Reverse Ad Placement: Abercrombie & Fitch Offers To Pay Jersey Shore Cast To Stop Wearing Its Clothing

One of my lifelong commitments is to go to my grave without having seen a single episode of Jersey Shore, a show that from all accounts represents the de-evolution of our species. In a reverse of the booming business of ad placement in television shows, retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has reportedly offered a “substantial payment” to the cast if they would stop wearing their brand clothing on air. The store fears that the obnoxious characters are dragging down their brand.

There is no legal injury or claim to make against celebrities who hurt a business by embracing its products. This, however, could opened up a new market for reverse ad placement payments — pay us or we will show your products to millions.

Mike “the Situation” Sorrentino appears a particularly concern for Abercrombie & Fitch. A spokesman is quoted as saying “We are deeply concerned that Mr. Sorrentino’s association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image. We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans. We have also extended this offer to other members of the cast, and are urgently waiting a response.”

This could finally open up a viable line of revenue for me — featuring myself on the blog wearing clothing to trigger payments from stores. Abercrombie & Fitch has never seen the horror of an endomorphic law professor squeezed into Algonquin shorts and Panther George tee shirt. Of course, the real horror (which I have found in shopping for my nieces) is the demand of $50 from Abercrombie & Fitch for a teeshirt. That could be the subject of its own reality show.

Source: CNN

19 thoughts on “Reverse Ad Placement: Abercrombie & Fitch Offers To Pay Jersey Shore Cast To Stop Wearing Its Clothing”

  1. “Aspirational nature of our brand.” Seriously? How bout some more thongs for 12 year olds! Pretty aspirational A&F.

  2. I’m surprised A&F is still around. Most youth-oriented brands fade away pretty rapidly. Maybe A&F is surprised, too. OTOH, the other often inevitable trend is that a brand loses its cache, which happened to A&F long ago.

  3. I think the problem is Abercrombie & Fitch’s.

    I am an old geazer. I refuse to wear clothes that have the name of the maker plastered all over. Why should I pay them to wear an advertisement for their product? A&F should pay me to wear their clothes.

    If A&F made clothes with their name only on a label inside, no one would know this jerk is wearing A&F’s clothes.

  4. “One of my lifelong commitments is to go to my grave without having seen a single episode of Jersey Shore, a show that from all accounts represents the de-evolution of our species. ”

    Sadly, I don’t believe these shows show the de-evolution of our species. If they did, they would be a lot more interesting.

    I mainly think they show the collision of 24×7 media, Internet, money, on a species rife with ADD and Attention Whoring Disorder.

    Not so much de-evolution, but evolutionarily useful traits punk’d by the 21st century.

  5. firstly…’the aspirational nature of our brand’?

    snobs

    secondly…the only people left watching ‘tv’ are those who are addicted to the numbing quality of it. It is a very good sleeping draught and those ‘reality’ shows only exist to convince people that thier reality is ever so much nicer than someone elses…..hence the need for lack of quality and the lower they go the more the masses think they have it ok. It is the new ‘Opium of the Masses.

    PBS is ok tho….

  6. I’m going to go ahead a disagree. Jersey shore is great television. It’s like a documentary on animal behavior where the researchers actually get to talk to the animals instead of relying on guesses from the scientists.

    Maybe this might finally get clothing manufacturers away from obnoxious tm and logo placement.

  7. Carol, it’s called leverage. “Pay us or we will not blur it out.” Pretty good if you can get the work.

  8. I have seen so many shows where they have blurred out the name or words on clothing or signs. Why pay? Why not just insist on the blurring?
    (and stopping the blurring of the line between “reality” and reality?

  9. Yet another excuse for raising their prices … I wonder what Budget Category paying to not advertise falls under

  10. Frankly, we are not “going,” we are already there. Just watch prime time television for a week on the big three networks. You will never be the same–especially when you run out of brain bleach.

  11. Do you mean reality shows that are not really reality shows are still airing….oh yeah….big brother or sister or something like that…I read some place that it takes 24 to 30 hours of film for every 3 to 5 minutes of TV coverage….Now how real was that…..

    Not to be in bad taste…but Zapruder was ahead of his time….just thinking….maybe it was edited….

  12. Its not just “Jersey Shore” there seems to be an endless stream of ‘reality’ shows around groups of people you would avoid like the plague in real life. Yet they are popular & attract audience. We are going to hell as a society.

Comments are closed.