Hey Harry Reid, shutty it. Your misplaced outrage is laughable.

Seriously Harry, go walk around your house and count the percentage of stuff that was made elsewhere. And maybe that's a problem, don't want to get into labor and trade politics here, but acting "shocked and outraged" by this is beyond ridiculous.

Of all the problems facing this country and this world, the Senate Majority Leader actually took the time to rage against what is EASILY the biggest non-issue in the history of the olympics.

Take a bow Harry Reid, you've just moved to the front of the idiot line. And by the way, none of the clothes you wear to congress everyday were made in America.

Saturday, July 14, 2012 at 10:07pm EDT

mcjack - I've got no problem with you hammering Reid as an idiot but not for this. Seems I remember you've called yourself out as a marketing guy before on this blog. If that's actually the case then the real question is why is it that you think this doesn't matter, given the importance of product positioning and an understanding of the Olympic Games context? I'm not getting it. I'm sure Ralph Lauren did it solely to increase their margin. The fact that they were so politically and strategically tone deaf is on them and the USOC.

I'm also thinking that most people can differentiate between buying Chinese made products at Target, Walmart or the Men's Warehouse and the USOC buying our Olympic Team outfits from China. Not so much a commodity and the fact that so many ostensibly smart people in these organizations didn't understand it was an issue says tons about their lack of maturity and calls out some future professional development opportunities for them.

Sunday, July 15, 2012 at 2:51pm EDT

I don't think it matters for a variety of reasons.

Foremost, this reeks of faux political outrage meant to curry favor with the "buy american" crowd. And again, there is significant room for debate about the right and wrong of our current trade and labor policies, but to finger this seemingly out of the blue seems hypocritical and opportunistic. I can listen to grass-roots outrage over this, but Reid has nothing to add to this conversation.

Second, product positioning has nothing to do with origin of manufacture, so from a marketing standpoint the issue is moot. And if RL did it solely to increase profit margin then there's a word for that, business. If I could charge the same but make it cheaper then I have an obligation as a businessman to do so. Symbolism is for social politics, not business.

Third, maybe I'm just apathetic, but honsestly, I just really don't care. I don't even bother to look where the stuff I buy was made. If I like it and it's within my budget, I buy it. This isn't the 50's. We are a global economy. I'm not going to call the USOC to the carpet when I probably wear suits made in wherever everyday to work. I just can't see losing any sleep over this.

Look, I can understand how this could be a source of contention for some, but for the politicos to come running out of the woodwork and demanding that the uniforms be piled and burned is just silly to me. Especially since it is within the framework of commerce that they helped create that makes such things possible.

Sunday, July 15, 2012 at 9:20pm EDT

Some good points, but gotta disagree with you on the marketing thing. The USOC fully leverages itself in the patriotic space, in fact that is probably the most important aspect of their brand. It's certainly business for Ralph Lauren to maximize their profits but it is also business for the USOC to protect their brand for the long term. Someone on the strategic planning / branding side at the USOC should have thought this through and provided for U.S. production instead of allowing a vendor to make the decision and put the brand at risk from a PR standpoint. Theoretically that's what the senior people at the USOC are being paid to do.

It's not the end of the world, just a totally avoidable screw up that someone should have been in front of and contracted around.

Monday, July 16, 2012 at 8:45am EDT