Essay- A&F Article

Abercrombie and Fitch, Hollister, American Apparel, American Eagle, Aeropostale. All these names are probably extremely familiar to young preteens and teenagers of this generation. But the difference is what reactions people come up with when the names of these brands are spoken aloud. Personally, I think of snobby, thin, rich kids. And why? Because my experiences there have shown my just that. In an article written by Steven Greenhouse for The New York Times, this author takes a look at this profile of the workers and shoppers at these many stores-more specifically, Abercrombie. The ensuing debate is whether brands like the above mentioned should be permitted to hire workers based on looks and clothing. Although many ideas are taken from different sources, one in particular stands out in the article.

In a quote by Marshel Cohen, he says that finding people that directly represent (through what ways, he does not say) any given company is the best way to bring in business. Although I agree with Cohen that this is clearly a method used-especially by Abercrombie and Fitch as shown in the rest of the 2003 New York Times article- I don’t think this is an acceptable method of advertising a brand. Plus, although there can be positives and a purpose to advertising by the method Cohen describes, there are also negatives and downfalls as well.

The main reason stores like Abercrombie and Fitch put their name out there with the ideal, thin, attractive model is so that customers will believe shopping at that store will make them look just like those models. However, I believe this method is or could very possibly be backfiring. Brands are trying to lure in all customers by essentially giving the impression that with their clothing, they will look just like the models. From my observation, this method is actually causing the brand to only bring in customers that exactly reflect and fit the profile of workers they are looking for. By identifying with a certain group, those are the only customers they are bringing into their stores.

For example, my first experiences with Abercrombie and Fitch were back when I was in middle school. I was a young preteen that was obviously hoping to fit in, more specifically, with the “popular crowd”, so I thought a trip to Abercrombie and Fitch was just what I needed to be “cool”. However, I walked in to the store and immediately felt out of place. Everybody there was dressed perfectly. They were thin, white, tall. Plus, after looking at a few clothing items, I could easily see everything was way out of my price range. Therefore, from this experience, I can see that the stores’ tactic of showing the brand as made for a certain group of people is only going to bring in exactly that group of people: it’s like they have designed a target group. Although they may have lured me in with their advertising, it did nothing to help get any money out of me.

I agree with Cohen. His description of companies using a “walking billboard” is spot on. Making a brand look good outside of the store is a good objective of the company. Getting your clothing to look good outside of the store and off the racks is great theoretically, but they are partially hurting themselves by cutting out a whole group of people to advertise to. Overall, although the external advertisements to the public look good, that does not reflect how successful the store is in actually getting business and profits.

Maybe my agreement with Cohen may also be because of his validity to make such statements, especially in his first sentence. Clearly stated in the article, he is a “senior industry analyst with the NPD Group, a market research firm”. It explicitly states that he and his job are meant to make these sorts of bold, professional statements. The only thing that may seem iffy about his ideas is the second part of his statement. He takes a stand on the issue in a fairly neutral article by saying that finding a “brand enhancer” is “critical”. He is agreeing with the clothing brands argument by saying that this method really IS what brings customers in for more. His ideas really stand out because the rest of the article, Greenhouse included, stay very neutral on the issue by giving both sides of the argument without really favoring one. Whether the author threw in the quote by Cohen to pick a side or not is very unclear.

Another aspect of the article and quote to look at is the date. We are currently in 2011, eight years after the publication of the article in the newspaper. How much has this article impacted anything in the past decade or so? I honestly believe that nothing has changed, because these stores are still attracting the exact same high-class group of people. I have also noticed that these brands are less popular than I remember from the past. Now this has got me wondering if maybe I am correct in my assumption that their methods of luring in customers are working. It is very possible that these companies have unintentionally created target groups have slowly been fading out over the past 8 odd years.

All in all, I do agree with Cohen’s statements about companies of the day using “walking billboards” and other methods similar to this for advertising. Although I do not agree that this a good method of putting your brand name out there, I can analyze it and see that it is working, but only to a certain extent. The evidence of unintended target groups is there, and the popularity of these brands seem to be decreasing since the time this article was written which shows the ineffectiveness of their intentions of hiring only a certain look or group of people. I believe that companies need to realize that this idea of hiring by looks needs to die out soon. It’s not like it’s working anyways.