I think the phrase â€œall press is good pressâ€ is only applicable when the â€œpressâ€ is beneficial to the company. For example, if â€œbad pressâ€ simply attracts attention to a company and potentially increases its profits, then the â€œbad pressâ€ might be good. On the contrary, when â€œbad pressâ€ hurts the companyâ€™s performance, as evidenced by the drop in sales and stock plunge of Abercrombie, then â€œbad pressâ€ is what it implies: bad.
I think Abercrombie took a bold marketing risk with the provocative and sexualizing ad campaigns, in hopes of gaining attention. However, when the owner of the company, Mike Jeffries, spoke about the intentions of the company and former employees started telling the public about their mistreatment, the public did not give their attention, but rather backlash. For a company with such a young audience, Abercrombie had the moral obligation to set an example. The company made the choice to release the controversial ads with this in mind, but knew that the attention could potentially result in sales. That was the primary motive. The ethics of the companyâ€™s owner was reflected in how the company treated its employees. As a brand that was worn by so many young people, it set the idea that only certain races, religions, sexual orientations, and body types were accepted. Young people are impressionable and Abercrombieâ€™s desire to only have â€œcool peopleâ€ wear their clothes, ultimately had a detrimental effect on the acceptance and well-being of the company’s demographic. It is for this reason that the press directed toward Abercrombie was just as it was intended: not good.