Essay

In the short term it makes sense for a company to hire people based on appearance and have them represent you in the moment, although in the long run, awareness of your brand will only be captured by individuals who will progress themselves as well as the company to create appeal to new and different people.Cohen argues in that retailers have the right hire people strictly based on looks, and states that it helps benefit and create a better image for the company. Cohen also talks about in today's competitive retail environment the methods have changed, implying that it is necessary to help your company. He then goes into discussing having brand enhancers or good looking people that you should hire in your store, because "A guy wants to go hang out in a store where he can see good-looking gals". This is critical for companies to do this to be an "enticing environment" for the community.

I agree that they should be able to hire whoever they want based on looks and believe that it makes sense to have younger people working in a more high end fashion oriented store. Their company will be represented by these young individuals only and will bring in more people wanting that one look from who they have hired. In the short term this creates that effect of people wanting that look of your brand, and people seeing good looking people modeling the brand. They see it tell other people, see people they know wearing it, and before long everyone wants your brand and it becomes high end, very fashionable, and desirable.

This only lasts for a certain period of time though. Pretty soon your company won't be as good as the other company who is trying something new or has more then what your specific brand or "look" consists of because companies want to do the same thing and do. It's just a matter of knowing how to change your company and the progression from difference in your company, which these companies will not succeed in doing with these people they hire just based on looks. Not hiring people with job experience and just hiring them for the look you want will lead to bankruptcy and your company will fail.

The prime example is what is happening now with American Apparel. American Apparel is facing bankruptcy due to lack of sales and failure of the "hipster revolution" that has fueled its company since the beginning of its rise on the market. American Apparel models plain clothing genrealized towards "hipsters"
and also hires their workers based on appearance. I want to focus on this quote from the article written by Guy Independent in Los Angeles

Yet as the company grew, its ability to respond to the market was diluted. Earlier this month, Mr Charney declared the hipster trend, which powered his expansion, "over". He now wants to cater to older customers, who might prefer chinos to neon bike shorts.

That change, however, may come too late. The breakneck speed of American Apparel's expansion – 150 stores in its first three years, and nearly twice that in the ensuing three – saddled the firm with debts, the scale which is only now coming to light.

 It really shows that maintaining that look that really is "in" or that has lasted long enough to where you have your brands look and have made sales by hiring good looking people to model your product. Modeling your product doesn't mean they are everything your company is, but it does mean that you have certain representation within your company and that people will look at them before anything. So what the truth in American apparel going bankrupt is that