“Land’s End” now delivers more than wholesome, khaki-filled catalogues to mailboxes nationwide. The preppy mainstay recently caught heat for offending its subscribers.

 

This August, select subscribers were outraged to find a corresponding copy of GQ Magazine, featuring a barely clothed Emily Ratajkowski. The model and actress was featured in a summer swimsuit photoshoot, barely covered by a singular Hawaiian lei.

 

So why is the mostly conservative brand dealing in swimsuit/stripper wannabe? “Land’s End” struck a yearlong deal with the magazine’s New York publisher, “Condé Nast,” to reward its best customers with magazines “highlighting fashion and lifestyle topics,” according to the New York Times. Not an unfamiliar fate for magazines trying their best to survive despite today’s looming doom for print media.

 

An alarmingly bad decision on the brand’s part rears its ugly self here. The first mistake was aligning itself with a brand nowhere in congruence with its image. By even offering a GQ freebie to its subscription package, “Land’s End” didn’t appeal to its actualized target segment. Which dads are actually clipping monogram details, anyway? With the brand’s CEO apologizing and mentioning the option as a way to placate to its male audience, the brand failed to to honor its real market. A deadly second mistake.

 

The actual target market had much to say about the partnership faux pas. Moms across the United States took to social media to voice their concerns. Top highlights included the following complaints:

 

“I ordered Christian private school children’s uniforms from your company and you sold my home address to a magazine company that peddles in soft porn for men???.”

 

Then there’s this.

 

“We received your ‘Lands’ End Bonus’ of GQ magazine this weekend, and we are absolutely horrified. How can buying something as family friendly as school uniforms lead to soft porn in the mailbox? I’m thankful my son did not bring in the mail.”

 

A word of advice for “Land’s End” and all other brands for that matter: do not neglect the wishes and whims of your target consumer; an angry mom’s wrath sees no end. The brand may or may not recover in the eyes of their consumers, but if the corporation was actually paying attention, this probably could have been avoided. After all, no one wants to deal with an angry mom.

 

So, what do you think of iconic “Land’s End” featuring copies of GQ as gifts to its subscribers? What would you do if your child toted the magazine while outfitted in Christian school uniform? Share your thoughts in the comments or tweet me @Kelseymbro