Cohen's argument states that companies have the right to hire by how people look. He also argues that this practice is important and almost necessary to a business' success in the market especially in modern days. I completely agree with this idea and think that if done carefully and correctly, it can be pulled off with a minimal amount of problems. Franchises can continue to achieve what they want and have no worries about people getting angry at how they work.
There are only two things a store wants to accomplish in their business, and that is to please the customers and gain a profit. Since these are the two most important things that contribute to a business' or clothing line's success, they will go all out to achieve those goals. Some even go beyond the extra mile and try to gain attention by putting out something controversial, one example could be how American Apparel's advertisements are getting more and more racy. They continue to show more skin and have models pose in questionable ways. This only goes to show how far and controversial some brands are willing to go just to sell their product.
In today's society we get influenced by our environment no matter what we do. If enough people do one thing then you're going to want to do the same thing eventually. This principle is used with clothing stores for as long as it's been around. Stores generally go into the market with an idea of what style they want to go for: punk, prep, skater, indie, etc. It only makes sense for those businesses to hire people that represent the brand well. For example, if you went to Zumiez and saw an old lady or man working the counter and helping customers, you would think that he/she looks out of place. You would expect to see someone like that working at a Ross or GAP. Instead, if you're going into someplace like Zumiez or Tilly's then you would expect to see young people working the counter and helping people.
Another thing that people might not be able to think of right away is that when stores hire a certain type of person, that person might naturally have more knowledge about what the brand is representing. Young people are more into fashion than the older generation so they can assist the customers and represent the brand better. It's the same thing for things like running a bike shop, you want to hire people that know what they're doing and have an extensive knowledge in cycling. Clothing stores want to hire people that are up to date with the current fashion and can help other people achieve that, and so it only turns out that the people that fit that description are young people who have a good sense of style.
People underestimate the amount of things that gets us to buy things at a store. There are certain things that a store does that make us feel welcome, comfortable, and relaxed enough to buy something. Stores like Hollister start their advertising right from the front door. Hollister stores have a front that resembles a beach house so customers already feel like they're walking into an exotic and tropical destination. The store also fits the store with really dim lighting coupled with music to create a certain atmosphere that makes customers feel comfortable. All of this combined with a charismatic young employee make an almost perfect formula for people to buy things. The atmosphere is already set plus there's this attractive employee with tons of charisma talking to you about the products and the sales they're having when you're probably not even paying attention and continue to nod your head while you look at them in admiration. At some point in there they've successfully swooned you into buying something that's ridiculously expensive. Yeah, it's true.
The immorality of 'hiring for looks' is easily dispelled when you look at it in a logical sense. There is nothing wrong in a situation where a clothing line wants to hire employees that represent them well. The concept is simple, stores have a certain look they go for and they hire the appropriate people to achieve that look. They might even disregard the more important things that a company looks for in an employee. Productivity, knowledge, perseverance, innovation, and cooperation are possible things that companies overlook when looking for people to hire and that is one of the risks they take when they want a certain type of person to represent the company. As long as they are excellent representatives and have the ability to maintain a steady flow of sales, they are good employees in the company's eyes. The experience that older potential employees have aren't as important.
That also brings up another thing. The only part where stores hire good looking people is when they have to work as a clerk or someone who just organizes clothes and greets people as they come in. If you think about it, that's where those kinds of people belong. The people that get hired that aren't exactly 'good looking' may just be in a place where you can't see them. They could be working in the back doing more important things that keep the store more organized and easier to run. Or it might be someone who designs the advertisements and everything inside the store. Those types of people actually contribute the same if not more than the people who are out and about on the sales floor. These people don't need to look good or be able to represent the company well, they have exactly what they need for their job, experience. This is also the same for the clerks and salespeople, they have exactly what they need, the look. It's all a matter of hiring the right people for the right job.
To conclude, I think that the whole discriminatory issue of hiring because of looks is stupid. The companies are only hiring the right kind of people for the right kind of job. They are not discriminating on anyone, rather they are only hiring people who represent the company well. Stores should be able to hire anyone they see fit.
