A Sweatshirt Crisis: 3 Catastrophic Fashion Fails
By: Morgan Foss
When discussing “fashion fails,” I’m not referring to red carpet disasters or unsightly street fashion, but instead fails related to fashion companies' production of offensive apparel. Over the past several years, prominent fashion brands have released products causing significant repercussions. Look below into what these brands released, and how the company's reacted to negative blasts on media and outraged customers.
1. Gucci
In February of 2019, Gucci, a luxury clothing and accessory brand, released a sweater that resembled blackface. The sweater cost $890 and was quickly removed from store shelves and the company's website following immediate backlash.
So, what is blackface, and why is it offensive? Blackface originated from a series of racial stereotypes and characters going back to the days of plantation slavery and reconstruction. Blackface first began when white performers played black characters in minstrel shows. The white characters would wear makeup made from burnt cork or black grease paint and paint their lips bright red (Blackface.com).
Blackface has been inconsiderately used through American culture in films, television and now fashion trends. Blackface.com stated, “blackface is more than just burnt cork applied as makeup. It is a style of entertainment based on racist Black stereotypes that began in minstrel shows but continues on today.”
Nonetheless, Gucci’s sweater clearly portrayed blackface. The company released a statement apologizing for the offensive sweater the following day. In my opinion, Gucci will never recover from its devastating fashion fail, and it will always be THE company that released a hoodie resembling blackface.
2. H&M
The offensive apparel doesn’t end there. H&M, a Swedish-based clothing brand released a problematic children’s sweater in January of 2018. The sweater stated, “coolest monkey in the jungle” and was modeled by a young black boy. It didn’t take long for the controversial sweatshirt to create an outrage through media, resulting in the companies removal of the apparel the following morning.
The sweatshirts graphic design is not entirely the problem, but instead the use of a black model. In addition to placing the black model next to a white model wearing a “survivor” sweatshirt.
The use of monkeys as a derogatory term for black people dates to the 17th century. “Animalization remains a malicious and effective instrument of such a form of desocialization and dehumanization,” stated in an article discussing H&M’s monkey sweatshirt.
H&M reported its biggest decline in quarterly sales following the release of the sweatshirt. We would assume that the company would learn from its mistakes, but H&M continues to release problematic advertisements.
Check out this article, The Real Story Behind H&M’s Racist Sweatshirt for a list of theories behind the companies decision.
3. Urban Outfitters
Aside from supporting systematic racism through the designs of sweatshirts, other brands have found extremely creative ways to be insensitive and offensive to specific groups of people. In 2014, Urban Outfitters released a product advertised as a vintage Kent State sweatshirt covered in what appeared to be blood splatter. The sweatshirt was on the market for $129 but was quickly removed from the stores and website.
The negative backlash of media rolled in due to the reference of the 1970 campus shooting at Kent State. Four students were brutally killed by an Ohio National Guard during a peace protest at the university.
The company released a statement apologizing for the offensive sweatshirt. Similar to H&M, Urban Outfitters didn’t learn from its mistakes and continues to release problematic and offensive products. The company attempts to brand itself as alternative and hip, but instead runs into instances of cultural misappropriation.
Authentic Apology, Yes or No?
All three brands made statements apologizing for the release of its offensive products, but were the apologies enough? I found the language the companies used through its statements to determine the authenticity of its regret.
1. Gucci emphasized the company’s values and ensured diversity through all decisions moving forward, and that the release of the sweatshirt will be taken as a learning moment.
2. H&M attempted to agree with the criticism but included words like unintentional in its apology.
3. Urban Outfitters offered its condolences to anyone offended by the apparel or affected by the tragic event. On the contrary, UO included language that derailed its apology for the Kent State sweatshirt by claiming that the red splatter was not intentionally blood.
Read the apology statements below. Which statement do you find the most authentic?
After reviewing the outrage through several media platforms, social media users and customers of the brands, I realized that despite the authenticity of the apology, Gucci, H&M and Urban Outfitters are still successful companies.
Moving forward, companies that have been involved in a PR disaster like Gucci, H&M or Urban Outfitters should consider this to avoid, prepare or manage for situations like these.
Ensure diversity within the company, and through every decision made. In addition, ensure the consideration of diversity through your target audience.
Implement a company code of ethics. Does every product or service align with your companies morals and ethics?
Prepare for crisis management. Consider how to write an authentic apologies and statements before a crisis occurs.
Thanks for reading my first blog and please comment below!