Abercrombie & Fitch Ditching Logo-Heavy Clothing Because That Is So Last Decade

afThe halls of middle schools everywhere will be changed with this bit of news: Abercrombie & Fitch is scaling back the number of clothing items adorned with its once popular logo.

Reuters reports that weakened sales and a change in clothing preferences led the company to change its steadfast practice of slapping a super sized logo on everything.

“In the spring season we are looking to take the North American logo business to practically nothing,” Chief Executive Mike Jeffries said on a sales call.

It appears the move is being made to better compete with trendier items from less expensive chains like Forever 21 and Zara.

Phasing out the logo-heavy merchandise “is a good strategy and consistent in where consumer interest lies but it is not going to be enough to entirely turn sales,” research analyst Liz Dunn tells Reuters.

This wouldn’t be the first major change for the retailer this year. The company expanded its merchandise offerings to include larger sizes after CEO Jeffries suggested Abercrombie’s clothes aren’t meant for the “not-so-cool kids,” which was his way of referring to people who aren’t skinny.

Abercrombie to shed logo-centric clothes in North America [Reuters]

Read Comments4

Edit Your Comment

  1. petepuma03 says:

    I never understood why people would pay ridiculous prices to essentially be a walking advertisement. A&F, Fubu, AE, etc. If you want me to wear your name or logo, I better be getting the item for free. I have picked up many shirts (oxfords/poloes) and if there is a logo on the breast, chances are good it will be left in the store (unless it is an incredibly good clearance price).

    • furiousd says:

      I feel the same way about cable: if you want to interrupt the reason I’m watching TV with an ad then it had better be free. Or if I pay for it, then no ads. Somehow, cable companies have millions of people paying for the privilege of watching ever-more ads! I’m not sure how Hulu is able to get people to pay the same for a Netflix-like experience + annoying ads, and that self-righteous “Which ad experience would you prefer?” phrasing… neither, Hulu… neither…

    • jdgr says:

      I’ve always felt that way as well, for anything I buy. I don’t want to advertise with my shirt, my shoes, my purse, or anything else I’ve paid for. If someone wants to know what brand it is (because they like it or whatever), they can ask. I’ve always said that if companies want me to wear things with their name or logo on it that they should pay me to be a walking billboard.

    • SingleMaltGeek says:

      I remember with my first car, after a marathon negotiation they were ready to sell me a certain car at a certain price, and I told them that if it had their name on the back (one of those chromed things they attach to the rear of the trunk/tailgate), they’d better pay me for advertising for them, because we had negotiated for a car, we had never discussed my giving them free advertising. They were pissed, but they didn’t want me to walk away and they didn’t want to lower the price, so somehow they got me one without it. (I think they wait to put those on at delivery, since they might exchange/buy/sell inventory with other dealerships sometimes.)