Is it okay for clothing companies to charge cheaper prices for smaller sizes?

[Ioana97]

I am working for a fashion brand , and i heard discusions that they are considering to make prices based by size of chloting since the cost of materials, labour, logistics are cheaper for smaller sizes.
They are talking about ranking the price on few levels based by size not like some shops that have avarage and plus size.
The question is that moral, ethic what do you think?

Well bigger sized clothes are made with more fabric, why should a size 6 cost the same as a size 26 that’s made using twice as much fabric?

Obviously skinny people are going to be for this idea whilst larger people will claim it’s not fair.

I have seen clothes cost more in extra large sizes, so it isn’t a new idea. The same with men’s shoes in large sizes.

A someone very short and petite I would welcome not to be subsiding larger clothes. TBF I wish I could find clothes that fit me!!

I also think airlines should charge for your personal and luggage weight combined.

I also think airlines should charge for your personal and luggage weight combined.
Yes, it's ridiculous that your luggage can't be a kilo over but someone 50kg (or more) heavier is fine. Getting on a flight wearing two pairs of jeans, your heaviest boots, and several layers on top then removing in the loo once on board, also fine!

I also think airlines should charge for your personal and luggage weight combined.

That is hardly fair if you are 6’6”due to no fault of your own. Your clothes will weigh more too.

@Zazdar so?? Fuel is the key factor in flying and you pay ££££ for luggage excess because of yet someone twice or 3 times my weight pays the same price? Why are DC aged 2-11 cheaper - because they are lighter supposedly!

I am not adult height yet have to pay adult prices 🤷🏽‍♀️

I am not adult height yet have to pay adult prices

I agree, children should be charged full price.

@Zazdar

I am not adult height yet have to pay adult prices

I agree, children should be charged full price.

I think there should be a price per seat plus a price per kilo

This isn't new. John Lewis were doing it a few years ago (don't know if they still do). The price increased at a size 14.

I think there should be a price per seat plus a price per kilo

Maybe prices based on BMI would be fairer.

For clothes and airline tickets.

@Zazdar

I think there should be a price per seat plus a price per kilo

Maybe prices based on BMI would be fairer.

They don't do that for food. You want more, you pay for it. Just cover your own costs is fair

@Flaunch

Why should a size 10 person pay the same as a size 22 person but get half the product?

I’d be all for paying by size.

You don't get half the product! That means one trouser leg or half a skirt! I'm a smaller size too but not too fussed if my clothes are no cheaper than plus sizes.

@gogohm

How much of the cost has anything to do with the size (as a percentage)? many costs are fixed, of the variable costs, how much is the cost of the additional materials? How much extra time? How much extra weight for shipping? Is it 50p? £1, more? My suspicion is it's pennies

Yup. The actual increased cost per unit will be about 20p but they're charge the customer an extra £10.

Companies should instead do their research, see which sizes sell best and manufacture what will actual sell. Instead of having to reduce all the size 8s and size 18s.

@CeeceeBloomingdale

A step too far for adults (although I don't mind it so much for childrens clothing). What next? Weighing passengers on planes and charging excess baggage on their spare tyre?

You sound incredulous but I've been suggesting scales for flights for years! The max should be 100kg per person+ luggage for a ticket. If I weigh 60kg then I get 40kg of luggage. If you're 90kg you only get 10kg. If you + luggage weight more than 100kg you pay an excess.

They don't do that for food. You want more, you pay for it. Just cover your own costs is fair

The difference is that you get to choose how much food you eat. You don't get to choose how tall you are.

Cant see why not as bigger sizes use more material.

@RamonaFlowers1

Didn't M&S have to cut the prices of their bigger bras by £2 to match the smaller sizes a few years ago because so many people complained? As someone who is cursed blessed with a 34J size I hate only being able to order bras online and having to pay so much more for them, when it's not my fault they're this size. I'd love to be able to buy bras from Primark!

I remember that, and suspect that these two facts may be connected.

If public opinion revolts at paying different amounts for different sizes then retailers are inevitably forced into a situation where larger sizes are (slightly?) less profitable than smaller sizes. Hardly surprising if they then don't stock much of the larger sizes.

I'm a printer & charge less for smaller sizes.

Big people use more material I guess.

Next have 5-packs of plain tee shirts for about 25 pounds available in size 6 to size 26.
If you divide up 5 pounds per tee shirt into Profit/Tax/selling/supply chain/and manufacturing you get to the point where you realise that the costs to manufacture a size 26 tee shirt is more than the profit on a size six. (Transport costs will also be higher)

But the tax, transporting, etc is the same.

The manufacturing depends on the methods used and how workers are paid. If workers are on a piece rate then the manufacturing is the same If they are on an hourly rate then the cost may be higher for the smaller item.

If you are using an automated process for things like cutting then the time taken to change the settings on the machine(s) is where there is no profit.

As workers in factories in India are paid peanuts it might be 1p per pack.

If you buy material in a sari shop you can buy per metre or you can buy a 'suit length' this is exactly the same amount of cloth regardless of your size.

I think people are forgetting that when you cut cloth there will always be waste, it's not like cooking where you can cut out scones and then re roll the left over scone mix and make more. Once cloth is cut that's it.

I could buy a couple of metres of worsted and make myself a suit, but if I were to take the same material to a tailors and have a suit made to measure I would be paying £££ because I'm paying for the skill of the tailor.

Fine with me

If fabric made up such a negligible portion of the price of a garment then 99% of high street clothes wouldn't have moved from cotton to polyester.

I suspect people who like the idea are partly liking the idea of fat people being 'punished' in some way.

Men's clothes often use more fabric too, so those - even of comparable design and style to women's - ought to be more expensive.

And people with big feet should watch out, as trainers and other shoes should definitely then also increase with size.

Extra long jeans? Larger gloves or hats? Lenses for bigger glasses? Large watch bands? Bigger cup sizes in bras? All fair game then too.

But I think people think some of those aren't acceptable, then I wonder if their reasoning has more of a (conscious or unconscious) desire that fatter people ought to be punished, which is such a prevalent view already even when people don't realise they hold it.

But to answer the question, no, I don't think it should be done. I think it's such a small proportion of costs compared to the fixed costs, and I think that it would increase the prejudice towards larger people in a way that would not help anyone.