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?

I'm 5ft 10 & a size 12, why should I pay more then someone who is 5ft & size 10?

I'm a shoe size 5.5/6 though so will those shoes in shops be cheaper than size 8?

Is everyone on this thread short? Taller people are going to be "bigger" than short people. That doesn't mean they are overweight though.

@Zazdar

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.

Only to a degree, a 6ft 6 young man will need much more food than a 5ft older woman.

For me it's nowt to do with being fat. We are all disadvantaged in life if we aren't "average". Occasionally I would like to have some benefit of being exceptionally short. If my clothes are cheaper to transport then hell yes I'd like them cheaper! If I'm cheaper to carry on a plane bell yes I'd like a larger luggage allowance or cheaper ticket.

I have to a ridiculous premium for an office chair, cars are super uncomfortable and lots lots more every day things.

All my reductions would offset my tall & large husbands extra charges 🤣

Where would it stop though?

I can’t imagine that people would be so keen to support a levy on disabled people because making business premises and transport accessible for them costs more than just catering for able bodied customers.

“You want better accessibility, you pay extra for it.”

If this is true, why are g strings always so expensive??!!

Zazder but in reality that is what happens for 99% of things catering for disabled people.

As a larger sized runner I wish more companies would just offer bigger sizes with acknowledgement of the fact it's more expensive rather than not cater for us at all.

After years of attempting and failing to lose weight, I've taken a different approach and am concentrating on being healthier instead. This means more exercise and sensible food choices. I've reduced my BMI from 42 to 34 which I'm delighted with, but my size is still very much in the "plus" region.

Finding running gear that is appropriately sized and proportioned is really bloody hard and depressing. I thought leggings, technical T-shirts and sports bras were bad enough but now I'm training for a marathon I'm looking for training vests with space for water bottles. As a woman the men's versions are no good water bottles balanced over FF boobs is not appealing - but they are the only ones that 'fit'.

I'd rather have choice even if it's more expensive than to be locked out of the market like I currently am.

Zazder but in reality that is what happens for 99% of things catering for disabled people.

99%?? While I don’t doubt that being disabled means significant extra costs that an able bodied person just wouldn’t need to pay, I think you may be underestimating the extent to which disabled access is subsidised by the able bodied population. Particularly where buildings and public transport vehicles need to be adapted or replaced to comply with the latest requirements.

Tricky one

If the garment is made from high quality fabric then the raw material for a large size are going to be much more than for a small size and I wonder if this is one reason why lots of high end designers don't make their clothes in anything bigger than about a 14 or 16

Retailers who pride themselves on being inclusive and offering a big range of sizes won't want to alienate their plus size customers by charging them more but the reality is that the garment will have cost more to produce in a bigger size

I wouldn’t mind this but I’m used to paying the tall premium anyway. Really unless the cloth is really expensive then the price should only vary by a quid or two between sizes so a size 10 t shirt would be 20 quid. Size 12 22 , 20 30 quid etc. Children’s wear also tends to go up by age not make a big leap. I wonder if it’d discourage weight gain if my favourite jeans would be an extra fiver or whatever.

@HopefulProcrastinator I so agree as a petite middle aged apple shape person I would just like to be able to buy clothes that for full stop the choice is non-existent especially as I look like death warmed up wearing black red or pink 🤦🏼‍♀️

I am slowly just accepting that I'll have to go back to making my own clothes which is anything but cheap.

Is it just me, or did lots of shops and catalogues do this back in the 70s and 80s?

@littlebilliie

Is have to buy tall, they are normally more expensive

Exactly. And age 12 costs more than age 3, so what is actually the issue here? Why should someone in size 4 petite subsidise me in size 12 tall when my clothes cost more to make, package and ship?

I’m not sure how I feel about this.

In theory, yes, it sounds fair.

But in reality, like someone else said, the difference in fabric costs in mass production is negligible - pennies rather than pounds. I think it would be better if each size was priced seperately rather than small sizes one price, mid sizes another and plus another.

My main issue I think would be that it just doesn’t feel very fair to single out people based on their size. I think very few people would choose to be overweight, and there are so many complex reasons why people are overweight, I actually think it borders a little on being ableist. Alcoholics don’t get charged for liver operations while Mormons don’t, for example.

It would be more fair for a small, independent business to charge differently for sizes but mass production huge corporations like Primark etc shouldn’t.

My main issue I think would be that it just doesn’t feel very fair to single out people based on their size. I think very few people would choose to be overweight,

Size isn't just about being overweight, it is also about height. Nobody can choose their height.

I should imagine shipping is more of a consideration than material. The difference between say a 6 and 24 is certainly notable.

Same with size 3 versus size 8 shoes more about the packing and shipping. I can get 2 pairs of my shoes in some shoe boxes.

Marks and Spence used to do this with their DD+ bras. It was highlighted by the “boob or bust”campaign and they had to apologise and charge the same.

At the time (I’m a size 10, 28G bra size) I remember thinking it was unfair that someone obese didn’t have to pay more for clothes but I had to pay more for bras, when there was absolutely nothing I could do about my bra size!

I'm sure ASOS were called out in the last few years for charging more for the same item in their Plus range.

There are some medical conditions which cause severe swelling, making the person appear overweight or obese... oedema and lymphoedema spring to mind. Just as someone cannot help their height or their shoe size, not all "obesity" can be helped.

@Pea79

I'm sure ASOS were called out in the last few years for charging more for the same item in their Plus range.

There are some medical conditions which cause severe swelling, making the person appear overweight or obese... oedema and lymphoedema spring to mind. Just as someone cannot help their height or their shoe size, not all "obesity" can be helped.

Less then 5% are obese because they have medical conditions, most of them are because they have a bad diet, they are not moving enough. and. Maybe is difficult for them to change their height, but for other people who are paying for them is impossibile to change their wheigt and it's not their fault, so why to punish this people?

Less then 5% are obese because they have medical conditions, most of them are because they have a bad diet, they are not moving enough.
and.
Maybe is difficult for them to change their weight, but for small , average people who are paying extra 5-30% each time they are buying chlotes is imposibile.
I can't edit the post so i repost it

Anybody wanna joing a group, where we can talk about what we can really do about changing this old tradition of subsidizing others people?
Let me know here or in private message smile

I worked in clothing manufacturing. Smaller sizes can be fiddly to make. Large sizes less so.

I think in terms of cost, the time spent manufacturing smaller items is counterbalanced by the cost of more fabric. Bigger sizes are easier and quicker to make.

Clothing price isn’t always about getting the cheapest possible though is it.

I am happy to pay extra for better quality fabric, better working conditions, companies with positive and ethical backgrounds. Although I’m a small woman, if a company charged more for bigger sizes I wouldn’t find it very inclusive and wouldn’t like the ethos enough to shop there. I do, however, support small companies which only offer a small size range - this is a business decision based on weighing up cost, supply and demand. Offering petite sizes actually costs a company more because they have to grade patterns accordingly - should petite people have to pay more?

Definitely worth a trial and see how the market responds. Full cost forwarding may however cut out the market for the larger sizes which could be a good or bad thing depending on how you market your brand.

I spend more for being a very average size as there is far less scope for picking up sale stuff so often buy full price.