AIBU to not understand the fuss over New Look?

[Mexicantortilla]

Why shouldn’t they charge more for bigger sizes, after all it takes more fabric. No ones up in arms about children’s clothing, most stores charge more as the size increases in the children’s dept. I’m a size 18 btw and if I had to pay more it would definitely motivate me to lose weight!

Yes! But it doesn’t seem to make headline news regarding children’s clothes - that seems to be widely accepted! Yet adult clothes is causing controversy!

Do other brands charge more for larger sizes, M and S, Monsoon, Violetta?

Because I know people who are buyers. They charge 40 quid for something that cost a couple of quid to make, of which maybe a few pennies is fabric. And since there are more people at the 16-18 clothes size, their bulk purchasing increases, which reduces costs. The 00 clothes are terrible for supply and demand.

But because it's a fat tax, everyone swallows it.

M&S and other well known high street shops already do this for bras.. those with lovely little B cup boobs can pay £10-£15 for a bra. Those of us with swinging, ginormous F cups have to pay upwards of £25! (.)(.) ( . )( . )

You can't make claims about a particular item being more or less money depending on the size of the garment unless you have the pattern, the lay (how the pattern pieces fit on the fabric), the fabric width, any shrinkage calculated in and the quantity to hand.

It might turn out that a size 16 garment with an economical lay works out at the same cost as a smaller sized, more wasteful garment,

If we sold clothes without averaging prices it would be very confusing for the customer and even more so for the manufacturer / retailer etc.

What most likely happened to New Look is that their plus size dept is bought by a different team to the main range and they didn't talk to each other about it. It's really common all over the shops.

A clothes manufacturer was interviewed on the radio and she said by far the most expensive part of a garment is the fabric. Cost of zip, thread, buttons etc is minimal.

Of the actual garment. But the cost you pay is profit, labour in the shops, rent on the retail space, shipping, tax, etc. All of which is the same.

So I'm assuming size 4/6 is the cheapest? And there's a price increase for size 8 then another for 10 then 12 and beyond? Right? That's the only way 'it uses more material' is an adequate answer.

I want to also point out that 'it uses more fabric' is ridiculous when you consider how much new look pays for each top they sell you. Especially considering their clothes are made in countries where they pay next to nothing in labour. And I'm assuming they're only increasing the price by the literal pennies they're paying for 'extra fabric', Right?

But sure, this 'makes sense'

I priced out a business plan for a shop once. The price of the goods was absolutely tiny in relation to everything else.

Isn’ it the fact that a size 18 in its “normal” range costs less than the same size garment in its plus size range?
So a different issue.

I don't understand why some people think that businesses have to be "fair" by charging the same price for a different product (and yes, even if the style is the same, if it uses.more fabric then it's a different product. Just like a big plate usually costs more than an otherwise identical small plate, and a big bed costs more than a small bed.

As others have said, no one bats an eyelid about clothes for children in identical styles costing more for older children.

Some people seem very quick to make it into a personal comment on their size, when actually it seems to me to be logical business sense. More material = higher cost. Maybe the difference is significant, maybe it's not - ultimately it's up to the individual business to decide what makes commercial sense for them. They're not responsible for making prices fair. I find all this outcry a bit pathetic to be honest.

You can't claim more material so higher price. You'll find plenty of crop tops or barely there shorts on sale for higher prices than leggings and long sleeve tops so that's an invalid reason

But for the same item, theres the value of how much that paticular item of clothing is worth due to how fashionable it is etc and then how much it costs to make the individual item. It will cost more to make a top to fit a 36 inch waist than it will a 26 inch waist so it makes sense that a size 16 would cost more than a size 6.

By the same logic though, supposing a standard item was available in sizes 6-18 (like say at m and s) - despite varying amounts of fabric for each size it would be the same price. I don’t think it’s suddenly fair to whack up the premium if you added a few sizes either side.

Curious if all the ‘more material - higher price’ commenters have intricate knowledge of mass produced material production as in my experience there’s merely pennies in it.

John Lewis charge more for older children's clothes than for the same style for younger children

I can’t get too worked up about this, I’m 5ft so have to buy petite range clothing and that can often cost more than regular or plus size version looking at you Topshop. I just put up and shut up, I can always go somewhere else if I’m that bothered.

I'm not sure what I think about different prices for different adult sizes. I can see the argument that most people have control over their weight. OTOH some have medical reasons and you can't help how tall you are. I think I come out against. (currently I'm a smaller size, but did weigh a lot more due to medication for a while, now my weight gain is purely due to poor food/exercise.)

Part of the difference between adults and children clothes and shoes is VAT. Clothes and shoes for children under 14 are zero rated for VAT. I knew this but went to make sure, they actually list the sizes

www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-714-zero-rating-young-childrens-clothing-and-footwear/vat-notice-714-zero-rating-young-childrens-clothing-and-footwear#articles-of-clothing-or-footwear

Well tbh shops would hardly have made it so they lose money and let's think about it. They probably price their items on the cost of the bigger sizes (so as not to lose money) so to actually make this work, they shouldn't increase the price of bigger sizes, but decrease the smaller sizes.

But it doesn't even matter. There's always fair and unfair in everything.
And it just seems greedy of shops like new look who have already had to close down some stores this year.
Doesn't paint them in a good light at all

Why then isn't the XXL Mans T-Shirt more than the XS size in it, if this is a 'material used' issue? Or any of the Men's clothing?

Plain T-Shirts for Women aren't cheaper than the Men's, but they are a lot smaller.

They've done this, because they know they will get away with it.

Plain T-Shirts for Women aren't cheaper than the Men's, but they are a lot smaller.

And that is only worse for girls and boys' clothes. Fucking tiny girls' clothes more than giant boys' clothes for the same age.

I nearly always have to chop bits off trouser legs, can I take the off cuts back for a refund?

A clothes manufacturer was interviewed on the radio and she said by far the most expensive part of a garment is the fabric. Cost of zip, thread, buttons etc is minimal.

Not sure on that one. This year youngest DD has taken her GCSE textiles exam. Her theme was 1950's and she made a fabulous shorts and top set. The pattern for the shorts cost £12, the pattern for the top £14, then she chose the material, zips, elastic, buttons and whatever you call the stuff that went in the bust part of the top. Had to be made to fit a size 10 mannequin, total cost was £34.80. So at £26 for the pattern that is a huge cost although I guess that can be reused. However she still got an entire outfit for £8.80 and it clearly states the pattern is for a size 4-12 and there is very little difference in the amount of materiel needed

They know they can get away with it as choice for plus size people is terrible so they shop where they can. Plus society sees fat people and assumes its their own fault so they deserve to be ripped off.

ThunderPunt sadly bigger busts need more engineering to stay perky (hate the word but brain gone). Small boobs the bra can basically be a triangle or elegant and enticing lace while for the great lumps of fat I have you need a degree in structural engineering and a supply of heavy duty sacking.

HelenaDove Wed 16-May-18 01:01:03

Im 32HH my bras are £30 a time Because of my boobs i have to buy a blouse in a bigger size too. And this is AFTER losing weight!!!

I also have lipodema. Hereditary. Am i really supposed to pay more because im unable to go back in time and hand my grandfather a condom?!
Add message | Report | Message poster
HelenaDove Wed 16-May-18 01:05:35

I shop at New Look and dont have any trouble fitting into their trousers . Florence + Fred though.............not a chance.
i had someone on here tell me to get a Poundworld sports bra I did it for shits and giggles. DH and i had a bloody good laugh over it. A fucking hand towel would have given me more support.

Only works if your size 6 is costing less than your size 10 and that's costing less than your size 14. And if a 16 in both ranges is costing the same.

That's not the case. Either have to be charging by the inch throughout or have the same exact item cost the same at all sizes.