Essay: Cohens argument

                 Forms of advertising are changing rapidly. Before, businesses focused their advertising on attracting customers solely based on the product itself. Now a days, companies focus their advertising through the enticing projections of beautiful people. Clothing companies display images of beautiful people all over magazines, billboards, and television in an attempt to lure people in to buy their product. While this approach works to grab some people's attention, it can put a stereotype on what type of people should and should not shop at that particular clothing store. Even though good looks and  images bring forth intrigue in some people, it should not be the ultimate thing that sells the product. Hiring people based on requirements such as appearances and images can be detrimental to the company if they do not have any positive qualities to offer besides looks. Not only this, but when hiring  people based on an image this could also discriminate against race, age, and gender. Hiring people based on looks and appearances may be more profitable in the beginning, but this process may also be a  damaging factor towards companies like Abercrombie.     
                Choosing something based off appearance is not something uncommon. In fact, almost all of us do it. However, I think that when it comes to hiring people it should not be as applicable. Before,  businesses hired people that displayed good attributes, now companies hire and prefer people that are beautiful and good looking. Many clothing industries like Hollister and Abercrombie hire good looking people to be "walking posters" to attract people to their products. What good does it do them if their walking billboards are complete jerks to customers? No one will want to purchase any item, let alone come in a store where they feel uncomfortable or mistreated. The company will be greatly affected by this factor. If image is preferred over merit, how do companies expect to prosper if they hire a good looking, lazy and irresponsible person. I'm not saying good looking people are lazy and irresponsible, I'm just saying that if they choose to hire people based on qualities such as appearance, how will the company know they did not choose someone who might affect the company in a negative connotation. No one wants an unhelpful employee. Also, I do not go to a mall and buy something because the sales representative is pretty. I choose buy an item if I like it.  In my opinion a sales representative's image is not nearly as important as their character and the way they treat their customers. Anyways, shouldn't the item be able to sell itself; does it really need a person to accesorise it?
                    When companies try to center themselves around an image, this can cause them to narrow their potential cliental. When companies hire models that are tall, thin, pretty, young or of a particular race, they can unintentionally send a message to the public that their clothes or merchandise are only for those specified type of people. People may begin to think that they need to fit those requirements in order to have the item. This can lead to the formation of stereotypes. Companies say that the reason for their approach is for profitable business purposes. However, if this was the case, then wouldn't companies be focused on finding an approach that would include everyone? Companies should not be trying to stereotype things, instead they should find a way to try and incorporate the idea of diversity in their company. When they put labels on their products, they can cause people to repel from the product because they may feel they do not belong or fit in with the product.
                   While choosing employees based on appearance may be effective and productive for the company, it can also be viewed as discrimination. Choosing someone based on appearance can be viewed as racist because someone might think that someone from a particular race might be more attractive then someone from a different race. This process of choosing based on appearance is still considered legal, although it is considered as discrimination by many. Another way it is discriminatory is because when companies choose on appearance it can also be sexist. Someone might prefer a female employee over a male employee or vise versa. Many companies also prefer younger employees over older employees because they seem to be more attractive. I am not saying companies do not have a right to choose who they want to employ, but is't there a limit to what they can and can not do? The process that these several companies take although still legal, are unfair as they cross the lines of racism, sexism and discrimination of age.
                   It is hard to choose a side. Although appearance may be beneficial in some ways to companies, I feel that overall it has more downsides. Although hiring beautiful and attractive people may help invite customers in the stores, it also repels many potential customers due to the stereotypes it imposes. Hiring for merit may be more beneficial to the company than hiring a person for his or her looks. A more qualified person can help the company run more successfully and can contribute to a positive environment in the store itself. I think the hiring practices are wrong although they have a choice to say who they want to work for their company. Although Cohen's arguments may be partially correct, overall I feel the argument he brings forth are not enough to compensate for the discrimination that takes place in the hiring practices by these companies.