It’s a strange turn of events, really. A few years back, the sight of a fur coat on a city street would bring out throngs of angry protestors to jeer, yell and throw fake blood. Or, if you prefer, faux blood. This brought out lines of clothing that featured fake fur. Or if you prefer, faux fur.
Given the whimsical nature of our society and PETA wearing out its welcome, some people started to again wear fur. Suddenly, fur again became acceptable in chic and swanky circles, then it started to trim the collars and sleeves of other garments.
To be sure, steadfast legions remained faithful to animal rights and fake fur. That’s OK by me; as long as there is conviction behind an action, there should several options available to us all without slinging faux blood around a room. However, we are starting to see a strange phenomenon.
In an article by Jenni Avins for Quartz.com posted on December 23, 2014, entitled: “Fashion companies just got caught labeling real fur “faux”—again,” we encounter a strange scandal.
According to Ms. Avins:
“On Friday (December 17, 2014), NBC’s Today Show ran a segment in which the reporter Jeff Rossen took five items labeled as faux to be examined at a laboratory. Three coats, a sweater, and a pair of boots—advertised as faux by brands including Michael Kors, Jacadi, and Nordstrom Rack—all turned out to be real fur.”
When the segment aired there was a lot of back-tracking and quickly constructed excuses. For example:
“In the case of a fur-collared coat by Michael Kors’ diffusion line…the material was correctly labeled on the coat itself, but falsely identified as “faux” on the store’s website—‘a clerical error,’ according to a spokesperson…(It was coyote fur.)
Nordstrom acknowledged a similar error; Spokesperson Tara Darrow told Quartz that a copywriter for the company’s Haute Look website was at fault for the misidentified sweater featured on NBC.
Another retailer included in the report, Neiman Marcus, blamed the supplier of a pair of rabbit-fur-trimmed boots, which were labeled as faux fur. ‘Clearly, a mistake has been made on the vendor’s end,” said a spokeswoman in an email. “We have removed the boot from the website and from our stores.”
In fact, the list of excuses goes on and on. It is not just this year.
“Incorrect labeling of fur is a disturbingly common occurrence. Last year, Neiman Marcus settled a similar case with the Federal Trade Commission, after jacket collars and shoe decorations labeled faux were found to be real fur.”
A sad truth
The author of the piece tells us that:
“Some animal furs (such as those of raccoons and rabbits) are relatively cheap, while high-end faux fur that feels as soft as the real thing can be quite expensive.”
It kind of starts to make me wonder.
Is it possible that all of these “clerical errors” and miscommunication to consumers and supplier mistakes may not be mistakes after all? Is there a perception at some retailers that it is simply cheaper to use real fur, instead of fake and wait for something to happen? It is hard to say, but it can’t help but make me wonder.
It is like a vegan being served a hamburger instead of a veggie burger, an Orthodox rabbi being served a piece of pork roast instead of pot roast, or paying for an expensive drug and having the pharmacist substitute a placebo. We hold to certain beliefs and we hope that our beliefs are honored. I think we call it “trust.”
Real versus faux is a strange little battleground. Not to pick on Neiman Marcus, but last year they were found to be selling real fur as fake and they were hauled in front of the Federal Trade Commission. This year, they were again caught in the same situation. You would think that someone within their organization would want to make sure the same thing did not happen again.
How was it that copywriters at both Nordstrom and Michael Kors made the same mistake of writing advertising copy on the websites that said the fur was fake, but that it was in fact real fur? Did no one check the copy? Who conveyed the information?
It is easy to chalk all of this up to much ado about nothing. However, we can’t help but wonder how pervasive these types of practices may be? Ultimately, we cannot always rely on others to be ethical. It is up to us.
Your Comments are Welcome!
