After a Washington Post article reported that Ivanka Trump fashion brand products are manufactured primarily by women working in sweatshop labor conditions in countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and China, women’s advocacy organization UltraViolet started a petition demanding Macy’s drop the line. In the first 24 hours after the petition’s unveiling, more than 31,000 people signed it.
This is a classic case of retailers’ two options when they enter politically controversial territory: stick to their guns and potentially lose a portion of their customers, or drop the brand and immediately lose the revenue that comes with it.
The RTP team discusses which is the bigger risk — dropping a brand that has achieved tremendous name recognition due to the political situation, or sticking with it and potentially alienating customers who object to the brand’s practices and associations. The team also shares whether there are things other retailers can do to protect themselves — or even to take advantage of such a situation.
Advertisement
Debbie Hauss, Editor-in-Chief: This is difficult because it could be a choice between sales and what is perceived to be “the right thing.” When companies make choices that offend a group of people, they risk losing sales and revenue. But how do they determine how many people they may offend? It’s true that you can never make everyone happy, but in a business setting there has to be a balance. Even though a lot of people may not be fans of Ivanka for political reasons, the Ivanka brand has been selling well. That is a quandary for Macy’s and other retailers, especially when they are struggling on so many other levels. From Macy’s standpoint, if they don’t want to give up the sales, it’s probably best to keep a low profile and not make any big public statements about the issue.
Adam Blair, Executive Editor: Choose your metaphor to describe the quandary retailers face when deciding whether or not to carry products associated with a suddenly controversial figure: a minefield, a tightrope, a slippery slope — they all apply. And these decisions become even more complicated when the controversial figure, in this case Ivanka Trump, is also front-and-center in the nation’s turbulent politics. This is one of those times when the problem can’t easily be reduced to a dollars-and-cents calculation. Ivanka Trump’s company claims her family’s raised profile has increased its revenues, but since it’s privately held those figures can’t be independently verified. And for every anti-Trump consumer who is publicly burning her Ivanka Trump dresses and shoes, there are also pro-Trump shoppers proudly wearing them as a badge of honor, as described in this Atlanta Journal-Constitution article. Macy’s and other retailers will have to perform their own cost-benefit analyses, with the grim knowledge that whatever decision they make, some very vocal people will take exception to it.
Klaudia Tirico, Features Editor: The fact that Macy’s isn’t doing so well is not groundbreaking news, so I would recommend the company tread lightly when considering removing Ivanka Trump’s label from its racks, given that sales are up on that end. And Ivanka’s line selling well isn’t the only reason either; I don’t think Macy’s can even afford the potential backlash they could receive from Trump supporters if they agreed to protesters’ demands. Remember how people were quick to assume Nordstrom’s reasons for removing Ivanka’s brand were political? Of course, if Macy’s can prove that Ivanka’s products are made in sweatshops, that would be a different argument. But adhering to protester demands without solid evidence does not seem like the correct route to take in Macy’s situation. For whatever reasons, if Macy’s moves forward with removing Ivanka’s line from stores, it better be prepared to handle whatever comes its way as a result.
Glenn Taylor, Senior Editor: This problem is definitely exacerbated by the fact that Macy’s continues to reveal unfortunate news every time the department store reports its quarterly earnings. I’d like to see brands do a better job sourcing in the first place so that they know exactly where they are getting their products from, so that they don’t have to end up in these situations to begin with. The backlash always ends up being much worse when a public figure is attached to the mix, so it makes sense for them to do their due diligence on the matter before displaying these types of brands. Considering Macy’s is going through its own transformation, they could actually cut the Ivanka brand and write it off as a style change (especially if they decided to ditch other brands). There are already bigger things on Macy’s plate, so I would argue this isn’t really going to have the biggest effect in the long run, regardless of who it may upset.
