Talk:Abercrombie & Fitch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Errors

If there are factual errors, feel free to correct them. But please do not delete or otherwise try to set aside the factual, truthful criticisms of A&F. I have no sort of vendetta with them and am professionally neutral with regard to their industry, but I note with alacrity that there is a pervasive pattern at A&F in that they "surface" in the national news now and then for less than honorable reasons, respond to public outcries, and then go back to business as usual. One premise is that they are doing this quite intentionally, with the goal of both so-branding the company and getting free advertising in the process. It's an interesting if not necessarily honorable way to market their company, but:::Your edits look fine, Mike. Glad we talked a bit...I do respect your judgment and maturity. Enjoy your time at 'SC...it goes fast. --AustinKnight 03:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

One more thought. The history of the death of the store chain, and then its subsequent revival, is not listed. I think i am correct in recalling that there was a time when the store was completely gone, and then it was brought back. And then later it morphed into the lifestyle brand. I believe it was an early tenant in Trump Tower in 1980s. Not sure who all those folks are. BrandlandUSA 04:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ages of the Board

I nominate that the ages of the board be deleted. There is no reference to when their date of birth is, so this information could quickly become out of date. It really doesn't matter how old the VP is anyway. Gilliamjf 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC

Number of Stores

The introduction states A&F operates 350 stores in the USA and 5 in Canada. However, Google Finance says it operates 851 stores in USA and Canada. These are VERY different numbers, so could someone verify this?[1]Im.a.lumberjack 02:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is because in addition to the A&F brand, they also operate abercrombie kids, hollister and ruehl stores. the 350 is prob. A&F only. Nenyedi 00:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda from the Religious Right

Propaganda ... from the Religious Right ... caused the company to reformat their publication in December of 2003. - Clearly not NPOV. I have read the catalogs - I do not count myself a member of the Religious Right - and there were in fact pictures of lots of naked people sitting together and captions advocating orgies and group masturbation. Whatever. Whether or not this offends you, I think the wording needs work. Opinions anyone? Rdsmith4 00:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. And it's the wiki, just reword as you see fit. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:44, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Removed reference to "Propaganda from the Religious Right". If anyone else wants to add info or links about boycotts and email, feel free (might make a good article if none exists). JHCC

Its true though, they started to lose sales from the relgious fundamentalists' anti-af campaign and they gave in when same store sales dropped, look up newsarticles on af same store sales slump from the timeQrc2006 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hemingway

Recently, anonymously added: "In fact, the rifle with which noted author Ernest Hemingway killed himself was bought at an Idaho Abercromie & Fitch."

• "In fact": as against? But I wonder if this is fact. There is no citation. I know Hemingway bought guns from A&F. I didn't know they had a branch in Idaho at that time, but it's possible. I don't specifically know that the gun with which he killed himself was bought from them. Does anyone have anything solid on this? If not, it doesn't belong in the article. And, in any case, the phrase "In fact" doesn't belong. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I added some information about the day-to-day operation of the stores, which I know only because of my experience working in the company. Because I'm unable to cite the sources from which I gained the knowledge, I put it up sans citation. Maybe someone can help with this?

Re: Hemingway

I have found an article, published in Cigar Aficionado in July/August 99, that reaffirms this statement about the shotgun. The claim regarding a store in Idaho, however, is unsubstantiated. Here is a link to the article (also now in the works cited section): http://www.winespectator.com/Cigar/CA_Profiles/People_Profile/0,2540,15,00.html

Abercrombie & Fitch today

Merchandising is managed in a similar fashion...

The company manages merchandising, distribution, and sales by assigning each store a tier level...

Are these paragraphs really necesarry? Although very informative, these paragraphs mainly describe the common practice of most clothes shops/stores everywhere.

Lifestyle Brand

Raising an objection to the use (and suggestion for the removal) of the qualifier "fickle" in this article heading. Neutrality is expected of encyclopedia articles, and that should include value judgements.

The author is entitled to suggest that the sartorial choices of heterosexual customers informed by aesthetically pleasing youths are less fickle than those of gay customers, but those sort of views are better aired on a blog, not on Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extenebris (talk • contribs) 9 Sept 2005.

Controversy and Corruption

The intro to this section previously read like it had been drafted by an Abercrombie employee. It, and the accompanying material, have been rewritten to include specific historical events and objections to A&F, including -- by A&F's own later admission -- the marketing of sexually inappropriate products to children.--66.69.219.9 03:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I personally think the "Controversy" section, if it is to be kept as long as it is, requires creating a different topic altogether, maybe under "A&F Quarterly." It's too long and too dense. I also think it requires some cleanup--the syntax leaves much to be desired in the longer, wordier sentences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Socalmikey84 (talk • contribs) 14 Oct 2005.

I Agree.

Concerning recent changes

There appears to be disagreement over the best way to structure this article. I am not going to get into an edit war over this, so if anyone takes issue with any of the following points, let me know so that we can seek an outside moderator to rectify the situation.

1) The changes I made to the paragraph on the Fifth Avenue store under the “Abercrombie & Fitch today” section are a marked improvement over the previous version. My edit fixed grammar errors, updated the dates cited to be consistent with Wikipedia policy, and added information on the Los Angeles flagship.

2) The changes I made to the final paragraph of the "Abercrombie & Fitch today" section reflect of the most recent same-store sales figures. Reverting to old figures is depriving readers of the most current information available.

3) Moving the 'Main Article' link for the A&F Quarterly to the “Lifestyle brand” section is more appropriate, because that article does not exist explicitly to discuss the controversy the publication caused. Eventually, the article about the A&F Quarterly should include more factual information about circulation, features, and interviews.

4) Most of my concerns rest with the section that has traditionally been reserved for controversy. I have two concerns about the section in general. First, renaming the section “Criticism” instead of “Controversy” bothers me. Criticism alone seems to me a less appropriate title for the section. Second, the way that this section has traditionally been formatted is to divide the controversy into three categories: the A&F Quarterly (first paragraph), the merchandise (second paragraph), and hiring practices (final paragraph). I personally feel it is more helpful to discuss each of these issues separately rather than provide a list of the company’s controversies in chronological order, as doing so would jump from issue to issue and interrupt the consistency of the article.

5) The first paragraph being added to the “Controversy” section is redundant, as readers have already received information about the quarterly under the “Lifestyle brand section.” This paragraph is also unnecessarily wordy.

6) Why use the word “ostensible” in paragraph two? It violates the NPOV policy. Whether you think the policy was ostensible or not is besides the point.

7) The shirt “L is for Loser” was sold before the Olympics, not in reaction to it (the shirts were placed out in July 2004, the Olympics were in August).

8) The paragraph on the 2005 “girlcott” is problematic for several reasons. First, the language used to describe the situation betrays a bias in favor of the boycotters. Second, the group that is officially recognized (according to AP and Reuters reports) for starting the 2005 boycott is the Women & Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania, not the Allegheny County (Pa.) Girls. Also, several sentences were lifted directly from the news article and need to be rewritten so as not to plagiarize. Finally, including superfluous quotes is stylistically inconsistent with other articles posted on Wikipedia. Readers who want to go directly to the source and read quotes can follow the link to the article. (Socalmikey84 20:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC))

You're an undergraduate at USC who seeks employment in the fashion/clothing industry. That's all well and good, and I very sincerely wish you good luck -- not least of which because I am a USC grad as well ('78) -- but at the same time your choice of major brings to mind the matter of "conflict of interest" with respect to structuring this article. Your edits, intentionally or not, come across as an attempt to hide the many and continuing criticisms of A&F. Criticisms, when truthful, are a good thing. If A&F has earned some criticism...in many cases, quite publicly...then the article should contain that in detail, and not gloss over or have this important aspect of A&F split into another article (or section).

If there are factual errors, feel free to correct them. But please do not delete or otherwise try to set aside the factual, truthful criticisms of A&F. I have no sort of vendetta with them and am professionally neutral with regard to their industry, but I note with alacrity that there is a pervasive pattern at A&F in that they "surface" in the national news now and then for less than honorable reasons, respond to public outcries, and then go back to business as usual. One premise is that they are doing this quite intentionally, with the goal of both so-branding the company and getting free advertising in the process. It's an interesting if not necessarily honorable way to market their company, but this pattern becomes publicly hidden or forgotten if we delete or hide this chosen behavior -- again, one possible or likely intention of A&F. --AustinKnight 23:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Always good to hear from a fellow Trojan.

While I can understand your concerns, I assure you that I am far from being an apologist from the company. If you look back in the history of this article, you'll see that I've removed plenty of pro-A&F defenses for the publication that referred to valid criticism as "propaganda from the Religious Right." As an employee, I found their hiring practices deeply disappointing and their "controversial" clothing unimaginative. And, not that it matters, I don't shop there. My interest in their business stems only from the innovative marketing techniques responsible for the company's resurgence.

That said, much of the information that has been posted under the "Controversy" section since I've used Wikipedia has either been speculative or incorrect. I refer particularly to commentary on the A&F Quarterly, as the publication was subject to much media coverage in the late 1990s. For this reason, there exists a great deal of misinformation about the publication simply because people have depended on media reports to formulate opinions, rather than actually referring back to the document in question.

As for the t-shirt controversies, if you feel my edits are skirting the issue, then we should work to make sure that a fair compromise can be reached. However, I do not feel that it is appropriate for this article to serve as a mouthpiece for the company's critics. Acknowledging that criticism exists, and providing the reason why, does not mean that the article should contain quotes from activists. As for the company's reasoning behind releasing such distasteful products, I very much agree that there is a twist of subversive marketing afoot in their actions. However, Wikipedia does not seem to be the place to test such theories. Without factual evidence, it would be a mistake to proceed in editing this article with such premises in mind.

I'm glad that you share my interest in improving this article. However, please do not mistake my intentions. I take seriously the NPOV guidelines established by Wikipedia and I've abided by them since I began making posts. For the time being, I'm reverting to edits that are purely factual in nature. We can sort out the rest at another time.

Your edits look fine, Mike. Glad we talked a bit...I do respect your judgment and maturity. Enjoy your time at 'SC...it goes fast. --AustinKnight 03:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ages of the Board

I nominate that the ages of the board be deleted. There is no reference to when their date of birth is, so this information could quickly become out of date. It really doesn't matter how old the VP is anyway. Gilliamjf 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Logo Font

Anyone know what font that A&F uses for their logo? I've heard it's Sabon, but I haven't been able to verify that. Suppafly 20:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be: http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/F/GARP/F_GARP-10010000.html - aquabelic (talk) 14:23, October 07, 2006

Marketing

As an A&F employee, I know that this article is maintained by the marketing department of A&F. This kind of entry maintainence is one of the weakest points of Wikipedia's credibility.

How do you know that? Do you work in the marketing department? -Will Beback 01:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be astounded if they hadn't contributed to it, but Employment Practices is certainly not their work. And I believe that the more navel-gazing or promotional material is pretty consistently rapidly removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Age

I think it might be nice to mention somewhere in the introductory segment that Abercrombie & Fitch has been continuously in operation for the past 114 years, making it one of the oldest continually operating national brands in the US. And just to settle a conflict of interest, I am an employee of the Company, so I will not make any changes of my own to this article. I just think that is something noteworthy to be put into the intro. ArrowHead 04:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Earlier, someone said that A&F wrote all of this. I think it is NOT true, what company will "pride" itself for selling the gun that killed Hemingway?

Merged

Amazingly, this article has had a doppelgänger at Abercrombie since 2004 until about ten minutes ago when I changed that article to redirect here. The two articles were almost exactly the same except for two paragraphs from the other that I tacked on to the Abercrombie & Fitch today section. (My edit.) -Wiccan Quagga 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Geez, someone put up a doppelgänger AGAIN. Should Abercrombie be redirected again? mirageinred 21:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noting it - that's a weird case of vandalism. No, it shouldn't be a redirect here, as there are other (barely) notable subjects by that name. However it may be that we should assign the name to the disambiguation page now at Abercrombie (disambiguation). There's a stale discussion of this topic on its talk page. -Will Beback 08:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted Image

I noticed that the Image, Sum5 is copyrighted but on the page it says that the copyright holder gave up rights to it. Is this true and can it be verified? --PaladinWriter 12:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely. - Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A&F Marketing basically maintains this article, so no not unlikely at all. --68.77.152.196 19:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I maintain this article. I've never seen any sign of the marketing department. -Will Beback 02:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but as an employee of the company I just really have to say that the writing in all the articles on A&F stores seem to have the tell-tale signs of something written by marketing...and the history section especially of the A&F article seems to be paraphrased from the Company's own official history that appears in the employee handbooks, etc.--ArrowHead 15:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have access to the employee handbook. If that is the source then it should be included in the references. The unfortunate fact is that for most corporations the only history available is the one that they write. -Will Beback 21:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Store locations

Someone deleted that there is no store in New Mexico. There used to be a store in Albuquerque, but it was closed this year, making New Mexico and Wyoming the only states to not have a store. I changed it back.

Someone has vandalized this again, I will add it back 24.247.222.255 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged

Amazingly, this article has had a doppelgänger at Abercrombie since 2004 until about ten minutes ago when I changed that article to redirect here. The two articles were almost exactly the same except for two paragraphs from the other that I tacked on to the Abercrombie & Fitch today section. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abercrombie_%26_Fitch&2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noting it - that's a weird case of vandalism. No, it shouldn't be a redirect here, as there are other (barely) notable subjects by that name. However it may be that we should assign the name to the disambiguation page now at Abercrombie (disambiguation). There's a stale discussion of this topic on its talk page. -[[

It should be deleted.

Copyrighted Image

I noticed that the Image, Sum5 is copyrighted but on the page it says that the copyright holder gave up rights to it. Is this true and can it be verified? --PaladinWriter 12:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely. - Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)'I maintain this article. I've never seen any sign of the marketing department. -Will Beback 02:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but as an employee of the company I just really have to say that the writing in all the articles on A&F stores seem to have the tell-tale signs of something written by marketing...and the history section especially of the A&F article seems to be paraphrased from the Company's own official history that appears in the employee handbooks, etc.--ArrowHead 15:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have access to the employee handbook. If that is the source then it should be included in the references. The unfortunate fact is that for most corporations the only history available is the one that they write. -Will Beback 21:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

== Store locations ==Someone deleted that there is no store in New Mexico. There used to be a store in Albuquerque, but it was closed this year, making New Mexico and Wyoming the only states to not have a store. I changed it back.

Someone has vandalized this again, I will add it back 24.247.222.255 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

websites

the websites Abercrombie.com.au and Abercrombie-Models.com - only contain a limited amount of abercrombie & fitch material and seem more like they are simply being promoted by the creator in here.

I removed the website. It seems like a spam website too. mirageinred 19:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

lifestyle brand

it seems to me that recent changes are completely un-NPOV. as a current associate in the Company I can state that the differences between Impact and Model at most stores are almost non-existent. often times, models after a few months will decide to switch to impact (and vice versa) suggesting that neither position is really more desirable than the other. secondly, no one simply "works in the back" as if they were confined to a dungeon. at any given time several impact team members will be on the floor in an a&f store, working on updates, filling, etc. moreover, a lot of people simply do aspects of both positions on a regular basis. the idea the a&f banishes people to the backroom who are non-white continues to be brought up again and again, but is simply not true. and if a store manager were doing that, he or she could basically be instantly fired after a complaint was logged anonymously with a&f's discrimination hotline. the same stands for any form of discrimination at a&f--racial, sex, sexual orientation, religious, whatever. there is a zero tolerance policy on discrimination of any sort. just anecdotally, i work with two latino/a and two african american managers at my store (out of a total of roughly 10), so i would say that it is hardly an un-diverse work environment. --ArrowHead 06:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The main point is indeed true, however, may I say that there is a difference between Impact and Brand Representatives. They have a completely different job description. The fact that you said it is "non-existent" is not true.--Samweber 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

closed store list

do we really need a partial list of "closed since 2004" stores?? I say we strike that whole section, no one needs a directory of closed store locations. Stuph 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's available offsite, we could just point there. -- Beland 00:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Tried to make it available offsite, but someone keeps deleting it.

what is the relevance? should we edit the mcdonalds article to list every former and current location? should we attempt to plot the location of every phone booth in america? no. its pointless information for an encyclopedia, and if someone really wanted to find a list of "closed" stores, they can use google. Stuph 01:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. There is no need for any information such as this besides for sentimental value.--Samweber 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

any others willing to voice an opinion on this? Otherwise, I will continue to remove the list. Stuph 03:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to list closed stores, and support the deletion of the material. Retailer chains open and close stores routinely, and the material is not encyclopedic. -Will Beback 05:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

i think linking to it isnt a bad idea, it could be helpful

References

Reading the article, it looks like it's unreferenced, but then there are a pile of references at the bottom. It would be nice if sections or specific claims got matched up with particular citations. -- Beland 00:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Anyone want to see where some of the claims come from? My suggestion would be to enter the claims in a search engine and see what websites provide them, therefore providing a solid reference. Nenyedi 00:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Abercrombie and Fitch today is too long

It should be broken up, but I don't know where to start from mirageinred 22:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

agreed, and a lot of the length is pointless information, like the closed store list, or the story about mike's sandals. I think people need to think "encyclopedia" not "sandbox" when they edit this article. Stuph 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality?

Can anyone confirm the comments about the partners' sexual orientation in the "Abercrombie & Fitch Co." section? Seems like vandalism to me (probably by an American Eagle customer). Someone with knowledge on the subject may want to rewrite the entire section. Come on...Everyone knows A&F meant Aryan and Fag. Well, at least in certain circles.

We should remove these comments as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.183.79.82 (talk • contribs) .

Lifestyle Brand

This current section is not from a NPOV, and should be made more encyclopedic in my opinion. Nenyedi 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Links

An editor removed the links to A&F websites with the edit summary:

• rm 1 broken link, 1 link to promotional business site, 2 to purely commenrcial sites.

When I tried them they all seemed to work and to go to official websites. I beleive those are allowed by WP:EL. It's natural that company websites would be promotional and commercial. -Will Beback · † · 00:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The links were deleted in keeping with EL: Links normally to be avoided, specifically #1 and #3. The links add no information beyond that available in the article, AND they are all commercial sales sites. 2 strikes, they're out...Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about a company. The linked sites belong to the company. They are totally appropriate.Mwdelta 02:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes your personal feelings clear, but they remain a violation of WP:EL as specifically cited above. The sites in question have no encyclopedic value and add nothing to the article. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, good compromise by Mike Dillon. I can accept the link to the "official" site if the other links remain relegated to their appropriate articles. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That works for me too. Thanks Mike. -Will Beback · † · 06:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Aberzombie

Readded aberzombie to trivia with a citation from the urban dictionary where it hjad several entries allready, plus the google test garnered 11,500 hits. Aryan & Fag, Abersnobby & Bitch, Aberzombie and Bitch, and Asshole & Bitch were not really all thereQrc2006 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Tom Welling and Ashton Kutcher i know about, but i was watching Conan Obrian and this blonde chick on some dump diseny channel show said she used to work there and also at hollister and wet seal, since she was forced to work even tho she was wealthy to learn the value of the dollar she chose af etc for the discount and its what she was into at the time, shes like the niece of Ron Popeil from the infomercials she said, whats her name? if you know add her in.Qrc2006 02:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Store totals and new mexico/wyoming?

Ok, so do we need a total number of Abercrombie & Fitch stores as a corporation, or as the individual brand? http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=ANF&script=410&layout=6&item_id=931224

if we go there, to the company's 3rd quarter report, (The next one isnt until Feb. 20th, 2007) we see this

The Company operated 355 Abercrombie & Fitch stores, 171 abercrombie stores, 369 Hollister Co. stores, and 11 RUEHL stores in the United States at the end of the third quarter of 2006.

a total of 906 stores. And if the total number is counted as that, (either way i think there should possibly be a listing for each brand total and corporation total) and its the only number used, wyoming would be the only state without an A&F brand in it. new mexico i believe has four Hollister locations at the current time.

anyway, the opening of this article seems like it should start off with the corporation, and quickly detail the lower brand numbers. then when talking about the individual brands, mention the numbers of each. With it being written as it is currently, stating there are 350 stores, it sounds like that is the total number that the corporation currently holds between all brands. and hmmm, i think i repeated myself a bit. ill stop here. my username is kmccusker2 if you want to leave me feedback personally on this.

Merino / Australian Wool boycott

Over at the Mulesing article there is a bit of mention that Abercrombie & Fitch, in response to pressure from PETA, stopped stocking Australian / Merino wool products.

Can anyone advise,

1. Did they actually carry Australian / Merino wool products before the "boycott"?
2. Did they indeed cease selling Australian / Merino wool products?
3. The boycott was requested in 2004 - are they selling any Australian / Merino wool now?

Specifically, products effected would have the woolmark. Ideally, we'd need promotional material which could be cited. An e-catalogue or something would be fantastic!

To be honest - I don't even know what A&F sell. I guess the main types of items for wool would be suits / blazers and woolen jumpers. Other woolen products probably wouldn't mention country of origin or wool type in the label - it'd just be "wool socks".

Any help appreciated!Garrie 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Outlets?

Didn't see any mention that they have recently been opening outlet stores for all of the brands except ruehl. should it be mentioned?Kmccusker2 23:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Concept 5

The article says that Concept 5 is Jillian Hicks then it says it is Gilly Hicks which one is it?--Holtville 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Gilly hicks, this claim has now been backed up in the article. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 01:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the name of the concept not when it is going to be opened.--Holtville 02:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

outlets, minorities, and who the heck is RMC?

Back to my earlier talk post, after listening to the last conference call for Q4, the outlets created for both A&F and Hollister are used for clothing with quality issues only. The statement about minorities being more likely to work in the back is, first, a biased statement. Also, from my experience, in 4 different stores, I have actually experienced the opposite for employment titles, which with 944 stores is in no way a representation of all stores, but just a display that the opposite side of the statement can also be found. And RMC, in the song list for the companies being mentioned, I do not think it is significant, a first for the brand, and especially not done by a popular culture, or even known (judging from his myspaces 720 total page views) recording artist, and therefore should not be in the article.

fashion season

Is this needed? i took it out as it is always changing with seasons, and isn't encyclopedic. I think, especially since we are trying to move away from reading like an advertisement, this should stay deleted. Kmccusker2 21:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WEBSITE!?!?

does this article really need a section on the website itself? can't you simply sum something up about it in one sentence in a section about the company itself? if you have that, you'll need one for the other three brands as well, which is unnecessary. Kmccusker2 04:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second that. mirageinred 23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like excessive information to me, which this page seems to have. I think it would be good to follow examples of other notable fashion brands. mirageinred 00:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that A&F should lead the others and set the example of what a true fashion article should have. This is Wikipedia...an internet encyclopedia for god's sake. People rely on Wikipedia for information. I mean, what? Would you want the complete information that is available fully described or a simple group of a small paragraphs which may or may not have sufficient information. Consider that. User:Hpfan1 17:20, 9 April 2007.

The article needs more sources if it's going to set any standard.maxcap 21:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There's such thing as excessive information, like trivias or listing closed stores etc. It doesn't matter if people "rely on Wikipedia on information," because frankly, Wikipedia is not always a reliable source to begin with. mirageinred 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"I disagree. I believe that A&F should lead the others and set the example of what a true fashion article should have. This is Wikipedia...an 'internet encyclopedia' for god's sake." That's just it, its an encyclopedia, NOT a fashion article, and when you include details about individual corporations websites, it becomes non-encyclopedic, and instead more like an advertisement, more like a magazine article which helps promote the company. its not just that its excessive, its that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. leave that for the magazines to cover. --Kmccusker2 09:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Abercrombie and Fitch in popular culture

Popular culture section is a good way to manage trivias. (as suggested by WP:TRIV and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles) However, the section is already big, and this section will only expand. The section cannot be an indiscriminate section that lists every single refernces made in pop culture. Should there be any criteria for listing references under this section, or should this section be deleted in its entirety? mirageinred 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think deleted in its entirety, or at the very least have some moved to the trivia section. A&F in popular culture should, if anything, be a section detailing the rise in popularity, continued poularity especially amongst teens, and maybe describe this with a few references to media like TV or music which show the large amount of recognition it has as a company. the section is in fact getting much too large. as it is, in trivia, the dwight A mcbride refrences is nowhere near significant enough, and the single sentence article, Why I Hate Abercrombie and Fitch: Essays on Race and Sexuality should be nominated for deletion. as it stands, trivia sections should be deleted anyway, and the overall popular culture section needs lots of trimming.Kmccusker2 11:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think expanding the trivia section is really an option here. The trivia section should be deleted when possible. There are notable references to the brand which should stay within the popular culture section like MadTV, Family Guy, The Simpsons etc. But then deciding the amount of notability would be very difficult. And yeah, that book page should be gone. mirageinred 19:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I nominated the book page for speedy deletion for being too short. (db-nocontext) mirageinred 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

whoops, meant trivia moved to the pop culture and trimmed, slightly mixed up my words. I guess the only way to really look at it is keep it to like two or three of the most notable references, possibly, as notability would be difficult, but if it had to be, could be discussed. I think the song section should be removed, as i feel like it is not important enough. brands get mentioned in songs constantly, and if you were to do that with every brand, car companies, liquor brands, clothing, etc., some brands would have huge lists. Parodies of the brand in popular culture situations are easy to keep in a section, as they are normally limited, and only done because of the public views on the brand. it just seems like if we keep songs, you could probably have a never ending list. i mean, just searching abercrombie lyrics on google, within the first 3 pages i found a song A&F by kittie, the mention by rapper the game, Fan_3 (some Disney rapper), mac dre, and not to mention what is already in the article. so i guess im just saying we need to look at all of the possible ways to shorten that section.Kmccusker2 09:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A&F Fragrances nominated for deletion

Please contribute to the discussion here. Thank you. mirageinred 20:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Doppleganger

Abercrombie is not a redirect to Abercrombie & Fitch, but it has its own page that is nearly identical to Abercrombie & Fitch. Redirect? mirageinred 22:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

indeed. there should not be two seperate articles, and A&F is the name of the entire company, so the Abercrombie article should just be a redirect to A&F.Kmccusker2 08:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's supposed to be a disambiguation page. Somehow it keeps getting reverted back to a copy of this article. -Will Beback · † · 00:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah, thats what i meant, still shaky on all of the terms on wiki. ehhh, i'll get there eventually. hopefully it stays now, however.Kmccusker2 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the merge tag - hope that was ok. All in the spirit of WP:BOLD - but do revert if there's a policy on removing tags I should have followed. Peeper 13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Catalog Controversy

Nothing has been mentioned about the use of nudity in catalogs. It was a a big upset, even bigger than most conflicts on the existing page. I always wondered how nudity sold clothing... Someone please mention this somewhere in the article.

It's already there. See the section labelled "A&F Quarterly". ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material

There are too many unsourced assertions and opinions in this article. Some have been tagged (and some of those have had the tags removed), but tagged or not we should remove unverifable material. Let's give editors a bit more time then do some trimming. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 17:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the articles on subsidiaries are in even worse shape. A first step may be to merge those back in here. Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. It is really hard to source the material in the articles because Abercrombie and Fitch does not advertise. Which makes it hard for people to source. Alot of information that the people are getting and are putting on these articles are things that they have seen or heard from there store experiences that are facts. Have you ever been to one of the stores? I believe that they should all have there on article because each and every one is there own store. What do you think? How would you source commonsense stuff from just going into the store? Holtville 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't use an advertisement for a source, so that's not the problem. The problem is that much of information isn't verifiable using any available sources. Saying that the stores "have brown shutters" is at least verifiable to anyone who has access to a store or a photo of a store. But most information isn't so easily verified. We can't verify that "the company introduced a new store concept (referred to as the "canoe store" concept) in the late 1990s to accommodate its rapid growth." The target age-ranges been changed numerous times. What are the "real" age ranges? There's no verifiable source so when someone changes it it's just a "right" as any other value. Or take this statement: "The company manages merchandising, distribution, and sales by assigning each store a tier level (1, 2, 3, or 4) and a volume level (A, B, C, D, E, or F)." Is it true? Problably. Is it verifiable? Not at all. There are several retail trade magazines which may cover some of these topics and could be used as sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The assiging of a tier level and a volume level is probably company-protected marketing information that can't really be sourced. It is likely contained in some employee manual somewhere.--65.13.148.223 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It may be true, but it's not verifiable by 99.99% of readers or editors. There could be 3 or 5 tiers for all we know. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a full time model at a Hollister store with access to various books and documents, and connections with the nearby Home Office staff. Please reply if there are any loose ends i can assist with. Hcsswimmer 03:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but we can't use materials that isn't accessible to everybody. However if you or the Home Office staff know of articles either mainstream or grade magazine or newspapers, then we can use those. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing things like the handbook for instance could not be used, correct? 68.30.191.219 19:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If the handbook is available to the general public, either for sale or to borrow from a store or library, then material from it would be verifiable. I can't imagine that A&F allows outsiders to read their employee or store handbooks though. Most companies consider that to be confidential information. The relevant Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: Here's a key passage from WP:V

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

Right now, most of the material in these articles is not verifiable by "any reader". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

With these policies and lack of publicly available information about the company, it seems impossible to generate any verifiable material. Does wikipedia support any other types of articles that allow room for this problem? Hcsswimmer 01:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

www.abercrombie.com click the investors tab. it includes many documents which can be used for citations, including the proper age targets for each brand. i have their quarterly reports sent to stockholders as well, from the last 5 years, but im not sure how wasy it would be to properly cite that, or even gain access to if you are not a shareholder. Kmccusker2 04:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Yes, quarterly reports are a reliable source for non-contoversial information about of company, like marketing concepts, history, or strategic planning. I'm not sure what the accessibility of them would be. On a practical level the office might fax or mail a current copy to anyone who's interested. One way of finessing the issue with public but hard-to-get documents is to quote the material (if it's brief) in the citation, tnen summarize it in the text. Unfortunately it means extra typing, but it provides a layer of verifiability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been over a month and we still don't have any source. Meanwhile, new, unsourced facts are being added. Unless anyone is planning to find sources this week I'm going to start deleting the unsourced material in this and related articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Havent been around for the past month, best bet for anyone right now is to just go to the investor section of the abercrombie.com site to get sourcing, if i had more time, i would, and when i do, ill post stuff on discussion before its in the article so we can determine relevance and necessity to the article. Kmccusker2 06:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just went and took a look at the investor site. Financial info, beyond the basics, isn't very interesting. A lot of what they have is retail strategy and plans for the future, neither of which are especially appropriate either. The store count, the age ranges of the different lines, and a few facts like that are worthwhile. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hollister

"Hollister Co. is a California-inspired apparel brand that attracts patrons ages 12-18 ... most children who used to buy from their sister store, abercrombie, had outgrown it and began searching for a similarly popular brand with similar clothing" This seems to contradict itself. If people have outgrown Abercrombie, they must be in their 20s or older. Who is Hollister targeted towards - children, or adults? Rm999 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The name 'abercrombie' there refers to the store targeted toward younger people (about ages 9-14, I believe) not the store Abercrombie & Fitch which you are probably thinking of. At least that's the way I understood it, feel free to prove me wrong. Love me 33 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

interesting....

take a look at the http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr plenty of edits to this article by A&F themselves. Kmccusker2 02:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And those are only the unregistered edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

Does anyone believe that there should be an article which mainly focuses on the entire company named Abercrombie & Fitch Co.. It would included the history of the company and the brands that it now encompasses. Abercrombie & Fitch would then only focus on just the brand; who it markets and its clothing, ect.?

User talk: Hpfan1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpfan1 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how we'd split the material. Could you explain your idea in more detail? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

customer ages

While the brand is obviously targeted to the younger cosumer, I don't think 18 - 22 is the right age. Why would a brand concentrate on a four year span? The Ruehl brand is still not available to every consumer, and it's unavailbilty on the internet makes it more elusive for the "post-collegiate" consumer. Also the article tries to put the different brands as following a consumers age, but the Hollister brand doesn't seem to be the next brand in line after abercrombie kids line, but rather a seperate brand which is targeted to a lower income consumer, and to compete with american eagle and other less expensive brands while putting Abercrombie the adult brand as a more exclusive independant brand not readily available to all consumers and not be associated, or in competition with the cheaper brands like american eagle and aeropostale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.250.23 (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The internal documents from A&F list the target ages of the brands. We're just reporting what they say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Dublin

• ...the company has held preliminary talks about opening a store in Dublin. http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/02/27/story2562.asp

That story is two and a half years old. While the company may have engaged in some preliminary talks, it appears that nothing was done. Why mention it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Abercrombie

Is Abercrombie pronounced AB-er-CROM-bee or AB-er-CRUM-bee? Timeineurope 12:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it as CROM on TV adverts. Otherwise don't know. kwami 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ADVERT?

this needs a major editing. recent edits have thrown in info about fragrances which are unnecessary, mahjong and lindbergh references which need citations. i will go through at some point this week, but there is so much unnecessary information in this article, and much, if not all of the recent additions dating back to at least the 20th, need to be revised.Kmccusker2 07:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wayy too much advert. Effortless? Sexy? The article doesn't need to explain the company's point of view. mirageinred (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Abercrombie & Fitch brand

Template:Abercrombie & Fitch brand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Rhobite (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)