ABSTRACT
In 1998 Abercrombie & Fitch published a back-to-school catalog with a section advocating that college students drink creatively, rather than just participate in the standard beer binge. The section, headed “Drinking 101,” contained recipes for the Woo-Woo, the Beach Hemorrhage, and other potent mixtures. The organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving was irate. Within days, NBC’s Today Show was set to interview MADD’s president, but the clothing company refused to send a spokesperson (issuing just a brief statement). The question is: Should the company have sent a spokesperson? 1
When that question is asked of communication or PR majors (this book’s coauthor John Doorley has done this with many classes) most students say yes; often the teacher is the only dissenter. The reason for dissent: The company had not formulated any policy expressing embarrassment, let alone shame, and there was no commitment to mitigate the damagefor example, recall the catalog and help wage responsibility-in-drinking campaigns. Most college students are not of drinking age, and the company appeared to care little about the health of the people who wear their clothing. What could the spokesperson have said, in lieu of repudiation and correction, that would not have made the matter worse? For as Will Rogers was fond of saying: “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.”
