As consumers, we view the purpose of marketers is to gather our interest and sell us products. Using the development of a company culture, promoting campaigns, and targeting certain people, marketers can better achieve their goal. However, when targeting certain demographics becomes extreme exclusivity, the question of ethics arises.

A well known example of this is the controversy involving Abercrombie and Fitch. The American brand is known for its “hot” image and aims, at all costs, to maintain its “cool” factor. When the company’s CEO, Mike Jeffries, stated that the brand is only for “cool kids”, this statement of exclusivity is supported by the fact that the brand doesn’t produce larger sized clothing for women. Furthermore, there have been numerous accounts of employees being fired or quitting for not adhering to the strict dress code of the store. Like many retail stores, employees are expected to wear the clothes of the company, yet to maintain its “cool” culture, Abercrombie employees are forced to remove religious symbols and clothing.

The public response to Jeffries’ comment highlights the current unethical nature of the brand as it offended many consumers and sparked some to boycott the brand.

It is important and strategic for companies to create their own culture and differ themselves from the competition. However,  when it begins to categorize people into those who are worthy enough for the clothes and those that are not, and interfering with their rights, it may be taking it too far.

Having a message like this representing a brand not only angers consumers, but offers a choice to society. Are we one that accepts this type of exclusivity and treats it like a status symbol? Or one that recognizes the ethical issues presented by this and strives to change it?