Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Abercrombie & Fitch: What Happened?

  1. #31
    Super Moderator hornsup84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,339
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Quoted
    848 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dpark View Post
    The oldest millennials are 14 years older than Under Armour. Can we please stop using the world "millennial" as if it means "clueless 21-year old"?



    Then you're not looking. Uber lost $2.8 Billion in 2016. They just fired their CEO after repeated scandals. 400,000 customers actually deleted their accounts and while their business is still growing, it's now growing slower than Lyft in large part because of their tarnished brand.



    Disappointing in that growth was lower than expected. They still grew by most measures and earned over $4 Billion during their last fiscal year. Starbucks seems to be doing pretty well still.
    Truth above.

    And just because a brand positions itself as a luxury good =/= they have a "culture of exclusion and disdain". That's also missing the point of why many of the folks above dislike A&F. Whether something is exclusionary in terms of pricing is always a relative discussion, and most brands generally advertise that their stuff is quality or otherwise exemplary.

  2. #32
    Varsity Member Alpha King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    507
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Quoted
    176 Post(s)
    Wow. I totally missed all this stuff about AF. I just thought they had a bad rep from frat bros wearing their stuff in the early 2000's.

  3. #33
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,024
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Quoted
    358 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by azimmerm View Post
    Side topic: This always gets to me, for some reason. Generations are 20 year periods but people born in 1980 are NOTHING like those born in 1999. Just like those born in 1960 are a far cry different than those born in 1979. For example, I was born in 1987 so I am considered a "millennial" but the vast majority of things associated with millenials is not applicable to myself nor anyone around my age: we don't use "fam," we didn't grow up with tablets or smart phones, we had dial up internet, we watched Saturday morning cartoons, we rolled up our windows etc. The millenials that were born in the late 90s seem to be what people associate with ALL millenials which is completely false. We really should have 10 years for "generations" instead of 20, 20 is just far too long of a time. Myself, being 30, has far more in common with someone in their mid to late 40s than someone in their early 20s and the same is true for most people I know that are my age.

    Sorry, just wanted to rant about the millenial designation a bit.
    I forget what exactly the term was, but some experts distinguish between late and early millennials, noting the differences you have mentioned.

    I think that the media's popular conception of millennials is not that they are clueless 20 year old but trendy city dwelling members of the creative class. That is basically what the media under 40 is.

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    30
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    15 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by azimmerm View Post
    Side topic: This always gets to me, for some reason. Generations are 20 year periods but people born in 1980 are NOTHING like those born in 1999. Just like those born in 1960 are a far cry different than those born in 1979. For example, I was born in 1987 so I am considered a "millennial" but the vast majority of things associated with millenials is not applicable to myself nor anyone around my age: we don't use "fam," we didn't grow up with tablets or smart phones, we had dial up internet, we watched Saturday morning cartoons, we rolled up our windows etc. The millenials that were born in the late 90s seem to be what people associate with ALL millenials which is completely false. We really should have 10 years for "generations" instead of 20, 20 is just far too long of a time. Myself, being 30, has far more in common with someone in their mid to late 40s than someone in their early 20s and the same is true for most people I know that are my age.

    Sorry, just wanted to rant about the millenial designation a bit.
    I'm 39 and can agree with you for the most part. Fortunately I'm old enough to never have been called a millennial.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •