Some Lands’ End Customers Unhappy About Receiving “Gift” Of GQ Mag With Racy Cover

A recent Lands’ End catalog on the left. The GQ that caused the uproar on the right.

We’re not quite sure why the people at Lands’ End — a catalog that sometimes makes LL Bean look like Victoria’s Secret — would ever think that its customers would want free copies of GQ magazine. The two brands don’t exactly scream synergy. This was made all the more evident this week when Lands’ End customers opened their mailboxes to find a copy of GQ featuring an oiled-up and undressed Emily Ratajkowski, topless but for a strategically placed lei, on the cover.

The NY Times has a round-up of some of the things that angry customers have been writing on the Lands’ End Facebook page.

One mom writes that her 14-year-old son was “quite disturbed & fascinated” by the magazine, which she described as having “an absolutely OBSCENE cover!!!”

Another customer who apparently likes to pile on her end punctuation asked, “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???”

Of course, there are numerous comments on the Facebook page defending the cover — or at least making the case that it’s not, as many others described it, pornographic.

“I hope national geographic never goes to their house!” writes one woman. “I mean JEEZ, you know the half naked people in that MIGHT just MIGHT Arouse someone.”

“Your 14 year old has seen a woman without a top on,” adds another commenter, who also cites National Geographic (am I the only one who doesn’t instantly think of Nat Geo being a flesh fest?)

Regardless of whether or not a teenage boy has seen bared breasts, Lands’ End CEO Edgar Huber issued a “my bad” to customers who were offended.

“I would like to start by extending my most sincere apologies,” he wrote, explaining that GQ was included in a partnership deal with Condé Nast to bring free issues of the publishing giant’s various magazines to customers’ attention, because “we did not want to exclude our male customers.”

But, he adds, “There are simply no excuses; this was a mistake.”

by Chris Morran via Consumerist