En el blanco: El ascenso y la caída de Abercrombie & Fitch

There was so much more about A&F, as well as the Wexner empire.

We needed more tracing the money trails and payouts.

Sexual harassment was barely detailed.

The diversity officer was allowed to not answer questions asked.

This was basically the video version of a wikipedia entry.

Why then did I give it five points?

At least it brought the topic up about corporations and branding, targeting consumers, and the impact CEO's decisions can have on consumers' lives and perceptions.

Really, however, it was superficial, which is very sad.

This wasn't the best documentary I've ever seen, but it was interesting. All the people reviewing it on here saying how whining is annoying and don't get so offended, blah blah- are doing the same thing by writing dumb reviews. You can't discriminate against people as an employer. What they did was wrong, period. It's not okay to discriminate against looks, race, etc. And the sexual assaults? Even worse! They could've dived deeper into that aspect. It was a garbage company who only wanted hot white people to work for them. To all the offended right wing whiny hypocrites reviewing- thanks for the good laugh lol.

I hate writing reviews but decided to write this one after reading several clearly biased reviews on this documentary.

Coming in 2 minutes shy of the 90 minute mark this documentary can give you a bit of whiplash. Brace yourself for a fun but bumpy ride.

What they got right. The former staff interviews hit all their proper marks. The background info on how A&F came to be and how it took itself down by their own policies as informative as reading a NYT write-up about it.

What they got wrong,. Wwll that's easier to explain. They needed more time. I can't believe I'm going to say this but I think this should have been a 2-3 part documentary wat 40 minutes each episode. The reason why I say this is because it truly was rushed. Nothing new was brought to light. No deep dive. It was like the cliftnotes version of what happened.

Yes, we know A&F had a inclusion problem but give me some background on why. Meaning, there are several companies at the time that marketed the exact same way. Yes, they briefly mentioned Polo and CK, but what happened to Structure, Express, Banana Republic? Just my opinion, but I do believe they needed more time to bring in their point.

I could go on and on but I think those were the key things I wanted to point out.

Top down this is just a lesson in demographic marketing that exists even if it is offensive, being woke and pressing on one company doesn't make a movie about it, and it isn't really even the rise and fall it is mostly rise and wokeness. Right? Wrong? Doesn't matter it happens because it's all about the corporate bottom dollar. I mean this stuff happens to ANY demographically targeted brand. Should we pick Against All Odds and their urban targeted clothing? Should we pick Sears for targeting men with Craftsman because there was no Craftswoman? Pac Sun? Ron Jon? Is an upscale store considered to be forcing out the poors? Someone will always be offended. Supposedly non discriminatory hiring won't help. A white wino and a well dressed black guy walk into a suit store applying for a job the black guy would get hired. A preppy computer nerd doesn't usually turn up at a Cabela's gun counter. Is it necessarily legal? No. But it's not an exclusive Abercrombie & Fitch issue and didn't need a movie. It's not even the reason brands like A&F fall, people move to new brands because it gets old.

It's incomplete, at best. Context is everything, and mall culture of the late 90s/early 2000s had specific aesthetics for each store. Express and Guess employees had high heels and were dripping in makeup, Tommy Hilfiger's had baggy clothes and fades, Hot Topic's wore head to toe black and lots of eyeliner. Abercrombie was no different. This "documentary" is an hour and a half of clickbait.