We completely get why retail staff should reflect the ethos/aesthetic of the company they serve, that’s completely understandable, but the specificity with which American Apparel’s hiring guidelines judge potential employees is kinda hilarious and terrible in equal measure.
For example…according to an AA hiring document uncovered yesterday by Gawker, a favourable look could be described as “Classy-Vintage-Chique-Late 80’s-Early 90’s-Ralph Lauren-Vogue-Nautical-High end brand” – like the sons and daughters of art collecting, yacht riding aristocrats want to earn minimum wage by selling hoodies to dudes who work in advertising? Fuck no! Potential employees must also submit a “close up of face, AND a clear, well-lit head to toe shot” also known as photographic guidelines which eliminate distance, the dark and other known maskers of ugliness.
But once you’ve passed the Fugly/no style litmus test things get even more confusing. In a second document outlining employee style the powers that be have employed the confusing as hell euphemism “off-brand” to describe clothes which may tarnish the AA image. Footwear standards like Vans, Doc Martens and Converse are among the prohibited items as well as AMERICAN APPAREL’S OWN STOCK. Says the guideline: “Because the company is consistently changing and evolving, there are still a lot of styles in the store that would be considered “off-brand.” It is really important that employees avoid wearing these styles because it wrecks the image American Apparel is trying to portray“. How is your own stock off-brand? This is kinda like Donald Kaufman’s cliched thriller script in Adaptation where the killer and victim are the exact same person. American Apparel is killing American Apparel from the inside! Is there a retail Doctor in the house?
Check out the policies below…