Should clothing companies be responsible for censoring messages their item promote, or should buyers use their discretion? Anna Zhao’s post about using controversy as marketing (and essentially marketing controversy), points out the interesting fact that amidst the controversy and arguable negative messages being promoted, Urban Outfitters in a leading competitor in its market.

Urban outfitters isn’t known for it conservative styles or typical slogans, rather, its unique for its out-going styles and questionable messages, and uses these as a brand positioning technique. UO definitely uses its controversial nature to a) differ itself from the other competitors, and b) establish its own target market in which it can succeed. Its unique style and messages purposely target teens, known for going through the typical ‘rebellious’ stage. Focusing on a particular consumer group (though attracting other consumers as well) with such a specific genre of clothing answers Anna Zhou’s previous question of how UO can be doing so well amidst all the competition and resentment from certain groups.

Urban outfitters has always counted on a certain target group of people for its revenue, and it’s their strategic marketing techniques, no matter how unconventional (in this case, the more controversial the better, it seems), that let them still strive in the clothing market.