Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
  
Viva La Political Correctness Part II, or, I was Offended and all I got was this Lousy T-shirt

In Part I — now labeled as such since I didn’t know there would be a fitting Part II and, come to think of it, this could turn into an awkward series — of Viva la Political Correctness we talked about Americans being offended by Mexicans. In this sequel we look at a reversal of roles. Sort of. And more.

pc_newmexico.jpg

The Anti-Defamation League, who “[combats] anti-Semitism and bigotry of all kinds”, is asking Philadelphia-based Urban Outfitters to stop selling a T-shirt that reads “New Mexico, Cleaner than Regular Mexico.” Now, literally, this statement is true: Mexico can be a very dirty place and unfortunately suffers from serious pollution problems. Metaphorically though, the T-shirt insinuates a non-politically correct message. “It is an inappropriate and unnecessary disparagement of that country,” writes Barry Morrison of the ADL in a letter to Urban Outfitters’ CEO Richard Hayne, “and people identified with the country should not be subjected to this type of ridicule and debasing reference.” To be perfectly honest, I let out a chuckle when I saw the T-shirt; besides cleanliness factors, New Mexico and Mexico are so far apart (geographically and culturally) and unrelated that any comparison falls short of a realistic concern. What is interesting about this, and the reason why I have brought this up, is Urban Outfitters’ role.

In that same letter, Mr. Morrison quips that Mr. Hayne should “seriously consider undertaking diversity training of [their] personnel.” A remark made in reference to Urban Outfitters’ consistent inventory of questionable taste. In 2004, the ADL forced Urban Outfitters to remove a T-shirt that read “Everyone loves a Jewish Girl” with floating dollar signs around it, they succeeded — at least, in its latest iteration the dollar signs have been replaced by hearts. Shortly thereafter, Urban Outfitters released a “Voting is for Old People” T-shirt that drew equal amounts of heat — most publicly from death metal’s Ministry frontman Al Jourgensen — and it didn’t help that 2004 was a voting year. Three years earlier, Urban Outfitters was asked to remove a T-shirt, “Kansas Cattle Queen”, that literally depicted women as a piece of meat.

pc_various.jpg

Ghettopoly, Voting is for Old People, and Jesus Dress Up

If you’ve been to an Urban Outfitters plenty of its appeal relies on the hipster tchotchkes and useless nicknacks you can buy. Among those that have been contested are Ghettopoly, which goes without explanation and a Jesus on a cross wearing nothing but underwear that you can dress up. I remember once going to Urban Outfitters with my parents and my mom stopped by a two-foot high, wheeled, red velvet-covered Jesus… she was laughing, in disbelief mostly. Products that go unnoticed range from a Position of the Day calendar to a Gangsta Rap Coloring Book to an endless number of T-shirts that, if not read or consumed with youthful ambivalence and whateverness, have yet to meet their offendee.

With 80 stores across the U.S. (72), Canada (3) and Europe (5), and a five year-long sales growth, Urban Outfitters has come a long way in outfitting “well-educated, urban-minded young adults [18 to 30 years]” since its humble origins in a Philadelphia townhouse near the University of Pennsylvania campus. And it has done so in style at both consumer and corporate communication levels through a Pastiche Chic — male and female! — look that borrows from the past and delivers a retro cool flair that easily matches their audience’s straight-out-of-bed style. Their stores, set in loft-like environments, with blasting music, good-looking young shoppers, and made-to-look unique merchandise delivers the brand at the street level with frightening precision while their sophisticated-patterned and subtle-typeset annual reports lure investors and the web site, in its ever changing format — last year it changed at least six times if memory serves me right — maintains a freshness to its hundreds of thousands of monthly visitors. Needles to say, Urban Outfitters knows the game and plays it well.

And part of their game is to push — mayhaps unintentionally? (Yeah, right!) — conservative buttons to garner some publicity — San Francisco Supervisor, Gerardo Sandoval noticed, saying, “I started getting calls from Latinos about it, and the more I looked at it, the more I realized Urban Outfitters seem like they were doing it to get more notoriety,” and they did, in a news conference by Mr. Sandoval blasting the company. After all, pulling an item from the shelves must pale in comparison to the influx of “well-educated, urban minded young adults” ready to spend their money to infuriate parents, teachers and passersby with snappy-sloganed T-shirts, tussled hair and lax attitude. Urban Outfitters dresses a somewhat affluential age and social group, that proudly sport their coolness with their T-shirt selection; should they be concerned with the merchandise stocked in their stores? At what point does making a buck override making a cultural faux pas that may be offensive to some? Is a T-shirt just a T-shirt? Is Urban Outfitters as clean as New Mexico, or as dirty as the regular Mexico?

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ENTRY DETAILS
ARCHIVE ID 2376 FILED UNDER Miscellaneous
PUBLISHED ON Aug.01.2005 BY Armin
WITH COMMENTS
Comments
oscar’s comment is:

I wonder how many liberal-leaning hipster types know that the owner of UO is chummy with Rick Santorum.

On Aug.01.2005 at 02:47 PM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:

On one hand, we have freedom of expression: Free to be as stupid as you want, anytime you want. What a country!

On the other hand, I don't care for Urban Outfitters or their promotional concept when all they can find for "ideas" are insults disguised as humor. Shows what a mentally bankraupt bunch their creatives are.

Notice they haven't done any anti-Islamic t-shirts...I wonder what they're afraid of? Someone really taking offense?

On Aug.01.2005 at 02:52 PM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:

It’s one thing to see a cheap slogan and chuckle to yourself or your buddy. Most humor comes at somebody’s expense. The fortunate among us can laugh at ourselves, the rest fulfill their need for humor by taking cheapshots at everyone else.

Tee shirts with slogans are worn to get a laugh. Someone who goes beyond the chuckle and lays down $20 for this type of product is in need of validation from their peer group and unable to get it without branding themselves as witless and unoriginal.

This is Urban Outfitters’ and Abercrombies’ and all the rest’s ideal mark.

The shirt in question could raise many compelling investigations into U.S. / Mexico history and relations, but likely won’t outside of a multiculturalism classroom.

I wonder what the “chest life” of a shirt like this is...

On Aug.01.2005 at 03:29 PM
Jonathan Hughes’s comment is:

"New Mexico and Mexico are so far apart (geographically and culturally)"

All my maps may be wrong, but it appears that these two locations actually share a border. Unless Mexico ever surrounds New Mexico, I don't think the two can get any closer.

On Aug.01.2005 at 04:26 PM
Armin’s comment is:

Jonathan, you are absolutely correct. My intended comparison was between New Mexico and Mexico City. Sorry for the confusion. I assume that's what the T-shirt implied too: New Mexico (the state) vs. Mexico (the city) not Mexico (the country). Plus, as a semi-related aside… When people in the U.S. ask where I'm from and I say Mexico, it's usually followed by "Oh, I looooove Mexico!" and further prodding shows that they have been to Cancun and that is what they base their perception of Mexico on. Cancun is quite a clean place — except on Spring Break, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, just trying to put down in words some of my trains of thought...

On Aug.01.2005 at 04:33 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

Urban Outfitters is just Spencer Gifts with a better logo. It's in the business of being tacky and semi-offensive. The Mexican government, on the otherhand...

Thanks for the Santorum link, Oscar...maybe it's one of those uber-ironic things. I'm SO hip that I'm friends with with a guy with perhaps the most un-PC dictionary definition possible.

On Aug.01.2005 at 04:35 PM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:

It's in the business of being tacky and semi-offensive

What does semi-offensive mean?

Some of the people some of the time?

On Aug.01.2005 at 05:14 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

Some of the people some of the time?

Uhh...sure. ;o)

On Aug.01.2005 at 05:47 PM
Andrew Twigg’s comment is:

Dare I ask - and maybe it's my mood today - but does it really matter?

Aren't there real problems? Are these shirts actually doing anything to perpetuate descrimination? I mean, isn't the audience smart enough to know better?

I'm not defending bad judgement, but I also feel like I should scrutinize over-reaction.

I wonder how many liberal-leaning hipster types know that the owner of UO is chummy with Rick Santorum.

Now this is something worth worrying about. Seeing an "offensive" idea on a t-shirt just makes me think the person wearing it is either dumb or trying too hard. Knowing that my money from some purchase I made has supported Santorum causes me much greater concern.

I remember a while ago Details magazine ran a feature Gay or Asian?. I heard about it when a Thai friend forwarded me a message about boycotting the mag and bombarding them with letters and phonecalls until they issued an apology over the article. Problem is, the implicit message in calling for such a boycott isn't exclusively that Details shouldn't use stereotypes. An implicity message in this boycott is also that there's something wrong with being gay (and, being gay, I take offense to that). It's easy to dismiss a misguided editorial board in a misguided magazine. But the implicit messages of a boycott are hard to dismiss when a situation is made serious and some forms of discrimination are given more or less weight than others.

And I should add that Details' "Gay or..." feature series is ongoing (last time I checked) but I'm hardly concerned over it. Maybe I just choose my battles differently.

On Aug.01.2005 at 06:43 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

Everybody is a comedian. Or lend a hand at irreverent humor.

A smart Entreprenuer would've made a Tee Shirt that read.

The GRASS is GREENER IN MEXICO than it is in New Mexico.

And only Connoissuers know for sure. But, I'm out of the loop.

And Timothy Leary is Dead.

Designers in Mexico should print LOU DOBBS Tee Shirts and give them to all my brothers and sisters crossing the BOARDERS into America.

One thing for sure, America's Labor Force cannot survive without Mexicans and Latinos.

Who's doing construction 85% Latino. In the South 80-90% Latino Harvesting the Crops. Home Improvement Latino. Domestic Work. 75% Latino. Janitorial Services 97% Latino. Food Service, 87% Latino. Landscaping 100% Latino.

Funny, I was talking to a friend a while back. He just recently purchased a new home. I asked, who's doing your Landscaping. He gave me the Death Look. And quipped in a very No Nonsense tone. "What the F*** is wrong with you. I've got a Mexican Brother taking care of my property". I just ran this crack head away from here the other day. Asking can I take care of your property

We both laughed and said "Would you trust anybody else".

While they look like menial occupations. They are occupations imperative to the growth and stability of America's Labor Force.

The fastest legal voting age group in America is Latino.

There work is menial. They are gaining an astronomical amount of POLITICAL CLOUT.

Hey, and I bet LOU DOBBS Landscaping Workers are Latino.

DM

On Aug.01.2005 at 07:35 PM
gregor’s comment is:

Dare I ask - and maybe it's my mood today - but does it really matter?

This posting certainly harkens back to many threads on design responsibility. As we all know urban outfitters has won it's share of awards over the years, and while that's a side point, the main point I have to add is the target audeience for urban outfitters is roughly 13 - 21. Do t-shirts messages bear weight and influence in this age group? damn right they do - and I've witnessed this in my three kids and their friends as they've gone through this age group.

Seeing an "offensive" idea on a t-shirt just makes me think the person wearing it is either dumb or trying too hard.

perhaps to an adult but not necessarily to a 15 year old kid and their peers. deosn't matter if it's a nike t-shirt, rock band, or blatant bigotry or misogyny such as those in Armin's post.

Are these shirts actually doing anything to perpetuate descrimination?

they're walking billboards.

On Aug.01.2005 at 09:13 PM
gregor’s comment is:

Dare I ask - and maybe it's my mood today - but does it really matter?

This posting certainly harkens back to many threads on design responsibility. As we all know urban outfitters has won it's share of awards over the years, and while that's a side point, the main point I have to add is the target audeience for urban outfitters is roughly 13 - 21. Do t-shirts messages bear weight and influence in this age group? damn right they do - and I've witnessed this in my three kids and their friends as they've gone through this age group.

Seeing an "offensive" idea on a t-shirt just makes me think the person wearing it is either dumb or trying too hard.

perhaps to an adult but not necessarily to a 15 year old kid and their peers. deosn't matter if it's a nike t-shirt, rock band, or blatant bigotry or misogyny such as those in Armin's post.

Are these shirts actually doing anything to perpetuate descrimination?

they're walking billboards.

On Aug.01.2005 at 09:13 PM
Kate ’s comment is:

I am more offended by the fact that urban outfitters seems to make it too much of a practice to rip off ideas from upstart DIY designers and then pass them off as their own.

This just recently happened to Crown Farmer

crown farmer

This also happened when URBN ripped off a punk rock sock monkey by artist Clarity Miller a couple of seasons back.

sock monkey

I wonder if this happens a lot? Smaller companies have no defense against them.

the new mexico shirt is originally from these guys:Busted Tees

offensive or not, I hope that Busted Tees is being distributed by them and not being ripped off by them.

On Aug.01.2005 at 09:37 PM
Andrew Twigg’s comment is:

...target audeience for urban outfitters is roughly 13 - 21.

Let's not discredit the critical thinking of that age group. I would feel different about this if 'Limited Too' were carrying a product like this. But my partner works with this age group (he teaches high school english), and they're smarter than we sometimes think. My own exposure to this demographic in a teen project with a local museum also opened my eyes to how smart teenagers really are; I think I forgot sometime between then and now. Most know the difference between parody/satire and the real thing, even if they can't articulate it. And while sometimes teenagers need to push boundaries and don't always do it the "right" way, I do think there are bigger problems in the world.

...perhaps to an adult but not necessarily to a 15 year old kid and their peers...

I was talking about my reaction.

Look, I want to restate that I'm not defending bad judgement. If we're concerned about the role of shirts and other miscellaneous products in descrimination, I think we're off target. Yes, these are part of a problem, but they're a small part. That doesn't mean that they're not worth fighting, but if people were educated about these issues and understood why these kinds of things were inappropriate - if we were also really fighting the bigger battles instead (education, equality, understanding) - then we wouldn't need to have this conversation at all. I just feel there are bigger fish to fry.

On Aug.01.2005 at 10:36 PM
gregor’s comment is:

I'd venture to say the bigger fish is actually a school of smaller frys schooling in the shape of a big fish, which means there's quite a bit of frying to do. Urban Outfitters has a track record of passing off bad judgement, nee bigotry, as hip cynicism and despite the critical thinking capabilities of that age group, they buy it. I've taught that age group, I've raised them, and hey I was that age group once.

And my bottom line, as has been stated on other threads here there and everywhere, is designers buy it too 'cause they design it. Period. But I'm sure no one wants me going down that road -- again.

On Aug.01.2005 at 11:11 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:

I'm going to set aside Urban Outfitters' politics and rip-off practices, as well as their undeniably questionable taste or intelligence in some of the other t-shirts.

The reason why "New Mexico: Cleaner than Regular Mexico" is funny is because it's playing off the familiar slogans of detergents.

Call me insensitive, but I personally don't think taking small digs at the physical aspects of another country is anything worth an outcry. As Armin said, the statement is literally true.

Where the t-shirt fails is graphically, by not clueing the average person into the advertising sloganeering off which the message plays. Without that, it is easily interpreted as merely a slag against another country.

So I think the t-shirt is funny, but the designer's an idiot.

On Aug.01.2005 at 11:22 PM
Héctor Mu�oz Huerta’s comment is:

Well, the New Mexico T-Shirt is not that offensive to me, It even made me smile for a second.

Tolerance is necesary too.

On Aug.02.2005 at 12:27 AM
gregor’s comment is:

well, you're all focusing on the new mexico design -- look at the various links Armin posted. There's a trail there that tells a story of...

On Aug.02.2005 at 12:46 AM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:

True enough, bigger fish to fry than poor taste in tee shirts. And it is kind of funny for about a minute, until you think about the �clean and tidy’ U.S. and our �trashy’ neighbor. Why is that so? Dig deeper and you start to see Mexico getting the NAFTA shaft (NAFTA SHAFTA, do I hafta?—maybe there’s a tee shirt) when it comes to their environment. Really, it’s sad, not funny.

Maybe this is more indicitave of my mood today. I just get so tired of our culture which celebrates ignorance as a badge of masculinity. Oh and if I don’t think its funny I’m “politically correct” gimme a break.

The peasants who settled in the cities as proletariat and petty bourgeois learned to read and write for the sake of efficiency, but they did not win the leisure and comfort necessary for the enjoyment of the city's traditional culture. Losing, nevertheless, their taste for the folk culture whose background was the countryside, and discovering a new capacity for boredom at the same time, the new urban masses set up a pressure on society to provide them with a kind of culture fit for their own consumption. To fill the demand of the new market, a new commodity was devised: ersatz culture, kitsch, destined for those who, insensible to the values of genuine culture, are hungry nevertheless for the diversion that only culture of some sort can provide.

Kitsch, using for raw material the debased and academicized simulacra of genuine culture, welcomes and cultivates this insensibility. It is the source of its profits. Kitsch is mechanical and operates by formulas. Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations. Kitsch changes according to style, but remains always the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our times. Kitsch pretends to demand nothing of its customers except their money -- not even their time.

AVANT-GARDE AND KITSCH

Clement Greenberg 1939

On Aug.02.2005 at 03:05 AM
Mr.Frankie L’s comment is:

Why don't we all just boycott Urban Outfitters?

Really, seriously.

They rip off designs from other companies, exercise

bad judgement, and I find them a bit "too cool for-

school."

...

Andrew,

The "Gay or Asian" piece in Details

wasn't meant to be offensive to Gays, it

was offensive to ASIAN MEN.

Since I am an asian male, I wouldn't want

that kind of stereotype put on me, not because

I dislike gay people, but because the last

thing I need is more perceived emasculation

added to the existing stereotypes of what an

AM is.

On Aug.02.2005 at 09:58 AM
Darrel’s comment is:

Let's not discredit the critical thinking of that age group.

True. Unfortunately, teenage peer pressure tends to trump that. Hell, american peer pressure tends to trump that much of the time.

And yea, there are bigger fish to fry. That said, there are ALWAYS bigger fish to fry...gotta start cooking somewhere.

On Aug.02.2005 at 10:16 AM
Andrew Twigg’s comment is:

Andrew, The "Gay or Asian" piece in Details wasn't meant to be offensive to Gays, it was offensive to ASIAN MEN

This is what I said in an earlier post:

I never stated that this wasn't offensive to Asian men. But what I am suggesting is that there was (little? no?) concern in the media over the article's offense to gay men. All of the messages I got from friends in protest of this were concerned about the offense to Asian men. What about me?As I stated: "...the implicit messages of a boycott are hard to dismiss when a situation is made serious and some forms of discrimination are given more or less weight than others." (the bold is added here to give emphasis). How can we look at any of these situations and make one form of discrimination more serious than another???

Perhaps I should be asking questions instead of providing answers:

1. When is it ok to make a joke at someone else's expense?

2. What do we have to say about other such cultural occurrences (say, Farrely Brother movies, SNL, Mad TV)?

3. What can we - as graphic designers OR as citizens at large - do about it?

Mr. Frankie L suggests that perhaps we should outright boycott Urban Outfitters. That might not be a bad idea. But what else can we do about the problem? Is it time to mount more than a boycott on these organizations? Perhaps it's time for a full-on visual assualt. How can our skills be used to really make a difference?

On Aug.02.2005 at 11:06 AM
Mr.Frankie L’s comment is:

Boycotting is one of the best ways,

because unless one is in the fashion industry,

how else would a designer use his/her skills?

As for shows such as SNL, MadTv, I think the

keyword is context.

Like design, not all comedy is equal.

On Aug.02.2005 at 03:25 PM
Mr.Frankie L’s comment is:

Btw, anybody know how I can create my own t-shirt?

On Aug.02.2005 at 03:27 PM
gregor’s comment is:

Btw, anybody know how I can create my own t-shirt?

silkscreen

On Aug.02.2005 at 04:07 PM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:

Frankie L.

I disagree about boycotts. Generally not effective, except in special cases. Likely not in this case.

Do your own design. Much better idea.

Cheapest: Ink Jet Transfer paper for iron on. Get a pack at your local paper / office supply. Really, not a bad way to go for low-overhead prototyping. CMYK for under a buck a print + blank white shirt. Follow the directions and you will have a reasonably stable garment print. As a former screenprinter of hundreds of thousands of teeshirts, I recommend it.

Next Step Up: Call a screenprinter with your one-color design. Keep it simple and plan to get a dozen shirts. There’s probably a vendor in your weekly free press classified section.

How to sell / market it is another story.

On Aug.02.2005 at 04:15 PM
Mbrex’s comment is:

Btw, anybody know how I can create my own t-shirt?

I have done a few "one-off" t-shirts at Zazzle for my team. Pretty easy interface to use and quite a few t-shirt types.

On Aug.02.2005 at 06:16 PM
Andrew Twigg’s comment is:

I used Zazzle recently too. I'm a partner in my own t-shirt company, but for one-offs or even production roughs, Zazzle is quick and easy. Just don't get their 'premium' tee - it's "mercerized" (?) which means it's 100% polyester on the outside. Gross!

As for boycotts, I have to agree that they're not always highly successful. But what about a "Designers against Descrimination" movement, complete with requisite visuals which call attention to these problems and educate people to the actions of organizations which use design/designed objects in a descriminatory manner? I'm not talking about Adbusting - I think its power is limited and never does much more than call attention to itself and the adbust 'victim'.

Could this dialogue be the start of something big and new?

Alright, I'm doing this from my handheld and my thumbs are about to give out...

On Aug.02.2005 at 06:43 PM
mazzei’s comment is:

At what point does making a buck override making a cultural faux pas that may be offensive to some?

0. it gets designed?

1. it gets printed?

2. it gets bought?

3. it gets worn?

I'm guessing on this one..

that's one bad shirt both in its design and concept while it may be "true" it still projects a rather ignorant tone.

On Aug.02.2005 at 10:43 PM
Armin’s comment is:

There are some interesting things here and I haven't meant to just start the discussion and then go running for the door. After the smoke clears on some deadlines I'll have something of substance to add.

On Aug.03.2005 at 08:19 AM
Danny’s comment is:

Their t-shirts may be offensive (I saw one recently that says "I Rock Christian Girls") but I really like the way they handle their in-store experience.

Each store has their own display designer. Every season, they recieve a brief and a parts list from the Urban Outfitter headquarters, and are then sent out to buy materials and given a rough idea of what to do with the displays. (this season they have giant collages of old book pages and paint)

Each designer is encouraged to expand upon the original idea, and if their design leads them to do something differently, they send in images of the final product. A lot of times, the designers at headquarters will redistribute the new idea to all the stores.

It's a pretty nice approach to having unique, but similar in-store experiences.

And after some thought, "I Rock Christian Girls" could be made way less offensive by adding a comma:

I Rock, Christian Girls

On Aug.03.2005 at 11:13 AM
feelicks sockwl jr’s comment is:

when it comes to design and urban outfitters, you really cant overlook the initial efforts of david bates and mike calkins (bates is now running bcdesign in seattle). they also did the anthropogie logo and design. from my understanding- UO treats its designers like they treat theyre customers- not too seriously.

On Aug.03.2005 at 11:48 AM
david e.’s comment is:

Most know the difference between parody/satire and the real thing, even if they can't articulate it.

But this isn't a parody. And I disagree with Marian about the humor being that it's a takeoff on detergent slogans. The humor in this the "ironic" factor—the joke that "I know how idiotic it sounds, but I really believe it." In other words, the wearer wants you to think he's hip because he can laugh at his own beliefs—because he knows they're wrong.

It's exactly like the bumper stickers that say "There are two kinds of music, country and western" The person who puts that sticker on his truck's bumper knows it's ridiculous, but will kick your ass if you disagree with him. This encourages his friends to do the same. UO's "voting is for old people" shirt is another example of the same thing.

I laughed at the shirt too, but that's beside the point. I agree with Gregor—it's a walking billboard for perpetuating descrimination.

On Aug.03.2005 at 04:55 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>david bates and mike calkins

You have your facts a little mixed up Felix, though I agree that both guys are great designers.

Mike did work at Urban as one of their designers. He didn't design the Anthropologie logo as far as I know—or he never claimed to. David worked at Hornall Anderson, and they both met and formed BC Design in about 99. They lasted till early 2004, when BC disbanded due to some circumstances. David is back with Hornall Anderson, and last I heard, Mike moved to California.

Knowing both of them, Mike couldn't have and wouldn't have ever designed the crap that Urban's putting out today.

On Aug.03.2005 at 09:25 PM
Mr.Frankie L’s comment is:

(Thanks

to Gregor and Mark for their advice on

the self-designed t-shirt idea.)

Yeah, boycotting will probably not make UO

bankrupt, but I still don't understand why

there is such skepticism about this practice.

If UO engages in bad ethics, design, and

if us designers really do care, then why

not practice what we preach -- anything less

is rather hypocritical and demonstrates the

purpose of this discussion is high on ideals

and little on action.

OR

Are we really saying that UO is naughty but

we'll still shop there; we're just "enlightened"

enough to know wassup, but still shallow

nonetheless?

On Aug.04.2005 at 12:00 PM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:

A personal boycott is fine. I’ve been boycotting UO for years, without calling it as such. (Mostly because I don’t like what they carry, but there are other reasons.) It’s the organized boycotts that are tricky. Kind of like starting a business or bringing a product to market, you need a strategy. What exact result do you want to see? UO shut down? Not likely. UO to change product line, become more sensitive? Better chance there. If I’m not mistaken, Abercrombie has toned down their act from a few years ago mostly as a result of public pressure.

The boycott has to be looked at as a media campaign designed to make the company look bad, bring pressure on the management, and send their customers to their competition. It must be done thoughtfully and professionally, and with a committment to the long term.

Maybe there is a chance that people don’t realize the implications of what some of these shirts say. Saying Mexico is dirty is really an attack on the people of Mexico, not just a place. Hiding these messages in abstractions is how they are able to walk that fine line with the consumers.

So I guess there are a few issues. Does fighting the company raise awareness with consumers? In this case I don’t think there is much awareness to be raised. Can you shame the shameless?

I guess I’m kind of cynical, but this is one fight I don’t have in me. There are too many others waiting in the wings to sell the same crap.

But I thank you, Frankie for calling me out on it. Maybe I’m missing something and there is an opportunity here. There is certainly no shortage of dirt on that company, and none of it particularly appealing to their target consumer.

On Aug.05.2005 at 04:01 AM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:

bring pressure on the management

should be pressure on the Board

On Aug.05.2005 at 04:14 AM
Mr.Frankie L’s comment is:

Mark,

I think you're right on target about

the macro and mirco levels of boycotting.

I also see your point about picking your

battles; yeah UO is bad, but how about

the social responsibilities for other causes

such as the environment, political injustice,

etc..

I guess the only thing practical at this point

is to embark on individual boycotting against

UO..

If there are enough supporters to create

a mass movement, then..let's get it on!

On Aug.05.2005 at 09:33 AM
m. kingsley’s comment is:

The New Mexico, Cleaner than Regular Mexico T-shirt is a product of http://www.bustedtees.com/" target="_blank">Busted Tees, the merchandise "division" of College Humor. The shirts are also sold on the interwebs, so if you're gonna boycott; you might need to make other plans on getting your email.

On Aug.05.2005 at 12:42 PM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:

you might need to make other plans on getting your email

Did I miss a memo? I’m not getting the email connection…

On Aug.05.2005 at 03:43 PM
m. kingsley’s comment is:

Oh Mark...

Explaining kills the joke, but you obviously need some help; so here goes:

1. People don't like the Cleaner than Regular Mexico shirt.

2. A suggestion has been made to boycott Urban Outfitters — a location where the shirt is available.

3. Urban Outfitters aren't the only ones who sell the shirt.

4. The shirt is also sold on the internet.

5. People use the internet to send email.

6. If one is so motivated to boycott any source where one can purchase the shirt; then one should also stop using the internet.

7. Therefore, one would not have access to email.

In reading Freud's Wit and its Relation to the Unconscious, one sees how jokes are constructed: substitution, striking composites, condensation, modification, double meanings, displacement, etc. In this case, I exercised an appeal to ridicule — which is a logical fallacy — and substituted Urban Outfitters with the internet.

Hopefully, you don't need me to explain why the joke was made.

On Aug.05.2005 at 04:27 PM
Mr. Frankie L’s comment is:

6. If one is so motivated to boycott any source where one can purchase the shirt; then one should also stop using the internet.

But wouldn't it be more appropriate to boycott

their e-store as opposed to the entire internet?

If I boycott UO, I wouldn't go their store..

that doesn't mean I shouldn't go to others.

?

(Maybe I'm just too dense.)

On Aug.06.2005 at 10:41 AM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:

M Kingsley,

10-4.

On Aug.08.2005 at 02:20 AM