I've also been trying to stay away from this thread, but being an almost lifelong resident of Ohio, it's difficult to resist commenting.
First off, during my teenage years Abercrombie played a strong role in turning me away from fashion. Although it was far less focused, I prefered the same sorts of clothing that I wear now- a base of black and white and grey, black pants more often than jeans, never, ever, ever any plaids or check patterns on shirts, minimal logoing etc. I don't know exactly when the change occured, but I remember my dad taking me to an Abercrombie before it was redone as a "cool" store. He remembered it from NY, but it was some awful old men's outdoorsy stuff. I never got over that. Once it got popular in high school (replacing the hideous IOU/Cross Colours stuff people adored at my middle school), I wanted nothing to do with it and, by proxy, nothing to do with "fashion". I didn't realize it at the time, but there were plenty of people (Helmut, for one) who thrived upon just what I wanted in clothes, but this was pre-internet, so I was unaware.
Anyway, I've only been in their stores a handful of times, but I vividly remember that it was IMPOSSIBLE to find anything in shades that I'd be willing to wear. I inquired about this and was told something about how black isn't a positive color, so it wasn't stocked. A quick glance at the website reveals that nothing has changed. So, clearly, this has never been the place for me.
Other members have mentioned how every fashion label markets itself and some fantasy lifetyle that wearing its clothing permits. This is true, but as Mutterlein mentioned, most ads that you'll see in an issue of Vogue or another similar magazine are targeted toward adults who can (ideally) think for themselves- not impressionable teens. Other stores that go after the same demographic may use cute models or slightly provocative photography to catch teenagers' eyes, but I've never encountered anyone who bought into a lifestyle like the Abercrombie kids do. It's not so much about whether the actual clothes are revealing, but the overall image of the marketing. You may buy all of your clothes at Gap or some department store, but these stores don't appear to exclude others who don't fit that mold or give their wearers some false sense of superiority. On one hand, this reflects the success of the Abercrombie strategy, but as many other have mentioned, there's a sinister side to this ideal.
One thing that has always troubled me about Abercrombie is that without the moose and other logoing, it would be (to my untrained eye) impossible to distinguish from its rivals. Skimming sites like American Eage, you'll find the same basic items- "rugged" jeans, wrinkled button down shirts, cargo shorts and khakis and lots of logo t-shirts. Abercrombie's may in fact be constructed better, but for the most part, I don't see why it would be chosen over a competitor if not for the sense of superiority that the marketing breeds.
Unlike more serious fashion labels, you don't see "key pieces" each season, or much change from year to year. This could be beneficial for building a wardrobe, but if those clothes are only appropriate for lounging around the house or sitting on your porch drinking a beer with your buddies, what's the real point? Stores like Target and H&M create excitement (at least in womenswear) by hiring people to come up with interesting, one time collections. Many people on this site and around the world buy from these stores because they provide pieces that they can play with to create truly distinctive styles. There's no room for originality in an A&F collection because it's always the same tired stuff.
I have a hard time believing that anyone buys their shirts there because they are intrigued by some design or construction aspect. People who buy Anne D or Etro or Jil Sander or Dior Homme are likely buying into some sort of imaginary lifestyle (whether that be dandy, or rocker or intellectual), but I'd suspect that most of these clients came up with their own image and then, through exploration and experimentation, found designers who thought on that same wavelength. This is contrary to A&F because, at least in my experience, most people who wear a lot of those clothes bought it because it says that it is abercrombie and not because it was the only place that offers a certain cut/fabric/color.
This may need more clarification, but it's an essential distinction. With the A&F model, the company is completely in control and able to dictate what "casual luxury" involves. The customer buys whatever mediocre pieces are released each season just to fit the image. You keep coming back- never really choosing for yourself. It's Abercrombie. It HAS to be good. The other, true designer model leaves the individual in greater control. You are buying a certain house because they happen to have THE dress or THE suit that you've been willing to kill to own since the instant you saw it during fashion week. If that house changes and you no longer connect with the designer, you'll find a new "home".
These are exaggerations. Not everyone who buys Fitch is a mindless drone and there are plenty of people who stay loyal to other fashion houses for status regardless of design or integrity, but since this thread is all about generalities, I think it works.
I was going to get into how I think Abercrombie perpetuates the crisis in American menswear (no age appropriate options for post college, but non-middle aged guys with moderate incomes), but I've rambled on enough for now. Hopefully some of these points will be of interest.
