November 8, 2013
A&F Apologizes to Plus Size Consumers
Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) is changing course. The retailer has refused to sell women’s jeans above size 10 in the past and taken some public relation hits for its emphasis on beautiful people wearing its clothes and working in it stores. But starting next spring, the chain will begin selling larger sizes.
The company announced the move after reporting its seventh consecutive quarter of declining same-store sales. Comp sales were down 14 percent year-over-year during the most recent quarter for the chain.
Last spring, statements made by A&F CEO Mike Jeffries in a 2006 Salon interview republished in a book, The New Rules of Retail, by Robin Lewis and Michael Dart led to calls for the retailer to change what some saw as its "exclusionary" approach to business. A petition on Change.org calling on A&F to "embrace the beauty in all sizes" gained the support of more than 80,000.
In a May RetailWire Instant Poll, 47 percent said they believed that A&F’s policy of not selling clothing for larger size women hurt the chain’s reputation and sales performance. Thirty-six percent thought its approach helped.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Will consumers put off by A&F’s previous stance shop in its stores now that it appears to have reversed its policy on offering clothing in sizes for larger women? What will the chain need to do to build on the goodwill created by this decision?
Poll
I’m going to talk to the young man who started the petition in the next few days. I’m curious to hear HIS point of view. My own is I don’t want anyone to grudgingly serve me. If you need a petition to recognize I exist, why bother.
I think the “beautiful people” image has its limits. Especially when you really are trying to appeal to a mass market. I’d like to say A&F’s declining sales has everything to do with not catering to larger sizes, but I think it’s way more complex than that. Perception of high prices, intimidating to people who just might not be “beautiful enough” and niche-y enough to have passed its prime.
I think it needs a reinvention and that will take a very long time.
IMO consumers put off by A&F’s past marketing approach will not start shopping with them. This is most likely an attempt to retain customers who were previously size 10 and below, who due to time and age, have outgrown their clothes, but still want to be associated with the A&F brand. My guess this is more about customer retention rather than building goodwill.
A&F seems to have a knack for upsetting segments of consumers, whether it was young models in skimpy, suggestive clothing and poses or failure to carry plus size clothing. Their justification seemed to be any publicity is good publicity. Unfortunately, consumers have been voting with their dollars, and A&F consistently has been the loser. I have to wonder if the chain is still relevant.
I’m not sure that the decline in A&F’s sales is due to concern about its sizing policy, so I doubt that changing it will boost sales. To jump to that conclusion, you’d have to assume that smaller-boned people have abandoned the store in camaraderie with their larger-boned friends.
You’d also have to assume that other stores that sell only smaller sizes, like J. Crew and H&M, were also lagging. I just don’t see it.
I doubt a petition had as much to do with the policy change as much as the lack of sales. It is going to take some time before those offended by A&F’s stance on who they sell to will change their minds and choose to shop there.
I think it will be an uphill battle for the company. Although people tend to be forgiving, they are not always so good about forgetting. It seems we have come so far in being a society that accepts people for who they are, statements that are hurtful to a group of people tend to rally everyone to come to that group’s defense. In this case, that became evidently clear by their drop in share. With so much competition, when you lose a consumer, it is very hard to win them back. I am not sure that they will rebound completely.
If I was a plus size woman, I wouldn’t. It seems pretty clear A&F is doing this for financial reasons as opposed to doing this to really serve that customer segment. Beauty comes in all sizes so A&F’s shift “after reporting its seventh consecutive quarter of declining same-store sales” just rings hollow.
Lower sales for 7 consecutive quarters has caused A&F to review its “exclusionary” comments and practices. That has led A&F to decide to start appealing this spring to non-customers, larger ladies, to gain its needed new customers.
“If A&F didn’t seek ample women’s business before, why would those women flock to A&F now they will offer what other have been offering?” Nothing since many ladies might want to be associated with the A&F brand and its perceived self-esteem value.
However, once a lady has been insulted or jilted by a dude, she may not be magnetized by his new appeals. Only time will tell if that is true, a lengthy time and new sales are needed now.
A&F needs to do more than just offer the plus size clothing in the store, they have to plus size their attitude about taking care of the consumer.
To this point, A&F has projected an image of “If you’re not good enough to hang with me, you’re not welcome here.” In an era of the consumer is in charge, and knows what he/she wants, that overly cool approach that is fostered in too many A&F brands, simply will not have sustainable advantage for a chain this size.
So with that reasoning, should Lane Bryant be forced to sell small sized clothes so those customers don’t feel excluded? Or Pottery Barn be obliged to sell Danish Modern styles because that is what I want to buy?
The issue is more that A&F is not a department store trying to serve all comers. It has a specific customer model and image, like all specialty stores. So, how many additional sizes should they add? 12-14? 12-20? Sounds like an opportunity for a spinoff store focusing on the plus size teen.
Sounds like A&F believes that fat wallets are beautiful.
I suspect that over time, people of all sizes will try it out, but they will neither all come running in, nor will they all stay away. However selling to that larger demographic isn’t just a matter of grading to a few bigger sizes, it requires new silhouettes and styling. I’m betting that getting that right takes A&F some time too. And like any fashion retailer who is trending down (as they all seem to do on a cyclical basis), there’s usually more than one thing to fix.
I think the petition has little to do with the real issue Abercrombie faces. It’s a stark choice, really: Does it evolve its offerings to keep pace with the needs of present customers as they get older, richer and a little wider? Or does it stick to its positioning and hope to acquire a whole new set of customers just now reaching adolescence?
It’s highly unlikely that A&F will acquire many new customers as a result of this merchandising change. Too late for them. This is about keeping brand loyals coming back.
A&F is a 100 store concept. High quality, high brand, high price, elevated retail experience, etc., etc. The term ‘exclusive’ comes to mind. Ralph Lauren-esque. The ’90s frenzy about the brand fooled management and investors into thinking they were bigger than that, but in reality, they’re a fantastic 100 store brand and a not-very-good 500 store brand. The Great Recession straightened all that out and now, they’re paying the price for being fooled by the ’90s.
I love A&F. Their product and store experience is fantastic – unsurpassed in their category. But I shop there twice a year and it’s expensive even to me, and I’m assuming I make a little more than most Millennials. So, in my mind, they should stick to their guns, get down to the right size, and keep doing the things they do best. Fake controversy included
Also – there’s a lot of talk about their “management” and how with them still in charge, things won’t change. But to me, the minute they sack Jeffries is the minute the brand goes to the dogs and becomes just like all their competitors. I think the board knows that too. Again, stick to your guns, you’ve got a great brand.
A&F has discovered that there are not enough “beautiful people” to keep the business afloat. And if A&F still holds a top place in coolness and logo and desirable fashion in the areas where their stores are, then the formerly excluded shoppers will happily come to shop there.
Lessons from this episode in retailing by A&F should be that words mean things. “Apologies” seem to be the current thing. Just as much as they are expected, they are rarely accepted. A&F’s problem isn’t solely the sizing issue. Their real issue is that “cool” only lasts so long. When its time is up, consumers move on to the next “cool” thing.
Yesterday I put on an A&F necktie. How old was it? It is too old to mention. Yet, the necktie itself was timeless. It is one of my favorites. It was purchased at a time when clothing that was sold by A&F was actually timeless. It was a different time then and since then, A&F took a turn in a different direction. They took their run at “cool.” They had a pretty good run even though they lost me as a customer in the process.
As I put on that necktie, my thought at the time was that I sure missed the store that they once were. I sure wonder what would’ve happened if they had stuck with “timeless….”
I must have missed the memo that anything over size 10 is automatically a plus size. Just writing about the topic in the manner simply adds to the affront. Let’s also be real, vanity sizing is everywhere these days in both men’s and ladies apparel. Example, I am larger than I have ever been in my life yet I still wear a size 4…PULEEZE. At least I DO know better. I grew up in the rag trade. I have an old Wolf fit form from 25 years ago. It is the exact same measurements I am today and it reads a size 8. I also know that even A&F does vanity sizing too.
As for A&F, I agree that their customer is aging; I also believe that there is less disposable income today and their price points are as attractive to the younger crowd. There is also more competition. It is a multitude of issues. I do think that some people over the A&F cut-off size will try them out. People are curious and shopping is all about entrainment. There is now a curiosity for the people over size 10. The trick will be to see if it is enough to help their sales.
Selling plus sizes or not is the least of their problems – negative marketing messages, bad pricing policies, rude and anorexic-looking sales associates, terrible customer-service, bad omni-channel experience, and much, much more. This will do little to veil the problems they are having and will not move them away from their steady decline of business.
With respect to the first question, I think it all depends on how genuine A&F is in their remorse. If absolutely genuine and followed up by other similar actions, then I imagine a fair number of individuals will give them a(nother) chance. If their remorse is a one-time activity to attempt to drum up sales, I imagine most of the offended shoppers will perceive the lack of authenticity, and refuse to shop at A&F.
I agree with Paula Rosenblum, David Livingston, Roger Saunders, Gene Hoffman, and Lee Peterson.
A&F has many problems. Some have to do with A&F itself and others have to do with changing ideas in the minds of shoppers, including attitudes of some younger people who would have become their shoppers as generations roll over. Many younger people today are not as awed by brands and logos and also, some who see A&F as their older sisters’ and older cousins’ store (The ultra chic status of Aeropostale among some younger people never fails to amaze me – not that there is anything wrong with Aeropostale).
The younger market is fragmented and a little odd, and I think this is badly hurting A&F. Their stand-offish and superior attitude, I feel, has worsened their possible appeal as well in the current marketplace. If their sales of larger sizes helps them but they misstep with their remaining traditional-thinking customer, they will undoubtedly alienate those customers – it is a strange and uncomfortable bed that they have made.
More Discussions
Is Meta Committing to Retail via Meta Lab Stores, or Are Other Goals More Important?
Is Meta playing in retail, actually committing to retail, or looking for more data?Aerie Recruits Pamela Anderson To Highlight No-AI Models Promise
American Eagle’s Aerie banner has recruited former “Baywatch” star Pamela Anderson to broadcast the lifestyle brand’s…How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…
I’m going to talk to the young man who started the petition in the next few days. I’m curious to hear HIS point of view. My own is I don’t want anyone to grudgingly serve me. If you need a petition to recognize I exist, why bother.
I think the “beautiful people” image has its limits. Especially when you really are trying to appeal to a mass market. I’d like to say A&F’s declining sales has everything to do with not catering to larger sizes, but I think it’s way more complex than that. Perception of high prices, intimidating to people who just might not be “beautiful enough” and niche-y enough to have passed its prime.
I think it needs a reinvention and that will take a very long time.
IMO consumers put off by A&F’s past marketing approach will not start shopping with them. This is most likely an attempt to retain customers who were previously size 10 and below, who due to time and age, have outgrown their clothes, but still want to be associated with the A&F brand. My guess this is more about customer retention rather than building goodwill.
A&F seems to have a knack for upsetting segments of consumers, whether it was young models in skimpy, suggestive clothing and poses or failure to carry plus size clothing. Their justification seemed to be any publicity is good publicity. Unfortunately, consumers have been voting with their dollars, and A&F consistently has been the loser. I have to wonder if the chain is still relevant.
I’m not sure that the decline in A&F’s sales is due to concern about its sizing policy, so I doubt that changing it will boost sales. To jump to that conclusion, you’d have to assume that smaller-boned people have abandoned the store in camaraderie with their larger-boned friends.
You’d also have to assume that other stores that sell only smaller sizes, like J. Crew and H&M, were also lagging. I just don’t see it.
I doubt a petition had as much to do with the policy change as much as the lack of sales. It is going to take some time before those offended by A&F’s stance on who they sell to will change their minds and choose to shop there.
I think it will be an uphill battle for the company. Although people tend to be forgiving, they are not always so good about forgetting. It seems we have come so far in being a society that accepts people for who they are, statements that are hurtful to a group of people tend to rally everyone to come to that group’s defense. In this case, that became evidently clear by their drop in share. With so much competition, when you lose a consumer, it is very hard to win them back. I am not sure that they will rebound completely.
If I was a plus size woman, I wouldn’t. It seems pretty clear A&F is doing this for financial reasons as opposed to doing this to really serve that customer segment. Beauty comes in all sizes so A&F’s shift “after reporting its seventh consecutive quarter of declining same-store sales” just rings hollow.
Lower sales for 7 consecutive quarters has caused A&F to review its “exclusionary” comments and practices. That has led A&F to decide to start appealing this spring to non-customers, larger ladies, to gain its needed new customers.
“If A&F didn’t seek ample women’s business before, why would those women flock to A&F now they will offer what other have been offering?” Nothing since many ladies might want to be associated with the A&F brand and its perceived self-esteem value.
However, once a lady has been insulted or jilted by a dude, she may not be magnetized by his new appeals. Only time will tell if that is true, a lengthy time and new sales are needed now.
A&F needs to do more than just offer the plus size clothing in the store, they have to plus size their attitude about taking care of the consumer.
To this point, A&F has projected an image of “If you’re not good enough to hang with me, you’re not welcome here.” In an era of the consumer is in charge, and knows what he/she wants, that overly cool approach that is fostered in too many A&F brands, simply will not have sustainable advantage for a chain this size.
So with that reasoning, should Lane Bryant be forced to sell small sized clothes so those customers don’t feel excluded? Or Pottery Barn be obliged to sell Danish Modern styles because that is what I want to buy?
The issue is more that A&F is not a department store trying to serve all comers. It has a specific customer model and image, like all specialty stores. So, how many additional sizes should they add? 12-14? 12-20? Sounds like an opportunity for a spinoff store focusing on the plus size teen.
Sounds like A&F believes that fat wallets are beautiful.
I suspect that over time, people of all sizes will try it out, but they will neither all come running in, nor will they all stay away. However selling to that larger demographic isn’t just a matter of grading to a few bigger sizes, it requires new silhouettes and styling. I’m betting that getting that right takes A&F some time too. And like any fashion retailer who is trending down (as they all seem to do on a cyclical basis), there’s usually more than one thing to fix.
I think the petition has little to do with the real issue Abercrombie faces. It’s a stark choice, really: Does it evolve its offerings to keep pace with the needs of present customers as they get older, richer and a little wider? Or does it stick to its positioning and hope to acquire a whole new set of customers just now reaching adolescence?
It’s highly unlikely that A&F will acquire many new customers as a result of this merchandising change. Too late for them. This is about keeping brand loyals coming back.
A&F is a 100 store concept. High quality, high brand, high price, elevated retail experience, etc., etc. The term ‘exclusive’ comes to mind. Ralph Lauren-esque. The ’90s frenzy about the brand fooled management and investors into thinking they were bigger than that, but in reality, they’re a fantastic 100 store brand and a not-very-good 500 store brand. The Great Recession straightened all that out and now, they’re paying the price for being fooled by the ’90s.
I love A&F. Their product and store experience is fantastic – unsurpassed in their category. But I shop there twice a year and it’s expensive even to me, and I’m assuming I make a little more than most Millennials. So, in my mind, they should stick to their guns, get down to the right size, and keep doing the things they do best. Fake controversy included
Also – there’s a lot of talk about their “management” and how with them still in charge, things won’t change. But to me, the minute they sack Jeffries is the minute the brand goes to the dogs and becomes just like all their competitors. I think the board knows that too. Again, stick to your guns, you’ve got a great brand.
A&F has discovered that there are not enough “beautiful people” to keep the business afloat. And if A&F still holds a top place in coolness and logo and desirable fashion in the areas where their stores are, then the formerly excluded shoppers will happily come to shop there.
Lessons from this episode in retailing by A&F should be that words mean things. “Apologies” seem to be the current thing. Just as much as they are expected, they are rarely accepted. A&F’s problem isn’t solely the sizing issue. Their real issue is that “cool” only lasts so long. When its time is up, consumers move on to the next “cool” thing.
Yesterday I put on an A&F necktie. How old was it? It is too old to mention. Yet, the necktie itself was timeless. It is one of my favorites. It was purchased at a time when clothing that was sold by A&F was actually timeless. It was a different time then and since then, A&F took a turn in a different direction. They took their run at “cool.” They had a pretty good run even though they lost me as a customer in the process.
As I put on that necktie, my thought at the time was that I sure missed the store that they once were. I sure wonder what would’ve happened if they had stuck with “timeless….”
I must have missed the memo that anything over size 10 is automatically a plus size. Just writing about the topic in the manner simply adds to the affront. Let’s also be real, vanity sizing is everywhere these days in both men’s and ladies apparel. Example, I am larger than I have ever been in my life yet I still wear a size 4…PULEEZE. At least I DO know better. I grew up in the rag trade. I have an old Wolf fit form from 25 years ago. It is the exact same measurements I am today and it reads a size 8. I also know that even A&F does vanity sizing too.
As for A&F, I agree that their customer is aging; I also believe that there is less disposable income today and their price points are as attractive to the younger crowd. There is also more competition. It is a multitude of issues. I do think that some people over the A&F cut-off size will try them out. People are curious and shopping is all about entrainment. There is now a curiosity for the people over size 10. The trick will be to see if it is enough to help their sales.
Selling plus sizes or not is the least of their problems – negative marketing messages, bad pricing policies, rude and anorexic-looking sales associates, terrible customer-service, bad omni-channel experience, and much, much more. This will do little to veil the problems they are having and will not move them away from their steady decline of business.
With respect to the first question, I think it all depends on how genuine A&F is in their remorse. If absolutely genuine and followed up by other similar actions, then I imagine a fair number of individuals will give them a(nother) chance. If their remorse is a one-time activity to attempt to drum up sales, I imagine most of the offended shoppers will perceive the lack of authenticity, and refuse to shop at A&F.
I agree with Paula Rosenblum, David Livingston, Roger Saunders, Gene Hoffman, and Lee Peterson.
A&F has many problems. Some have to do with A&F itself and others have to do with changing ideas in the minds of shoppers, including attitudes of some younger people who would have become their shoppers as generations roll over. Many younger people today are not as awed by brands and logos and also, some who see A&F as their older sisters’ and older cousins’ store (The ultra chic status of Aeropostale among some younger people never fails to amaze me – not that there is anything wrong with Aeropostale).
The younger market is fragmented and a little odd, and I think this is badly hurting A&F. Their stand-offish and superior attitude, I feel, has worsened their possible appeal as well in the current marketplace. If their sales of larger sizes helps them but they misstep with their remaining traditional-thinking customer, they will undoubtedly alienate those customers – it is a strange and uncomfortable bed that they have made.