Oklahoma Nesties
amidavey06
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
What do you think about this?
I heard this on the radio this morning and thought it would be a great hot topic. I do not share this opinion though.
A woman called into a radio show this morning. She said that she was a size 2 and has been all of her life and that she works very hard to stay that way. Her opinion was that since she is a much smaller size in clothing than bigger sized people that she should pay less for clothes since it's less fabric being used. She compared it to when you get your hair dyed woman who have longer hair pay more since they have more hair than people with shorter hair. What does OK nesties think about this?
Re: What do you think about this?
Well, based on her logic, she is right.
I think her argument would have been better supported if she wouldn't have given her size. Because of that, I think most would automatically disagree with her.
Thanks for proving my point.
S always complained because his clothes were more expensive because he needed tall or extra-long in everything, so really, smaller clothes were cheaper.
Also, as a side note, I never knew the price for coloring your hair was based on the length
Yup.
One of my coworkers pointed out to me today that at Wal-mart, anything above an XXL is $1 or $2 more. If you consider that fabric is, what, $5 a yard, that makes sense. Now, according to my conversation with Ami, this chick a doodle on the radio thinks that her clothes should be like half the price of say, a size 13 which doesn't make any sense if you are simply talking about the true cost of a piece of fabric. If you are charging $13 for a pair of size 2 jeans and $30 for a pair of size 13 jeans, well, that is just retarded and has nothing to do with the cost of fabric.
Logically, I'm ok with this. DH (a 2XL) already pays more for his tshirts most of the time than if he wore a S-->1X, so this already happens. Theoretically, I think I'm OK with it (for the record, I'm solidly in the middle of the "misses" sizes.) BUT when you buy fabric en masse like most manufacturers do, it's pretty damn cheap for most stuff. So, how about we pay an extra 20 cents per each additional size. That should more than cover it at most major retailors.
From a business perspective, I think the idea sucks. It seems like an awesome way to alienate 90% of your customers.
Ethically, my desire would be that we all pay $2.00 more per piece of clothing we buy, to go directly into the pockets of the woman or child in the developing world who got paid 22 cents to make my $40 blouse.
Say what? Which designers are you refering to?
From an actual cost standpoint, I don't think it makes sense either. The cost of fabric is a very small portion of the total cost, when we consider that the manufacturing, storage, shipping, marketing, management, overhead, etc are all constant regardless of garment size. The cost savings in fabric probably wouldn't even cover the cost or printing different price tags for each size point and tracking more complicated inventory costs, so the manufacturer / vendor may even lose profit in that scenario.
From an actual cost standpoint, I don't think it makes sense either. The cost of fabric is a very small portion of the total cost, when we consider that the manufacturing, storage, shipping, marketing, management, overhead, etc are all constant regardless of garment size. The cost savings in fabric probably wouldn't even cover the cost or printing different price tags for each size point and tracking more complicated inventory costs, so the manufacturer / vendor may even lose profit in that scenario.
That's a great point. I didn't even think of that.
I am discussing more that a designer creates a look for a woman who is smaller, for example, when you look at the models they choose to walk the runway or do their look book.
I read this column once, about how designers don't design for women above size 8, but make the 8+ sizes due to the market, and national average size of a woman. It went on to discuss how after a certain size, maybe 12? They just add on fabric without thinking of how it way lay on the woman. Etc.
Some places, like Land's End, DO add extra cost to the plus sizes. Their regular sizes will be on sale, but not the plus sizes, and the cost is normally $5-10 more when not on sale. Sometimes a little more, especially for dresses.
I don't think her argument is valid, in that Wendy is right: it's not the cost of the fabric. I mean, are shorts really all that less expensive than pants? Are skirts? They have less fabric, but they aren't really that much cheaper, if at all. I would likely pay the same price for a pair of capris as I would for a pair of full-length trousers.
She sounds a little like a whiny brat. Good for her for being small, I guess, but it doesn't necessarily mean she's healthy or "deserves" a break at the register.