In a Business Insider article written 2/9/2017, A Nordstrom representative was quoted saying the following “Each year we cut about 10% [of brands carried] and refresh our assortment with about the same amount.”
This statement provokes my interest. Mainly because I bear in mind one of Nordstrom Racks most recent brand cuts…none other then a fashion line titled Ivanka Trump. Donald Trump took to Twitter tweeting the following yesterday morning:
There seems to be a clear clash of heads here between the Trumps and Nordstrom. What is particularly interesting to me is that while the company may cut 10% of brands carried a year, the decision to drop this particular fashion line occurred during a time when their consumers were so called boycotting retailers who carried Trump products. Additionally, a spokesperson from Ivanka Trump’s fashion line stated that sales, especially at Nordstrom Rack, have only been on the up and up. Since Nordstrom Rack’s decision, other big named retailers have dropped Trump products. One such retailer includes Neiman Marcus.
I found out about this whole to do after reading an article from Business Insider. I think this event is very much worthy of discussion as the conflict occurring here has a lot to do with some of the fundamental issues we have been examining in this class. One of the inherent responsibilities of a corporation is to balance and serve the interests and demands of its stakeholders. This is one of the central reasons why businesses need to exist in the first place. Nordstrom Rack pulled Ivanka Trump’s fashion line after discovering that a huge portion of its stakeholders (costumers) were being effected negatively by the choices of the company. It then makes sense to cut the line not only to meet the interests and demands of its stakeholders, but also to remain a self interested entity that looks to maximize its future profits. Leaving Ivanka’s line on the racks at Nordstrom therefor may of challenged future profits.
While I do agree in doing what’s best for the company, their has to be a line drawn between satisfying stakeholders while remaining a self interested company, and being fair as well as ethical. Business is business, and I get that Ivanka Trump’s name may of jeopardized future business. However, dropping a fashion line that is generating profits for a retail company, and doing so after an inauguration where a fair number of people were generally dissatisfied reeks of an agenda. If there was indeed an agenda, I believe such a company may be negatively impacted by the Iron Law of Responsibility. Such a law states that in the long run, those who don’t use power in the eyes society considers responsible will lose it. What is your take?
Peterson, Hayley. “Trump Slams Nordstrom for Dropping Ivanka’s Fashion Line.” Business Insider. Business Insider, 08 Feb. 2017. Web. 09 Feb. 2017