"60 Minutes", Abercrombie & Fitch, & Discrimination

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Last night, I watched a very interesting segment of "60 Minutes".

Link to 60 Minutes Story

It seems that A&F has scrapped its staid WASPY image, for a hip, under 25 kind of look. As a result, most of the employees are young, gorgeous blue eyed blondes.

Some people are complaining, stating that what is happening is discrimination, and threatening lawsuits. And it certainly is. But is that sort of discrimination inherently evil? Or is a certain "look", a niche marketing target, a reasonable way of doing business?

Quote:

What do you all think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,896 • Replies: 20

No top replies

I don't know what the legality is, but I do know that consumers can choose to shop or not shop there. Or, for that matter, to start a public boycott. There are many ways to express one's distaste for corporate policy!

[I remember when Abercrombie & Fitch had one big store in Manhattan and were known as the company that had outifitted Theodore Roosevelt on one of his adventures. But that's water under the bridge...]

0 Replies

Re: "60 Minutes", Abercrombie & Fitch, & D

Phoenix32890 wrote:

It seems that A&F has scrapped its staid WASPY image, for a hip, under 25 kind of look. As a result, most of the employees are young, gorgeous blue eyed blondes.

I had the impression that that had always been the A&F image. I've never been in one of their stores though so....

On the larger question - People have brought up this kind of stuff many times in the past (it seems to come up whenever there is a discussion about discrimination) but they usually get dismissed as nuts.

Quote:

"A&F ought to have the right to set their own policies for good or for ill.", says Elder."

Change that to IBM, Ford Motor Company or WalMart and the story changes though dosn't it? IMO, What's good for the goose...

0 Replies

But Abercrombie & Fitch thinks it knows why their customers choose to shop there. Had they discovered themselves to be in error, they would have soon changed the mix of personnel on the sales floor. Anyway, I think they would have.

0 Replies

Quote:

Change that to IBM, Ford Motor Company or WalMart and the story changes though dosn't it? IMO, What's good for the goose...

fishin- I don't think that the companies that you mentioned were fair comparisons. With A&F, the people in the ads, and the people on the floor reflect the niche that the firm is targeting.

Actually, I have seen the same sort of "discrimination" in the Wal-Mart booklets. There have been a few where the models were workers in the store, and looked exactly like the "just plain folks" image that reflects the kind of clientele to which they cater. In fact, all the workers would have their title noted in the ad, and even the babies in the booklets would have a blurb that would say something like, "Timmy, son of Joan, cashier".

If you look at the Ford ads, you KNOW to whom the advertisement is targeted, although I would suspect that in the factories and the offices of these companies, the staff reflects a broad spectrum of people.

I know for sure, that I would not be hired as a wait person at Hooters. For that matter, neither would you. Nor at a Chinese restaurant. Do you feel discriminated against on account of that?

Years ago, when I was very young, (before the EEOC) I applied for an office job in a well known company that had a certain "look". Unfortunately, I did not have that look, and they told me that, straight out. Did I think of suing them? Of course not. My attitude was that I did not want to be where I was not wanted, and I found a suitable job elsewhere.

roger- Agree. A&F is doing what they believe is in their financial interest.

0 Replies

What type of person gets hired where is truly a complex--and interesting question.

Here's a twist: My co-worker, who's Chinese-American, doesn't like to go to Asian fusion restaurants because she doesn't like the idea of making the food fancier and more expensive. When I told her I was going to one such place for lunch, she had a short reply.

"Caucasian waiters," she sniffed.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I know for sure, that I would not be hired as a wait person at Hooters. For that matter, neither would you. Nor at a Chinese restaurant. Do you feel discriminated against on account of that?

Probably, But I'd say that each would depend on specific circumstances.

If I remember correctly Hooters WAS sued for sexual discrimination a few years back and the judge ruled that they had to make arrangemnets and hire male wait-staff.

If I applied for a job in a Chinese resturant and was competeing against someone from Chinese ancestry but had equeal qualifications and they were given the job just because of their ancestry then, sure, I'd feel it. But if I can't pronounce the items on the menu and don't know what they are then I don't have equeal qualifications to begin with (and this would likely be the case for me since I'm not a fan of Chinese food..).

But, my basic point was that IBM, Ford, etc.. aren't allowed to discriminate in their hiring. Why should other companies be allowed to just because they decided to focus on a niche market? If Ford swiched their marketing to rich white guys would it be OK for them to fire everyone that wasn't a rich white guy?

The taboo areas in labor law are still race, religion, sex, and age. If the companies are discriminating on any one of those factors then they are operating outside of the law.

0 Replies

The product that a coffeeshop sells is not coffee but atmosphere. It's a place where someone can sit and soak in a certain vibe. Same with an expensive restaurant or an ethnic clothing store.

When the product being sold is racial, then race must be produced. That's not racism but capitalism.

When the product being sold is unrelated to race, then let's argue about fairness and equal access.

0 Replies

I'll never forget entering Ralph Lauren's flagship boutique in NYC some years ago. You would expect, considering Lauren's "look" and supposed market, that the sales staff would be very white, very waspy. That was not the case. I was very impressed that the staff consisted of young and older, black, white and everything in between, all wearing Ralph Lauren like they were born in it, no one looking a bit out of place.
A&F only limit themselves and their sales when they discriminate.

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

I was very impressed that the staff consisted of young and older, black, white and everything in between, all wearing Ralph Lauren like they were born in it, no one looking a bit out of place.

Would they be considered racist if they required an "impressive" mix of races?

That particular mix of age and race was very attractive to you,
and a good marketting person would calculate and enforce that mix, if many customers responded well to it. Does that make you age-ist or racist in the shopping requirements you hand to them?

I don't know. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just asking us to think about it.

0 Replies

Indeed. And they are good questions we should be asking. We tend to value diversity, and I admit, that strikes me as a better value then having uniformity. We know what that can lead to!

0 Replies

PatriUgg wrote:

The product that a coffeeshop sells is not coffee but atmosphere. It's a place where someone can sit and soak in a certain vibe. Same with an expensive restaurant or an ethnic clothing store.

When the product being sold is racial, then race must be produced. That's not racism but capitalism.

On December 1st, 1955 30 or so people bought tickets on a bus in Montgomery, AL for the "White's Only" atmosphere. Rosa Parks upset that capitalism cart.

0 Replies

I heard that!

There was no race nor age discrimination and yes, the diversity within Ralph Lauren's sales staff was done in a very attractive, across the board kind of way. Perhaps it was marketing and strategy only but I ate it up with a spoon and purchased a straw boater to celebrate.
Long live the eclectic mix and the heart to recognize said beauty!! Very Happy

0 Replies

PatriUgg wrote:

The product that a coffeeshop sells is not coffee but atmosphere. It's a place where someone can sit and soak in a certain vibe. Same with an expensive restaurant or an ethnic clothing store.

When the product being sold is racial, then race must be produced. That's not racism but capitalism.

When the product being sold is unrelated to race, then let's argue about fairness and equal access.

Watch and see what happens with Columbian Coffee in the next 12 months as they roll out the Juan Valdez shops.

0 Replies

This is a really interesting topic, Phoenix. Thanks for the link (for all us out of America.)

PatriUgg wrote:

The product that a coffeeshop sells is not coffee but atmosphere. It's a place where someone can sit and soak in a certain vibe. Same with an expensive restaurant or an ethnic clothing store.

When the product being sold is racial, then race must be produced. That's not racism but capitalism.

When the product being sold is unrelated to race, then let's argue about fairness and equal access.

That is exactly what I would argue; I can appreciate A&F's commercial interests, but hiring ONLY blue-eyed, blond-haired football stars/ beauty queens is not only racially discriminatory, but also shockingly reminiscent of 'The Aryan Plan.' I think, whatever one's commercial plan, equality should be incorporated into image. From reading this report, it seems rather racist; 'no more than a few filipinos, no more than a few latinos, the rest have to be party-loving jocks and bare-naked ladies living fantasy lives.' Well, that isn't the life of most people... and if it is, God help us all. What worried me was this:

Quote:

"If you're black and you apply for a job there, there's a great chance that your applications will be thrown in the trash bin," adds Lee. "You're not even gonna get to an interview."

Grr... well, institutionalized racism plus exploiting women means that I shan't be going there, anyway...

0 Replies

I think fishin' is right that nobody can use race or gender as a stated criteria for hiring. This doesn't mean that there can't be trends in hiring, as with BET, but if BET came out and said "we will only hire black people", they would be in trouble, legally.

When I was running my center, I couldn't say that I would hire Deaf people. The closest I could come was to say, "Deaf people encouraged to apply."

It's all about most qualified, essential functions, etc.

So if A & F is saying that they have a policy based on race/ appearance and that's their right, they're wrong, and will lose. If they're contesting that it is their policy at all, they have a chance.

If this kind of stuff can be proven, doesn't look good for them:

Quote:

"'We're sorry. We can't rehire you because we already have too many Filipinos working at this store,'" recalls Ocampo. "Too many Filipinos. That was her exact words I was speechless. I didn't really know what to say. I've never seen racism that explicit prior to that."

And if this kind of stuff can be proven, it shouldn't look good for them, IMO.

0 Replies

Hmmm, a friend's daughter applied to a local coffee shop and the key question was if she went to church, where and how active she was. She wasn't and didn't get the job. We won't go there anymore. I also tell everyone so that they won't go there either, NOT that it does much good. There are lots of people from their church who apparently like coffee.

I see Phoenix's point about not being where I'm not wanted, but if the black people in the south had maintained that attitude, we probably still wouldn't have across-the-board civil rights in this country.

0 Replies

Quote:

I see Phoenix's point about not being where I'm not wanted, but if the black people in the south had maintained that attitude, we probably still wouldn't have across-the-board civil rights in this country.

Piffka- I would be the first to applaud the civil rights that are enjoyed by all. But I don't think that is the issue. Before the civil rights movement, there was institutional racism. Black people were not permitted to sit anywhere but the back of a PUBLIC bus in some states. Stores had separate drinking fountains and rest room facilities for both blacks and whites. Blacks could not eat at lunch counters. The situation was an abomination, and the civil rights movement corrected many the inequities.

What we are talking about in the A&F story, is whether a PRIVATE company has the right to cater to a niche market, and have the staff that directly interacts with the public, reflect the market to which they are appealing.

I would NEVER be hired at A&F. They do not want old broads selling their product. Does that bother me? Am I going to scream "ageism", and run to the EEOC? Of course not. That does not mean that I could not shop in that store, if I desired.

0 Replies

I'm sure a private company does have the right to cater to a niche clientele, but we all retain the right not to shop there. I'm not sure why we're all twisting ourselves into pretzels ignoring that essential truth. We make those kinds of choices all the time. I may stop shopping somewhere where I've been treated badly, feel ignored or unwelcome. Or where their policies (e.g., anti-union) bother me. Or because they charge too much. And I may seek out a shop for other reasons pertaining to my politics or sensibilities.

If enough people are bothered by A&F's apparent biases and stopped buying their T-shirts there, you can bet the store would change its tune--and quickly!

0 Replies

D'Art- Bingo! Thank you very much!

0 Replies

"60 Minutes", Abercrombie & Fitch, & Discrimination

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know