US fashion brand Abercrombie & Fitch has recently unveiled its first preview of their newest collection. Nothing we haven’t heard so far, a brand releasing a new collection, but the announcement did make news around the world, as Abercrombie has decided back a while ago to change their image.

The label was known worldwide for their very sexual imagery and style. However, Abercrombie has decided to change its image and present a new one that is more minimalist, more modern and less sexual.

According to a brand representative, the new Abercrombie image reflects “just one example of the brand’s new mind-set.” Craig Brommers, senior vice president of marketing at Abercrombie told Women’s Wear Daily that “with the evolution of the brand, we wanted to try something new,” and continued his statement by saying that the shift in image was due to their customer’s feedback.

 

 

The controversy

For a lot of time now, Abercrombie & Fitch has been seen as a brand that is more exclusive than others. In 2006, the brand saw itself in a strong media storm as then CEO Michael Jeffries said in a statement 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.” After the brand took a beating no cool kid has ever experienced, Jeffries released, a few years later an announcement saying: “I want to address some of my comments that have been circulating from a 2006 interview. While I believe this 7 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 caused offense. A&F is an aspirational brand that, like most specialty apparel brands, targets its marketing at a particular segment of customers. However, we care about the broader communities in which we operate and are strongly committed to diversity and inclusion. We hire good people who share these values. 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.”

Jeffries stepped down as CEO and, maybe due to that, and maybe due to something else; Abercrobmie closed around 300 doors over the past few seasons.

Recently, the brand hired Kristina Szasz, who previously worked with Tommy Hilfiger and Karl Lagerfeld, as head women’s designer, and Aaron Levine, who was formerly with Club Monaco, as head of men’s design. Monica Margerum, formerly with Kohls, was hired as head of planning operations for A&F and abercrombie kids, and Katia Kuethe, who had worked with Lucky magazine, was hired as creative director of marketing.

 

 

What the change means

With their highly sexual image, Abercrombie and Fitch had an audience that lived or wanted to live the Abercrombie lifestyle. And there’s nothing wrong with that. However, Mr. Jeffries statements, regardless of whether he meant them in a bad way or not, made not so much the brand, but the wearers seem like veritable exclusive, image-based assholes. And nobody wants to be seen as such.

Therefore, a change was needed, especially as business was going a bit down for the fashion label. In 2014, the company made $3.74 billion in sales, net income of $51.8 million, and comparable sales down 8%, so a change was due. And, since they were in a sexual extreme imagewise, the only direction they could go was the other way around.

The main mistake that was done was Mike Jeffries’ statement. Each brand has its own target audience and caters to people who have very precise aspirations or lifestyles. However, no label puts it in a way that makes its customers feel bad for buying from their brand. If you think about, most luxury brands only offer their goods to people who can afford them, so, if they want it or not, they are exclusive in one way or the other, but they don’t go bragging around about it.

Of course that Abercrombie had to change because of the image it had in many people’s minds, but we were not thrilled that they had to go more conservative.

It can’t be known what the label’s market research looked like – maybe this was the best way to go, but we feel that culturally speaking, Abercrombie didn’t do its best. Yet.

The reason we say that is because we live in a world where the mainstream culture is becoming increasingly silent about the ways in which people think, act and behave in public. Abercrombie was, in a way, a counterpoint to a culture that seems to bow more and more to shame-based values. Was it a brand that took pride in its exclusivity based on image in a rather childish way? Yes. Was it negative towards others? That’s discussable.

We live in a very contrasting culture that is becoming more and more tense. This tension is caused by the extremely high differences between people’s private lives and their public lives. As private lives become more and more liberal – people now hook up after swiping a photo, the public version of their lives needs to be more and more prude. If you disagree, you may look at the cinematography and photography of the 1980 for example, which was more open about sexuality, relationships and taboos than we are today.

Another news item that went around the world recently, which is also about a change in image, was about Playboy’s magazine decision to renounce to portray nude women. Of course, the decision was a reasonable one, as given the amounts of pornography available online, trying to sell a magazine that won’t be sold by many stores in their main section or at all, is not a wise business move.

Seeing it from this angle, Playboy’s move is understandable, and it makes for another good example of how the public space is becoming increasingly conservative and the private space is becoming more liberal.

To maintain Playboy as a relevant and great brand, some people such as The Times’ Ravi Somaiya wrote that Playboy has finally and effectively accomplished its original mission of “normalizing” the female body by introducing women to the world in their natural state. Of course, this type of statement is supposed to have the role of some weird revisionist history. We would like to propose it as the year’s worst piece of thought.

 

To conclude, we wish to say that we do support Abercrombie in their shift and growing up journey – a brand needs to be fashion-forward when there is a need to be fashion-forward and this was a moment that required a change in fashion.

We are looking forward to seeing their new collections and are sure they’re going to be amazing! They sure have the means to re-invent themselves in a better way. As for Playboy, we are looking forward to seeing their up and coming women empowerment moves.

 

Fraquoh and Franchomme

 

 

 

 

 

P.S We want to hear from you! What do you think of Abercrombie’s image move? What about Playboy? Share your feedback, questions or thoughts in the comments below! For more articles on style, fashion tips and cultural insights, you can subscribe to Attire Club via e-mail or follow us on Facebook or Twitter!