December 26, 2006
Sean John is in the Dog House
Sean John, P. Diddy, Mr. Coombs, whatever the name, the clothing label marketed by the rap music impresario is taking some heat now that it has been discovered that the faux fur on two styles of hooded jackets being sold in Macy’s were made from a dog known in Asia as the raccoon dog.
The raccoon dog, called that because of its facial similarity to a raccoon, is native to Japan where it is known as tanuki. The dog is also found in other parts of Asia and some parts of Europe.
Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, told The Associated Press that this case is reflective of an “industry-wide problem.” Designers such as Mr. Coombs and retailers, said Mr. Pacelle, “aren’t paying close enough attention to the fur trim they are selling.”
The problem is especially serious in goods imported from China. The raccoon dogs, along with other canines and cats, he said, are “killed in gruesome ways.” (For those of strong stomach, the AllCreatures.org web site contains a page with a description and photos of raccoon dogs being killed.)
Orlando Veras, a spokesman at Macy’s, said the retailer had removed the jackets and that it had a “long-standing policy against the selling of any dog or cat fur. This policy is clearly communicated to all suppliers.”
Sean John and Macy’s are not alone in selling faux fur jackets that turned out to be made from raccoon dogs. The Humane Society of the United States has found fur-trimmed jackets from Baby Phat, Andrew Marc, MaxMara and Calvin Klein all to be from the animal. Retailers including Burlington Coat Factory, Bloomingdale’s, J.C. Penney and Saks Fifth Avenue have removed the items from stores.
The sale of dog and cat fur is banned in the U.S. and now the Humane Society is lobbying Congress to pass an amendment to the Dog and Cat Protection Act to spell out that raccoon dogs are also covered.
Discussion Questions: Will the sale of items with faux fur be hurt as a result of this and other cases where it turns out animals were killed to make
a product? What responsibility do the designers and retailers have to make sure that what they say they are selling is just that?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
It would be a wise decision on Federated’s part to drop Sean’s line all together! When you have a vendor/customer relationship, requirements and guidelines are specifically outlined…plain and simple. Whether there was knowledge or not of this type of fur being used, it is a clear misrepresentation of what the item is. This is the time for Sean John to come forward and do damage control if they wish to save their line. In addition, this would be the time for Macy’s to reevaluate their relationship with Sean John, and for them to do damage control on their end as well. If it was up to me, Sean John would have been dropped as a vendor all together and brought into court for misrepresentation of their merchandise, and for animal cruelty.
Designers have all of the responsibility in the world to ensure that their products comply with the law. It is no secret that many “designers” have little to no direct input in many of the products that bear their name/brand; however, they can’t have it both ways (feigning oversight and involvement then pointing fingers or looking the other way when things slip).
In my opinion, the pro/anti fur camps are already set in stone and no scary dawg story is going to have folks jumping the fence. Beyond that, the fur-friendly generation (pick a fur, any fur) is a dying breed (pun intended). A few next-generation designers — Stella McCartney comes to mind — are focusing their collections on completely vegetarian offerings with great success.
Things are going to get interesting as retailers are forced to pick their spots with the growing number of cause-related sub-niches across all categories.
We need to look at this question a bit differently. First of all, “Diddygate” occurred because the faux fur wasn’t faux at all. So, sales of “real” faux fur (we are through the looking glass here) shouldn’t be impacted, just sales of faux fur that…er…isn’t faux. Next, if people are worried about animals being killed specifically for their benefit they would have to be strict vegans and wear no leather or fur at all. Before everyone writes in about how humane slaughterhouses are, let’s look at it from the animals’ point of view. You’re bred; you’re fed; and then you’re dead. Not so humane. Should the Diddy Meister have known he was marketing offensive products? Sure, but that never stopped him in the past. Just look at his music career.
Ohhh, I’m going to irritate some folks with this one. But here goes: If use of dog and cat fur were allowed in the U.S., perhaps the Humane Society wouldn’t be putting down thousands of unwanted pets daily. Or, they could harvest the fur from the pets they kill to pay for better facilities for the animals they choose to keep alive.
Diddly (Diddy?) is blatantly faux, so it stands to reason that his clothing line should be as faux as possible. And, the labeling should be as sincere and credible as the founder. Uh, scratch that. The labeling should be open and honest, period.
LOL! Is this a legitimate issue? Raccoon dogs? I’d choose St. Bernards instead. Hairier. How about making baseball gloves from the pelts of Frisbee-catching dogs?
Here’s my point: If consumers are willing and eager to purchase items like these, they’ll become available. Many loving pet owners like to freeze-dry or stuff Kittykat when she croaks. Hence, those services are available and evidently approved by the Humane Society. We consume “everything but the oink” from hogs, yet many are pets and they’ve been proven to be more intelligent than dogs, cats and horses. Attend any state fair and view the animal judging if you want to see kids and farm animals bond. Then, the animals are mostly eaten. As Ryan wrote, “bred, fed and dead.”
Retailers who discover mislabeled products typically return them to the suppliers. Considering the huge growth in purchases from Asia, and the tremendous number of suppliers, it’s amazing there aren’t more news stories about mislabeled items.
Very few customers will stick to a boycott, so retailers generally don’t devote serious resources to preventing a problem that’s unlikely to occur. In spite of the strength of PETA and the American Humane Association, stores that years ago curbed their “legit” fur assortments no longer worry about the issue. Furs are sold everywhere. And I haven’t heard the leather footwear industry worrying about animal rights.
The responsibility is on the designer, manufacturer and retailer to ensure that proper standards are satisfied. Clear labeling for the consumer and retailer is essential to know the type of fur and origin, so clear choices can be made.
Whatever his handle may be this week, it comes as no surprise that Diddy, who has exploited women to sell his ‘brand’ would proffer from the hide of a dog. Where does the Humane Society (ironic use the name?) stand on that issue? His trash lyrics for one of his songs ‘Fake Thugs Dedication’ defines Mr. Coombs adequately. The Raccoon Dog will always be real to Faux Diddy.
Faux fur should clearly be labeled as such. This would enable consumers to make an informed decision. Some language that clearly indicates that no animals were harmed in the making of this garment would do. However, with the current illegal activities utilizing animals instead of synthetics, consumers will probably curtail their faux fur purchases. Although…there is fashion that is linked to certain celebrity/music cultures that showcases fur as part of the look (e.g. fur lined hoodies). That may trump social consciousness.
I am dismayed that we might wonder what responsibility designers and retailers have to ensure that their products conform to legal standards. Perhaps I am being overly dramatic, but that sounds to me like asking what responsibility organizations have to operate within the law. I believe that is all I need to say on that particular aspect of this topic.
I note that we are on a familiar, slippery slope here. Some cultures find abhorrent the killing of cows in order to use their hides for clothing. Other cultures feel this way about dogs and cats. Some individuals find abhorrent the painful killing of animals, other individuals may feel that dogs and cats are beneath deserving that consideration. I believe we are seeing another example of our sliding value-scale, where some creatures (such as children) have more value than almost anything, other creatures (such as bacteria) have no value or negative value, and a vast range in between. The sliding-scale model creates many problems, dog-fur collars among them.
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
It would be a wise decision on Federated’s part to drop Sean’s line all together! When you have a vendor/customer relationship, requirements and guidelines are specifically outlined…plain and simple. Whether there was knowledge or not of this type of fur being used, it is a clear misrepresentation of what the item is. This is the time for Sean John to come forward and do damage control if they wish to save their line. In addition, this would be the time for Macy’s to reevaluate their relationship with Sean John, and for them to do damage control on their end as well. If it was up to me, Sean John would have been dropped as a vendor all together and brought into court for misrepresentation of their merchandise, and for animal cruelty.
Designers have all of the responsibility in the world to ensure that their products comply with the law. It is no secret that many “designers” have little to no direct input in many of the products that bear their name/brand; however, they can’t have it both ways (feigning oversight and involvement then pointing fingers or looking the other way when things slip).
In my opinion, the pro/anti fur camps are already set in stone and no scary dawg story is going to have folks jumping the fence. Beyond that, the fur-friendly generation (pick a fur, any fur) is a dying breed (pun intended). A few next-generation designers — Stella McCartney comes to mind — are focusing their collections on completely vegetarian offerings with great success.
Things are going to get interesting as retailers are forced to pick their spots with the growing number of cause-related sub-niches across all categories.
We need to look at this question a bit differently. First of all, “Diddygate” occurred because the faux fur wasn’t faux at all. So, sales of “real” faux fur (we are through the looking glass here) shouldn’t be impacted, just sales of faux fur that…er…isn’t faux. Next, if people are worried about animals being killed specifically for their benefit they would have to be strict vegans and wear no leather or fur at all. Before everyone writes in about how humane slaughterhouses are, let’s look at it from the animals’ point of view. You’re bred; you’re fed; and then you’re dead. Not so humane. Should the Diddy Meister have known he was marketing offensive products? Sure, but that never stopped him in the past. Just look at his music career.
Ohhh, I’m going to irritate some folks with this one. But here goes: If use of dog and cat fur were allowed in the U.S., perhaps the Humane Society wouldn’t be putting down thousands of unwanted pets daily. Or, they could harvest the fur from the pets they kill to pay for better facilities for the animals they choose to keep alive.
Diddly (Diddy?) is blatantly faux, so it stands to reason that his clothing line should be as faux as possible. And, the labeling should be as sincere and credible as the founder. Uh, scratch that. The labeling should be open and honest, period.
LOL! Is this a legitimate issue? Raccoon dogs? I’d choose St. Bernards instead. Hairier. How about making baseball gloves from the pelts of Frisbee-catching dogs?
Here’s my point: If consumers are willing and eager to purchase items like these, they’ll become available. Many loving pet owners like to freeze-dry or stuff Kittykat when she croaks. Hence, those services are available and evidently approved by the Humane Society. We consume “everything but the oink” from hogs, yet many are pets and they’ve been proven to be more intelligent than dogs, cats and horses. Attend any state fair and view the animal judging if you want to see kids and farm animals bond. Then, the animals are mostly eaten. As Ryan wrote, “bred, fed and dead.”
Retailers who discover mislabeled products typically return them to the suppliers. Considering the huge growth in purchases from Asia, and the tremendous number of suppliers, it’s amazing there aren’t more news stories about mislabeled items.
Very few customers will stick to a boycott, so retailers generally don’t devote serious resources to preventing a problem that’s unlikely to occur. In spite of the strength of PETA and the American Humane Association, stores that years ago curbed their “legit” fur assortments no longer worry about the issue. Furs are sold everywhere. And I haven’t heard the leather footwear industry worrying about animal rights.
The responsibility is on the designer, manufacturer and retailer to ensure that proper standards are satisfied. Clear labeling for the consumer and retailer is essential to know the type of fur and origin, so clear choices can be made.
Whatever his handle may be this week, it comes as no surprise that Diddy, who has exploited women to sell his ‘brand’ would proffer from the hide of a dog. Where does the Humane Society (ironic use the name?) stand on that issue? His trash lyrics for one of his songs ‘Fake Thugs Dedication’ defines Mr. Coombs adequately. The Raccoon Dog will always be real to Faux Diddy.
Faux fur should clearly be labeled as such. This would enable consumers to make an informed decision. Some language that clearly indicates that no animals were harmed in the making of this garment would do. However, with the current illegal activities utilizing animals instead of synthetics, consumers will probably curtail their faux fur purchases. Although…there is fashion that is linked to certain celebrity/music cultures that showcases fur as part of the look (e.g. fur lined hoodies). That may trump social consciousness.
I am dismayed that we might wonder what responsibility designers and retailers have to ensure that their products conform to legal standards. Perhaps I am being overly dramatic, but that sounds to me like asking what responsibility organizations have to operate within the law. I believe that is all I need to say on that particular aspect of this topic.
I note that we are on a familiar, slippery slope here. Some cultures find abhorrent the killing of cows in order to use their hides for clothing. Other cultures feel this way about dogs and cats. Some individuals find abhorrent the painful killing of animals, other individuals may feel that dogs and cats are beneath deserving that consideration. I believe we are seeing another example of our sliding value-scale, where some creatures (such as children) have more value than almost anything, other creatures (such as bacteria) have no value or negative value, and a vast range in between. The sliding-scale model creates many problems, dog-fur collars among them.