reflected well on the school as a whole; or their family’s influence, (exercised through financial resources, reputation, or power) made them untouchable in this regard. The world was already theirs – and here was a retailer successfully catering not just to their immutable physical attributes, but their arrogance and narcissism, as well.
With those remarks, all Mike Jeffries did was show everyone who he was. Revisiting this gaffe lo these many years hence, and given the controversy that followed, I’m finding it necessary to ask a number of questions that beg to be answered:
Why should he be expected to be any more enlightened, or considerate, than anyone in his company’s target market?
He simply was the grown-up (not adult) version of the demographic to whom A&F appeals.
Why the outrage – why should he be expected to go out of his way to not offend?
Are his character flaws somehow worse than anyone else’s, or even our own?
Why should he be forced to apologize?
Why should he be forced to say he didn’t mean it, and to express sentiments to appease the offended?
Never mind the insincerity of it all.
Why should I enjoy any schadenfreude at the expense of A&F?
Why delight at the blowback in response to the candor of then-CEO Mike Jeffries?
If nothing else, at the very least, he was only being honest.Should such candor and honesty be condemned by those of us who might choose to be so offended?
If one is to be every bit as candid in reflection, I submit that such condemnation is borne of fear. Not fear of not being one of the cool kids in the clique, but rather what that might mean should the cool kids ever become capable of bullying and punishing those who are not like them. Fear that the story told in the novel, Lord of the Flies, might come to life. Given what has been occurring not just in the past eight years, but since social media platforms became almost the sole province of the left, it cannot be dismissed – it is not a phobia.
Exclusivity as a selling point…better than sex?
Clearly, being exclusionary is a key component of A&F’s marketing efforts, and like it or not, A&F is an excellent example of marketing not just clothing, but a lifestyle – one which we are led to believe is available only to an elite.
How then, is A&F’s marketing strategy any different from that of, say, Rolex timepieces, Cartier or Tiffany jewelry; Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Dooney & Bourke, or some of the higher-end Coach-brand leather goods; BMW, Audi, Bentley/Rolls-Royce; or any other brand that seeks to position itself as an exclusive brand catering only to the one percent (or more likely, the one percent wannabes)?
It is my understanding that among the ultra-wealthy, the trend is toward clothing, accessories, and other material goods with no outwardly visible logo indicating a particular brand. No little alligator, map of the Canadian arctic, or sheep suspended by a ribbon around its midsection.2
Until the backlash against the retailer in 2013 became public, I had regarded A&F in much the same way as I did any other retailer or designer label whose target demographic was a decidedly younger crowd who also happened to be thin – if it was profitable, more power to them.
Let’s explore a little further and compare A&F with a very similar retailer of men’s and women’s clothing with classic lines and silhouettes – J. Crew (think what Brooks Brothers once was to men’s clothing, and/or what Talbot’s is to women’s) only for a younger crowd. While much of its clothing appeals to a wide spectrum of potential customers, most pieces only fit those who are tall and thin. I know this because eons ago, when I was in corporate retail and needed to dress in a manner befitting my role (custom-tailored suits, sport coats, trousers, shirts), I paged through the catalog, and purchased one or two garments. When trying on the jacket, it was clear that it was not a standard 42R.
Brief lesson in men’s tailored clothing: There is a difference in the fit of two garments which are the same size, from two different designers – a 42R suit coat from Hugo Boss or Tommy Hilfiger is going to fit much differently than a 42R suit coat from Burberry or Dior Homme. Don’t Levi’s fit differently than Lee’s? Any garment from J. Crew, it seemed, despite the drawings, was cut for one who was very slender, and of a much more delicate build.
At the time, I was still barely young enough to find some of the more classic items appealing, but not being tall and thin, not one for whom J. Crew’s clothing is intended. As low as was my self-esteem at the time, it wasn’t such that I was even remotely willing to entertain trying to become something I was not, just to be able to wear a beautifully constructed, three-button, 100% wool, gray herringbone sport coat. In that way, J. Crew is every bit as exclusive, or exclusionary as A&F – it just isn’t as honest about it. It was only after Jeffries’ remarks had resurfaced that its corporate ethos got under my skin.
Context – or lack thereof – strikes again!
It was disappointing to learn that he had been bullied by hypersensitive scolds into issuing a clarification, and just like the one Matt Maloney, CEO of Grubhub offered after he had slandered then-president-elect Donald Trump and smeared his supporters, Jeffries’ was every bit as insincere and contradictory:
‘I want to address some of my comments that have been circulating from a 2006 interview. While I believe this seven-year-old, resurrected quote has been taken out of context, I sincerely regret that my choice of words was interpreted in a manner that has offended.’ He also stated, ‘We are completely opposed to any discrimination, bullying, derogatory characterizations or other anti-social behavior based on race, gender, body type or other individual characteristics.’
Is he kidding? Discrimination, bullying, derogatory characterizations and other anti-social behavior based on race, gender, body type or other individual characteristics has been money in the bank for A&F!
Again – which is it? It’s as if the moment he’s called out on it, he’s possessed of the ghost of Eddie Haskell from, Leave It to Beaver, trying to hide his character’s true colours upon noticing June Cleaver’s presence.
Wally, if your dumb brother tags along, I'm gonna — oh, good afternoon, Mrs. Cleaver. I was just telling Wallace how pleasant it would be for Theodore to accompany us to the movies.
Up until that moment, A&F had been making money hand-over-fist, enjoyed dominance in its niche in the marketplace, and was as successful as any retailer could ever hope to be by being the corporate equivalent of the guy whose face you just want to punch.
Suddenly, the company was opposed to everything for which it stood and was the reason for its success? If true, then what the hell is its mission? I don’t recall if shortly thereafter there was, suddenly, a token fatty, a token nerd, or any other kind of kid who was not cool in each store – it’s not likely.
In my mind, the critical distinction between A&F and J. Crew, along with every other brand marketing an exclusive lifestyle, was the message that:
Anyone and everyone who was not among the “cool kids” and/or who never would be,
was worthless – of no value – as people
was not an integral part of its company and brand ethos.3 I’m not being told that I’m worthless because I can’t afford a Rolex, or because I don’t drive an Audi.
It does require intellectual effort, to be sure, but a distinction ought to be made between the flawed individual who is the CEO of an enterprise, and the enterprise, itself – its mission, its reputation as a corporate citizen in its community, et al., and not conflating the human foibles of one with the other. As appealing as it could be for the right one, a company is not the people it employs, the managers who run it, or the owners who took the risk in founding it.
Grudging respect for a marketing genius
Again, regardless of whatever one’s personal feelings may be toward Mr. Jeffries or A&F, there is no way it could ever have purchased the publicity that came with the backlash – Roger Dooley of Forbes was absolutely correct.4
One's first reaction is probably that Jeffries is a world-class jerk.
It’s nice to know I wasn’t the only one…
...competitors, American Eagle and H&M, welcome their less svelte customers by offering a full range of sizes. And his mean-spirited comments certainly seem like bad business. According to the CDC, more than two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese - A&F would be crazy to not just ignore, but alienate, such a huge part of the market, right?
Wrong.
Before we write off Jeffries as an out-of-touch elitist, let's think about the apparel market. It's enormous, and many, if not most, brands focus on a particular demographic group.
…A&F [and] its competitors - …target the teen (and just beyond) market, and generate massive sales. In fact, an apparel brand that tries to appeal to everyone will likely appeal to nobody.
As much as one might want to deny it, that’s a fact.
What Jeffries has done with years of obnoxious, exclusionary comments is sharpen the brand identity of A&F, and portray its customers as a select group - young, attractive, and popular. When he says he doesn't want customers who don't fit that image, he's making his current customers more loyal and making the prospect of becoming a customer more attractive.
Attracting new customers is difficult, and very costly. Gaining new customers organically (customers who had no previous relationship with the brand – who came to purchase as a result of an online search, for example) is a crap-shoot, at best.
What most retailers value almost more than anything else, are customers who are loyal to the brand, who make purchases repeatedly, and who spend more with each transaction. New customers are most likely to be referrals from peers who are already customers.
Retailers who compete for the same customer profile and/or demographic, are not seeking to lure away the customers of competitors – rather, they want to identify those who will be its own future customers, and the best way to do that is to make sure that those who are currently loyal to the brand are its evangelists to their peers, their friends, and their younger brothers and sisters – and it works.
In this way, Jeffries is a true marketing and brand-management genius.5
You may cringe at the comparison, but Jeffries' strategy isn't dissimilar to that of another abrasive CEO, the late Steve Jobs. As I described in Build Loyalty Like Apple: Define Your Enemy, for decades Apple turned its customers into fanatical advocates in part by portraying them as cool and creative while mocking PC users as uncool bumblers or corporate drones.
In my last post, I had explored the human tendency to form cliques, in-crowds, and how the cool kids come into their own, dominate the others in the very small world of high school, and that dynamic re-emerging among so-called adults courtesy of the left’s control of almost every social media platform. The Forbes article goes on to make an excellent observation re: group identity, one that I wish I’d known of as I was composing it:
Psychologist Henri Tajfel demonstrated that the tiniest and most irrelevant distinctions could cause people to form a group and identify with that group. If something as trivial as a coin flip can build group identity, imagine the power of defining your customer group as ‘hot and popular’ and non-customers as ‘unattractive and unliked.’
The more talk there is of boycotts, the more clothes A&F will sell. Those customers who can find their sizes at A&F (and don't get thrown out of the store for being insufficiently hot), now become part of the ‘in’ group.
Every time a critic trumpets, ‘Mike Jeffries is terrible for not wanting overweight or unattractive people in his stores,’ they are propagating the exact branding message he's trying to promote. Will A&F lose a few customers because of their obnoxious CEO and corporate ethos? Probably.
I wouldn’t have bet on that.
But it will be no surprise if they end up adding new customers and increasing sales even as the controversy rages.
Nonetheless, despite a twenty-one percent drop in its stock price in 2017,6 the enterprise has since recovered and is thriving. My conclusion is that the market may respond to efforts borne of moral outrage, but to paraphrase a popular aphorism, the market doesn’t care about your feelings.
Uncool
As was mentioned earlier, at school I was never one of the cool kids, and I didn’t move in circles even tangentially adjacent to that crowd (truth be told, I was better for it). Decades later, though, there came this bit of validation from the film, Almost Famous:
As Lester Bangs so eloquently said to young Mr. Miller:
The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool.
God help me, I love that line.
Thank you, dear reader, for your indulgence.
Until next time…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abercrombie_%26_Fitch], [Denizet-Lewis, Benoit (January 24, 2006). "The man behind Abercrombie & Fitch: Mike Jeffries turned a moribund company into a multibillion-dollar brand by selling youth, sex and casual superiority. Not bad for a 61-year-old in flip-flops". Salon. Retrieved January 27, 2014.
I must admit to feeling a little like one on the bleeding edge of such a trend as I’ve been wearing nondescript Ts, polos, and dress shirts, for years and no one but me (and now you, dear reader) ever knew they were purchased from Kohl’s – online.
As I write this, it occurs to me how close such an attitude is to the one that established Teutonic attributes like blonde hair and blue eyes as the Aryan ideal – it’s repugnant in business, but when it becomes government policy, we are in trouble.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2013/05/16/abercrombie-ceo/?sh=66e35c5e1f59
I don’t know if this devalues and degrades the word ‘genius’, but it’s difficult not to regard him as such.
The result of a failed attempt to sell itself https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/business/dealbook/abercrombie-fitch-ends-talks-to-sell-itself.html
And yet, I doubt that many of their customers have enough sense to wear a wrist compass.
BE HONEST... AND UNMERRCIFUL............ love that . or, in another lifetime, maybe just a couple of years down the road,,,,, REMAIN SILENT, AND LET THE CURRENT CROP OF MORONS GO ON BY.