Surprise surprise - there's a social media firestorm brewing about Ambercrombie and Fitch again....

This embroilment is related to a comments made by CEO, Mike Jeffries in an interview, related to Abercrombie's targeting of the "cool set."  In Jeffries' terms, the brand is exclusive by design - targeted to the "cool" and "beautiful" kids -- and definitely not fat or ugly kids.

Do the research to dig out the quotes yourself, please... because frankly, this drama isn't the point of this post.  Despite Jeffries' diversity hypocrisy, snobbery and stupidity --- and even as a "fat chick" -- I don't really care.

Truth is -- Abercrombie thrives on this kind of attention -- This is not new.  This is their MO.  Google it. They've got media exposure in Huffpo, Forbes, and a ton of major media outlets in addition to social and blog posts.  I'm not even linking to it all.  Abercrombie doesn't care if you are ticked.  If they wanted you to like them, they would never have attempted to market thong underwear with suggestive sexual comments for 8 year olds.  Jeffries probably doesn't even care that people are ripping into his physical looks and calling him ugly and hideous in social media - and I daresay it's not just because that behavior is stupid, mean,  hypocritical and indefensible.

They don't care that you're mad because they believe attention is good for business. This whole move is focused on driving affinity for certain type of customer -- the "cool kids" -- and they are confident it will create a stronger desire in the "neglected fringes" to "fit in" via brand association.They laugh all the way to the bank! 

Abercrombie and Fitch doesn't care - about you as a person or a parent - or even about your kids.  They've also done their homework.   There's a pretty good chance that left to themselves, your kids  - cool or not, ugly or not, fat or not, are highly likely to continue wanting their overpriced goods.

This is precisely what motivated me to take action seven years ago with my step-daughter, Michelle - and I thought I'd share an updated article I placed on posterous about it.

How I armed my kid to battle a predatory brand - and what she taught me in return.

When my step daughter, Michelle was 15, she became frustrated because Dad didn’t want her to shop at Abercrombie and Fitch.  We discussed it in some depth and agreed it was important not to make her feel like her choices were being taken away from her unfairly - but to help her make good choices on her own.

So I took her on an Ambercrombie shopping trip.  I took the trip as a springboard for talking about the brand - the in-store experience, marketing, clothing, quality, sourcing, etc.  After all, this is part of what I do for a living and the store visit provided great fodder for discussion.  We walked into the cologne laden lounge-like setting.... There were the traditional shirtless, steamy model posters everywhere and rows of neatly folded garments.

Michelle's first comment was related to her surprise over the lack of variety in the homogenous stacks and racks of mass-produced clothing.   We watched as girls bopped in and out around us… looking very much the same…ponytails with headbands, tight layered t-shirts and perfect butt sweats with the Abercrombie moniker on the seat.  It was interesting to watch the clothes walk around the store… This was especially true for my daughter -- a kid who tried her hand at sewing her own clothes and making her own wallets out of duct tape (sheerly to be unique).  For her, the seeming lack of individuality was a turnoff.

Her next objection was over prices.  I had explained to her that she was welcome to spend her own money in the store, but that her dad and I would not spend any money there because of our objections to the company's sexual marketing to tweens and teens.  We made our way to the sale table, where the cheapest thing we found was a simple white tank top for $38 …  It was cute, but nothing special.  As our babysitting pro clutched on to her hard-earned dollars, she was simply offended by the prices.

This led into a chat about value.  We took a look at garment construction inspecting the material, stitching, threads on hemlines and embellishments.  We looked at construction, which was inconsistent and not noticeably better than Target or Old Navy. We talked about quality and workmanship.

Next, we looked at labels…. the ones that were labled were made in third world  - in places like Bangladesh.  It was sobering for her to consider the $56 tank-top on sale for $38 that she held likely cost less than a dollar to produce and was made by some of the poorest people on the planet… in a country that has been criticized for exploitation of workers and child labor.  (Of course, Abercrombie isn't alone in that business conduct - which is a sobering thought all around.)

Then we talked about the packaging. We talked about how the storefront made us feel... the in-store "exclusive club-like" experience ... we talked about the clothes and the power of wearing a brand on your body.  We talked about the pictures of the models and the marketing in the dressing rooms and the messages they conveyed.

We praised the praise-worthy -- we critically discussed the rest.  In truth, while I'd like to say I was objective -- I am sure I was not. I did try to issue self restraint.

Holding my tongue

I didn’t ask her to picture herself or HER child (regardless of age) in one one of these "cute" Abercrombie statement t-shirts:

For Girls:

• Tie me up, don't tie me down
• All bed, no breakfast
• I always end up on top
• Anyone you can do, I can do better

For Boys:

• She Goes Both Ways
• Ride the tip
• Maybe Partying will Help
• Volley My Balls Please

I didn’t point her to their quarterly “catalog” FILLED with sexual imagery and emaciated girls that might suggest to my daughter that her cute, blossoming figure was less than acceptable.  

I didn't tell her about the company's then web-based and explicit “Screen Test” area, where an anonymous login links users to explicit video of muscular guys and hauntingly thin girls romping around in full nudity, stripping for each other - with butts and boobs for miles and naked make out sessions that feature Guys with girls, girls kissing girls, some allusions to guy on guy action.  (Note: For copyright reasons I didn't post screen shots - but I guarantee many parents would have been shocked to see this stuff).

All of this, produced and made accessible by a brand that wanted to take her money and put its brand on her adorable backside.  No way.  My decision about Abercrombie was an easy one.  This wasn't about me.

What was harder was contending with this beautiful, blonde 15 year old, who was racing into adulthood and developing her own identity.  While I hoped she'd agree with her Dad and me, it was much more important to help her make decisions like this for herself.  What was more important was helping her recognize and deal with predatory brands.  So my mission was to get her to think — for herself — armed with some new facts, and guided by her own conscience.  I wanted her to be honest. After all, if we raised her right, she should be able to come to solid conclusions on her own.

Her conscience told her to leave — and she has never gone back.

Today, our daughter is 22.  She carries a new (and sometimes surprising) set of convictions about the way she eats, consumes and shops that is only partially rooted in this experience.   When she came back from a year and a half abroad doing mission/humanitarian work in New Zealand, India, Fiji and Samoa…she informed me she’d no longer accompany me to my favorite coffee house because they don’t unilaterally support Fair Trade.  She won’t drink soda because it’s making us all fatter (and we’re SO blessed to have free, clean water!) She won’t eat chocolate that isn’t “fair trade” stamped because she’s been studying human trafficking in the Ivory Coast.  She doesn’t want to be used as a billboard for any brand.  She shops from thrift stores first when she needs something because it's cheaper and more socially and environmentally responsible.  That's my girl.

What's cooler still is that she isn't a bummer to be around.  She lives her life non judgmentally and with a smile, positive attitude and outlook.  She inspires new convictions in me and others. I can see how Michelle’s convictions can quickly be considered and even embraced by a group.  Especially as she lives her values in an edifying way -- living them proudly and unapologetically and beautifully - in praise of higher living. I can imagine the cascading impact her life can have.

(And I can't take credit for her -- she has always been an incredible kid.)

I wish I'd had that quality at her age. I didn't have her courage.  I often feared that living in alignment with my true core values would be isolating. So, I compromised, a lot.  I didn't "get" comfortable in my own skin until much later in life.

Accepting the Truth comes with a price.

I didn’t mean to create an activist here - I was trying to be a decent parent by making a few points about something I know - which is customer experience and marketing.  I was just trying to be faithful with the insights I've been given.

The thing is, once you flutter your eyes a bit, what you see around you - and what lies behind the scenes can be a rude and somewhat overwhelming awakening.  Faced with the truth, we can choose to respond in a positive way or curl up in the fetal position of denial.

I'm glad she is making good choices.  I can't help but feel the conviction she embraces today will give her an early edge in life - leading into a truly influential and powerful way of living.  It's based on a simple principle:

Living our values gives us the power to destroy the market for reprehensible things … and create new markets for lovely things. 

This isn't about Abercrombie and Fitch.  I don't like the company but it isn't the enemy.  Our real enemies are our own apathy, denial and a lack of moral fiber.  If you care about Abercrombie, by all means do as your conscience dictates.  There are a million ways to voice your concern and fight back.  If you don’t care about Abercrombie - that’s totally fine.  Pick another platform!  Human Trafficking, Sustainable Agriculture, Global Warming....  The fields are ripe with opportunity.

Whatever you do - don’t just sit there.  As the truth builds and cascades around us - we must choose to respond.  We won’t always be right, or be perfect (I am so far off it’s not funny). We won't be able to take on every battle.  We will sometimes be unwitting hypocrites and we won't always win.  However, we can do our BEST, for ourselves, our kids and our future.

After all, if we don't take responsibly, we lose our right to complain. 

What do you think?

Let's start at the very beginning... a very good place to start .... Every now and then we find lessons in unexpected places. Last Thursday, having the first slow day in several months, I stopped to check a few Facebook messages and noticed this:

From Mary Poppins the Sound of Music, to her appearances on the The Muppet Show, and The Carol Burnett Show and her films, including Victor/Victoria  and even the Princess Diaries... I'd followed her all my life.  Since I also track how businesses use social media, participating sounded like it might prove to be a nice little case study to me... so, I clicked to chat.

The chat was obviously getting off to a slow start. I couldn’t see how many had joined, because they didn’t display this in the chat application.  Incidentally failure to show participant numbers not only violates commonly accepted practices; it’s a poor way to show the formation of a gathering.  There was also Less than one update coming per minute!  GRRR.... I almost left, but I really like Julie Andrews.


So I waited… A full 10 minutes and a mere nine (!!) posts later, part of me wanted to scream and the other part was rooting for the event and hoping things would pick up!  I jumped in and out of the chat window (easy to do because it was so slow, I didn't miss one update).  Leaving the browser window open, I sought some answers elsewhere for my outstanding questions. 

What was Julie Andrews' relationship to Target and why were they doing this chat?  A visit to the Target Fan Page reminded me that Target is promoting the first annual National Princess Week.  The image provided no answers.  It only triggered more questions (Right Click to enlarge).


"Okay, " I thought, "It makes sense to promote this event with the beloved, Academy Award Winning Stage and Cinema Actress, Singer ... and more recently, Queen of the Princess Diaries movies. Got it"  However, I still didn't quite understand:  What was National Princess Week, anyway?  Was it something Target made up to sell princess merchandise?  You'll note that I wasn't the only one who wondered about this.


There was nothing on the Target.com website about it.... Some people also complained that there was no retail-store tie-in for National Princess Week?


Eager to post a question or two, I went back into the slow grinding chat. Unfortunately, Target opted to use a third-party app that required me to log in with either my Facebook or Twitter handle. I am very conservative with apps on Facebook.  I wouldn’t opt-in, because I didn't like the blanket permissions Target's suggested third-party app offered, including posting comments to Facebook on my behalf. Yeah. No thanks!

Seeking an alternative route to ask a question, I visited the #Targetchat Twitter chat hashtag that was being **actively promoted** by Target.   I went as I thought "Really? They're promoting a twitter hashtag for a Facebook chat?  Maybe they've integrated Facebook and Twitter chat in some way... that would be cool.  If not, this is going to be really convoluted."   Convoluted, it was.  I saw less than 10 posts here -- and there was no Twitter-based response from Target (!!) for anything.  Twitter users are usually more tech savvy -- yet I wasn't the only one that was confused:


NEXT, I jumped back into the chat, which continued to grind painfully ahead. I learned nothing surprising. Lots of light questions with simple answers… Her favorite things include tea, roses, poodles, crunchy peanut butter, is proud of her daughters and delighted with her grand children. She has favorite moments, ice cream, etc. She seems enchanting and writes like I would imagine she speaks.  Lovely.

However, I wasn’t really learning anything deeper about Julie Andrews. I also couldn’t help but continue to wonder what her stake in this event was.... AND THEN... 23 minutes in to the 45 minute chat, Dame Andrews mentioned her writing with her daughter and posted a link to her website!  "Huzzah!"  I thought!  "Maybe I can find some answers there!"  I clicked immediately and here’s what I got:


Criminy!  A 500 internal server error message.  I refreshed about five times... and got the error each time.  I jumped back into Tweet Deck and did an @Target #Targetchat tweet, asking them to tell Julie about the problem.  Unfortunately, no one seemed to be moderating the promoted Twitter hashtag, so I have no idea if that comment was shared with Ms. Andrews' team, or not. I got the error for 5-10 minutes.


I was, at this point, rather flabbergasted by the mismanagement of this event.  From this unfortunate problem, to the very poor event moderation, to the chat application Target had selected, to the fragmentation of the experience between Twitter and Facebook, to the arduous and slow discussion going on -- it was all just so poorly executed!   The strategist in me did a forehead slap.

I jumped back into to the Target Facebook page, where I noticed more problems.  First, I noticed someone posting on Target’s wall that the chat application they used by “CoverIt Live” (by Demand Media) wasn’t working. 

Again, no responses from Target Community Managers (Hello?  Does Target even have them?!).  Next, I noticed a mounting number of COMMENTS in two of the Wall Posts about the Julie Andrews Chat. One post (an update to the one I originally saw) had 47 Comments, 1000+ likes and 67 Shares. The original one that drew me in had, at the time, 134 comments, 791 likes and 32 shares.

 
Okay, that sounds good, right?  A decent number of people sharing... commenting?  WRONG…. Here’s what I saw in the comments fields…


As if Chat Application vs. Twitter Chat confusion wasn’t enough – people were trying to use the comments fields within Target's Wall Posts as a kind of Chat Window - and Target wasn't monitoring or moderating any of this feedback to redirect people to the right place, either!!





Further, if you read through them yourself, you’ll see that many not only asked great questions, but others complained their questions hadn’t been answered - or were deleted!


A large number of people in this audience didn’t understand that they needed to click to participate -- or use the chat application.  People came - but they could not participate in the event! It would have been so easy to engage these people.  So much for community management! Fortunately, there was a least one tenacious user:


While the chat slightly improved the last six minutes or so... it never really got going to begin with. Ms. Andrews' answers were polite, positive, light and witty but they had little-to-nothing to do with  "National Princess Day”  -- so I still didn't know what it was all about.  I certainly wasn't alone, as this user graphically points out:


Outside of finding out that her favorite song in Mary Poppins was “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” (spelling), I just wasn't sure what we were accomplishing here.  Jumping back into my other open tab, I refreshed the link to Julie’s website and the site opened for me. FINALLY - 30 minutes into a 45 minute chat, I began to connect some dots.

While I found her site a bit difficult to navigate, getting into it made Target’s promotion with Julia make a lot more sense to me. That's when the true failure of this promotional effort became crystal clear.

• Julie Andrews actually started National Princess Day in collaboration with Disney and Target.
• She has also co-authored a series of books with her daughter, Emma, and has published her own  songs and poetry for children, which are highlighted on the site, along with other recommended books and authors. (The writing did come up during the chat but wasn't eminently clear what books they wrote, what the focus of them were, etc.  One line is even a series of princess books.) 
• Julie and Emma's books, poetry, songs and lullabies are also for sale in Target Stores - and they have Apps, too.  This was not promoted AT ALL during the chat -- I had to do a shopping search on Target to figure this out.  They certainly didn't need to make this a sales chat but highlighting this once would have been quite logical and fitting, considering the context.
• The website has all kinds of fun tips and ways to celebrate National Princess Week, creating memories with your kids and teaching important moral lessons. So many cute ideas... also not mentioned in the chat. 
• Ms. Andrews and her daughter recently released their new book, "The Very Fairy Princess 3: Here comes the Flower Girl" which was mentioned by a user during the chat event -- but to which no links for browsing or purchasing were shared. 
• Julie and Emma also have a Facebook Fan Page, which wasn't promoted or showcased during the event.  Unfortunately, neither the new book OR the Facebook page were promoted during the event.  And the Facebook page itself failed to promote the chat event with Target.

Perhaps worst of all, the positive mission of Julie Andrews and her daughter, Emma, was completely LOST in the confusion… The goals behind the Princess movement have to do with the creation of self-esteem and self-respect within young girls.   Her site also promotes reading to kids and encouraging kids to read. These seem like such an important messages - yet they did not come out during the chat.  No one stepped in to help critics like the ones below understand these simple facts.  It was all terribly unfortunate, indeed.


In the 50 minutes that transpired, there were less than 1.5 comments per MINUTE. There were gaps of 2-3 minutes between posts, and outside of Julie and Target’s comments, there were only 36 unique active participants (active chatters who posted questions).  I have no idea how many inactive participants, or “lurkers” there were because this view was blocked by the chat application administrator. However, in parallel to the chat, there seemed to be hundreds posting on the Facebook wall and comments fields – all quite lost and unattended by Target.

This isn’t Julie Andrew's fault, at all. In fact, I’d say she was the spoonful of sugar that made it tolerable for me to hang in there for more than 2 minutes. I find her practically perfect in every way - to the point that I'm a bit intimidated to issue any criticism. less it be misconstrued by Ms. Andrews or her daughter. I don't mean to be ungracious, here.

Unfortunately for Ms. Andrews, due to Target's mishandling of this situation, they were unsuccessful in effectively promoting National Princess Week, her mission to help build self-esteem in young girls and to get children to read, or to make participants aware of products and materials that could make the celebration even better.  Further, the audience was unable to make those new, fresh, positive associations to Ms. Andrews, Target or Disney that should have been easy to make!  A missed opportunity, really.

I'm not saying this from a high horse... in this confusing era of apps and social tools -- we're all learning at some extent -- especially as these channels converge and complicate communication.  However, I expect that a giant like Target would have done the basics much better. I expected they would know better, and I hope they learn from the event instead of shuffling it under a reasonably priced Princess rug. 

The fact that I stayed on to write a post about this on a perfectly great beach day is a testament to the weak nature of this promotion.  It was such a good case study in "what not to do" for online event management, I may even write a follow-up post that highlights what can be done to make your online event a smashing success - online and offline.  But not on a day off...or when I have clients to serve!  ;-)  Back to the real work.

Interesting drama unfolded yesterday on Plurk. I won't attach a link because I'd rather not get anyone in trouble. Nevetheless, what happened does this illustrate the power of social media and community and surface some issues related to privacy and social media.

The nutshell version of what transpired is this:

A fellow Plurker (we'll call her "Freaking Out") was, evidently being bothered by another individual (evidently another Plurker) we'll call "Creepy Harasser" for a period of one month.

Evidently, Creepy Harasser had obtained the individual's home phone number using basic details found in Freaking Out's Plurk profile, and had used a cell phone to call this person every few days for over a month.

A "friend" of Freaking Out (we'll call him "Helpful") posted a well-intentioned Plurk alerting others about the harassment. Helpful asked for practical suggestions on what the Freaking Out could do to stop Creepy Harasser. Helpful also publicly listed the offender's cell phone number for all to see. Evidently, Creepy was not so smart related to caller ID.

Fellow Plurkers were angered and apalled, and the Plurk incited a flurry of comments … from encouragement to “call the Po Po" to suggestions on how fellow Plurkers could impose some justice on Creepy Harasser. Things began to escalate.

It was not long before this story motivated one fellow Plurker, we'll call him "Justice" to call Creepy Harasser, himself. As he did, Justice narrated his actions in the Plurkstream. He repeatedly prank called the guy... making obscene comments until Creepy stopped answering the phone. After this, Justice began filling up Creepy's voicemail with terribly bad You Tube video music. (I found this all a bit over the top, but I must admit I laughed pretty hard about it).

Other Plurkers cheered from the sidelines, and quickly other Plurkers either joined in or promised to join in on pranking Creepy - even those from outside the U.S! The Plurkstream was full of punitive suggestions, such as signing Creepy up for spam text, ring tones, etc.

As time progressed, things gradually fizzled out ...

Now, I'm not advocating harassment of any kind... and I did not join in. I don't know if the factual details behind the harassment are accurate. I know the person who posted the information was merely looking for recommendations to help his friend. I don't know the person that was harassed... or the harasser.

That being said - the sense of camaraderie combined with the sheer outrage and backlash from the fine people of Plurkopolis was impressive! I'd go so far as to assert that this type of backlash might take care of a creep even more quickly than taking action with his cell phone company or calling the police would (especially if the offender was out of state)!

The message was clear: Don't mess with Plurkistan!

Even so, while part of me took comfort in the “protective behavior” of the crowd… I couldn’t help but wonder what would happen if the same angry mob had its facts wrong, or were mislead in some way. I thought about how easily it would be for many well-intentioned, and well networked people to be led astray. We know from history this happens.

How easily could one person trigger the harassment of an innocent person or people? Take it to another level and how could the rumor mill impact companies, brands, stock market behavior.... as news travels faster and faster through social media.

Taking it down a notch...I had to ask myself well I know all the people we “friend” or “follow” online? And with the answer to that I had to ask my often over-sharing self, how much about myself should I really share in this new world where "friend" is a verb - but not necessarily a state of being.

The reality of that makes me bit more sober about my own participation in social media. In the long run, I’m sure we’re not done hearing stories like this one. Just some food for thought!