Fashion Statement

On needlessly controversial marketing...

The fashion industry is one that throughout much of its history has wilfully courted controversy as designers seek to push boundaries further in the quest for the new look and more importantly how to sell it. However, somewhere there must be, you would think, the odd boundary line between the edgy, the innovative, the distasteful and the downright offensive. Recently controversy erupted over high street hipster chain Urban Outfitters selling a women’s top emblazoned with the word ‘depression’. The outrage on social media moved the company to pull the item from online sale, but the storm was already unleashed.

Urban Outfitters of course have plenty of previous, selling tops with messages encouraging binge drinking, eating disorders and the general objectification of women. As Jessica Wakeman suggested in The Guardian, a cynical mind might come to the conclusion that these periodic scandals could well just be shameless publicity stunts. From that point of view they certainly work, if you take the line that all publicity is good publicity.

The offending garment was designed by a label from Singapore, also called Depression. This small label had been flying mainly under the radar until now, but has now found itself caught in the fallout of the latest scandal engulfing their insensitive client. Their name itself raises the same questions as the infamous t-shirt, but herworldPlus.com report that their co-founder Kenny Lim says: “Depression ‒ the label ‒ should not be confused with depression ‒ the illness. We were creatively depressed and this [the fashion label] was to be our outlet.” This I would say is a pretty weak explanation, and while I’m sure Lim and his partner were not intending to cause offence or controversy, the choice of that name seems at best naive. Still it’s worth noting that of all their garments in their collection, the selection by Urban Outfitters of this particular top, the only one covered with the offending word, clearly shows their intentions.

It’s not just personal and health issues over which Urban Outfitters have upset people though. In 2011 they made enemies of Native Americans by using the Navajo trademark on a range of garments, which were also made to look like they had been made by Native Americans (an illegal act in America). 2012’s brouhaha was triggered by the release of a t-shirt that featured a star-like motif which seemed to resemble the kind of clothing Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust. Then last year they managed to offend the Hindu community with a line of socks featuring an image of Lord Ganesh. The reaction to these items caused them to be withdrawn and apologies issued. These apologies though seem to have as much sincerity behind them as Father Jack Hackett saying sorry to Bishop Brennan in Father Ted. Of course the apology is irrelevant as the objective of shameless exposure has already been achieved. 

Artists should be given freedom of expression of course, but is this really within the artistic spectrum? Other labels and retailers seem to save it for the adverts rather than the actual clothes themselves – Sisley’s depiction of two girls snorting a vest strap as though a line of something far less innocent, and both Calvin Klein and Dolce&Gabbana using imagery that appeared to portray gang rape being recent examples. Urban Outfitters sell a wide range of items so the fact that they pull these occasional controversial garments from sale as soon as the predictable storm blows up (seemingly on an annual basis) suggests they are most likely a marketing tool rather than a fashion statement. 

Should we really be so offended by this style of branding? To some extent, yes. More though these publicity stunts are just that – stunts. They are puerile and insensitive and deserve to be treated with disdain as much as anything else. But the cases identified of using mental conditions as marketing tools seems particularly crass, and can potentially undermine the efforts of awareness groups and campaigns which have made so much ground in recent years to change opinions with regard to them. Depression and eating disorders are not cool by any definition. How to combat this retailer's unpleasant marketing policy? Quite simply don’t shop there. Falling profits will get the message across soon enough.