<p>Capitalism and stock markets are parasitic, computerized or not. Socialism, in its pure form, OTOH, is utopian. :)</p>
<p>
It is no practical solution. You propose taking one set of non-customers and converting them to a different set of non-customers, and then suggesting this will somehow hurt the company? There are already attractive young people not shopping at A&F - this would not change the company at all.</p>
<p>Well, anything in it’s “pure” form is utopian. 
</p>
<p>Even communism or fascism, when the “benevolent fascist” rules.</p>
<p>
Depends on your idea of utopia!</p>
<p>no, by definition.</p>
<p>No, I’m suggesting taking a set of customers wannabe and converting them into potentially targeted customers who would then boycott the company’s product, therefore not allowing the company to profit off them and to expand their customer base into that segment. :)</p>
<p>My point is that while every system is utopian to its creator, it is plainly not utopian to everyone.</p>
<p>
First, “not expanding” does not fit my definition of “hurting”. Second, not everyone who spurns A&F or thinks them contemptible is sized out of their clothing. Third, any motivational methodologies for so “improving” overweight youth is competing with the toxic advertising of A&F, and ANY who then went on to shop there would still expand their market - and there would certainly be at least some.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I don’t know that it’s a tax on the system. The vast majority of traders, from what I can tell, lose money. And they pay commissions and keep people employed. People that pay taxes. They buy computers to trade with too.</p>
<p>But perhaps you familiar with the economics concept of “broken windows”.</p>
<p>Your definition does not matter, the only thing that matters is what the Street wants every retailer to do - constantly grow their revenue and profits. “Not expanding” is exactly what hurts the most for retailers, because their margins are quit slim (pardon the pun). </p>
<p>I offered this solution half-jokingly, because there was another thread recently with some folks screaming that it was not right for A&F to make clothes only up to a certain size. I highly doubt that the majority of our overweight youngsters have metabolic disorders that make them gain weight; most of them can lose a few pounds of their extra weight simply by modifying their daily habits.</p>
<p>I actually don’t mind that A&F has a limited size range. It’s a private business and can make and sell whatever it wants. I do find the owner’s attitude to be pretty obnoxious. Most successful consumer brands do exactly what he is doing–identify a target customer that they want the product (and communications around it) to appeal to. Where he erred was making his comments public. Unless of course (and as others have said) he wants to get buzz from the shock value of his position.</p>
<p>I think A&F should start selling wedding attire. Then we could really get this thread rocking. ;)</p>
<p>^ ^</p>
<p>And the weddings in question will go to this tune:</p>
<p>[Flash</a> Gordon OST - The Wedding March - YouTube](<a href=“Flash Gordon OST - The Wedding March - YouTube”>Flash Gordon OST - The Wedding March - YouTube)</p>
<p>:D 
:D</p>
<p>Deborah - post of the day! :D</p>
<p>“Jeffries also said, “Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.””</p>
<p>Nike is having a fantastic year and they do go for the young, old, fat and skinny.</p>
<p>I ran into an investing article on this issue and it provided more details about the company and expected prospects for 2013.</p>
<p>BC, was Jeffries talking about the likes of JCPenney’s or was he throwing Nike into the same pile?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless your product already has the “cool factor” like Apple, it doesn’t usually pay to insult a portion of your potential clientele…especially in a nasty manner like A & F. </p>
<p>Granted, the Apple vs PC ads can be viewed as insulting by some PC users…but they aren’t too nasty and assume the hardcore techies on both sides are in on the joke.</p>
<p>Jeffries didn’t name any specific companies that I could see in the article. It was a quote so there could have been more that the article quoted from but I did not see the original transcript.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What goes around comes around. Apple has taken a beating from Samsung in the ad wars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s good in the long term as that means a wider variety of good products to choose from. Saying this as someone who considers himself a platform agnostic. PC, Mac, Linux…all good. :)</p>
<p>As the op, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to companies, retail establishments in this case, targeting certain markets. I have no problem with Size 3-5-9 or Lane Bryant stores. Target marketing is smart strategy. But I do have a problem with what Mike Jeffries is quoted as saying.</p>
<p>And I also have a problem with people buying into the thinking that those who find offense at A & F’s marketing strategies and who cannot fit into A & F clothes are whiney couch potatoes that need to stop eating and get moving. There are many reasons people (teens mostly) may not fit into A & F clothes. But being “not cool” is not one of them. This attitude is naive at best, generally intolerant and bigoted and destructive at worst. </p>
<p>Obviously, the best solution is to vote with your dollars, ie shopping, investing, whatever. Although I can choose not to shop in the store, not sure if some of my retirement dollars are invested in A & F.</p>