I was listening to the radio today as they were discussing a recent comment by the CEO of Ambercrombieandfitch. Essentially, they said that the CEO made a comment to the effect that he did not want fat ugly people in his store and it is why they did not sell oversized clothes to the public.
It got me thinking about a recent comment that a CEO from Starbucks made about gay marriage. Essentially he said that he only wanted people in his store who supported gay marriage. There was also the incident with Chik-fila where the CEO came out in opposition to gay marriage.
Without getting into the specifics of each case and without taking positions in each case, I would like to discuss the business aspects of these cases. In a nut shell, is it a good business tactic to try and offend certain segments of the population while reaching out to other sements of the population? Does it help energize people to shop at these businesses rather than offend more than those who may boycott these businesses?
Does self righteousness sell?
In the example of Starbucks and Chik-fila, I have to admit that most who go to Starbucks tend to be "uppity" liberals who can afford their overpriced drinks as where those who patronize Chik-fila tend to be "rednecks" who probably think that a meal at Chik-fila is expensive. Would it not then make sense to energize their respective bases by appealing to their particular prejudices?
In the case of Ambercrombieandfitch, would "oversized" people really go there if they sold clothes that could fit them?
Originally posted by whodeyAnother example that success in business is more about luck than knowledge , special intution , and business nouse.
I was listening to the radio today as they were discussing a recent comment by the CEO of Ambercrombieandfitch. Essentially, they said that the CEO made a comment to the effect that he did not want fat ugly people in his store and it is why they did not sell oversized clothes to the public.
It got me thinking about a recent comment that a CEO from Starbuc ...[text shortened]... dfitch, would "oversized" people really go there if they sold clothes that could fit them?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199181
I don't think liberals are the target demographic for Starbucks anymore. Maybe before, but they are everywhere now - proliferating in the red states.
Liberals have turned on Starbucks as the "McDonalds of premium coffee."
One guy referred to it as "the worst of the best coffee."
They're notorious for making offers to landlords that price out other businesses (and get them evicted - they'll go right to a landlord while the business is still leasing) and raise rents in the neighborhoods. But meanwhile the quality of their coffee has declined over the past 20 years, so the snobby libs are opting for local coffee roasters.
And then there is this documentary:
Originally posted by whodeyIf you make or sell a product that is aimed at a target market
I was listening to the radio today as they were discussing a recent comment by the CEO of Ambercrombieandfitch. Essentially, they said that the CEO made a comment to the effect that he did not want fat ugly people in his store and it is why they did not sell oversized clothes to the public.
It got me thinking about a recent comment that a CEO from Starbuc ...[text shortened]... dfitch, would "oversized" people really go there if they sold clothes that could fit them?
or a particular target audience or demographic and that product
is successful, then you have economic independence.
This economic independence gives you a certain clout
and so therefore you can take a swipe at the opposition
or at those who would not normally consume your product.
But if make a product that is on sale in a general store,
one that everyone uses, then you don't have a particular market
and therefore you cannot afford to offend anyone.
Sales success = arrogance.
It's that simple.
If I owned a restaurant and people came in paying me
hundreds and hundreds for food and wine, then I could
scoff at the McDonald's consumers and insult them.
Anybody that is silly enough to pay hundreds and hundreds
for food and wine is just arrogant and has no respect for
others who could not afford such extravagance.
No one deserves to be ridiculed or called ugly simply because
they might not be pleasing to the eye as someone else might be
or that they don't have enough money to consume products
which are over rated and sold at ridiculously inflated prices.
I usually buy the daily mail to be offended so yes!
but.... if Chik-fila or what ever said openly they were opposed to gays or what ever i would not touch them with a barge pole ( i worked for a nasty company like that - got fired on purpose and used there office door as a urinal when ever i was in the area drinking).. so did not sell well to me!
Originally posted by whodeyYup, and nothing wrong with it.
I was listening to the radio today as they were discussing a recent comment by the CEO of Ambercrombieandfitch. Essentially, they said that the CEO made a comment to the effect that he did not want fat ugly people in his store and it is why they did not sell oversized clothes to the public.
It got me thinking about a recent comment that a CEO from Starbuc ...[text shortened]... dfitch, would "oversized" people really go there if they sold clothes that could fit them?
Originally posted by normbenignNothing wrong with it?
Yup, and nothing wrong with it.
I don't know about you, but I grow tired of people intentionally stirring the pot just for personal gain. It is enough we see this everyday from Washington. Then again, our political system and corporate America are one in the same, so why should we not expect the same from both?
Originally posted by whodeyGenerally being offensive amounts to telling the truth when someone would rather keep it swept under the rug. Isn't it a good thing that we have offensive people?
Nothing wrong with it?
I don't know about you, but I grow tired of people intentionally stirring the pot just for personal gain. It is enough we see this everyday from Washington. Then again, our political system and corporate America are one in the same, so why should we not expect the same from both?
Being offensive usually doesn't sell. Most celebs or corporations go to great lengths to appologize to the public for doing something offensive, in order to maintiain their pulic image.
In the case of the A & F CEO, I don't think he was trying to be offensive. I think he was just stating the truth: that he wants his product to be seen as hip. He's not alone. I don't see many fat women wearing Calvin Klein. And how many fat models do you see on runways? The CEO in question simply made a stupid public relations move in stating the obvious.
Originally posted by whodey...and there you are rabbiting on about 'uppity liberals' which when analysed has to be about the most offensive of all comments.
I was listening to the radio today as they were discussing a recent comment by the CEO of Ambercrombieandfitch. Essentially, they said that the CEO made a comment to the effect that he did not want fat ugly people in his store and it is why they did not sell oversized clothes to the public.
It got me thinking about a recent comment that a CEO from Starbuc ...[text shortened]... dfitch, would "oversized" people really go there if they sold clothes that could fit them?