Okay, so the countdown begins. There is about four weeks left in the semester and it is crunch time. I finally got that Abercrombie paper done. I am dedicating today to gathering info for my PR cumulative final. Tomorrow I am off to the 6th Annual Conference in Citizenship Studies: Representing Citizenship that is being put on by the Wayne State Law School. It's starts so early, but I'm only going to stay for the first panel discussion.

This weekend is going to center around my content analysis research dealing with brand statements from clothing retailers from Tommy Hilfiger, Abercrombie & Fitch, United Colors of Benetton, Banana Republic, and J. Crew. I will be analyzing brand statement emphasis and brand importance and coding different things within these to categories. Much research has been done on brand awareness and brand personality and how consumers associate and identify with brands. However, my research is examining the organization side of it and looking at what key messages these companies are putting out.

Do you think it is better to target those who are attracted to your company or attract those you want to target? Is it the same thing? I think about the Abercrombie & Fitch case analysis I just did and it is blatantly obvious that A&F is interested in attracting a specific type of consumer and exclusively interested in marketing to their market. They are not interested in the consumers who are attracted to their brand that do not fit their profile of an "ideal" consumer....which is to say if you are ugly and fat, you need to go away and shop elsewhere because you do not belong here.

I'm not exaggerating. Interviews with CEO, Mike Jeffries reveal what an elitist and arrogant prick he is. However, he is a very rich and profit-generating prick. Well, here is my thoughts on Abercrombie & Fitch. And, if you find it useful and want to use some information, don't be lame and plagiarize. Cite sources. I'm not posting my whole paper, but here are some excerpts:

Rhetorical Context

During the time period between December 21, 1999 and January 29, 2004 the EEOC received several charges against Abercrombie & Fitch that made allegations against the corporation for discrimination against minorities in areas that included employee hiring, job assignment, and promotion. After receiving additional charges against the company between September 2004 through November 2004, the EEOC found probable cause that Abercrombie & Fitch had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against minorities and women “in hiring, staffing, constructive discharge, failing to promote into manager positions, steering, and discharge, on an individual basis and also on a nationwide class basis” (EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch, 2004, p. 7) on an individual level and on a class of nationwide individuals. The EEOC filed a federal lawsuit through the United States District Court, Northern District of California which would become EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc., case No. 04-4731.

Meanwhile, on June 16th of 2003, Gonzalez et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch was filed which made allegations that the company was in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the California Fair Employment and housing Act, and Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff Eduardo Gonzalez stated that when he went to apply for a part time job at Abercrombie & Fitch in Santa Clara that the store manager suggested that he work in a one of the non-visible positions and that he felt he was discriminated because he was Latino. While Anthony Ocampo was told he could not be hired because there were currently enough Filipino-Americans (Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLPA, 2003). It was accounts like these that Thomas Saenz, VP of litigation for MALDEF said A&F had “systematically cultivated an all-white ‘A&F Look” and then faulted . . . [minority] applicants, potential recruits and employees for failing to fit this racially exclusive image” (2003) and reinforce “back of the bus” mentality. According to Kimberly West-Faulcon, Director of the Western Regional Office of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund meant, “not letting you on the bus at all” (2003). On November 8, 2004 Elizabeth West and Jennifer Lu filed a separate gender class action suit against Abercrombie & Fitch. Jennifer Lu was also a named plaintiff in the Gonzalez case.

The Consent Decree (Case Nos. 03-2817, 04-4730, and 04-4731)

Within six months of the filing of the Fourth and final Amended Complaint against Abercrombie & Fitch which added two more individuals to join the 15 other individuals and the EEOC as plaintiffs, both parties voluntarily entered into a Consent Decree on April 14th of 2005 as means to resolve and settle the litigation. The Consent Decree ensured equal employment opportunity for minorities, minority women, and women and corporate implementation of hiring practices, job assignments and promotions that candidates are qualified for and interested in. Additionally, entrance into this Decree served as way to expedite and establish a systematic process for providing relief for the said Plaintiffs. This required Abercrombie & Fitch to overhaul their marketing, hiring, and training departments, as well as create one exclusively for diversity.

From shopping bags to store display materials and media, Abercrombie & Fitch would now be required to more appropriately the “major racial/ethnic minority populations of the United States” (Consent, 2005, p. 19). A Monitor will be hired to oversee A&F’s compliance as well as a VP of Diversity and employ up to 25 diversity recruiters. . . [and] will provide training to all of its managers. The Decree itself is effective until no later than March 15th of 2011 and must minimally be effective until August of 2009. Within this time period, benchmarks have been set where Abercrombie & Fitch must fulfill the necessary requirements pertaining to the areas of corporate marketing and employee hiring, training, and promotion. Additionally, Abercrombie & Fitch agreed to allocate $40 million dollars in monetary awards to Plaintiffs with 15% designated to lost wages and 85% for compensation damages.

Discussion

Initially, the strategic response efforts of Abercrombie & Fitch appear to be appropriate and sincere. However, the consistent denial throughout the crisis undermined the other strategic responses throughout the image restoration process. Additionally, if we look at the following seven crisis response strategies (Coomb, 1998) that are categorically arranged based on an defensive-accommodative continuum, they are as follows: a) attack the accuser, b) denial, c) excuse, d) justification, e) ingratiation, f) corrective action, and g) mortification. Of the seven, Abercrombie & Fitch took the “middle of the road” approach with the exception of ingratiation, due to past involvement with other transgressions. So attempts to bolster or reap benefits of halo effect would not be very effective since there no presence of a “halo” in the first place.

Vlad, Sallot, & Reber (2006) discuss the strategy of rectification without assuming responsibility in their case analysis of Merck regarding the recall of Vioxx in 2004. This strategy allowed Merck to make amends through their corrective action of recalling the drug but “without ever admitting fault, apologizing, or asking forgiveness” (p. 357). Abercrombie & Fitch exhibited the same contradictory compliance in this matter satisfactorily by addressing the Plaintiffs without the admission of guilt.

With the rejection of responsibility regarding this matter, it is hard to buy into the idea that Abercrombie & Fitch was remorseful on any level and that the internal and external initiatives established, although are systemic, are not sincere. With the organization defending that they did not engage in any acts of illegal discrimination, how can it create a genuine environment of “diversity” that extends beyond a pretty minority face on a shopping bag or store poster? Going through the motions of A&F’s corrective actions and not truly believing in them only reinforces the past corporate mindset that got them in trouble in the first place. Taking the middle of the road approach and employing contradictory strategies accomplishes nothing and actually leaves the organization in the same position in which it started which makes one think that A&F is right where they wants to be. Systemic implementation of the set internal organizational corrective actions without appropriate psycho-social nurturing, reinforcement or support will result in unsustainable initiatives. It is suggested that the effectiveness of the internal corrective actions should be evaluated after the Consent Decree expires between May of 2009 to March of 2011 to examine the impact, if any, the Decree had on the Abercrombie & Fitch.

The outcomes of this crisis for the most part have been positive. The company has since collaborated with minority organizations to assist them with their recruiting efforts. The Consent contains set benchmarks that A&F must achieve within a given time period involving the percentage of recruitment and hiring of minorities, women, and minority women. The requirements were quite aggressive and extensive making changes take place anywhere from 30 days to 2 years. It was as if A&F instantaneously embraced cultural diversity and for some, it might have been too much, too fast. The changes were perceived as “forced” and insincere because of the immediate and amount of change that had occurred in such a short period of time which implied that the changes were made not because they really wanted to, but rather because they had to.

Further research is suggested regarding this particular crisis response in regards to examining the degree of legal control over communication during crises. If Abercrombie & Fitch communication strategies were determined or dominantly controlled by legal counsel and not that of the organization, there is possibility that the responses Abercrombie & Fitch may have been executed differently. Huang & Su (2009) examine the determinants of response form and hypothesized in their study that “the greater a company’s legal department dominates its crisis response decisions, the greater likelihood that the company will respond inconsistently to a crisis” (p. 9). To build from this hypothesis, more research should be conducted regarding contradictory response strategies between corporate legal departments and departments who are responsible for organizational communication.

So it is after 5 a.m. and I am convinced that staying up this late is normal. I have my paper that is due on Tuesday and I have a few concerns. The first concern is that it is only supposed to be 10-12 pages. I am doing a case analysis, so I'm thinking that I'm definitely going to bleed into about 15 pages.

I should have went to bed hours ago because I haven't produced any new content. I've been messing around on Twitter, looking up information about #hashtags, and bee thinking about taking a shower for the past 3 hours.

My new addiction is Animal Crossing for Nintendo DS. My daughter is obsessed with the game and I thought it was pointless, but it's actually a good mindless thing to get lost in if you need to take a break from something, saaaay, like research!

I just want to graduate, but at the same time, I fear my new and shiny Master's degree still leaves me in the same position as I was two years ago.....without a job. A friend of mine just contacted me via MySpace and asked me if I wanted to shoot weddings because he is going to start up some company doing his DJ thing. FYI, he has a degree in accounting. What has this world come to in that our college degrees have turned out to be something we can just say we have but hate to admit we don't use? And, not to mention, that the only immediate way to get cash is to do what we'd really be doing full time if it could pay us like the jobs we are trying to get, but don't have? Madness, madness I say!!!

Tonight, Zen's "Get Drunk" aired on WWBN 101.5 Flint's rock radio station on the Music Meeting with Maggie Meadows. Thank you Maggie for helping my boys out. Big Ham, Tree, and Matt were the guests on the show tonight and provided the feedback of "it sounds like Buckcherry....yeah, very, um, Crazy Bitch" in the most unenthusiastic tone imaginable. Well, if that is how they feel then I guess I am happy with that. Because, even though "Crazy Bitch" was killed by overplay on the airwaves like every other song, it got them attention and paved their way into the mainstream. Sooo, if "Get Drunk" can do that for Zen, then yes, I want to be "Crazy Bitch" all day, all the way. And c'mon guys, it is supposed to be a party song. Party songs are not supposed to be some deep, philosophical music masterpiece.

Okay, it's 5:30 and I have to force myself to finish the rest of my headings on the Abercrombie Fitch paper so I know what to fill in for tomorrow because I'm tired of staring at the actual of the photo I posted. Look at it. That is what I stare at every night or some version of it. Have to go and shut this iTunes off....my playlist dates me and right now it's Poison's "I won't forget you." Good times, good times. Not really...lol. I think I was in middle school.

(picture not taken by me)

Getting out is something that I rarely do these days as I have over committed myself this semester once again. However, today I managed to leave the house and not feel guilty and decided to go to Somerset Collection in Troy and treat myself. I was going to back out, but I think even my husband knows when I am on the edge of going postal and made me go.

While I was browsing in one of my new favorite stores, White House Black Market, he stopped off at Teavana. We have become regular tea drinkers over the past few months and I absolutely love it! It's more than just a beverage. It's a relaxing mental ritual for me for some reason. I know, sounds like a lot of BS, but it works for me. And truth be told, I'm too busy and lazy to do yoga.

After I left WHBM and dropped $300 on two items that were totally worth it, I found him and we went back to Teavana because he wanted me to look at some tea cups (I love collecting them). The store is not large to begin with and was jam packed with people. It was a bit overwhelming! You couldn't even move. The aromas that were circulating in the air were soooo wonderful. Subtle blends of spice and citrus fruits filled my head as I was trying to make my way to where the tea cups were.

I was drawn to the hand made cast iron cups and the petite saucers that went with them. There were several sales people working the room talking with customers. I heard bits and pieces of conversations. Some were about the history and tradition of different cultures and rituals about tea. Others were about the actual products.

I used to work retail, so I can appreciate the fact that the employees were actually "working" it. And maybe it's the fact that I live and breathe communication as a discipline or that I am learning about marketing and advertising along with communication this term which made me think about corporate advertising and consumer behavior.

The elaborate window display had several teapots and cups staggered on shelves with a huge poster backdrop that stated: DRINKING TEA IS FASHIONABLE.

Is it? Does it make us seem like cultured snobs who snub coffee drinking? Do we appear more sophisticated because we just spent $300 on a teapot, cups, and a few bags of tea? Do we look as "fashionable" drinking tea as we do with our iPods and designer clothes? What do we really buy into? We don't buy the tea. We buy the idea of the tea from Teavana.

I'm not bashing the art of advertising because I appreciate it and think it is quite clever. It's brilliant actually and quite fascinating how consumers respond to it. How we will identify ourselves with products based on perceived self-image and brand congruency.

If we all stop and thought for a moment about what we buy and why we buy it . . . we'd all learn something about ourselves. May sound like a superficial waste of time at first, but it's not.

So maybe you don't care about the latest trends in clothes, technology gadgets, or drinking over priced beverages...but maybe you are brand loyal about other things like cars or ketchup. Maybe loyalty has nothing to do with it and you are a price driven consumer and are willing to sacrifice things that others are not, like quality? Even so, whatever kind of consumer you are . . . there's an explanation as to why you are the way you are. Think about it :)