[Essay]: Going for the Look

                What Marshal Cohen is talking about is a hiring tactic used by retails stores to market their brand in a certain way. Popular brands such as American Apparel and Abercrombie and Fitch have built up a reputation of hiring their employees at their retail store based solely off their appearance instead of their actual performance. This tactic presents the problem of discrimination against those that do not necessarily fit the brand’s image. Often times, although these people may be hired, they will be forced to work in the back of the store, performing inventory and such instead of being on the floor. I believe that this act violates the terms for equal employment given throughout the United States.

                Robert L. Heilbroner in the article, “Don’t let stereotypes warp your judgment” insists that the human mind uses stereotypes to simplify its world, helping complex relations become understandable; therefore, it makes sense that advertisement would take advantage of this habit.  Instead of feeding the consumer with multitudes of information such as prices, materials, and sizing, it is much easier to just blatantly confront them with attractive people.  Essentially, the people who work on the floor become walking billboards for these companies.  Psychologically, this conveys the message to the customer, that if the workers look so attractive wearing these clothes, it will make me look good as well. There is no question about it, these types of hiring tactics are smart and effective. However, just because hiring based off of attractive people is not an illegal act, it does not mean it should be done.

I would have to disagree with Cohen’s quote. I think that employees should be hired based off of their performance at the store and their experience. In fact, I would even go as far out to say that it is more important to hire people based off of their personality than their appearance. Customers at stores love to be treated as nicely as possible, and even if you look attractive, it certainly does not make your personality automatically follow suit. Most of what an employer does at retail clothing chains involves interactions with customers. I would think that a person with good people skills, as well as working well under pressure would be a criteria that would be beneficial, rather than focusing on the beauty.

Personally, I think customer satisfaction is the main goal in retail. It ensures returning customers, who become loyal to your brand. Their gender and race shouldn’t be an issue in this situation because it is purely irrelevant. Although I do agree that good looking employees do capture the attention of the consumer, I can not imagine how it would directly lead to sales. For example, in Abercrombie and Fitch stores most of the male models are dressed half naked and just stand around. How does this image derive people to make them want to buy products? Simply because they saw somebody who was good looking in a store doesn’t mean they would want to buy the clothes there.  Simply by wearing the product will not cause you to become instantaneously buff, or have curves. It will not automatically make you shed those extra pounds, nor will it give you smooth skin. Simply saying, buying clothes from stores with beautiful people will not make you beautiful.

When it comes down to it, the key to getting sales should be through the product. Consumers care about basic and essential things: prices, quality, and customer service. That is why I think brands like American Apparel are selling their products wrongly, and it could be a major factor in why they are basically bankrupt right now. Their clothes are very thinly made, and are often simple colors with outrageous prices. A simple black jacket from them can cost anything between $40-$60, where instead you can buy basically the same one from a different store for $20. I always believed that the only appeal that American Apparel had over other stores was that their clothing was actually made in America. So buying the expensive clothing was somewhat justifiable because it would be feeding our own economy. Through trying to market your brands with simply aesthetic appeal will not build success.

I can understand how others would feel discriminated against through these methods. It almost gives an edge to everyone who meets the criteria of 'beauty' to the brand. Like Abercrombie and Fitch or American Apparel models are mostly white, skinny, and tall. It is almost as if you don't look like them yourself, you would be put at a disadvantage trying to work for them. Nothing in the job description does it say that looks ever had to be a requirement in the retail industry, yet brands are quickly shifting to this marketed strategy towards the average consumer.

In conclusion, the general public consumer that meet the demograph to these sort of brands are plain stupid. The only reason that this method is still ongoing and even becoming a major issue is because it's working. People buy into the idea of beauty so easily, they are so easily manipulated into spending their money to achieve this set idea of beauty. They feed these corporations, who in turn are telling them to spend more to look better. This methodology would have died down quickly if people were more open minded about these types of things and could actually think for themselves and form their own opinions. As the famous saying goes, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." If people weren't so sucked into what the media feeds them, their perspectives on beauty would be much different. Companies are just simply exploiting the insecurities of the individual by hiring beautiful people in their retail stores. It's quite a cruel tactic, but since it works, it doesn't matter. Quite sad isn't it? In the end, it's the product that makes retail companies what they are, not its employers, no matter how attractive they may be.