Decision Making

Situation Analysis

In 2013, Abercrombie and Fitch executives needed to make key decisions regarding their marketing initiatives moving into the future. Earlier 2006 comments from its C.E.O. Mike Jeffries expressing the company's strategy to sell clothes to only cool adolescents in addition to its multiple employment discrimination legal battles resulted in unfavorable public perception and damage to the brand. In addition to the public outcry for A&F commitment to diversity, social media and entertainment figures degraded the company for its physical exclusivity, citing the encouragement of poor body image, particularly amongst females, and bullying as two main social issues facing American teens (Robson et al., 2013).

Questions Asked and Answered

1. Problem Analysis - Why did this crisis occur? Why did Jeffries's comments trigger such a large response?

a. Who is the subject of the problem?

b. What is the particular failure?

c. What's the significance of the failure?

d. Who is responsible for the problem?

The crisis was sparked when Jeffries's 2006 quote resurfaced on May 3, 2013 in a Business Insider article regarding A&F's refusal to manufacture clothing for plus size women while producing them for larger men. In just two weeks after the article was published, #FitchTheHomeless campaign went viral and celebrities began dis-endorsement of the A&F label. In the quote, Jeffries expressed his views that, "[Abercrombie and Fitch] goes after the attractive all-American kid with great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don't belong in [Abercrombie and Fitch's] clothes, and they can't belong" (Robson et al., 2013). In today's society in which inclusion and social awareness are widely esteemed by the growing generations of social media users and popular artists, those opinions from the A&F CEO did not set well with the public and thus generated widespread national and international backlash against the company. The brand attempted to address the issue on May 15 with a Jeffries's Facebook post in which he expressed that A&F does target "a particular segment of customers" however he also denounced social enigmas such as discrimination, bullying and exclusive behaviour on the basis of physical attributes. However, Jeffries failed to persuade the public who were already inundated with an onslaught of negativity campaigns against A&F. Also, A&F's recent history of legal battles provided a seemingly negative testimony contrary to the brand's pronounced opposition to discrimination and exclusivity. As a result of this failure, A&F took a significant downturn in brand perception, which effectively decreased the stock price by nearly 40 points from the 2012 share price (Robson et al., 2013).

Evaluation - Evaluate A&F's response. What could the company have done better?

a. What changes should A&F make?

b. Who is being evaluated?

c. Whose responsible for the evaluation?

d. What's at stake?

e. What are the possible criteria?

f. What might the most important criteria be for this kind of case?

g. Are any of the criteria explicitly discussed in the case?

The lack of effective response was due to failure on the behalf of the A&F executives, particularly Jeffries. They failed to immediately and effectively evaluate the situation and respond with not only communication, but actions that represented true movement towards inclusion and diversity appreciation in both its consumer base and its employees. The response of reactionary actions such as meeting with the National Eating Disorder Association and America the Beautiful Teen Empowerment Series was too late and too small in reacting to the onslaught of negative media protesting against the expressed values of the company. The company should have immediately (within less than a week) responded to the situation through a heavy digital media marketing campaign promoting healthy body image and diversity appreciation. The A&F's marketing team should have immediately denounced Jeffries's comments on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter while promoting its commitment to healthy body image, anti-bullying, and diversity as well as aggressively seeking and evaluating cause programs (Robson et al., 2013).

Main Marketing Management Issues Associated with Case

In 2013 Abercrombie and Fitch were losing profits due to Jeffries's comments in addition to its extensive public history of employment discrimination accusations and publicized exclusivity based upon physical features. As a result, three main brand image problems plagued A&F in 2013:

1. Lack of Socially Responsible Marketing. With Jeffries's comments, A&F positioned itself as targeting the "All-American" consumer with beauty and social aptitude. However, the company's definition of "All-American" was perceived as discriminatory and highly exclusive by the general public. To the public, A&F's "All-American" perception was not conducive to the 21st century American values of cultural appreciation, diversity, and inclusion.

2. Negative History of Employment Discrimination. The public viewed A&F as a discriminating employment entity that discouraged diversity in its workforce as well as its consumer base.

3. Negative History of Exclusivity. The public viewed A&F as exclusive to plus-size consumers, particularly females, and a model for encouraging bullying and further discrimination based upon body weight and physical