Wapsi Square Forum

Urban Outfitters wrote: Urban Outfitters sincerely apologizes for any offence our Vintage Kent State Sweatshirt may have caused,” a company spokesperson wrote in a statement. “It was never our intention to allude to the tragic events that took place at Kent State in 1970 and we are extremely saddened that this item was perceived as such. The one-of-a-kind item was purchased as part of our sun-faded vintage collection. There is no blood on this shirt nor has this item been altered in any way. The red stains are discoloration from the original shade of the shirt and the holes are from natural wear and fray. Again, we deeply regret that this item was perceived negatively and we have removed it immediately from our website to avoid further upset.

{story at The Daily Beast}
 
{List of controversies over UO products}
 
{lawsuit by the Navajo nation}
 
Products that UO took the "Navajo" name off, including "Navajo hipster panties:
 

Urban Outfitters has been going down hill for a while now, but now there is a red hued person with horns and a hand-basket looking for the CEO.

Did you take a look at the list of controversies?

Yikes! How do you NOT see the Kent State Incident when you look at that shirt?
I've avoided UO just as not being hip enough for their demographics, but they seem to be right bastards at using controversy for advertising. How many times can you say 'oops! My bad?' before it's company policy?

Jabberwonky wrote:Yikes! How do you NOT see the Kent State Incident when you look at that shirt?

I'm sure that any of them who lived through those years and weren't in a coma at the time saw it quite well, although a few young staffers might not have.

What would be the point of marketing such a branded garment otherwise?

Jabberwonky wrote:How many times can you say 'oops! My bad?' before it's company policy?

There is a bit of "nudge nudge, wink wink" about those disclaimers, isn't there?

That's the thing about trying for an "edgy" style... in order to be noticed, you have to be right on the edge of controversy, pushing up against the boundary of outrage. It's the commercial analogue to the "shock jock" phenomenon. Sometimes you're bound to misjudge and go a bit too far... and at that point you go directly from being "brilliant and hip" to "insensitive and horrid", don't pass Go, don't collect $200.

To quote G'kar again, "You're not sorry for what you did! You're sorry because you got caught!"

Jabberwonky wrote:Yikes! How do you NOT see the Kent State Incident when you look at that shirt?

Perhaps when the design is approved by kids in their early 20's who didn't learn much history in school and the shirts are made by workers in Bangladesh? Maybe they need some version of beta-testing for clothing, where the proposed product is reviewed by a small yet diverse group before being released publicly.

This was a one-of-a-kind "vintage" item, supposedly looking like that because of wear and fading.

Isn't it more like four of a kind?


....okay, I'll stop.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:This was a one-of-a-kind "vintage" item, supposedly looking like that because of wear and fading.

Yeeeah ... I'm still calling shenanigans on this carnival booth.

Dave wrote:

Jabberwonky wrote:How many times can you say 'oops! My bad?' before it's company policy?

There is a bit of "nudge nudge, wink wink" about those disclaimers, isn't there?

That's the thing about trying for an "edgy" style... in order to be noticed, you have to be right on the edge of controversy, pushing up against the boundary of outrage. It's the commercial analogue to the "shock jock" phenomenon. Sometimes you're bound to misjudge and go a bit too far... and at that point you go directly from being "brilliant and hip" to "insensitive and horrid", don't pass Go, don't collect $200.

To quote G'kar again, "You're not sorry for what you did! You're sorry because you got caught!"

You can't possibly survive as a business and be THAT screwed up and get away with it by your stockholders THAT MANY times if it was by accident: 17 times in the last 11 years of which only 2005 and 2009 did NOT have a scandal...though 09 did have the collective bargaining thing, so it looks like 05 was the only scandal-free year for them... with that many scandals over products and adverts, etc... you would kinda think they would have fixed it by now (especially '12 with four in one year) and gotten better PR department personnel and fired all the idiots they had before... yet they STILL keep screwing up... Yeah... no... this is willful and purposely done, it can't be anything else, and I'm sure that the stockholders that have stuck around the longest are happily buying up the stock from the investors that protest the companies practices by selling their stock.. it gets the people that are offended out of the company, and those that stay and buy it back, get richer afterwards...