Urban Outfitters has a history of introducing edgy and controversial items such as the “Eat Less”shirt and the 2010 “Obama/black” t-shirt. But Urban Outfitters sparked a new controversy by introducing a $129 vintage Kent State t-shirt stained with red color that looks like blood and tattered with what looks like bullet holes. The shirt clearly points to the Kent State shooting in 1970 where the Ohio National guard opened fire on students rowdily protesting America’s invasion of Cambodia. Four students died and nine were wounded.
Public Outrage
There have been strong reactions to this t-shirt—from editorial writers, Kent State, bloggers everywhere, and UO customers. Kent State issued a statement saying, “We take great offense to a company using our pain for their publicity and profit. This item is beyond poor taste and trivializes a loss of life that still hurts the Kent State community today.”
Even some of the Kent State victims are speaking out. Dan Kahler, who was paralyzed from the shooting, told Fox News, “This shows the continued lowbrow of Wall Street, and Urban Outfitters continues to perpetuate a low standard of ethics.”
Twitter users also voiced their disapproval over UO’s insensitivity. One user declared that UO was exploring "the outer reaches of bad taste."
The Urban Outfitters’ public relations approach to these reactions contains several poor elements, but they did issue an apology to keep from appearing totally heartless. They removed the shirt from their shelves, claiming the design had been misconstrued and apologizing“for any offense [their] Vintage Kent State Sweatshirt may have caused.” This apology hardly made up for their stunt. It came across as insincere and half- hearted.
Circle of Controversy
This cycle of introducing an edgy product, sparking a controversy, and then apologizing and/or removing the product has become a part of UO’s reputation. They are trying to use sensitive topics to boost their publicity, but this strategy is creating a negative name for their brand. Do they think exploiting sensitive subjects and creating these kinds of disputes will appeal to their target consumers of people ages 18-30?
Perhaps they are forgetting their consumers are social media fanatics. It is very easy to speak up about something like this on social media. Then again, maybe that is exactly what they are counting on. The risk they take is in whether reactions will be good or not. A target audience’s easy accessibility to social media can either hurt or help a company. And in UO’s case, it hurt.
There are better ways to appeal to a younger generation than by selling offensive items. As Jamie Gottlieb, college writer for the Huffington Post, pointed out in her article “Millennials: Buy Your T-Shirts Somewhere Else,” today’s generation upholds the values of “change, social justice and healthy body image.”
UO is making a huge splash by marketing items that fly in the face of every value this generation stands for. This hardly seems like a profitable strategy for the long term. If they can break this habit and begin employing less negative, socially charged designs, they will gain respect, as well as more publicity for their drastic turn-around.
Facing the Music
Urban Outfitters cannot keep marketing items that make light of socially and culturally offensive issues. They are steadily losing customers and creating a poor name for themselves. Perhaps they need to take a refresher course on what their customers are really into. Judging by the outcry over this shirt, the answer is not bloodstained clothing that exploits tragedy.
← Back to portfolio