no uglies at abercrombie either

[Anonymous]

relates to this thread
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=8090 I
...because I thought, if that's the case then retailers shouuld also be allowed to only hire attractive people as well then. And look here it is

------------

CBS) 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.

[Immortal Goat]

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.

But I'm betting he thinks that CMT is racist for not hiring black people for on-air time.

[El Blanco]

A&F is a clothing retailer. Appearances are a huge part of their bussiness. They want beautiful people in A&F clothes to sell to customers. Its almost the same as the models in their catalogs.

Its not like there is some law stating that ugly people can't work in clothing retail. This particular store chooses to put the most attractive people in front of the customer. If you don't like it, don't buy their overpriced crap.

[mburbank]

AF, which used to be a top notch, though pricey outdoor outfitter (It was once the shop of choice to outfit your entire African Safari) now sell an idea. Teenagers fucking.

It's very, very sad, since it isn't like you catually buy teenagers fucking or get to fuck teenagers. It's just an idea. Wearing their clothes is the same as screaming "I'm a Moronic, zombified elitist asshole and I need think about teenagers fucking" over and over wherever you go.

While I'm not sure what legal measures would be even remotely appropriatte, holding them (and anyone you ever see wearing their products) and getting the word out about their hiring practices is totally appropriatte.

[Miss Modular]

I agree with Max. Yes, sex sells. When I open up a Victoria's Secret Catalog, I see sex. But the sexy women enhance the clothes.

However, when I open up an A&F Catalog, sex is used for no apparent reason whatsoever. I don't even see the clothes half the time. Just naked people walking around on elephants and giraffes. It should be the sex selling clothes, not the clothes selling sex.

[AChimp]

I wish A&F would have sold me some teenage fucking a few years ago. :(

[Miss Modular]

It's not too late, AChimp! Penthouse or Hustler (I don't remember which) has a spinoff magazine called Barely Legal.

[kellychaos]

Another ray of hope Chimp: I saw a news magazine special about the growing number of college-age girls that have taken up prostitution with the malls as their setting. You can fetch yourself an anorak and get the seks all in one trip.

[AChimp]

Oh, I would so go to the mall for magazines and prostitutes, but as luck would have it, the family moose just ran away so I have no way to get there. :(

[mburbank]

It's just so awful that AF, a company with such a distinctive, lengthy history is now kids in their underpants. It's as if Brooks Brothers started selling hand jobs.

[El Blanco]

Another ray of hope Chimp: I saw a news magazine special about the growing number of college-age girls that have taken up prostitution with the malls as their setting.

So, I can tell the cops I'm trying to get those girls through med school? Sweet.

[Anonymous]

I've never even been in an abercrombie

[Ooner]

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.

But I'm betting he thinks that CMT is racist for not hiring black people for on-air time.

Wrong. Elder is a pretty extreme libertarian and generally advocates that companies should be able to do ANYTHING they want to. He might call it racist, and he might even consider what BET does racist, but there's no way he would be opposed to the decision.

[The_Rorschach]

I support discrimination of the economically unviable :)

[The One and Only...]

It's the only real form of social Darwinism.

[mburbank]

Listen, Chess club Fencer, I think the last thing you should want is ANY form of Darwinism.

[Zhukov]

No, he means dynamic social darwinism, ie 'laissaiz-faire'.

[mburbank]

Or as I like to call it, Wiener Darwinism.

[The One and Only...]

Free-market Darwinism. It wouldn't be that bad for me.

Actually, I have a particular hatred of anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism, despite how much I have in common with both. Anarcho-capitalism because I can't conceive why so many intellectuals don't realize the problems with the system. Objectivism because it supports capitalism for the entirely wrong reasons.

[mburbank]

Really? That's Fascinating. If you could bottle that as a cologne, there's no telling how far you might go.

[GothNAPrepsBody]

For once I think we can get along I hate A&F but what the fuck if I wanted to work there!? I should be able to plot their demise from the inside

[mburbank]

Who rattled your cage?

[budgetjiggalo]

The only time I went into an AF I got thrown out for opening a catalog.

[mburbank]

Yeah, they really don't lie it when you masturbate in the store. That's why they have changing rooms.

[kellychaos]

It's just so awful that AF, a company with such a distinctive, lengthy history is now kids in their underpants. It's as if Brooks Brothers started selling hand jobs.

Would it be any different if they had started out as a company with kids in their underpants? Truly, I can see if this was a government agency of some sort and they discriminated against races or those less easy on the eyes but this is a private business. If they wish to appeal to a certain crowd and think that using models and/or sales reps of a certain type accomplish this, then they have every right to do so. If consumers find these type of business practices offensive, then the company will eventually die a slow, painful death. There are companies, such as BUFU, that were founded on the idea that they would hire african american staff and that feature clothes that are largely manufactured to appeal to the urban and/or african american culture and nobody is saying word one about that business. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and I find all this hypocrisy disgusting. Rant over.

[mburbank]

Actually, AF is dieing a slow painful death. They've expanded way beyond their means and they're tanking. They keep getting even more tawdry in the belief that it will save their bacon, but I think a lot of people who used to shop there are just grossed out, and the teens they hope to cater to can lookm at all the porn they want on the internet and don't need their "18 and over" catalogue.

And no one is questioning their right to market the way they want. They're saying they think AF sucks and is stupid and they'd never shop there, and they're neanderthal marketing practices should be exposed. I personally think it's sad because they used to be a quality store.

Yes, a store has the right to only hire neo nazis for all I care, but they should be ridiculed for it. The same goes for all black, all white or all hotty shops. Oh, and Golf. I think Golf is stupid as hell.

[Perndog]

It's discussions like this one that make me insanely happy that I don't know what's happening in pop culture. Until I read this thread the only thing I knew about A&F was that annoying teenage girls wear shirts with their logo.

[mburbank]

Abercrombie & Fitch's Blue Christmas
The dirty little secret behind the racy catalog: lousy sales.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Monday, Dec. 8, 2003, at 11:53 AM PT

The 2003 Christmas shopping season may be only a few weeks old, but it's already pretty clear who the big loser is: Abercrombie & Fitch. In November, in the face of a boycott led by the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, the company recalled its racy catalog, the A&F Quarterly, which bears more resemblance to Playboy than to the Wilson Quarterly. The "Christmas Field Guide" featured cover language promising "group sex and more" and photos of wholesome-looking youths in not very wholesome poses. On Sunday night, 60 Minutes charged that Abercrombie is the apparel industry's version of Hooters, hiring hotties to work on the sales floor and relegating less bodacious associates to the stock room. The company also faces a class-action lawsuit filed by former Clinton Justice Department civil rights hand Bill Lann Lee, which claims the all-American retailer discriminates against nonwhite job applicants.

But all the controversy masks a problem much more basic than a cynical willingness to distribute borderline pornography in an effort to stimulate sales or a warped sense of what constitutes an all-American look. Abercrombie & Fitch has failed to master the essentials of Retailing 101. The untitillating truth is that the chain's numbers stink and its breakneck expansion efforts have been expensive flops.

In retailing, the most important metric is same-store sales, or how much money shoppers have spent at outlets that have been open for a year. The figure highlights whether a retailing concept has staying power. Abercrombie & Fitch's monthly sales releases, visible here, spin a tale of economic decline. In November 2003, same-store sales were down 13 percent compared to the previous November's sales. That's bad. Worse, it was the fourth straight year of same-store sales declines in November—the leading edge of the Christmas season. In November 2002, same-store sales fell 13 percent, and in the previous two Novembers, they fell 5 percent and 8 percent, respectively. In other words, an Abercrombie store that tallied $1 million in business in November 1999 rang up $666,000 in November 2003. Full-year sales figures were not much better; they fell 7 percent in 2000, 8 percent in 2001, and 5 percent in 2002. That's troubling, especially given that costs like rent, labor, energy, and advertising tend to rise over time.

Abercrombie nonetheless maintains the illusion of growth by opening new stores at a furious pace. The company's total number of stores has risen from 275 in June 2000 to 694 in November 2003. Founded in 1892 as a purveyor of quality hunting and fishing gear, it counted clients ranging from Ernest Hemingway to President John F. Kennedy. In the hands of retailing conglomerate The Limited, which acquired Abercrombie in 1988, it grew into a national chain by pitching a casual, all-American look—a younger, more accessible version of Ralph Lauren. Abercrombie went public in October 1996 and spun off from The Limited in May 1998.

As an independent entity, it embarked on a classic strategy of segmenting a market. The flagship Abercrombie & Fitch stores targeted college-age kids. In 1997, it rolled out Abercrombie kids, for the 7-to-14 set. And in 2000, it introduced Hollister Co., geared toward high-school kids. Today there are 164 Hollister stores.

By investing heavily in Hollister, Abercrombie both increased its bets on a highly fickle audience—teenagers—and ran the risk of cannibalization. After all, many brands that explicitly define themselves as being geared at a particular demographic are really aiming in large part at the next-youngest group. (Think R-rated movies or beer.) Part of the allure of the product is the idea that you're not supposed to be using it. So, the racy Abercrombie & Fitch catalogs—you have to be 18 to buy them—are aimed as much at high-school seniors as college seniors.

The problem is that the teen audience, raised in a climate of highly accessible pornography and lewdness, requires an ever-higher level of raunchiness to be shocked into consumption. A&F's catalogs have been banking on illicit activities for years. In 1998, the Center for Science in the Public Interest slammed the back-to-school catalog's "Drinking 101" promotion. Here are some fun facts about the 2002 magalog. And this summer's back-to-school catalog was dubbed "The SEX ED Issue."

But people in the business of selling sex to teens face a law of diminishing returns. For Britney Spears, simply gyrating and groaning used to be enough to send teens into paroxysms of consumption. With each passing year, however, she's been forced to raise (or lower) the bar. And even though she audaciously sucked face with twice-her-age Madonna on national television, Britney has seen her album sales slide.

Every year Abercrombie & Fitch goes to greater lengths to appeal to teens' prurient interests, too, hoping hormones will translate into sales. It's not working. It may be that the firm has signally failed to understand its customer, which is the most fundamental rule of retailing. The catalogs titillate teens, but they're increasingly angering their parents. While 16-year-olds may be able to go to the mall by themselves, most still rely on their parents to pay for the clothes they buy.

[kellychaos]

Yes, a store has the right to only hire neo nazis for all I care, but they should be ridiculed for it. The same goes for all black, all white or all hotty shops. Oh, and Golf. I think Golf is stupid as hell.

Is that all yer hollerin' about? Sure, I can agree with THAT, then.

[Miss Modular]

Maybe it's time to go back to selling Safari Gear?

I mean, c'mon. Why buy stuff at Abercrappie & Fuck when kids can buy "nonconformist" clothes at Hot Topic? Even Pacific Sunwear is starting to have the edge over Abercrappie with more cutting edge athletic clothes.

Preppy Conformism is soooo 1997.

[sspadowsky]

I work right across the street from an Aberfimbie & Crotch store, and it's almost always empty. That makes me smile.

[Miss Modular]

I work right across the street from an Aberfimbie & Crotch store, and it's almost always empty. That makes me smile.

You know Sspad, I was walking past the store at the mall yesterday and saw the same thing. I reacted the same way.