New Look (UK) "Fat tax" - how do you feel about it?

Pankratous · May 16, 2018

New Look is a British Fashion Retailer.

There is controversy right now because they are charging more for plus sized clothes i.e. the same item but in the large size. Full details here: http://www.itv.com/news/2018-05-15/...lothing-prices-following-fat-tax-controversy/

Most people seem to be for the price increase. You're fat, you need more material to make the product, you should pay more - is the consensus I'm seeing online.

People are arguing that kids clothes increase as they get bigger, so why shouldn't adults?

People are equating it to other businesses: if you order a large burger you pay more than a small, because there's more product.

I'm curious to see how this goes down on Era. What do you think?

Jindrax · May 16, 2018

I'm actually surprised this isn't already the case? You're telling me a male's shirt in S and in XXL costs the same atm?

Pankratous · May 16, 2018

Jindrax said:
I'm actually surprised this isn't already the case? You're telling me a male's shirt in S and in XXL costs the same atm?

Typically yes.

Jonnax · May 16, 2018

Well I'd assume it's less about the material and more about the volume sold.

Like if they're making 1000 mediums and 300 plus size trousers.
Then the unit cost for the mediums will be lower.

Maybe.

honest_ry · May 16, 2018

I was shopping in Primark with the wife. A pair of shorts were more expensive than a pair of jeans.

Explain that?

WhateverItTakes · May 16, 2018

I feel like you should probably be having it so your margins even out across how much of each size you sell.

It's the businesses right to put an extra charge of course but it's been normalised for years that sizes still cost the same, I can't see much advantage from rocking the boat.

The King beyond the wall · May 16, 2018

Seems fair enough to me. Its more material, costs more to make, costs more to deliver, takes up more room to store.

Its not a 'fat tax' as it is not there to punish people who wear larger sizes, its just about commercial realism.

Deleted member 10193 · May 16, 2018

I am a huge fatass and I agree with it. It might shame people into slimming down and bigger clothes use more material.

Rassilon · May 16, 2018

honest_ry said:
I was shopping in Primark with the wife. A pair of shorts were more expensive than a pair of jeans.

Explain that?

Cotton / polyester percentage?

Cocolina · May 16, 2018

As a tall bloke my trousers are already marked up because I have to buy them from specialist outlets. And that's not in my control, apart from just not wearing trousers. So while I want the Primarks and Nexts of the world to provide a leg length right for me, they won't.

From a simple business perspective. More material = more cost.

But they have been operating within the XS and XXL (or whatever) window for some time now, and unless they have to introduce a new size for fat people then they shouldn't be marking up their existing products.

Deleted member 862 · May 16, 2018

as if the material cost is what determines the price of clothes. Come on you know what they're doing it's because they want a certain demographic for their brand image.

honest_ry · May 16, 2018

Unit 333 said:
Cotton / polyester percentage?

Jean shorts.

If they are charging by material size then they will need to question everything they sell.

Rassilon · May 16, 2018

honest_ry said:
Jean shorts.

If they are charging by material size then they will need to question everything they sell.

I suppose. Maybe it's a supply and demand thing. Or they just throw out weird prices and see if they can get away with it.

Kinda like how you can get jeans at Zara or Topman that have shit smeared all over them and big tears everywhere, and they'll sell if for £40 - £50.

Ruruja · May 16, 2018

I don't really agree with it considering the sizes S to XL are usually the same price.

Dan Thunder · May 16, 2018

In theory I'm not against it if, and it's a big IF, the amount of material used is significant. However, if that article is accurate and New Look are (were?) charging up to 30% more on certain items then I'd be surprised if the increase in material costs were that significant.

The King beyond the wall · May 16, 2018

null said:
as if the material cost is what determines the price of clothes. Come on you know what they're doing it's because they want a certain demographic for their brand image.

Are you suggesting that they don't want certain people (who represent a considerable proportion of society) to buy their goods? :p

Cocolina · May 16, 2018

null said:
as if the material cost is what determines the price of clothes. Come on you know what they're doing it's because they want a certain demographic for their brand image.

New Look? Brand image? They know their demographics, and by putting up prices of these items they expect to create more revenue. Not drive people away.

NullPointerException · May 16, 2018

This has been happening for a while now. I've noticed numerous XXL t-shirts, shirts, underwear in the US and UK that were typically a little more than clothes items that were S,M and L. Suprised that its only been picked up now.

elyetis · May 16, 2018

null said:
Come on you know what they're doing it's because they want a certain demographic for their brand image.

If it's the reason shouldn't they just... not sell all size ?

Haunted · May 16, 2018

Seems completely sensical to me.

It’s Time To Go · May 16, 2018

This isn't a new thing a lot of places already charge you more for XXL t shirts.

EagleBen · May 16, 2018

Aftermath · May 16, 2018

Yeah been noticing this has been happening for over a year or two for t-shirts of plus size, e.g I see a tee onsale for £15 go to choose plus size can then be £17.99or even £19.99

weekev · May 16, 2018

It makes sense, more material means more cost. I don't get what Primark are doing in honest_ry 's case though. Just be a volume of manufacture type thing. They sell less shorts therefore bulk buying of them is more expensive. Maybe it's a different supplier. Who knows.

I agree with the fat tax. I also think it would give people more incentive to get thinner and lead a healthier life since obesity seems to be on the rise.

4444244 · May 16, 2018

honest_ry said:
Jean shorts.

If they are charging by material size then they will need to question everything they sell.

Ah, that's the 'shame tax' for Jorts then.

Mr. Giggles · May 16, 2018

Wasn't this always the case? I mean "Big and tall" stores are fucking expensive and always were.

I just assumed other clothes makers just set the MSRP based on the largest size and it was everyone smaller getting screwed

Deleted member 862 · May 16, 2018

Cocolina said:
New Look? Brand image? They know their demographics, and by putting up prices of these items they expect to create more revenue. Not drive people away.

My first thought was this was going to drive people away and then you ask why. Judging by the response though it doesn't seem like they are happy about being called out and are reviewing it. Maybe it was just a poorly thought-out money making excerise but it's pretty bad pr when a chuck of your customers feel like they're being unfairly targeted.

Certinfy · May 16, 2018

Good. As someone small I shouldn't be paying the same price as someone buying far bigger sizes which obviously cost a ton more to make.

Qikz · May 16, 2018

As someone who has to wear large shirts because of the fact I'm tall, I'd really prefer not to have to pay more for clothing. I didn't choose to be this tall, it's not like I can slim down either.

Sizes on clothes doesn't automatically mean fat/thin. My legs are 38inches for instance, I buy 41inch leg to leave a little bit of bagginess at the bottom. I can't do anything about the size of my legs, it's not really fair to make me pay more for my clothes when they likely cost them the same to produce.

SNES Jr · May 16, 2018

This is a scam. In the example from the link, unless I'm mistaken, the products aren't using exotic materials, making a larger size isn't going to cost them even close to the absurd 30% markup.

D65 · May 16, 2018

Tkmax will still it for cheaper anyway

Yoshi · May 16, 2018

Fine by me.

Mihos · May 16, 2018

A lot of sizes on the high and low end of the size chart never sell, so there is A lot of waste to recoup there. Not to mention extra material, weight and space for shipping, etc. Shoes in some sizes are only made on demand because of that.

A trip to Stein Mart or other discount store that gets the unsold product from bigger chains is usually lousy with xxl and xxs stuff being sold at a deep cut under retail

Empress of ice cream · May 16, 2018

If it is proper plus size clothing I see no problem with it. You don't just grade the core size pattern up. The entire pattern is different for plus size.
It is sort of like you have to pay more for bras that aren't within the core size range.

ReplacementPelican · May 16, 2018

I don't really have much experience of this because i don't buy larger sizes but I honestly think it's a bit bullshit. I get why it would be done but realistically they should amortise the overall cost for the run of clothes into each sizes to make it more 'fair.'

Though I guess it depends how large we're talking as you could argue they're 'specialist.'

nekkid · May 16, 2018

honest_ry said:
I was shopping in Primark with the wife. A pair of shorts were more expensive than a pair of jeans.

Explain that?

Supply and demand. Warm weather.

tokkun · May 16, 2018

ReplacementPelican said:
I don't really have much experience of this because i don't buy larger sizes but I honestly think it's a bit bullshit. I get why it would be done but realistically they should amortise the overall cost for the run of clothes into each sizes to make it more 'fair.'

Though I guess it depends how large we're talking as you could argue they're 'specialist.'

Why is asking buyers of small sizes to subsidize buyers of large sizes more fair? Seems like fairness would be pricing the sizes for equal profit margins, not setting equal prices.

GeekyDad · May 16, 2018

Hmm...the US has been charging extra for plus sizes for decades.

SweetVermouth · May 16, 2018

Pankratous said:
you need more material to make the product, you should pay more - is the consensus I'm seeing online

It's incredibly short sighted and superficial though.
The price is not made out of how much material the product uses. God damn what does it cost to manufactur a shirt? Like one sold for 5 bucks probably is made out of material worth 50 cents and then the larger versions maybe 65 cents and people are seriously arguing "omg they should pay 15 cents more". If a company is fine with selling a larger version of a shirt and make a little less money then where is the problem?

There is nothing wrong with selling products that use more material for a higher price though, but telling them they SHOULD is like... what is this? Controlled economy.

tokkun said:
Why is asking buyers of small sizes to subsidize buyers of large sizes more fair?

How are you subsidizing anything if they still make money of the larger product?

SNES Jr · May 16, 2018

tokkun said:
Why is asking buyers of small sizes to subsidize buyers of large sizes more fair? Seems like fairness would be pricing the sizes for equal profit margins, not setting equal prices.

These brands are making a killing off of you, the difference in material cost from a small to an XL is barely anything in most cases. Blaming larger people for the cost of your clothes is misguided.

Zelenogorsk · May 16, 2018

I'm a fat guy and for the most part this is already the case with the clothes i buy. I'm fine with it. More material to make the clothes, more expensive clothes. It just makes sense.

I wear 3XL shirts and that's just way more fabric than say a medium. The idea that 54 inch waist jeans would cost the same as 34 inch waist jeans doesn't make sense to me.

Trickster · May 16, 2018

I mean yeah, you should pay more for a bigger version of something. This is pretty generally accepted for most products, don't see why clothes should be different.

Schreckstoff · May 16, 2018

What about people that are just taller?

My brother's feet are size 12. Seems unfair that he has to pay more for his apparel due to no fault of his own and that's in addition to being limited in selection.

The Booktastic Bus · May 16, 2018

Seems fair enough at first glance. The UK is quite overweight anyway and obesity being a norm is an unhealthy idea.

Frankie_baby · May 16, 2018

Considering new look is at the cheaper low margin end of the market I'm shocked it' taken them this long to do it

OceanBreeze · May 16, 2018

Being fat isn't normal.

Taxing fat people is fine.

Gakidou · May 16, 2018

Love how the fat shamers are conveniently forgetting that tall and muscular people exist..

Also yeah, I already thought there's often price increases at larger sizes, especially shopping on the internet. It's fine I'm curvy and really fussy/physically hypersensitive so i'm used to being shit out of options. Clothing prices ain't exactly utilitarian anyway. There's been a growth (heh) in better stores that specialise in plus sizes, and maybe even pay tax and don't use sweatshop labour anyway. If companies don't want to compete with affordability to plus sized customers then uh... np.

Kismet · May 16, 2018

Good.

I hope this gets implemented everywhere.

Deleted member 7051 · May 16, 2018

honest_ry said:
I was shopping in Primark with the wife. A pair of shorts were more expensive than a pair of jeans.

Explain that?

You were in Primark? You disgust me. Your wife deserves at least Debenhams! >:0

Srsly tho, maybe the shorts were just higher quality or used a more expensive material. Or they were on sale or on reduction.

StallionDan · May 16, 2018

Different size cost of materials is pennies for most items.

30% increase is pure BS.

New Look (UK) "Fat tax" - how do you feel about it?

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

Prophet of Regret

Is this a test?

User requested account closure

User requested account closure