8 ms·
There's a bit of a contradiction right in the first couple of paragraphs here: Abercrombie [...] became inseparably linked with Americans who came of age aroun
by iainmerrick 4y ago
There's a bit of a contradiction right in the first couple of paragraphs here:
Abercrombie [...] became inseparably linked with Americans who came of age around the turn of the century. The price of being so closely associated with one generation was that the next wanted nothing to do with it.
Facebook, which took off around the same time [and] which began as a way for oversexed Harvard undergraduates to rate each other’s looks, is now seen by youngsters “as a place for people in their 40s and 50s”
Those aren't the same! In the Abercrombie case, the case being made here is that the same people are wearing it, but that cohort has naturally aged and younger people don't want to follow them. In Facebook's case, older people have joined the network over time -- the stereotypical aunts, uncles and grandparents on Facebook are late adopters, not the original users who have naturally aged.
Edit to add: to put it another way, if you think of a 37-year-old techie like Zuckerberg, the social network that immediately comes to mind isn't Facebook, but Twitter. Twitter has plenty of problems, but "only my crazy uncle uses it" isn't one of them. Twitter isn't unfashionable because of all the old people on it, at least not to nearly the same degree as Facebook.
Facebook's age demographic has changed beyond naturally ageing out, which might mean that it's possible it could change again in the other direction. I'm skeptical about that, but I don't think Abercrombie is a very good analogy. Fashion brands are famously cyclical; is the same true of social networks?
- theclansman 4y agoAbsolutely, parents joined the network and then kids had to flee to whatever was popular next, there's not much else to it.
- iainmerrick 4y agoA victim of its own success! Parents and grandparents joined because Facebook was easy to use and all their kids were on it.
- colechristensen 4y agoIt's not a victim of success, it's a victim of expansion greed. Before your aunt, grandma, and gradeschool cousin could join facebook, it was a place to be pretty open about having fun in college. That openness didn't work well with expanding the population to people who wanted to do what the cool college kids were doing because the college kids didn't want to share their weekend party plans nearly so much when grandma started to comment on them.
- jonas21 4y agoIs "expansion greed" just another way of saying "inclusiveness"?
- colechristensen 4y ago"Inclusiveness" is a pretty loaded term which doesn't really seem to apply when you consider how it is used elsewhere. Your aunt didn't need to see that you were invited to a kegger on Thursday, and you didn't want her to.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago>"Inclusiveness" is a pretty loaded term which doesn't really seem to apply when you consider how it is used elsewhere. How exactly is "inclusiveness" inappropriate here? Because it goes against the agenda that inclusiveness is always good? I guess using different synonyms for positive and negative connotations is one way to preserve doublethink.
- chillacy 4y agoRussell Conjugation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation
- Retric 4y agoFacebook optimized for an older demographic, the initial users quickly graduated and started to look like adults. Teens don’t want to catch up with friends spread across the world, etc. But this means the next generation lacked the critical mass of young people which keeps a social network alive. Worse they eventually turned on monetization strategies which are effective for a captive audience but discourage further adoption. The real question is a new generation will age into Facebook or is it ultimately doomed to irrelevance.
- 0xjmp 4y agoFacebook is irreparably doomed as a social network, but will continue to thrive as a software innovator (React, osquery, graphQL, etc). The question becomes whether leadership will set their ego aside, stop trying to make the world like them, and own the actual future. No generation wants a Metaverse. Literally no one was asking for it until crypto got kicked out of Mom's house and needed a reason to crash on the couch. I agree with you though: Facebook _optimized_ as it is trying to do with the eyeballs of all humans (e.g. VR color theory). Problem is that society learned its lesson. We became aware of how software aggregates our behavior for major ad deals with no regard for our collective health – mental & physical. Just like smoking in 1950, Facebook had its day. It's time to change some laws based on what we learned and get back to building genuinely cool stuff.
- iainmerrick 4y agoFacebook is irreparably doomed as a social network, but will continue to thrive as a software innovator (React, osquery, graphQL, etc). Can that software really “thrive” if the core part of the business were to fade away, though? Big companies can’t live on tech alone. I’m thinking of companies like Sun and Yahoo that made some cool software but ultimately didn’t have sustainable businesses.
- Fuzzwah 4y agoValve could maybe be seen as an example. Originally their core was the half-life series. Now it's steam.
- Cd00d 4y agoBefore, Abercrombie was an outdoor supply company. The movement into generation-focused apparel was a pivot. They didn't make the next pivot to maintain. I think most companies need to continuously evolve.
- andrew_ 4y agoForever21 has been pretty much forever Forever21
- ilikehurdles 4y agoAnd it went through bankruptcy in 2019 to forever be that.
- Certified 4y agoIn M*A*S*H Season 7, Episode 6 "None Like it Hot" from Oct 23, 1978, Hawkeye and B.J. purchase a bathtub from Abercrombie and Fitch
- 231078 4y ago(using a throwaway account) that's the day I was born!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ghaff 4y agoit had at least one previous pivot. The original was a high-end hunting and fishing store. Then they got bought by Oshman's Sporting Goods. I think I was once in a store from that era. Sort of mid+ range outdoor gear, home furnishings, etc.
- thazework 4y agoYeah, I recall being quite taken a back, initially, when a Hemingway profile mentioned his A&F spree.
- sbierwagen 4y agoAlso note in the case of Abercrombie that they were sued, and lost, over their hiring practices and marketing materials, and were required by the court to change them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Abercrombie_%26_Fitch_Stores,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Abercrombie_%26_Fi....
- smackeyacky 4y agoI don't know that fashion brands are famously cyclical. Most of the brands haven't been around long enough to have any more than 2 cycles. The first one is the initial popularity. The second one is the dead cat bounce of nostalgia 20 years later. After that, they become costumes, not fashion.
- underwater 4y ago> Twitter has plenty of problems, but "only my crazy uncle uses it" isn't one of them. The crazy uncle vibes are off the charts on Twitter. Considered that the two personalities most entwined with the platform are Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
- Ekaros 4y agoAnd then you have the whole even more mentally unstable group that seems to derive their whole existence from criticising and attacking those...