The U.S. Army, a branch of the armed forces of the American government, is licensing its name to Sears for a line of clothing that will be manufactured, in part, in foreign factories.
Both Sears and its licensor see no contradiction in this arrangement. "We have to be able to price it competitively and do what's best for the consumer," says the company. "Items being purchased are being purchased by private individuals, and the private sector is based on the laws of commerce," adds the military spokesman.
What woeful nonsense
We could start with questioning how or why the Army would ever license its name to a business in the first place. Even though the fees will go to supporting troops and their families, there's something just wrong about auctioning off the good [sic] name of the government. What's next?
- Purses and checkbook covers from the U.S. Treasury
- Breakfast cereal endorsed by the Dept. of Agriculture
- A NASA-themed low-frills commuter airline
- President of the United States-endorsed vacation packages
Secondly, you've got to wonder about the government marketing military-themed merchandise to kids. I know that we all played war in the politically-incorrect 1960s, and I had my very own knock-off uniform customized with real stripes bought at the surplus store. Folks have been wearing camouflage jackets and pants for years.
But military chic? War as fashion? We want our government actively promoting military uniforms to grade schoolers? What will come next? Pre-recruitment applications? Junior tank commander or sniper clubs?
Third, what about the escalation risk with competing retailers? Does Sears get branch exclusivity? Will the U.S. Navy cut a deal with Penney, or the Air Force join with Target? What will keep enterprising competitors from cutting deals with foreign governments?
And then there's a high likelihood that the Army clothing line will fail . Most new brands do, and the rate is far higher in the shirts and pants categories. So somebody with enough authority to make stupid decisions in the hierarchy of the U.S. Army is either bold, or dumb enough, to take this risk.
But what gets me going the most, oddly enough is that the U.S. government license is getting outsourced to foreign factories.
Granted, clothing isn't in the same league as uranium enrichment rods or cruise missiles, but still, you'd think that there'd be some stipulation in the license that required U.S. businesses make the stuff.
Sourcing matters when it comes to making toys with lead-based paints, or less-than-genuine auto replacement parts that might not meet safety codes. It also matters in the rag trade, especially if workers are paid slave wages or, worse, are actually slaves. Will the U.S. government ensure that Sears sources to only top-notch facilities? I doubt it.
Being mercenary in business isn't a crime like it is in geopolitics, but there's just a disconnect here. Past all of the unease I get about the glorification of war, and the idiocy of the commercial endeavor itself. I wonder if consumers will care?
Sourcing matters, in my book.
Link to original post