In Cohen’s statement, he gives off an intellectual but also an arrogant tone. This reflects his knowledge for being a successful retailer, but also has a sexist and snobbish way of viewing marketing. Retailers look for walking billboards to upscale their product to the public. Cohen states that you need attractive people working behind the counter to bring in today’s young crowd to the stores.
On one hand, retailers should be able to hire who they want so they can project their image; but they are risking discrimination against people who are not eligible to work for them. From my own experience, I have noticed attractive people working at Abercrombie and Fitch stores. It is practically the models from a catalog working in Abercrombie. Yes, it is true that these workers project an image, but for what? I honestly do not walk into these stores just because a “good-looking gal” is working behind the counter.
I go into stores because the clothes, or the brand catch my attention, not some person advertising the product. So I disagree with this part Cohen’s argument, because not everyone goes into a store just to see a “good-looking gal”. Another argument Cohen brings up is that retailers hire based on looks because it is smart and necessary. In the article “Going for the Look, but Risking Discrimination” by Steven Green gives a great example about Elizabeth Nill.
She walks into Abercrombie stores and almost every time managers walk up to her and offer her a job. This proves that retailers hire only attractive people. This is discrimination because Abercrombie is only hiring white, attractive people. This leaves them vulnerable for criticism from the public. Retailers should be able to hire they want so they can project their image; but they are risking discrimination against people that are not eligible to work them. I find Cohen’s argument to be invalid.