Abercrombie and Fitch would very much like all of the characters on Jersey Shore to find another brand to wear. What are your thoughts on this?
The press release:
"We are deeply concerned that Mr. Sorrentino's association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image. We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans. We have therefore offered a substantial payment to Michael 'The Situation' Sorrentino and the producers of MTV's The Jersey Shore to have the character wear an alternate brand. We have also extended this offer to other members of the cast, and are urgently waiting a response."
I have swaying opinions on this topic because it's a little crazy to hear that A&F is paying The Situation to not wear their clothes. I guess I can understand why - due to the fact that the show can be very scandalous and provocative - including all the cast members, and it may portray a bad image that all people that wear Abercrombie are this way. Also I feel A&F are potentially trying to protect parents who buy their children Abercrombie clothes (as there is a childrens abercombie too) and others from turning against them and boycotting the company for the Jersey Shore is wearing these clothes and they portray a crazy, party lifestyle which parents of young teens might not appreciate. As for the company paying The Situation, I'm sure he won't be complaining about making a few extra dollars just to switch up his wardrobe.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is absolutely reasonable for Abercrombie & Fitch to pay The Situation to not wear their clothes. On their Facebook fan page, Abercrombie & Fitch describe their company's legacy: "Our East Coast roots, and Ivy League heritage provide inspiration for our youthful All-American lifestyle." In contrast, the cast of The Jersey Shore is described as an "outrageous and hilarious dysfunctional family" -- the exact opposite of the polished image A&F strives to portray. By providing The Situation with compensation, they are preempting any damage done to their brand in a dignified way.
ReplyDeleteWhen we buy a product, we are not buying a thing only to satisfy a necessity. If we would buy to cover a need, we would only have one brand of each thing. When we buy something, we are acquiring a group of feelings, desires, needs, etc. We don’t buy a BMW because we need a means of transport; we buy it because of “Sheer driving pleasure”.
ReplyDeleteAll those feelings have to be associated through marketing, events, public relations, etc. So, I completely understand Abercrombie when they try to preserve all their work and the feelings that have associated with their products to their target. It is faster to gain bad reputation than good one, and It’s almost impossible to remove bad reputation (remember child exploitation of Nike or BP’s spilling).
A similar case happened in Spain when several designers (like Victorio y Lucchino) refused to make a wedding dress for a controversial celebrity.
I think the managers of the brand A&F are sincere and very concern about that, i.e. he can damage the reputation of the brand. But with this story of paying someone to not wear the brand, A&F hit the headlines. So I was wondering if this anger could have been calculated.
ReplyDeleteI think it is wise of Abercrombie & Fitch to contact the Situation and request him to stop wearing the retailer's clothes. The Situation, as well as the other members of Jersey Shore, could portray a different, or even negative, look that Abercrombie & Fitch does not want to associate itself with. Just as companies or brands can partake in product placement on television, it is just as acceptable to not allow a brand on a show, which acts as advertising and brand-character association to viewers.
ReplyDeleteHaving trouble signing in so this post is by Brittany Hofer haha
ReplyDeleteI actually just read an article on this (much later I know) and decided to come back to comment on this thread. Originally, I felt that this was an entirely reasonable request of A&F because of how many brain cells one loses from just watching an episode of Jersey Shore. However, after reading this article, I found that A&F actually has shirts derived from the popular show and even from "The Situation" himself, such as "GTL" and "The Fitchuation" shirts. Seems a little silly to me that they're accusing Mike Sorrentino of holding the power to ruin their brand image just by wearing it, yet A&F is using the exact phrases he has made so famous to appeal to their customers and make a profit. Besides, we all know A&F has already started heading down the path of a "toolish" brand, so they could have avoided a whole lot of legal trouble had they just kept their mouth shut. Ultimately a bad move for A&F.
(Heres the article I am referring to: http://wakeywakeynews.com/119583/mike-sorrentino-stirs-up-a-major-situation-with-abercrombie-fitch)