In my last post I spoke of the super-practical side of American Apparel wardrobe basics (how I see it) Now I want to talk a little about the brand in terms of its super-sexual fashion side (how it wants to be seen).Earlier this summer there was some controversy surrounding CEO Dov Chaney and the policies he enforces with regard to his company's employees. This is because the latest approach to tightening the AA 'aesthetic' saw the introduction of a refined hiring strategy whereby applicants are selected based largely on their 'full body head to toe' photographs which accompany their applications, with their Curriculum Vitaes taking second place in terms of hiring consideration.
AA's advertising campaign is already very recognisable; it uses models who look like normal people to promote the brand externally, but now the brand is pushing to use normal people who look like models to promote the brand internally... In defence of his No Uglies Allowed policy, Chaney said he does want employees who look good but this doesn't necessarily mean they have to be good looking: "At American Apparel, we strive to hire salespeople who have an enthusiasm for fashion and retail and who themselves have good fashion sense," he said. "But this does not necessarily mean they have to be physically attractive."
So if you're an average looking Joe Soap with a killer sense of style then surely, according to Chaney's statement above, you're the one for the job. You'll effortlessly acheive the required look of the "Classy-Vintage-Chique-Late 80's-Early 90's-Ralph Lauren-Vogue-Nautical-High End brand" that is American Apparel. Assuming then the HR department is operating effectively, why is it that the company feels the need to provide all employees with a stringent list of guidelines regarding their working uniform? And if the physical endowment of individual employees is not as important as their fashion ability, why then are they provided with an extensive list of standards of personal grooming? This sample of instructions from the illustrated manual detailing how to remain in line with the 'New Standard' provides an example of the definite code of appearance to which both male and female employess must adhere:
Yes sex sells, but when drawing the line of discrimination where do morals of beauty, brains and 'smart casual' fit into the workplace picture? What do you think? Is AA just being thorough and putting in place regulations necessary for efficiently running a business focused on a vision, or are they taking things too far?
AA's advertising campaign is already very recognisable; it uses models who look like normal people to promote the brand externally, but now the brand is pushing to use normal people who look like models to promote the brand internally... In defence of his No Uglies Allowed policy, Chaney said he does want employees who look good but this doesn't necessarily mean they have to be good looking: "At American Apparel, we strive to hire salespeople who have an enthusiasm for fashion and retail and who themselves have good fashion sense," he said. "But this does not necessarily mean they have to be physically attractive."
So if you're an average looking Joe Soap with a killer sense of style then surely, according to Chaney's statement above, you're the one for the job. You'll effortlessly acheive the required look of the "Classy-Vintage-Chique-Late 80's-Early 90's-Ralph Lauren-Vogue-Nautical-High End brand" that is American Apparel. Assuming then the HR department is operating effectively, why is it that the company feels the need to provide all employees with a stringent list of guidelines regarding their working uniform? And if the physical endowment of individual employees is not as important as their fashion ability, why then are they provided with an extensive list of standards of personal grooming? This sample of instructions from the illustrated manual detailing how to remain in line with the 'New Standard' provides an example of the definite code of appearance to which both male and female employess must adhere:
Yes sex sells, but when drawing the line of discrimination where do morals of beauty, brains and 'smart casual' fit into the workplace picture? What do you think? Is AA just being thorough and putting in place regulations necessary for efficiently running a business focused on a vision, or are they taking things too far?
No comments:
Post a Comment