I was watching "Sunday Morning"on CBS this morning and at first was really impressed. I didn't know that much about the company, but I knew that it was taking the US by storm. Their "no frills" advertising and "retro" design seemed to be truly all american.
After watching the segment and understanding more about the company and the brand, I was even more impressed. Not only do the products and advertising reflect the brand, but company's culture and mission are founded on the same priniciples. Everything from manufacturing in the US, to the anti-sweat shop mentality were truly impressive. Paying reasonable wages, on site english lessons, subsidized lunch, reasonable healthcare, really gave me that warm and fuzzy feeling. I saw myself wanting to be part of this and willing to purchase product, even if it cost a bit more.
That's when they introduced the CEO...
He seemed a bit sketchy, had nude pictures on his wall, and had been charged with multiple counts of sexual harrasment. Is this the guy I would really want representing my company and brand? Well, I guess the problem is that he founded the company.
What do you do? Do you support a company like this? Would you support this brand?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
AA is the lesser of many evils. Despite a controversial CEO, they are making some strides in positively influencing the market.
The genius of the whole operation is the fact that they were able to brand a commodity product, assign it a hip image, and turn a profit.
AA is clearly a company to watch, due to its spectacular brand awareness and impact, even with an almost simple/basic set of products. However, the CEO is the one making the decisions about the company and products which impacts the brand. A CEO in question could negatively impact the brand. If the CEO gets into trouble with the law, can you separate the brand from the brand champion?
No question that AA is a brand to watch with its cool product and amazing brand awareness- however, how easy is it to disengage a vocal (albeit crazed) CEO from the brand? If the CEO were to get into trouble with the law, how can we as consumers look beyond the brand champion?
I have a slightly different take on AA (somewhat historic)...
I remember when AA first came to NYC around 2002. There was one store and my friends and I thought it was the best thing that ever happenned. But in less than 4 years they've managed to outnumber the GAP (seriously, there are more AA stores in the city than the all powerful, all mighty GAP - I'm not making it up, it's a real statistic). Part of their initial appeal was the entire "screw the establishment, we're a new aesthetic, and we're socially responsible", but now the initial infatuation is beginning to fade, particularly because the firm is expanding so quickly. I think that the biggest problem for them isn't the fact that their CEO isn't pc, it's the fact that their credibility w/ the target consumer has more to do with them being a hipster/ alterna brand which will suffer greatly when it becomes too commercial. They're beginning to remind me of Airwalk which lost most of its allure when it decided to go mass and sell in Payless. They should look more at what Burton's doing and be smart about their expansion without diluting their brand imagery and straining their standing.
The good is offset by the negative effects of the CEO’s lifestyle. The brand should have it’s own social responsibility to the public, and either tone down the promotion of the CEO or replace him as the leader of the company. He could step down into a consultant role or perhaps a silent partner to remove the negatives.
Post a Comment