Form: Quote Commentary

http://business.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978689427#.UYv_aC5jhZM.facebook(Reposted from a friend’s thread so that I don’t lose it.)

[NOTE: I don’t shop at A&F. I don’t like A&F because of the borderline child-porn that they market with. Even if it has been exceptionally successful identity for them to build their brand upon. And even if I think it’s excellent work: they found the intersection of the upper class pre-war, and inter-war aesthetic and contemporary sexuality. It’s just brilliant work. Really. Even if the memetic content was an accident, it’s brilliant. On the other hand, It’s glorified GAP clothing. But then, I wear Ralph Lauren almost exclusively for casual wear and if’s the same message for the older demographic.]

———– Original Post —————–

UM THIS ISN”T RIGHT

a) There is no shortage of clothing for ‘the poor’. The problem is just the opposite: donated clothing is usually useful only for sale as scrap cloth. And those in need are notoriously more selective about brands than are average consumers. (Seattle shelters have great stories to tell.) Unless it’s almost new and a top brand, it’s not valuable except as scrap.

b) All brands that sell at high prices protect their brand from dilution. There is nothing special about A&F that isn’t also done by Guccci and Ferrari. Or any other artificial scarcity created entirely by brand reputation and design aesthetic.

c) A&F creates artificial scarcity and increased quality in order to protect a brand that is in fact ONLY A BRAND – that sells cotton clothing for the Flirting and Mating Demographic that can be washed repeatedly in permanent press cycles – and as such is just an upscale version of The Gap.

Without this artificial scarcity and brand protection, what is basically just expensive college wear would be rapidly depreciated in the market.

SO

1) THERE IS NO SCARCITY OF DONATED CLOTHING and

2) THERE IS NO REASON FOR A&F TO ALLOW ITS CLOTHING INTO THE DISCOUNT CHANNEL UNLESS IT”S ACTUALLY “USED”. and

3) ECONOMICS would dicate that by creating artificial scarcity, those used A&F clothes that reach the donated channel will actually be in demand, and earn money for the thrift shops. (Just as certain men’s wool coats still do. I still have the same Brooks Brother’s wool overcoat that I bought at a thrift store in college.)

4) Economists would also argue (correctly) that such complaints are driven by an unwillingness to purchase these products at the market price. And given that these products obtain their increased value not from practical utility, but from Design, Aesthetic, and SOCIAL STATUS SIGNALS, then there are only two reasons to complain about A&Fs behavior. First, because you falsely understand the economy for discarded clothing, and second because you want to get a status symbol to wear that you don’t pay status symbol prices for. Neither of those are good reasons to advertise about yourself. The first is that you’re ignorant, the second is that you’re just trying to attack a brand in order to threaten them into giving you their brand at a discount.

There are plenty of evil brands to attack. The US Governemnt, the monopoly education system, our usurious debt-creating university systems, anyone in the finance and mortgage business, any packaged food company, the soft drink industry, the insurance industry, the music and movie industries, donut shops, fast food companies, the scams in the fitness industry, anything to do with dieting, and …. well, you get the idea.

That a brand tries to create higher profits by relying upon design, quality and artificial scarcity is not a reason to criticize [it. Just the opposite. It’s adding a venue for design to the contemporary mating ecology. ]