H&M 'destroying and discarding clothes it cannot sell' in NY

2010-01-08 15:08:08

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5877

The popular clothing chain responded by promising to stop mutilating new clothes that it cannot sell at its Herald Square outlet and will instead donate the items to charity.

There had been outrage on websites, blogs and H&M's own Facebook page after a graduate student discovered that workers at the store were throwing out bags of clothing after slashing the items with box cutters or razors.

Cynthia Magnus wrote to the company's Swedish headquarters after she found bags of cut-up clothes behind the store in the heart of Manhattan's shopping district. When she received no reply, she alerted the New York Times to the practice.

New York's unemployment rate stands at more than 10 per cent and the city has been making extra shelter space for its homeless population during the current freezing temperatures. Families reliant on food stamps stand at record numbers.

So the destruction of new clothing to make it unusable - fingers were cut off gloves and men's jackets were slashed apart so that insulating fibre spilled out - was greeted with anger and disbelief.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … in-NY.html
So lets say a high end brand has a bunch of clothes they cannot sell but don't to tarnish the brand name by having their clothes fashioned by homeless folk so they destroy the clothes. Do you think they did the wrong thing to destroy clothes that could be reused or do you think protecting their brand name is more important than helping out vagrants?

2010-01-08 15:09:45

#2

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6702|'Murka

Why not ship the stuff to Africa or Central America or something to help clothe people who don't have any clothes? Their brand is out of the public eye in their primary market(s) and they are able to do some good.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-01-08 20:09:53

#3

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6397|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Why not ship the stuff to Africa or Central America or something to help clothe people who don't have any clothes? Their brand is out of the public eye in their primary market(s) and they are able to do some good.

Fuck Israel

2010-01-08 20:14:35

#4

Canin: Conservative Roman Catholic; +280|6766|Foothills of S. Carolina

FEOS wrote:
Why not ship the stuff to Africa or Central America or something to help clothe people who don't have any clothes? Their brand is out of the public eye in their primary market(s) and they are able to do some good.

This, or just remove the labels from the clothing and donate it to the shelters.

2010-01-08 20:31:27

#5

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6998|67.222.138.85

Can of spray paint should make everyone happy.

2010-01-08 20:40:52

#6

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6788

https://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/245830748_08005f6c40.jpg

2010-01-08 20:50:06

#7

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5993|College Park, MD

That's retarded. Imagine the excellent press they'd get if they donated their clothes to shelters.

Now people might think of them as "H&M", the people who'd rather burn old clothes than give them to homeless people and kids in Africa.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2010-01-08 22:43:33

#8

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6513|teh FIN-land

well H&M have used child labour to make their clothes in the past - how the fuck else will they keep prices down? - so this isn't surprising in the slightest.

2010-01-09 00:01:38

#9

Benzin: Member; +576|6289

H&M is a high-end brand in the US? Wow.

OK - well I don't know why they wouldn't donate them in some way. Just take the tags off them if they're that worried about it. But then donating stuff like that would be a major tax write-off... why the hell wouldn't H&M do that?

2010-01-09 01:06:21

#10

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7007

This is just a major wtf.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-01-09 08:38:32

#11

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6702|'Murka

CapnNismo wrote:
H&M is a high-end brand in the US? Wow.

OK - well I don't know why they wouldn't donate them in some way. Just take the tags off them if they're that worried about it. But then donating stuff like that would be a major tax write-off... why the hell wouldn't H&M do that?

Never heard of it, tbh.

The spray paint thing is an interesting idea...but then that would probably become another trend.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-01-09 08:41:35

#12

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6912|London, England

Well, firstly I doubt you could call them a high end brand. Secondly, yeah its stupid on their part. Bad press and dubious morals. Plus burning = all that carbon nonsense. Just bad business/marketing all round! Well maybe not bad business, probably cheaper to just burn it all then donate it around, maybe, I don't know

2010-01-09 08:54:33

#13

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5993|College Park, MD

Burning it = buying gasoline

Donating it = just having some flunky stand outside and give away clothes

2010-01-09 08:56:25

#14

Lucien: Fantasma Parastasie; +1,451|6944

Since when is this a new practice?

The telegraph and whoever else are creating a shitstorm for their own sake.

2010-01-09 09:17:52

#15

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6859|Mountains of NC

I could think of better ways for them to use there clothes then just destorying them ......... even if they didn't want to give them to chartys

and after looking at there store locator they are very scarce in the South East ... take what clothes they want to destory and open a few shop in the south ....

or use them as shit paper (standing)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2010-01-09 09:21:25

#16

jord: Member; +2,382|6969|The North, beyond the wall.

I'm not bothered about the moral dilemma aspect but surely it's bad business not just because of bad press but you can always sell clothes at reduced price...

2010-01-09 09:26:05

#17

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7007

One reason it could be people might be taking the "free" clothes and selling them. That's the only thing I could think of.

2010-01-09 10:15:15

#18

Lucien: Fantasma Parastasie; +1,451|6944

No, this is done for the sake of the store's image.

2010-01-09 14:50:10

#19

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6882

The excess product belongs to the store - what they do with it is their business.

Is the city of New York going to support the H&M brand, if their reputation becomes "Vagrant Wear"?

And the graduate student that 'discovered' the destroyed clothing behind the store..
WTF. If you can go to graduate school, you can walk in the front door to buy the clothes, rather than root around in the dumpster out back for free loots.

Is looting dumpsters behind clothing stores the new cool hipster activity? Wear expensive clothes, but ironically because you dumpster dove for it, but double ironically because you're a grad student that could've afforded it, but triple ironically, because you sent a letter alerting the NYT they should be giving it away free, but quadruple ironically....

And, Alert the New York Times! They used boxcutters - and everyone knows that terrurists use boxcutterz!!

And, omg, because H&M throws out clothes, New York has a 10% unemployment rate and people are freezing and OMG! Be ANGRY! Be shocked with DISBELIEF! those are your issued emotions, wear them well, citizen!

[note: Above mockingly done in the style of the quoted OP article]

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-01-09 14:52:37)

2010-01-09 14:56:41

#20

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,983|6923|949

They did do whatever they wanted - they just felt the public backlash. Yes, it's people bitching about stuff that probably doesn't even affect them, but if H&M wants to have a better public image they have to appease 'the public'.

2010-01-09 15:19:40

#21

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6882

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
They did do whatever they wanted - they just felt the public backlash. Yes, it's people bitching about stuff that probably doesn't even affect them, but if H&M wants to have a better public image they have to appease 'the public'.

And by the public, you mean a journalist with a flair for yellow journalism and talent for manufacturing 'this is what you should think' writing for the mush-heads?

It's okay to smear a company for not giving stuff away for free.
Nowhere in the article is there any call for, say, donations of old clothes to Good Will, contributions from the public to buy the clothes at 50% off to donate to the homeless, or any other reasonable solution.
No - just shame and smear, and demand something for free.

Even though I agree with the philosophy of "If you have extra, give it to those that have none" - I have an allergic reaction to the writing style of the quoted journalist. Leni Riefenstahl comes to mind.

Could pick apart the obvious propaganda techniques used, but instead I just exaggerated and reversed it in my previous post.
Humor over technicality.

The line "So the destruction of new clothing to make it unusable - fingers were cut off gloves and men's jackets were slashed apart so that insulating fibre spilled out - was greeted with anger and disbelief.".
Was greeted by... who? Nice parting note of free-floating anger and disbelief for people to soak up. Manufactured and issued opinions & emotions, set free of the OpEd section, to free-range across the whole of the paper. Gotta love the NYT.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-01-09 15:26:41)

2010-01-09 20:13:40

#22

Dauntless: Admin; +2,249|7033|London

H&M isn't exactly a high end brand but I can understand why they did it, with the high end brands you're paying mostly for exclusivity, and if every cock sucking homeless bitch on the street had a prada bag, gucci shoes and tom ford dress it's hardly appealing to fashion connoisseurs and rich wives.

2010-01-09 23:47:11

#23

ruisleipa: Member; +149|6513|teh FIN-land

rdx-fx wrote:
And by the public, you mean a journalist with a flair for yellow journalism and talent for manufacturing 'this is what you should think' writing for the mush-heads?

well the person who broke the story was a meber of 'the public'. And what, journos aren't members of 'the public' anymore?

2010-01-10 01:01:50

#24

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7007

ruisleipa wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
And by the public, you mean a journalist with a flair for yellow journalism and talent for manufacturing 'this is what you should think' writing for the mush-heads?
well the person who broke the story was a meber of 'the public'. And what, journos aren't members of 'the public' anymore?

It is just shitty journalism. You report the news, not the opinions of selected individuals. Hell they didn't even quote anyone.

2010-01-10 02:07:38

#25

=NHB=Shadow: hi; +322|6657|California

I would too, I wouldn't like to be classified with people that wear shirts from Wal-Mart.
Just kidding, thats some fked up shit yo! even walmart did that!! wtf!
BRAH

BF2S Forums H&M 'destroying and discarding clothes it cannot sell' in NY

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Board footer