I won’t lie - I’m a big fan of Urban Outfitters, but that all ended today. Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, and Free People are all owned by a guy named Richard Hayne. The once liberal, almost-hippy, Hayne is now a conservative republican billionaire who has donated more than $13K to the likes of Senator, Rick Santorum (R) - the biggest dick of them all. The problem is not that Richard Hayne is a billionaire or a republican - I’d love to be the former someday, and I have plenty of love for the latter. But considering the progressive, anti-establishment image that Urban Outfitters projects, it’s fucked up that the brand belongs to a guy who couldn’t be more Establishment. He refuses to sell pro-same-sex marriage paraphernalia in his stores. What a prick.  

I know things aren’t always black and white. I understand there are a thousand ethical dilemmas in a consumerist culture, but I hate manipulative marketing bullshit like this. If one were presented with a slew of UO print/tv ads, flipped through their summer catalog and browsed their retail stores, the words to describe UO would probably be something like: hip, cool, upbeat, progressive, unique, democratic, different, playful, urban (duh). This is a triumph of advertising. Those words were carefully chosen by a group of marketers and Richard Hayne. An entrepreneur saw a gap in the marketplace for kitsch and urban hippie wear and started a business. And when that same entrepreneur changed his personal political/social values, it was advertising that enabled him and his business to exist in conflict of one another. I think that’s wrong. 

I think it’s wrong for a brand to project an image of itself that is not true to its core. UO most likely have some very young, very hip, very liberal buyers; the problem is, that ethos doesn’t flow down from the top. In fact, the opposite occurs: the progressive ethos is commandeered and exploited to turn a profit for a guy who actually lives and breathes the complete opposite lifestyle. It’s particularly lame for a company like UO which projects a very specific image of anti-establishment progressivism (albeit inside huge shopping malls). This isn’t like Victoria’s Secret being owned by a man or athletes shucking for junk fast food brands. UO intentionally markets itself as a series of adjectives that are implicitly social/political. In other words, UO looks like it has an opinion, but those advertised opinions are a far cry from the owner’s true values.  

Everyone needs advertising, I know. Advertising is not inherently evil or misleading. But UO is a great example of cash trumping integrity. UO markets itself as being a part of the young, urban, hipster generation - a cadre of sundress girls and skinny jean boys who are nearly unanimous in their liberal social/political values. Richard Hayne is not one of them, and moreover, he does not support their values. This is wrong and advertising enables it. 

At the end of the day, I’m being naive. Richard Hayne is entitled to own his business and to fill the voids he sees in the market. He’s opportunistic and I’m envious. And really, what else could he do? Dump his empire because his political views changed? Furthermore, UO makes a lot of people happy and fashionable and there are probably hundreds of other businesses whose advertising is in conflict with their ownership’s values. I get it, brands ≠ owners of the brand.

I’m being naive, but I’m not wrong. Brands should reflect their owners’ values, or at the very least, not be in conflict with them. Why? Because people tend to believe what they see. People take advertising at its word*. Most of us don’t google business owners or check out manufacturing practices before purchasing. When we see a storefront that seems to reflect our ideals and values we trust that the money we spend there will go towards the same. It’s not enough that consumers have the freedom to choose what and where we buy: we can’t choose wisely when we’re being bombarded with only one side of the story. Sometimes it feels like we’re forced to hire muckrakers and whistleblowers to hear the rest of it. There’s money to be made in selling shit truthfully; it’s just a shame that the liars usually end up with more. 

*this is why I love and hate advertising