For the last 40-plus years, I have been an attorney specializing in matters related to the textile and apparel industries. During that time, I never realized the relationship between apparel and aesthetic beauty until the subject matter of this month’s magazine was brought to my attention.
Having done some research on the relationship between the two, I found a plethora of articles and publications on the subject, and was able to become informed on that very significant relationship in today’s commerce.
What follows is a sample of some of those articles and that relationship.
Beauty’s Impact on the Fashion Industry
In an article titled “Beauty and the Labor Market,” published in the American Economic Review, authors Daniel S. Hammermesh and Jeff E. Biddle analyzed the impact of looks on the earnings of retail employees in the fashion industry. The article said, “Plain people earn less than average-looking people, who earn less than the good-looking. The plainness penalty is 5 to 10 percent, slightly larger than the beauty premium.
“Effects for men are at least as great as for women. … Better-looking people sort into occupations where beauty may be more productive, but the impact of individuals’ looks is mostly independent of occupation, suggesting the existence of pure employee discrimination.”
Examples in Today’s Retail Stores
Katie Way’s article for Vice, “Working in Retail Means Getting Daily Commentary on Your Body,” outlined the ways that comments on workers’ body types and physical attributes are a shocking, yet, commonplace occurrence when working in retail.
Way cited an Insider report that detailed working conditions at the women’s clothing store Brandy Melville, and said, “Previously, Brandy Melville was probably best known for carrying a single small size in the majority of its clothing, inherently limiting who could shop there. But the report revealed systematic discrimination and objectification of its employees in the form of store policy that requires young workers be photographed daily in order to be judged by higher-ups on their weight, race and other physical attributes.”
The article also outlined the discrimination that can potentially come from mainstream retailer’s sizing charts. Way wrote, “Outside of basic consumerist entitlement, a big part of the issue is that inconsistent sizing makes buying clothes confusing. … This means shoppers aren’t left with a lot of options for easily understanding what an article of clothing might look like on any given body.
“Sales associates might seem like a convenient proxy — but only if you disregard the toll that regular, probing questions and feedback about a person’s appearance can take on them.”
Kay continued, “Because sizes are determined by retailers rather than standardized, brands label clothing with numbers and other measurement markers that aren’t indicative of how they actually fit. This is intended to trick shoppers (usually women, though some men’s brands vanity size too) into feeling smaller, and thus, ‘flattering’ them into buying more clothing that insists they’re a certain size. But vanity sizing is an albatross for retail workers, too.”
The body of a salesperson came into play as Kay introduced the example of a college student, Zoya Davis, working in a popular youth clothing store to discuss the relationship between beauty and apparel. Kay said, “[While] most of her customer interactions are pleasant, questions about her body tended to come in two forms: as a means of asking for help or as snooping cloaked in a customer service request. … Davis said she’s noticed a shift in tone in certain conversations after some recent weight loss.
“‘When I had more weight, more people would be like, ‘Oh, what size are you?’ constantly, constantly,” she said. ‘I didn’t always take it to heart, but it’s also like, OK… do you not believe me?’”
Benjamin S. Seigel, Esq. is Of Counsel to the law firm G & B Law LLP. He specializes in matters related to the textile and apparel industries. He can be reached at bseigel@gblawllp.com
