Controversy hit Lands’ End last week after the retailer decided to pull a featured interview with women’s rights activist Gloria Steinem from its web site.
Although Lands’ End initially published the interview in its Spring catalog, complaints from consumers and threats made to boycott its merchandise convinced the retailer to yank the article and apologize via a Facebook post.
In turn, that statement inadvertently spurred new boycott threats, this time from potential shoppers who saw the company’s decision as an affront to women’s rights.
Advertisement
The RTP team discusses Lands’ End’s decision to pull the Steinem feature, and examines if there is an appropriate platform for political and social issues within the retail industry.
Debbie Hauss, Editor-in-Chief: In an effort to re-energize the brand, Lands’ End stumbled on a social controversy that could do more damage than good. On the other hand, whenever these types of issues become a hot topic for social conversation, it actually brings the brand to the top of peoples’ minds. Then the brand needs to determine the best way to move through the crisis and come out on top. Conspiracy theorists could accuse companies of intentionally creating bad publicity just to get noticed, which is a tactic that does work from time to time. I don’t think that’s what Lands’ End had in mind here. I do not believe that all publicity is good publicity, as some might suggest. PR executive Phil Shirley shared some great examples in a 2015 LinkedIn post, featuring BP’s oil spill, Uber’s surge pricing and Coca-Cola’s Fairlife ad blunder.
Adam Blair, Executive Editor: I can understand the desire of Lands End executives to steer clear of anything controversial. After all, they’re in business to sell product to as many people as possible, so who wants to risk alienating some (or any) customers? Unfortunately, as the retailer has discovered, in a society where social media gives everybody a mega-big megaphone, even seemingly safe choices can land you in the middle of a minefield. I personally think Lands End should have stuck by its original decision to feature Ms. Steinem, and not just because I’m a staunch believer that women’s rights are human rights. By immediately caving when protests erupted, Lands End also made a tactical error, appearing wishy-washy and easily cowed. I think a portion of even those people who disagree with them about featuring Steinem would have respected their integrity if they had defended themselves adequately, standing up for a choice that presumably wasn’t made lightly in the first place.
Alicia Fiorletta, Content Strategist: I feel like when it comes to marketing campaigns like this, the best decision for a brand is to make a move and stick with it. Lands’ End had a very inspiring theme, focusing on legendary women who have made a difference. The retailer should have taken this as an opportunity to reach folks on all ends of the social and political spectrums; after all, it’s a brand and should ethically not favor one side or the other. The fact that Lands’ End is back-peddling on a logical marketing decision shows that it’s just pandering to a focused group of complainers who may not even stay loyal to the brand. A better approach would have been to have a representative from Lands’ End explain their reasoning for including Gloria Steinem and all she has contributed; then, shift focus to the other participants.
David DeZuzio, Managing Editor: I’ve never understood why people needed their retailers to be in total lockstep with their social and political beliefs. Retailers are not lawmakers, judges or anyone in true power of any sort. They are selling products. Do you really need the company to be pro or anti anything or do you need them to offer you the best possible service and products? I know, you don’t want to send your money to someone who doesn’t believe in what you do. The thing is; if you truly live that way, you have to be prepared to spend the rest of your days locked in your home. Trust me, a very high percentage of models, celebrity figures and those in the corporate masthead don’t hold your beliefs. Will that make you stop purchasing the things you need? Do we now need a list of who believes what in order to buy stuff? Lands’ End put itself in a spot by putting an obviously controversial figure in their catalog and should have been prepared to defend their decision, so they should not have pulled it. Should retailers hold a platform for controversial issues and figures? Sure, but be ready for the backlash from whichever direction it comes. Backtracking makes any company seem weak and indecisive. You pick your horse and you pay your ticket.
Klaudia Tirico, Associate Editor: This Lands’ End controversy is a basic case of: “You can’t please everyone.” But, again, I wasn’t surprised at the amount of backlash they received. After all, people are offended by everything in this day and age. Internet trolls will be Internet trolls and, unfortunately, Lands’ End had to learn the hard way. As my colleagues already said, the retailer should have stuck by its decision to feature Gloria Steinem in its catalog. Instead, they received double the amount of backlash: First for featuring Steinem, and second, for giving in to the requests of a group of people who feel powerful behind their keyboard. They shouldn’t have let the trolls win. But what’s done is done, and honestly, I’m sure it will all be old news tomorrow. Hopefully it ends up being a positive learning experience for everyone.
Glenn Taylor, Associate Editor: If Lands’ End felt they were alienating a portion of their
audience, it probably would have made sense from a PR perspective to add a
disclaimer saying Steinem’s views don’t reflect those of the brand. That option
would have been preferable to taking the whole article down, which instead just
makes Lands’ End look like they lack any conviction here. After all, they conducted the interview of Steinem
in the first place, so I’m fairly certain they knew her stance on specific
issues and probably could have predicted how certain people would react to it. As far as the rest of the industry goes, I don’t mind if retailers loosely align themselves with certain campaigns. It’s part of a brand to have characteristics, and if some have social ties, so be it. However, from a business sense, making anything remotely political can be a recipe for disaster depending on the intended audience. My advice to any retailer going forward – tread lightly, and understand your consumer.
