|
I have been
hired for many reasons in my working life: Experience, education,
skills, and maybe once or twice because I was simply available and
willing to work. As far as I know I’ve never been offered a job
because I was just too good-looking to pass up, though I could be
wrong.
More likely my
nephew got all the good genes. While trying on sandals at a mall
store, the manager introduced himself and asked if the company had
ever approached him about a job. My nephew noted he once filled out
an application but hadn’t heard back.
“Well you have
now. You’re hired.” No interview, application, or references,
niceties that could wait for the first day on the job.
For many
18-year-olds a gig at Abercrombie & Fitch is the dream job. Once a
stodgy supplier of outdoor gear, the company has become the clothier
of choice for the young and fashionable, with a sales staff to
match. This is not your father’s Abercrombie & Fitch; the music
alone does as much to repel undesirables – say, anyone over 25 – as
attract target customers.
The company
has also attracted controversy, with pretty much the same
objective. Issues of A&F Quarterly read like a cross between a
catalog and Hustler magazine. Featuring nude models in suggestive
poses, it
has carried reviews of erotic books and an interview with a porn
star, complete with professional tips. The catalog comes enclosed
in shrink-wrap and stamped “XXX;” you must be 18 to buy a copy.
It would not
occur to me to use pictures of naked people to sell clothing. I
would probably do something dull, like have the models wear the
clothes. No aptitude for marketing, I guess.
A&F Quarterly
also drew fire for “Drinking
101,” an article offering suggestions for “creative drinking”
alternatives to the “standard beer binge,” bringing down the ire of
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. A line of T-shirts with caricatures
found
offensive by many Asians prompted a recall of the clothing
earlier this year.
These stunts
have spawned a number of boycotts, with limited results. This is
because the people behind the boycotts are unlikely to be the
store’s customers, which is to say they are adults.
Last fall the
company’s CEO
told the New York Times
“I pay so little attention to the
critics, who feel kids ought to be locked away in boxes till they’re
50 … All I care about is the target customer and how that person is
feeling at the moment.” Anyone else can go howl at the moon.
He is hardly
the only person for whom principles have no substance until it costs
a buck, but my nephew did not know the company’s stance when he
accepted the job. Still, the allure of the brand is compelling;
many of his peers seemed more impressed with his summer job than his
recent acceptance at one of the state’s finest universities. The
work was good (“I just wore the clothes and talked to people”), the
pay reasonable, the staff and management friendly. Plus, they
promised a transfer to the city where he will attend college.
So he
wrestled with it. His conscience finally pinned him when he found
the chain promoted a line of thong underwear in its children’s
stores earlier this year, targeted at kids aged 7 to 14. A national
spokesman for the company
defended the rearless skivvies for little girls, festooned with
cherries and sayings such as “eye candy” and “wink wink,” claiming
they were not meant for girls under 10 and blaming any
“misinterpretation” on “the eye of the beholder.”
Nice try. Any
questions about the company’s intent can be cleared up by a quick
look at its catalog. My nephew gave notice.
|
