A&F Quarterly

[LolitaLuxe]

a&f is just plain vile.

 

[leyla m.]

i already said it before; i like some of their stuff.

but this is a

CRIME TO FASHION

the models are darn ugly (have they got a mold to get them all looking the same??) and the pics are sooooo bad and not tasteful!!



..sorry but i dont get this at all and i dont care who took those pics, they wont make the label nor the models nor the IDEA look any better to me. if anything, then WORSE

 

[PrinceOfCats]

What I don't get is: A&F clothes aren't sexy - they have the same sexual charge as a dead ape. So why do they have these shots that allegedly 'promote their image' when their image is preppy tees and baseball jackets?

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Dec 6th, 2003 - 9:09 pm
What I don't get is: A&F clothes aren't sexy - they have the same sexual charge as a dead ape. So why do they have these shots that allegedly 'promote their image' when their image is preppy tees and baseball jackets?

thats exactly why Prince, to balance off the non sexyness of the actual clothes, its such an obvious marketing trick

 

[Scott]

Interesting discussion.

It is all about trying to sell their mundane,why would I buy this when I can get it at an army surplus shop,crap! Its like they're selling souls for a profit. It has nothing to do with sex or sexuality;just a sure fire way to up the sales figures. Frankly,I find it cheap,sleazy and disgusting. Its irony at its absolute worst.

 

[Spacemiu]

well tehre clotehs are all just disgusting and trying to hard


i find there image grotesque and fashist

btu obviously teh point is not to promot cloeths, its to sell and image and hype, they can do what ever teh f*ck they whant, its nto leik tehya re handing tehm out to udner aged chidlren, if parents dount whnat tehre chidlren to see this kind of thing or suport this kind of image then doutn let your kids buy the magazine and dount let tehm buy the clotehs

 

[Alejandro]

I agree 100% with y'all...

 

[TheSweetest]

i find it disgusting that a seven year old would have access to these quarterlies and that parents shift the blame from themselves to the company producing it.

if gucci or versace or any of the other houses produced publications of that size, you would find a similar emphasis on similar themes...my god, versace had that campaign not to long ago with the girl on a beach where everyone was naked...where was the uproar?

i don't know about young children having access to the quarterly and i agree they shouldn't have it, but there are ppl in the world who don't believe it's a good idea to sell sex in that fashion. and in my opinion they are not selling sexiness, but actual sex. there's a difference. so many companies do sell sex but don't make the models get butt-naked. Versace is allowed to do whatever they want b/c of the ppl who wear Versace. Some of them like to dress lavishly and half nakedly anyway. A&F is a whole different story considering their store is in almost every large mall in the US. They are too common for that crap. Think about it... Gucci, Armani, Versace compared to American Eagle, Abercrombie & Fitch, the Gap. Big difference. We all know that teens have sex and that preps are some of the freakiest ppl you'll find, but i just don't see where the visual is necessary.

 

[tealady]

I think it looks common, cheap, tawdry, and boring. Who needs it?

 

[jedmed]

Interesting exchange of ideas! Just how I look at it: The whole concept really centers of the Management's intention to feature sexual or sensual images and how Bruce Webber go about doing the shoot. Definitely, it titilates, to some it maybe too much, to others it may be lame, to some it maybe p*rno, and to certain quarters it may even be art.

The whole point of A&F is to advertise and if sex and sexuality is the theme, then they are using a time tested formula. Sex sells period, somebody once said.

Somebody mentioned Versace doing something similar or within a certain level of comparison, but Versace is more "high end" and European, where people there tend to be more liberal when it comes to nudity. A&F is not high end, but its a respectable enough company that sells. Top modeling agencies regard A&F as an important client and will allow their models to do nudes or semi-nudes. To be photographed by Webber to some is already a highlight.

What I would find objectionable is when underage girls and boys are posing in suggestive manner.

Also, Miuccia Prada once said, she doesn't like "obvious sexy" and would rather see someone wearing a shirt, though there is evidence that he or she is wearing nothing underneath.

 

[mikeijames]

Originally posted by TheSweetest@Dec 6th, 2003 - 8:08 pm

i find it disgusting that a seven year old would have access to these quarterlies and that parents shift the blame from themselves to the company producing it.

if gucci or versace or any of the other houses produced publications of that size, you would find a similar emphasis on similar themes...my god, versace had that campaign not to long ago with the girl on a beach where everyone was naked...where was the uproar?

i don't know about young children having access to the quarterly and i agree they shouldn't have it, but there are ppl in the world who don't believe it's a good idea to sell sex in that fashion. and in my opinion they are not selling sexiness, but actual sex. there's a difference. so many companies do sell sex but don't make the models get butt-naked. Versace is allowed to do whatever they want b/c of the ppl who wear Versace. Some of them like to dress lavishly and half nakedly anyway. A&F is a whole different story considering their store is in almost every large mall in the US. They are too common for that crap. Think about it... Gucci, Armani, Versace compared to American Eagle, Abercrombie & Fitch, the Gap. Big difference. We all know that teens have sex and that preps are some of the freakiest ppl you'll find, but i just don't see where the visual is necessary.

i think calvin klein would be on par with abercrombie and we all know that calvin had some of the raciest ads of the past few years.

so abercrombie is not the only one of its kind...they are following a industry wide trend. i recall michael kors ad with the youngish looking girl in a miniskirt where you could see up to there (her legs were open)...the marc jacobs ads where stephanie seymour (i think) had her legs abover her head exposing her bare bottom in a VERY sexual position...ralph lauren even has taken to having his models show skin.

it's so funny bc in america, we have no qualms about an ad displaying radical acts of violence (which is PROVEN to inspire violence in their viewers) but at the first sign of anything remotely sexual, there's an uproar...what's the worse that will happen? kids thinking about having sex...they are thinking about it anyways...it's a part of growing up...rather that than thinking about shooting each other

 

[Scott]

Sex maybe a seller in our world but anyone smart enough knows what is real and what is merely a gimmick. This is sex without any form of integrity or soul. That's not titilating to me.

 

[Lena]

Sex has become a mainstream marketing tool, not counting on the negative effects.

some points:
*Kids in europe -talking primary school ages and the first classes of highschool, eg France- are so fed up already with lolita styles that they actually 'attack' all girly looking girls (wearing skirts or 'sexy' kids outfits). Attacts can be verbal, social or violent, causing not little trouble to all involved (kids, parents, childern clothes manufacturers)
*Consumers get so very much bombarded by sex (advertising, tv, magazine spreads, celebrities etc) that they dont find 'sex' ...sexy anymore. A reaction to this comes very graphic through ss04 collections, much more 'dressed' than usually expected.
*Sex marketing has reached its peak and from now on it can only follow the natural decline. It will take time for some to digest the new reality regarding 'sex-as-marketing-tool' Clever communication directors are already looking for something more than sex to make waves in the seasons to come.

 

[PrinceOfCats]

Some have argued that Klein's genius was as a pop-artist and manipulator rather than designer...

Even so - surely Klein's 'Nothing gets between me and my [name of those jeans]' is rather more intelligent than a boy and girl naked about to shag each other on a rock?

Also - what the h*ll is this phony nonsense about the 'great moose'?

 

[marc jacobs addict]

Originally posted by mikeijames@Dec 8th, 2003 - 12:53 pm
it's so funny bc in america, we have no qualms about an ad displaying radical acts of violence (which is PROVEN to inspire violence in their viewers) but at the first sign of anything remotely sexual, there's an uproar...what's the worse that will happen? kids thinking about having sex...they are thinking about it anyways...it's a part of growing up...rather that than thinking about shooting each other

soo true. its unbelievable how our society reacts to sex versus violence.
"violence is okay... sex?!!? EVERYONE QUICK, COVER YOUR EYES AND EARS"
its ridiculous.

 

[marc jacobs addict]

Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Dec 8th, 2003 - 1:45 pm
Also - what the h*ll is this phony nonsense about the 'great moose'?

i know, when i first saw a kid wearing one of the shirts in school, i had to do a double take because i thought it was polo, then realized it was a moose.

in my opinion, a copy of polo ralph lauren

 

[franco]

My senior year of high school i worked at A&F :::hides:::

 

[lele]

my immediate reaction to those photos was that they were "dorky" pardon the weak adjective but they all look like naked dorks...the entire thing is forced, silly, pointless and they come off looking like they are trying too hard (AF). that being said I would not want my teenager looking at that.....

 

[tiffany]

Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Dec 6th, 2003 - 1:09 pm
What I don't get is: A&F clothes aren't sexy - they have the same sexual charge as a dead ape. So why do they have these shots that allegedly 'promote their image' when their image is preppy tees and baseball jackets?

hahaha lol I agree completely!

 

[kimair]

Preppy teen retailer Abercrombie & Fitch is reinstating its racy A&F Quarterly catalog after a seven-year hiatus.

The catalog, shot by fashion photographer Bruce Weber, is available for preorder on Abercrombie's website for $10 and will be released July 17.

Abercrombie was among the teen retailers hit hardest when consumers cut spending in the recession and abandoned its relatively high-priced flannel shirts and jeans for products from lower-priced competitors such as Aeropostale Inc. and American Eagle Outfitters Inc.

The company updated its assortment, lowered prices and cut costs, and by the first half of this year customers were returning. For the five months through the end of May, its revenue in stores open at least one year, a key measure of a retailer's fiscal health, rose 1%, while total revenue rose 13% to $885.4 million.

Abercrombie stopped publishing the quarterly in 2003 following complaints about its sexually suggestive photographs. But the company never gave a reason.

The catalog is part of a larger back-to-school campaign that mainly includes in-store displays. An Abercrombie spokeswoman said the theme for the catalog is a "VIP Backstage pass" to an Abercrombie & Fitch screen test.

RBC Capital Markets analyst Howard Tubin, said the catalog probably won't materially affect its earnings. But he said media exposure related to the catalog will be a positive for the New Albany, Ohio, company.

"They are starting to reconnect with some of their customers and want to drive more traffic into their stores and e-commerce site," he said. "A catalog is one way for them to do that."

cbsnews.com / june 25, 2010

you can pre-order it on their site...