This post is a reaction to Anna Zhao’s post “Controversy as a Marketing Strategy?” In terms of Business Ethics, it is shocking to see where clothing can take us sometimes… Anna’s example of Urban Outfitters promoting through their designs under-age drinking, racism and other controversies, is shocking. Controversy does sadly seem to work as a marketing strategy. But does fashion need to be provocative as Anna says? I don’t think so. In my understanding, fashion walks and in hand with style and style is rather based on differentiation than provocation.

Back in August this year, an Indian Clothing Store named Hitler made lots of money thanks to the journalists. The young entrepreneur claimed that he did not know who Hitler truly was. Unbelievable! If you want to read more on this, you will find an article from the Huffington Post here.

I really don’t think that economic successful stories based on controversial contents should be advertized through media initially focusing on the controversy. As Anna reminds us, bad publicity is no publicity and every publicity is good publicity… Of course, there are some freedoms that shouldn’t be impaired; but couldn’t we find ways to stop the so-called unintentional advertizing of such controversial products? Couldn’t we find ways to end the production of such products at all? I’m sure there are already lawful ways to regulate these designs on clothes. After all, once being worn, they can be seen by people literally shocked (if not under-age…).