June 22, 2001
12:26 AM
Subscribe
Critics call Abercrombie & Fitch catalog soft porn.I can't comment on the catalog itself, since I haven't seen it; I just had to laugh out loud though when I read this sentence: "Boycott organizers contend the company... is wooing younger customers and using sex to popularize its image." Oh, the horror! Also striking was A&F's spin on it, calling it " the Norman Rockwell of 2001." Clearly, a divide in perceptions.
Can anyone who has seen the offensive/inoffensive material in question explain why it is/isn't any different from the marketing practices of, oh, say,
everyone else?
posted by topolino (23 comments total)
« Older
Some of us work on the plantation.
Some of us own...
| anguish of a drug war judge...
Newer »
If anyone was going to get upset about sexy ads, there are other more blatant targets. How about, say, Victoria's Secret? If there's anything to get upset about concerning A&F, it's probably that they peg the yup-o-meter. Even there, though, they fall short of companies like Paul Stuart or Paul & Shark. I think the moral is that snarky people will always find something to bitch about.
posted by JParker at 12:50 AM on June 22, 2001