Case Study: Urban Outfitters Kent State Crisis Michaela Cloud J405 April 6, 2015

Case Study: Urban Outfitters Kent State Crisis Michaela Cloud J405 April 6, 2015

Urban Outfitters is a large fashion retailer known for its chic and hipster- like clothing. The company has landed itself in the news several times regarding inappropriate clothing and apparel, yet the company continues to disregard the heat and carry on. Recently in September 2014, Urban Outfitters released a Kent State University sweatshirt that had a blood- spattered design (Kanter, n.d.). On May 4, 1970, students at Kent State University protested the Vietnam War and the invasion into Cambodia. After the governor of Ohio heard word, he issued nearly 900 National Guardsmen to Kent State University to stop the rally. Soon after, guardsmen opened fire, wounding nine and ultimately killing four students (Kent State Incident, 2009). Although the incident was nearly 40 years ago, it still is a sensitive topic and after the release of the sweatshirt, social media took over with outrage regarding Urban Outfitter s choice of apparel. One tweet stated, I would love to hear exactly why Urban Outfitters thought that sweatshirt was okay. #sickening (Kanter, n.d.). Kent State personally took action, immediately releasing a statement on their website with regards to the sweatshirt. The university explained, May 4, 1970, was a watershed moment for the country and especially the Kent State family. We lost four students that day while nine others were wounded and countless others were changed forever. We take great offense to a company using our pain for the publicity and profit. They elaborated, This item is beyond poor taste and trivializes a loss of life that still hurts the Kent State community today (Durando, 2014).

Shortly afterwards, Urban Outfitters released its first form of strategic reputation repair by stating a brief apology via Twitter. The statement read, It was never our intention to allude to the tragic events that took place at Kent State in 1970 and we are extremely saddened that this item was perceived as such (Durando, 2014). Within this statement, the undoubtedly company apologizes; yet, the company attempts to use the element of surprise within their statement. In other words, the company acts as if this controversy is some sort of revelation, completely unknown and unthought- of of by anyone within the company. In many cases, this tactic may be successful. Considering the public connected this sweatshirt to the massacre so quickly, it is hard to believe that Urban Outfitters was not already aware of what the sweatshirt could potentially portray. Kent State is not too well known as a university, considering its midsize and Midwest location. The only genuine identification among the general population of Kent State would be the massacre that took place in 1970. It is easy for the public to believe that Urban Outfitters chose this sweatshirt for this reason. A plain, old Kent State University sweatshirt would not have been sold at Urban Outfitters to simply represent the university itself. The public perceives that Urban Outfitters strategically chose this sweatshirt for the controversy and media placements. The company is known for past controversial items as well. Examples include a t- shirt saying, Eat less, a tapestry extremely similar to the clothing that homosexual prisoners had to wear during the Holocaust and a t- shirt of Obama sold online that had two color options one being white/charcoal and the other Obama/black (14

Controversial). Thus, it s no surprise that Urban Outfitters once again made headlines with a heated issue. The company has an image at hand, and some wonder if these controversies are put into place to continue their rebellious portrayal, while others see dwindling sales and dramatic decisions as result (Mudd, 2014). Despite either reasoning, mistakes like this should not occur over and over again. From a public relations crises perspective, the reputation restoration strategy via Twitter was seen as weak and the larger statement took a bit too long to be released. The official statement was issued to TIME: Urban Outfitters would like to extend our sincerest apologies to Kent State University and the Kent State community. We are deeply saddened by the recent uproar our Vintage Kent State sweatshirt has caused. Though it was never our intention to offend anyone, we understand how the item could have been perceived negatively. The tragic events that took place in 1970 are not forgotten and our company regrets that people believe we would intentionally make light of such a horrific part of our nation s history. To promote such an event is disgraceful, insensitive and in poor taste. To further clarify, despite what has been reported, this is a vintage item and there is only one. Once the negative feedback was brought to our attention we removed the item immediately from sale. Urban Outfitters purchased the one- of- a- kind sweatshirt from the Rose Bowl Flea Market as part of our sun- faded vintage collection. There is no blood on the sweatshirt nor did we ever promote it as such. The discoloration that has

been mistaken for blood is from natural fading and sun exposure. With all of that said, this truth does not excuse us from our failure to identify potential controversial products head on. We, as a company who caters to a college- age demographic, have a responsibility to uphold to our customers. Given our history of controversial issues, we understand how our sincerity may be questioned. We can only prove our commitment to improving our product- screening process through our actions and by holding ourselves accountable. Again, we sincerely apologize for this unfortunate misunderstanding and are dedicated to perfecting our internal processes to help avoid these issues in the future (Rothman, 2014). Although the timing of this statement was released a day after the controversy, some may say that this was too slow for such a large issue. The statement, however, is extremely well written. Following the tactics of W. Timothy Coombs, Urban Outfitters follows two reputation repair strategies: apology and excuse accidental. The company acknowledges the public s view of the issue, stating that they understand how it could have been portrayed and continues to say, The truth does not excuse us from our failure to identify potential controversial products head on. So, although the company acknowledges their mistake, they identify that they need to look at items much more closely from here on out. Urban Outfitters uses words, such as disgraceful, insensitive and poor taste in order to gain emotional appeal from the audience. The company does place blame on the blood- stains from natural fading and sun exposure. Although this

reasoning is questionable, the company continues and explains that they are aware of past controversial issues and elaborates, We understand how our sincerity may be questioned. The fact the company encompasses their apology statement from many different perspectives makes it more sincere and believable. Urban Outfitters hit the public with emotion and managed to pull out a great apology statement. Although the sweatshirt was considered vintage and the company only had one sweatshirt, it was immediately pulled off the website and shelf (Agudelo, 2014). The company took all of the corrective actions necessary during the apology phase, however, not much came after the issue of the statement. For further credibility, the company should have considered compensation to Kent State University, offering some sort of donation for their mistake. Since this incident, Urban Outfitters has made other controversial mistakes and it is doubtful they will cease. Considering their PR team issues remarkable, well- put statements, credibility remains. Nevertheless, it is vital for a business to look ahead and foresee probable perspectives. This may be done through potential test markets. As a result of these never- ending controversies, some are boycotting Urban Outfitters (Agudelo, 2014). If the mistakes continue, it is likely a larger movement will result, causing a large loss of sales. Urban Outfitters must instead focus on creating products without raising any questions and focus on respectable news placement instead of controversy.

Sources 14 Urban Outfitters Controversies. Retrieved from http://theweek.com/articles/480961/14- urban- outfitters- controversies Agudelo, Wendy. (2014, Sept. 16). Urban Outfitters: Plain poor judgment or PR Success? Retrieved from http://www.axiapr.com/blog/urban- outfitters- plain- poor- judgment- or- pr- success Durando, Jessica. (2014, Sept. 16). Urban Outfitters sorry for bloody- looking 'vintage' Kent State University sweatshirt. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation- now/2014/09/15/kent- state- university- blood- sweatshirt/15659799/ Kanter, Emily. (n.d.). How one sweatshirt can cause a major PR crisis. Retrieved from http://slicecommunications.com/how- one- sweatshirt- can- cause- a- major- pr- crisis/ Kent State Incident. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam- war/kent- state Mudd, Jason. (2014, Dec. 22). What we can learn from Urban Outfitter s rebellious nature. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how- to/marketing/2014/12/what- we- can- learn- from- urban- outfitters.html?page=all Rothman, Lilly. (2014, Sept. 16). Retrieved from http://time.com/3387566/urban- outfitters- sweatshirt- apology/