Fashionista - Fashion Designers, Models, Shopping, Style - A+F Plagued by Sexiness, Once Again

Mar 12, 2008 @ 9:31am

Right on the heels of news that Abercrombie + Fitch is doing very well financially, and that at least London will see the revival of the A+F Quarterly, the New York Times reports some bad news for the brand -

After donating $10 million dollars to Ohio's Columbus Children’s Hospital for a new emergency department and trauma center, it turns out that the donation may be refused entirely because of urging from fifteen organizations including the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Parents for Ethical Marketing and several doctors who work at the hospital.

They argue that accepting the donation and naming the part of the hospital that would be gift from A+F (as they have in response to all other corporate sponsorships in the past) would send a "grievously wrong message" because of the advertising and clothing.

We're not sure that it's so wise to refuse $10 million when ground on the new center is set to break this fall, but at the same time, we kind of see the coalition's point.

One thought - Why is no one talking about accepting the money without naming the wing after A+F?

posted by syako

Mar 12, 2008 10:23AM

It's kind of a catch 22. You don't accept it and you'll have to recoup that 10 million, you accept it and catch the flack from all these "special interest groups." Of course, it's not Hooters donating 10 million... but it IS a children's hospital... maybe "abercrombie for kids" could donate it to save face. ;)

posted by guest

Mar 12, 2008 10:28AM

They actually are only suggesting they do not put the A & F name on anything. No one has suggested denying the donation.

Mar 12, 2008 10:38AM

"The coalition...is asking the hospital to reconsider the decision made in June 2006 to accept the donation."

Mar 12, 2008 11:38AM

awww...poor A+F. they should donate to an obesity clinic...i think that is a problem that truely does concern them....kids, i'm not so sure about!

Mar 12, 2008 11:55AM

Sorry, but I hate this store. They discriminate against people and it's annoying. And they have the nerve to advertise for secret shoppers. They want to know (when you do the secret shop) if the people in the store are "attractive". Everyone has a differ in opinion on that, so I dont understand what kinda CRAP their doing in this store!!! (Sorry, I'm a little upset with this store)

Mar 12, 2008 12:25PM

I worked as a store manager for this company for two years. They do not discriminate against anything from a cultural or ethnicity basis. They do however look for attractiveness in their employees because this is the main pot of "talent" that they use to find new faces for their advertising. The employees in the store are their live, walking models. They don't have ads in magazines. And although everyone does have their opinion on what is or isn't attractive, that's like saying the fashion industry is biased because they don't except short people or old people.
As for the donation, we were encouraged almost once a month to raise money for childrens causes that never hit the newsstands. Christmas of 2006 we raised over $50,000 as a company for a child who needed a rare surgery and couldn't afford it...I don't think that a dud with no shirt should take away from the fact that they are trying to do good.

Mar 12, 2008 1:05PM

I work as an in store model on Halsted in Chicago and can understand the discrimination remarks coming from the outside, but am proof that minorities are hired (I'm black). Until I was recruited I didn't know just how many employees of the store didn't fit the WASP bill.

I'm not saying there aren't bizarre hiring tendencies, or marketing ploys, or that it isn't weird when Mike Jeffries picks the kids he wants working during his visits from their polaroids .... but denying a donation is, in my opinion, foolish. Naming the wing can be discussed at a later date; I don't think the bank is going to wait too long.

posted by Lindsaysue12

Mar 12, 2008 1:24PM

I'm sorry but I think these people need to get over it. This is so 2003. Take the damn money and shut up.

Mar 12, 2008 1:32PM

Sorry LindsaySue but you don't know what you're talking about when it come to anything medically related. Children's hospitals have major responsibilities to their communities and I can certainly understand why they would shy away from a donation from this type of store. Regardless of the actual store, they most likely want to avoid ANY bad publicity and do not want to offend more conservitive donors.

Mar 12, 2008 5:34PM

Money for hospital = new wing
new wing = more beds
more beds = less time waiting to get a bed in the EMERGENCY room

So what's the problem? Yes, Abercrombie has been controversial. That being said, they made a very large philanthropic contribution to the hospital, which as Fitzgerald (president of the Nationwide Children’s Hospital Foundation) said, that should be the focus. Refusing a donation they could use would be ridiculous.

Ethically, is it more important to have a new, larger trauma that would save lives, or is it more important to not support a store that uses questionable marketing (albeit fully legal) techniques? Personally, saving lives seems much more important.

Mar 13, 2008 5:48AM

Would it make a difference if the money came from
VICTORIAS SECRET?

Mar 13, 2008 10:13AM

I would argue that some children would associate themselves closer to a donor or brand that they know well rather than a random name they've never heard of. I'd imagine some kids would even think it's a "cool".

Why would you say no to anyone trying to do a good thing?