Abercrombie & Fitch - Guilty of "Lookism?" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SecretMethod70 · 12-06-2003, 02:54 AM

Now, the discussion of this company is not a new thing to these boards. We have already discussed their use of sex to market to minors - but I don't remember this particular topic being discussed, and I can see an argument for both sides.

The way I see the issue here, it's not really a question of if it happens or not - it does - but, rather, it's an issue of whether or not there is anything wrong with it. Aside for these two former managers speaking out, I had a good friend who applied for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch this past summer. In his interview, he was told to stand up and the manager then proceeded to walk around him checking him out and said something along the lines of "that'll do" and offered him a job. No questions, no discussion at all even, just a look at his appearance. He turned the job down.

Anyways, here's the article. Personally I'm still undecided on whether or not they have the right to do this. It's an interesting subject.

Quote:

The Look Of Abercrombie & Fitch
Dec. 5, 2003

Two ex-managers for a clothing chain accused of discrimination say corporate representatives of the chain, Abercrombie & Fitch, routinely had them reduce the hours of less attractive salespeople.

The two former managers - who say they were hired for their good looks - appear in a Morley Safer report on the trendy retail chain on 60 Minutes, Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Dan Moon and Andrea Mandrick say Abercrombie & Fitch were after a certain "look" for their sales force, and the less a salesperson had of this look, the less they worked.

"I was sick of getting my schedule back every week with lines through names," says Mandrick. "I can't look the people that work for me, that want to be there, in the eye and...lie to them and say 'Oh, we don't have hours,' when, really, it's because they weren't pretty enough."

Moon, a former model, had a similar experience and says his look is what got him a job. "I think it was 90 percent of it and your interaction with other people was 10 percent," he says.

Black conservative radio host and lawyer Larry Elder, who has talked extensively about the accusations on his program, defends the company. "There is a no-fly zone over certain people and certain industries that discriminate all the time," says Elder.

He likens unattractive people's failure to be hired by Abercrombie & Fitch to white people failing to be hired for on-air work by Black Entertainment Television.

"This is about a business deciding, pursuant to its own best interests, rightly or wrongly, that a particular type of salesperson is more likely to generate more dollars," Elder tells Safer.

A group of minorities suing Abercrombie & Fitch doesn't think the retailer has the right to hire based on a look, a look they say too often is mostly white. "[The look] is dominated by Caucasian, football-looking, blond hair, blue-eyed males. Skinny, tall. You don't see any African American, Asian Americans," says Jennifer Lu, an Asian who says she is suing the retailer for firing her and other Asians because management preferred white males.
Abercrombie & Fitch denies these accusations, but would not speak on camera to 60 Minutes. But the two former managers say what they saw was "lookism" rather than racism.

Mandrick and Moon say applications from minorities were handled the same as a white person's. "File it away in the 'yes' pile...to call them back or the 'no pile,'" says Mandrick. The no pile, she says, was for applications of people whose looks she knew wouldn't pass muster.

© MMIII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...le587099.shtml

ARTelevision · 12-06-2003, 03:14 AM

You got yr'self a point there, Secret.
I'll take a strong stand along side a ya on this one, man.

'course it don't surprise me one bit.
I always knew it was against the law of averages regarding who ends up behind the counter, lookswise...

sixate · 12-06-2003, 04:53 AM

As a company it's their job to target a demographic and get as much business as possible to make a successful company, right? Of course. I could care less what they do to accomplish that. Guys go there to look at hot chics, and chics go there to look at good looking dudes. So what. I have never stepped my foot into one of their stores and never will. Their clothes suck. I hate the Backstreet Boys music, so why the fuck would I wanna look like one of those pussies? If there are a million morons who want to shop/work there I could care less.

Looks matter. So what.

krwlz · 12-06-2003, 06:16 AM

I gotta more or less go with sixate on this one.

Holo · 12-06-2003, 07:03 AM

If you shop there, this is your fault. This is one place that I think define the very meaning of appearance separatism and economic discrimination. It's the manifestation of some of the many things that are wrong with our culture. I mean they have been busted printing racist t shirts, making thongs for 8 year olds and now this. What does it take to put this company out of business?

sailor · 12-06-2003, 07:26 AM

I find myself torn. On the one hand, yeah, it sucks that they are doing this--it is discrimination. On the other hand, they are doing what is in the best interest of their company, and as no one *has* to shop or work there, there isnt a whole lot of ground to attack them.

Personally, I hate them, and wont buy anything from them (wouldnt work there either).

CandleInTheDark · 12-06-2003, 07:38 AM

I don't see a problem with looks being a top priority for a company. If they're prepared to miss good employees because of looks, they'll have to suffer the consequences.

ARTelevision · 12-06-2003, 08:09 AM

I'm not sayin' they don't have the legal right to do what they want. What I am sayin' is they add nonsense (a)esthetics to the culture. Personally, I don't find these mass-media-market-demographic-crafted image types attractive. I do find them insidious, pernicious, and ubiquitous in our culture. And I see that as being to our detriment.

empu · 12-06-2003, 10:22 AM

I can't find anything wrong with it. If a modeling agency can make a hiring decision based on looks, I'm at a loss to know where to draw the line. If I'm a shareholder in a retailer and I learn they've been losing sales to a competitor because the competitor is hiring a better looking sales force, I'd want them to do the same to stay competitive.

Evil Milkman · 12-06-2003, 10:33 AM

I'm so incredibly in the middle on this one. Part of me wants to say that Abercrombie's behavior is outright discrimination, but another part says that it's just business (of course, maybe it's not great business, because Abercrombie's sales are down 13%, or so I've recently read).

This same topic could be brought up for Hooters, too. I was eating there, and it got me thinking. What keeps them from some unattractive/overweight person from filing a major complaint and possibly sue. The question; is it Hooters/Abercrombie's right to choose to not hire someone because of only aesthetics? Hard question, great for discussion.

herostar · 12-06-2003, 10:40 AM

it's true, I knew there was a reason why all of the people working there were pretty good looking (I say this with an unblemished record or heterosexuality)

TM875 · 12-06-2003, 10:45 AM

This is like feeling bad because a fat chick didn't get a job at Hooters.

It's just part of the industry.

twotimesadingo · 12-06-2003, 10:47 AM

edit *see below*

twotimesadingo · 12-06-2003, 10:49 AM

As a matter of economic principle, I believe that if we're going to say that the United States is a capitalist country (and we can make distinctions as to what kind of capitalist, be it welfare, progressive, what have you), then we allow for a private company to make hiring decisions based on whatever qualifications they so choose. As empu noted, it is ridiculous to try to draw a line between one job and another, because it really doesn't make it difference. Furthermore, as CandleInTheDark said, they miss out on employees who as people have probably had to rely on their intelligence and personality a lot more than the quasi-models strutting themselves in the store window.

On a side note, I'd like to say that if given the opportunity I would hit Jennifer Lu, and those like her. With a truck.
I personally don't believe that the store promotes one particular racial group over another (take a look at their catalogues, and you'll see asses and breasts of all colors), but even conceding that point, her argument presents a blatant double standard. Disregarding that a store can cater to whatever damned demograpic it wants, it's absurd to say that A&F is racially disriminatory if you're not going to pick out the plethora of other companies that cater to other ethnic or racial groups. It's all subjective at that point.

Finchie · 12-06-2003, 12:25 PM

I personally see nothing wrong with this. It's their company, their choices. What next? Ugly people suing model agencies because they won't hire them?

phaedrus · 12-06-2003, 12:50 PM

That is brilliant! They could get around it if they were casting instead of hiring. If they write their employee handbook in such a way as to include protections given to entertainment businesses, they could discriminate against the ugly. I've heard rumours that the Disney stores do something like this for their hiring process.

Phaenx · 12-06-2003, 01:19 PM

I'm not big on "equal" opportunity hiring practices, I think businesses have a right to hire whoever they want, based on qualifications rather then hiring a bunch of bumblefucks they need to look diverse. That said, I have no problem with Ambercombie and Fitch excluding the uglies. Furthermore, I'd also like to extend my warmest "suck it up" to all of those people who have had their feelings hurt by being excluded by said business.

bermuDa · 12-06-2003, 01:19 PM

I was thinking the same thing, phaedrus. Their rationale is the same as casting directors: sex sells. a crappy movie with a sexy lead role will still generate revenue.

Only when the consumers wise up and prove these marketing techniques are ineffective will these hiring/casting practices cease.

sixate · 12-06-2003, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Finchie
I personally see nothing wrong with this. It's their company, their choices. What next? Ugly people suing model agencies because they won't hire them?

Or a supermodel suing a place that needs a plus size model.

World's King · 12-06-2003, 01:40 PM

Saddly and oddly enough I am a former Asst. Maneger of an Abercrombie & Fitch store. I was hired not only for my skills in retail management but for my looks. It's a very well known thing in that company. You work there if you are hot. If not... you don't even try to get a job. Their target buyer is the attractive 15-25yr old. It's hard to sell an image when it's an ugly one.

chrisg299 · 12-06-2003, 02:08 PM

Funny you people brought up this story, we just recently opened a A@F at our local mall down here and I just stopped in there today to look around and see what's up and funny enough every worker there was good lookin...I agree with the story and I also agree with someone posted previously that guys go there to loook at the hot chicks and girls go there for the guys...it just makes sense.

lurkette · 12-06-2003, 02:54 PM

Why don't they go the next step and exlude ugly people from buying/wearing their clothes? They wouldn't want unattractive customers tarnishing their image.

Please. It's one thing to say they have a right to hire who they want; it's another for them to cut back on the hours of "unattractive" (says who?) employees. If they're getting the job done, if their sales figures are otherwise acceptable, this is discrimination pure and simple. Let me re-emphasize that "says who?" If they have certain qualifications that must be met and they include arbitrarily defined "aesthetic" ones, they should publish the standard and be above-board about it and take their PR knocks (which they're taking anyhow), rather than trying to appear egalitarian (

) but secretly sabotaging their less than Ubermenschian salespersons.

guthmund · 12-06-2003, 11:05 PM

Absolutely, if you're going to continue the policy of hiring the pretty folk at least be up front about it.

The sad thing is that this episode isn't the even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this practice. It's been an unspoken rule in business for a long time. We bitch and complain about the service, or lack thereof, but the fact of the matter is for vast majority we'd rather be served and waited on by pretty people then competent. If we're lucky to get both...feather in our cap!

I have been in position to hire and fire a couple of times and although the jobs were vastly different the ideology was the same when hiring: no dogs and no fatties.

It's not right, but the company is only doing what their customer base has silently agreed with. They buy the clothes and they like to buy them from pretty people. Superficial and pretentious customers set superficial and pretentious policy. Surprise!?!

Soggybagel · 12-06-2003, 11:14 PM

Yeah its not that big of a deal. I can see where you are coming from Lukrette as it does leave a sour taste in my mouth, but the bottom line exists that no matter the job if you are "ugly" you have less of a chance getting hired in almost all job situations.

Phaenx · 12-06-2003, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
Why don't they go the next step and exlude ugly people from buying/wearing their clothes? They wouldn't want unattractive customers tarnishing their image.

Please. It's one thing to say they have a right to hire who they want; it's another for them to cut back on the hours of "unattractive" (says who?) employees. If they're getting the job done, if their sales figures are otherwise acceptable, this is discrimination pure and simple. Let me re-emphasize that "says who?" If they have certain qualifications that must be met and they include arbitrarily defined "aesthetic" ones, they should publish the standard and be above-board about it and take their PR knocks (which they're taking anyhow), rather than trying to appear egalitarian () but secretly sabotaging their less than Ubermenschian salespersons.

They don't ban ugly people from wearing their clothes because their goal is to make money (although, I wouldn't mind if they'd ban fat people from wearing belly shirts). Upon accomplishing said goal, the next step is making more money. A good formula if I do say so myself.

Says who is them. They say, and they should be (and are) able to. If you do hire ugly people your sales figures will suffer as well, I saw not so long ago a report which showed that good looking people make more money on average, and good looking salesmen also make more sales. So there is a reasoning behind it other then "we hate the fatties."

The people who claim discrimination are the ones who bother me. They feel they're entitled to something, and if they don't get it they blame it on race, or appearance, or weight, or religion or whatever. It's rediculous.

Sledge · 12-07-2003, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
The people who claim discrimination are the ones who bother me. They feel they're entitled to something, and if they don't get it they blame it on race, or appearance, or weight, or religion or whatever. It's rediculous.

That's a great way to cover up your eyes and ears and pretend that the problem isn't there. Yeah, it sucks when people pull the "cards" - the race or gender or appearance or whatever card, but saying that all such problems are just the disenfranchised whining about not getting what they want is being stupid for the sake of believing what you believe.

Here, for instance, nobody would deny that A&F practices "lookism." Yes, they discriminate. Nobody disputes that! The issue is whether or not it's a) legally or b) morally okay. "Shut up, minorities" is the only wrong answer I can think of to those questions.

12-06-2003, 03:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	You got yr'self a point there, Secret. I'll take a strong stand along side a ya on this one, man. 'course it don't surprise me one bit. I always knew it was against the law of averages regarding who ends up behind the counter, lookswise... __________________ create evolution

12-06-2003, 07:03 AM	#5 (permalink)
Holo A Real American	If you shop there, this is your fault. This is one place that I think define the very meaning of appearance separatism and economic discrimination. It's the manifestation of some of the many things that are wrong with our culture. I mean they have been busted printing racist t shirts, making thongs for 8 year olds and now this. What does it take to put this company out of business? __________________ I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince

12-06-2003, 07:26 AM	#6 (permalink)
sailor beauty in the breakdown Location: Chapel Hill, NC	I find myself torn. On the one hand, yeah, it sucks that they are doing this--it is discrimination. On the other hand, they are doing what is in the best interest of their company, and as no one has to shop or work there, there isnt a whole lot of ground to attack them. Personally, I hate them, and wont buy anything from them (wouldnt work there either). __________________ "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." --Plato

12-06-2003, 07:38 AM	#7 (permalink)
CandleInTheDark Addict Location: Where the music's loudest	I don't see a problem with looks being a top priority for a company. If they're prepared to miss good employees because of looks, they'll have to suffer the consequences. __________________ Where there is doubt there is freedom.

12-06-2003, 08:09 AM	#8 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I'm not sayin' they don't have the legal right to do what they want. What I am sayin' is they add nonsense (a)esthetics to the culture. Personally, I don't find these mass-media-market-demographic-crafted image types attractive. I do find them insidious, pernicious, and ubiquitous in our culture. And I see that as being to our detriment. __________________ create evolution

12-06-2003, 04:53 AM	#3 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	As a company it's their job to target a demographic and get as much business as possible to make a successful company, right? Of course. I could care less what they do to accomplish that. Guys go there to look at hot chics, and chics go there to look at good looking dudes. So what. I have never stepped my foot into one of their stores and never will. Their clothes suck. I hate the Backstreet Boys music, so why the fuck would I wanna look like one of those pussies? If there are a million morons who want to shop/work there I could care less. Looks matter. So what.

12-06-2003, 06:16 AM	#4 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	I gotta more or less go with sixate on this one.

12-06-2003, 10:22 AM	#9 (permalink)
empu Crazy	I can't find anything wrong with it. If a modeling agency can make a hiring decision based on looks, I'm at a loss to know where to draw the line. If I'm a shareholder in a retailer and I learn they've been losing sales to a competitor because the competitor is hiring a better looking sales force, I'd want them to do the same to stay competitive.

12-06-2003, 10:33 AM	#10 (permalink)
Evil Milkman Addict Location: Illinois	I'm so incredibly in the middle on this one. Part of me wants to say that Abercrombie's behavior is outright discrimination, but another part says that it's just business (of course, maybe it's not great business, because Abercrombie's sales are down 13%, or so I've recently read). This same topic could be brought up for Hooters, too. I was eating there, and it got me thinking. What keeps them from some unattractive/overweight person from filing a major complaint and possibly sue. The question; is it Hooters/Abercrombie's right to choose to not hire someone because of only aesthetics? Hard question, great for discussion.

12-06-2003, 10:40 AM	#11 (permalink)
herostar Psycho Location: South Dakota	it's true, I knew there was a reason why all of the people working there were pretty good looking (I say this with an unblemished record or heterosexuality) __________________ Got time to chill?

12-06-2003, 10:45 AM	#12 (permalink)
TM875 Addict Location: Amish-land, PA	This is like feeling bad because a fat chick didn't get a job at Hooters. It's just part of the industry. __________________ "I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."

12-06-2003, 10:47 AM	#13 (permalink)
twotimesadingo Psycho Location: that place with the thing	edit see below __________________ I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and all your demons. I'll be the one to protect you from a will to survive and voice of reason. I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and your choices, son. They're one and the same I must isolate you, isolate and save you from yourself." - A Perfect Circle Last edited by twotimesadingo; 12-06-2003 at 10:49 AM..

12-06-2003, 10:49 AM	#14 (permalink)
twotimesadingo Psycho Location: that place with the thing	As a matter of economic principle, I believe that if we're going to say that the United States is a capitalist country (and we can make distinctions as to what kind of capitalist, be it welfare, progressive, what have you), then we allow for a private company to make hiring decisions based on whatever qualifications they so choose. As empu noted, it is ridiculous to try to draw a line between one job and another, because it really doesn't make it difference. Furthermore, as CandleInTheDark said, they miss out on employees who as people have probably had to rely on their intelligence and personality a lot more than the quasi-models strutting themselves in the store window. On a side note, I'd like to say that if given the opportunity I would hit Jennifer Lu, and those like her. With a truck. I personally don't believe that the store promotes one particular racial group over another (take a look at their catalogues, and you'll see asses and breasts of all colors), but even conceding that point, her argument presents a blatant double standard. Disregarding that a store can cater to whatever damned demograpic it wants, it's absurd to say that A&F is racially disriminatory if you're not going to pick out the plethora of other companies that cater to other ethnic or racial groups. It's all subjective at that point. __________________ I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and all your demons. I'll be the one to protect you from a will to survive and voice of reason. I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and your choices, son. They're one and the same I must isolate you, isolate and save you from yourself." - A Perfect Circle

12-06-2003, 12:25 PM	#15 (permalink)
Finchie Tilted	I personally see nothing wrong with this. It's their company, their choices. What next? Ugly people suing model agencies because they won't hire them?

12-06-2003, 12:50 PM	#16 (permalink)
phaedrus Insane	That is brilliant! They could get around it if they were casting instead of hiring. If they write their employee handbook in such a way as to include protections given to entertainment businesses, they could discriminate against the ugly. I've heard rumours that the Disney stores do something like this for their hiring process.

12-06-2003, 01:19 PM	#17 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	I'm not big on "equal" opportunity hiring practices, I think businesses have a right to hire whoever they want, based on qualifications rather then hiring a bunch of bumblefucks they need to look diverse. That said, I have no problem with Ambercombie and Fitch excluding the uglies. Furthermore, I'd also like to extend my warmest "suck it up" to all of those people who have had their feelings hurt by being excluded by said business. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

12-06-2003, 01:19 PM	#18 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	I was thinking the same thing, phaedrus. Their rationale is the same as casting directors: sex sells. a crappy movie with a sexy lead role will still generate revenue. Only when the consumers wise up and prove these marketing techniques are ineffective will these hiring/casting practices cease. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

12-06-2003, 01:40 PM	#20 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	Saddly and oddly enough I am a former Asst. Maneger of an Abercrombie & Fitch store. I was hired not only for my skills in retail management but for my looks. It's a very well known thing in that company. You work there if you are hot. If not... you don't even try to get a job. Their target buyer is the attractive 15-25yr old. It's hard to sell an image when it's an ugly one. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

12-06-2003, 02:08 PM	#21 (permalink)
chrisg299 Tilted	Funny you people brought up this story, we just recently opened a A@F at our local mall down here and I just stopped in there today to look around and see what's up and funny enough every worker there was good lookin...I agree with the story and I also agree with someone posted previously that guys go there to loook at the hot chicks and girls go there for the guys...it just makes sense.

12-06-2003, 02:54 PM	#22 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Why don't they go the next step and exlude ugly people from buying/wearing their clothes? They wouldn't want unattractive customers tarnishing their image. Please. It's one thing to say they have a right to hire who they want; it's another for them to cut back on the hours of "unattractive" (says who?) employees. If they're getting the job done, if their sales figures are otherwise acceptable, this is discrimination pure and simple. Let me re-emphasize that "says who?" If they have certain qualifications that must be met and they include arbitrarily defined "aesthetic" ones, they should publish the standard and be above-board about it and take their PR knocks (which they're taking anyhow), rather than trying to appear egalitarian () but secretly sabotaging their less than Ubermenschian salespersons. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

12-06-2003, 11:05 PM	#23 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	Absolutely, if you're going to continue the policy of hiring the pretty folk at least be up front about it. The sad thing is that this episode isn't the even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this practice. It's been an unspoken rule in business for a long time. We bitch and complain about the service, or lack thereof, but the fact of the matter is for vast majority we'd rather be served and waited on by pretty people then competent. If we're lucky to get both...feather in our cap! I have been in position to hire and fire a couple of times and although the jobs were vastly different the ideology was the same when hiring: no dogs and no fatties. It's not right, but the company is only doing what their customer base has silently agreed with. They buy the clothes and they like to buy them from pretty people. Superficial and pretentious customers set superficial and pretentious policy. Surprise!?! __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

12-06-2003, 11:14 PM	#24 (permalink)
Soggybagel Psycho Location: Lovely City #1	Yeah its not that big of a deal. I can see where you are coming from Lukrette as it does leave a sour taste in my mouth, but the bottom line exists that no matter the job if you are "ugly" you have less of a chance getting hired in almost all job situations.