[biweek] The Look

   Cohen brings up right away that he's in competition with other companies in the challenge of capturing our attention as a people. Saying very subtly that we are no smarter than sheep; using one person dress in a certain way will ultimately lead the rest of the herd to dress in the similar fashion. Cohen is arguing that using the attractiveness of a person is crucial in conveying the message of a particular brand. Cohen is saying sex sells, and that it does. In Cohen’s argument, guys will follow attractive women, and with them, their wallets will follow. While Cohen's statement does hold some merit, most people go to stores to get a product, rather than socialize with the employees. People can unintentionally favor certain people over another, but when people catch themselves doing this they are more than likely rather try and improve their behaviour; unlike Cohen’s manipulation over the feelings.

   While I do not support Cohen’s argument, I do agree with it. People just find it extremely hard to get over their inadvertent tendencies for superficial attitudes.When people look at art they would rather look at something that is appealing for the eyes instead of something that is poorly drawn, yet holds very dense content. People will gravitate towards people whom they find attractive rather than take the required effort and talk to someone with an amazing background or ideas. Even with myself I can find fault with ease. If I am within a class and we’re assigned groups I catch myself acting extremely superficial. I tend to be more open and chatty towards people I deem attractive compared to those of which I don’t find all that attractive. I am a prime example of what Cohen is trying to staple society today as. I acknowledge this problem I have, but I am trying to change it so I am a more rounded person. Well rounded people are more approachable, and that is something i aim for in life. Cohen is after a profit, and in that mindset it is easy to get lost in shortcuts to gain positive advertisement. I do not really care for clothing stores, so I’m only exempt from this particular case, but not to the concept as a whole.

   I am completely against using attractive people, or people in general,  as a mobile billboard. The way Cohen so easily objectified people as moving advertisements can suggest an easy correlation that he believes humans are just bags of meat to ogle at. I am unaware of any human beings who are okay with being subjected to that sort of treatment. If people were to really like a product then they would naturally promote the brand by talking about it, it's unnecessary to hire attractive people solely if your product is good. This sort of action may backfire on you, hopefully all of this negative press is doing just that, and is a very risky gamble. To make your vital decisions on the basis of human ignorance is a heavy bet, especially when your targeted audience becomes aware of what it is exactly that drags them to your product. When you can get your brand or product mentioned in every day conversation, that's where efficiency and morality meet. I can't be behind a product that doesn't sell itself.

   What people really want from employees at a store is the confidence that they know how to get their job done at a professional level. I would never return to any kind of establishment that has really attractive employees, yet when I ask for help they end up being completely useless. “I tell employees that their main focus needs to be hiring somebody who can get the job done. When they want to hire a project a certain image, that’s when things can get screwy.”- Stephen J Roppolo. The process of using, or in this case selling something goes along the lines like this: First you have a good product you want to sell. Secondly you make sure the product is of quality and passes any inspections that are placed upon it. Lastly you add aesthetics onto said product to make it pretty. Hiring an attractive employee over a person who is more qualified is similar to having an item that is beautiful beyond belief, but with no function. If they can’t do anything to push products out of the door the employees themselves may be more of a distraction then an effective means of selling an item. The entire social aspect of Cohen’s argument may backfire just because the “boys who come the store to only look at pretty girls” may end up going to the store to just look at pretty girls without ever buying anything. When you have your employee being occupied by one person whose intentions are purely social you lose out on a customer who may be willing to pay money, but does not get any attention or help and ends up leaving.

   We, the people, have the power in our wallets as to whether or not we ALLOW a company to thrive or die. Many people are unable to grasp this concept that we are the ones responsible for the success of many shitty companies. Many people feel that as a single person they have no control over what profits a big company will receive, but their active choice of not wearing, or even talking negatively about said company will have enormous effects on how people will perceive that brand in their own social bubble. While many people can't be subjective, no matter how hard we try, the important thing is that you've tried and admitted that this is actually happening. Other people, such as Cohen, will take advantage of their realization of how we act and in turn will try to make a profit off of what we inadvertently do. While I do believe that Cohen makes a valid argument, we the people, are progressing in a way to force Cohen's statement to become invalid.