Trazee In-Depth: Urban Outfitter’s Shockingly Recent Brand Fails

Established in Philadelphia, Pa., by liberal, activist-minded college graduates, Urban Outfitters has become synonymous with the millennial demographic. Apparently, even a hipster brand can create offensive products and non-politically-correct branding choices.

The once liberal leaders of Urban Outfitters, Free People and Anthropologie have changed quite a bit since the company’s inception. Urban Outfitter’s CEO Richard Hayne is one of the credited original founders and is now a conservative party donor. Hayne’s political alignment isn’t the only controversial aspect of the company’s recent history.

In recent years, Urban Outfitters came under fire for shocking brand choices — some possibly an unintentional misunderstanding, while others were a bit more on the nose. Urban Outfitters customers saw a parade of shocking apparel, design choices and prices roll through the market, but there are a few biggest losers that stick out in the crowd.

Let’s begin with a $70 wall tapestry — the fabric’s grey and white stripes with pink triangle patterns was found deeply offensive by the Anti-Defamation League, as it resembles the uniforms homosexual prisoners were forced to wear in Nazi concentration camps. This pattern was found again on pajama bottoms sold by Urban Outfitters and was pulled from stores and online. Once the offensive nature of the pattern was brought to headquarter’s attention, UO complied and apologized for the mistake.

The Vintage Finds line at Urban Outfitters resells items company buyers find at yard sales and flea markets. One of these items happened to be a vintage Kent State sweatshirt. The sweatshirt was a tattered, off-white and pink color with what looked like fake splattered blood on the front, selling for $129. The problem here is that on May 4, 1970, the Ohio National Guard gunned down four unarmed Kent State students during a Vietnam War protest — making the color splattering, intentional or not, of the vintage sweatshirt offensive. UO’s reps explained this was unintentional, but the sweatshirt was later sold and resold on eBay for an obscene price.

Another unintentional reference, the Wood Wood Kellog Tee displayed a star logo a little too close for comfort to the Star of David patch Jewish victims were forced to wear in Nazi Germany. UO reps explained the star was a company logo of the t-shirt’s manufacturer and didn’t represent the Star of David in any way, but the item called enough negative attention from shoppers to have something done about it.

Some cultural appropriation was even thrown into the long list of offenses with the UO Navajo fashion craze. The clothing company was asked to remove the word “Navajo” from its clothing descriptions by Sasha Houston Brown, a member of the Santee Sioux Nation. The Navajo Nation holds 12 trademarks on the word Navajo and its uses, making it impossible for UO to legally use the tribal name for their hipster panties or anything else.

Even some small businesses found themselves in controversy when Chicago-based jewelry designer, Stevie Koerner’s United States of Love Line, was found copied and sold on Urban Outfitters’ website. The jewelry line was eventually pulled from UO’s site and received little mention from the company.

Some of UO’s designs were less able to get away with the “unintentional” defense as the offensive nature was printed in black and white. Literally. The famous Eat Less shirt worn by the noticeably thin model online was met with backlash from offended shoppers along with several shirts, one of which came in “Obama Black” as a color option.

Even family-fun games weren’t safe from UO’s branding choices, including the Monopoly knock-off called Ghettopoly. The offensive game came out in 2003 and did not last long on UO’s shelves. With some racist imagery, game cards and accessories, Ghettopoly was a long way away from our beloved thimble-slinging game of Monopoly.

One item pulled from UO’s shelves caused a reverse offense from customers. One blogger wrote about their distaste for a t-shirt displaying equal rights and equal marriage messages on it, prompting UO to immediately pull the shirt from stores and online. To appease one disgruntled customer, UO managed to upset an entire group of people.

The retail market is incredibly difficult on its own without factoring in politics, controversial statements and the rich tapestry of cultures within our one country; however, a few of UO’s mistakes seem fairly obvious and offensive.

In a detailed and informative interview with Philly Mag, UO representatives and board members explain the complicated intricacies behind their merchandise and buying options and how difficult it is to please everyone. Some responses admit the mistakes made were big ones and easily avoidable, while others were a bit more complicated.

Born out of rebellious ambition and the idea of free, urban citizens, UO has clearly found its niche market of buyers. The only issue is, now, UO has to keep up with the times and the audience.

If you want to get a visual on some of UO’s more offensive items, check out these lists from Buzzfeed, The Week and The Ranker.