NationStates Jolt Archive

Only a few days ago it annoyed its women shareholders by promoting clothes that show off too much cleavage.

Now Marks & Spencer has angered those customers with a lot of cleavage... by starting to charge extra for bigger-sized bras.

A protest group has been formed to try to force the chain to return to its previous policy of one price fits all.

M&S has put an extra £2 on its range of Ceriso Polka Dot and Floral Print Padded Bras, if the cup sizes are DD-G...

Read More >> (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034417/Bra-bust-M-amp-S-accused-levying-tax-bigger-breasts.html)

Sometimes news is fun :)

Why is this even news. If you go to any retailer, you'll find that the tall sizes and the fat sizes are extra. It's always been like that.

Why is this even news. If you go to any retailer, you'll find that the tall sizes and the fat sizes are extra. It's always been like that.

Probably not at M&S. BBC is bringing this also as news.

We had a similar story a few years ago. Some woman with a weight of 180kg (!) was suing some warehouse for not having clothes in her size.

She lost the case.

Probably not at M&S. BBC is bringing this also as news.

We had a similar story a few years ago. Some woman with a weight of 180kg (!) was suing some warehouse for not having clothes in her size.

She lost the case.
Maybe not. I looked at their women's wear and except for having a separate section for Plus sizes, they don't seem to break out sizes like Land's End or JC Penneys. does.

180 kg, what is that 400 lb? How can anyone even move at 400 lb?

What a bunch of boobs. :tongue:

Maybe not. I looked at their women's wear and except for having a separate section for Plus sizes, they don't seem to break out sizes like Land's End or JC Penneys. does.

180 kg, what is that 400 lb? How can anyone even move at 400 lb?

396 lbs exactly.

I don't know how she moved. But I think she could, I know a guy with a weight of 150 kg (330 lbs) and he is able to move slowly.

Why is this even news. If you go to any retailer, you'll find that the tall sizes and the fat sizes are extra. It's always been like that.

Really? What stores are you shopping at?

I have always seen the same price on an item of clothing regardless of its size from S to XXL.

Now granted if you have to get special clothes made for a certain size when you need to order it then there will be extra costs involved.

Actually, one of the things that's bugged me for a long time is how smaller versions of the same things (e.g., women's running sneakers of the exact same make and model as men's running sneakers) don't cost less than bigger things.

396 lbs exactly.

I don't know how she moved. But I think she could, I know a guy with a weight of 150 kg (330 lbs) and he is able to move slowly.
I've known >180 kg people who could move quite quickly for a brief spurts. In fact, I took one for a ten mile hike up and down a mountain once.

He was completely wiped out afterwards, but he did make it through the hike.

Larger clothes uses up more cloth? :D

Actually, one of the things that's bugged me for a long time is how smaller versions of the same things (e.g., women's running sneakers of the exact same make and model as men's running sneakers) don't cost less than bigger things.
Children's running shoes (which overlap with women's sizes to some extent) are significantly cheaper. I have some small friends who buy their clothes in the kids department at significant discounts.

However, I'm stuck being too tall for a lot of clothes and there aren't any special sections for "tall" nor are there stores for tall women around here. Thus, my coat sleeves are too short and the only time pants fit long enough is if I buy ones that are meant to be worn with heels (or if I shop in a store where they have measured inseams which doesn't seem to exist for dress pants).

I don't know how she moved. But I think she could, I know a guy with a weight of 150 kg (330 lbs) and he is able to move slowly.
I know a guy with a weight of over 300 lbs and he is able to punch out and throw away every participant of this thread combined.

I don't think the difference in cost of raw materials is of consequence. Most of the cost of clothing is design/manufacture/shipment, I would imagine. I can see larger sizes being a few dollars more expensive, and they often are, but the cost of manufacture and delivery are probably more or less identical.

Why is this even news.

As an excuse to print pics of scantily clad females?

Actually, one of the things that's bugged me for a long time is how smaller versions of the same things (e.g., women's running sneakers of the exact same make and model as men's running sneakers) don't cost less than bigger things.
Seeing as they're made by child slaves in an Asian sweatshop for 90 cents plus-minus ten, and the rest is split between profit and bribes to local cops, it doesn't make sense to bother adjusting the $30 retail price by said 10 cents.

I don't think the difference in cost of raw materials is of consequence. Most of the cost of clothing is design/manufacture/shipment, I would imagine. I can see larger sizes being a few dollars more expensive, and they often are, but the cost of manufacture and delivery are probably more or less identical.
Well, I can see here (http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/NIKfaqcompensation.html) that materials costs supposedly make up about 16% of the price of a Nike shoe. Shipping, which is also directly and linearly dependent on the item's total size (and these things travel a long way before hitting the retail shelves), probably increases the size-dependent fraction of apparel items to 20% of the wholesale cost of the shoe.

Then the retailer is paying a premium for shelf space; small women's shoes are sold in smaller boxes than large men's shoes.

Now, if I look at my thirteen-wide (US size) clompers (that's... what, 47 european?) and I look at some little missy's compact shoes of the exact same style, mine are about twice as large, contain twice as much fabric, took twice as much diesel to ship.

I think some depends on what kind of item, too - materials costs vary wildly as a percentage.

Seeing as they're made by child slaves in an Asian sweatshop for 90 cents plus-minus ten, and the rest is split between profit and bribes to local cops, it doesn't make sense to bother adjusting the $30 retail price by said 10 cents.
Personally, mine aren't, but even for sweatshop shoes, the raw materials eclipse labor. See link in my post above.

Personally, mine aren't, but even for sweatshop shoes, the raw materials eclipse labor.
Only if both are about a dollar.


See link in my post above.
You should understand the term "lie". When Nike is trying to justify using $0.50/hr semi-slave labor to make $100/pair shoes, that's their tool.

I'm not exactly the, er, biggest in the world, but it would definitely annoy me if I was and I had to pay extra for it. Although I can see where M&S are coming from, it would seem slightly less ridiculous if they charged more for larger sizes in other forms of clothing.

Really? What stores are you shopping at?

I have always seen the same price on an item of clothing regardless of its size from S to XXL.

Now granted if you have to get special clothes made for a certain size when you need to order it then there will be extra costs involved.
Go to Land's End and look up their tall sizes... They're always $5 or $6 bucks more.

As an excuse to print pics of scantily clad females?
Yeah, I'd buy that except that they have page3.com in the UK.

Personally, mine aren't, but even for sweatshop shoes, the raw materials eclipse labor. See link in my post above.
Not by much, and then there's the demand factor.
I have size 13 (46 Euro btw) feet as well. In Asia that's rare, but in the Antipodes fairly common. They can sell size 13 shoes at the same price as size 6 (I had a mate at Uni who had size 6 feet!) cause there's more of us flipper-feet around.

-snip-

Read More >> (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034417/Bra-bust-M-amp-S-accused-levying-tax-bigger-breasts.html)

Sometimes news is fun :)

More fabric = higher cost.

Anyone arguing against them raising prices on bras is a complete asshat.

More fabric = higher cost.

Anyone arguing against them raising prices on bras is a complete asshat.

Sure, if the did the same for larger sizes of other clothing.

Well, it's going to depend on the item some, but even for fairly cheap items, something like 10% of the price being related to shipping/materials costs is hardly unusual. That could very easily account for another couple dollars.

You should understand the term "lie". When Nike is trying to justify using $0.50/hr semi-slave labor to make $100/pair shoes, that's their tool.
In the same 1998 document that they admit that labor costs amount to roughly 4% of the price of the shoe?

Stretching their reported labor costs by including things other than the actual workers making the shoes, I'll believe. Stretching their reported materials costs? Why? If anything, it would make them look better if raw materials and labor were much closer together.

The money involved in shipping from Indonesia to retail in the US is probably close to a dollar a pound, all things considered. So yes, I would believe in a dollar or two difference in cost for some items, and usually, the markup from factory to wholesale to retail is a very significant percentage rather than a fixed rate per item. So... there you are. And it's particularly ridiculous to see women's sneakers sometimes be more expensive than men's sneakers of the same kind. IMO, the apparel market is more than a little messed up.

Of course, the reasons for that don't just involve sweatshops.

Sure, if the did the same for larger sizes of other clothing.

What ever makes the profit.

I'm not really sure if my bras cost more than ones that are too small because I know my size and I just buy that one, well, that's not exactly true, since I hate shopping for bras and jeans my husband knows my size and he goes and buys them for me. It's much easier that way, when I don't know how much they cost... except I was changing in front of my sister in law and she was like "whoa! you have a nice bra" and I was like "yeah, it fits" and then she told me where it was from (apparently people follow like "bra styles" or something).

Anyway, I have seen at Wal*mart that XXL are $1 more on men's shirts, there's big signs.

What ever makes the profit.

OK, I'm a UK size 8 (well...sometimes 10), so I don't have to worry about being charged for larger sizes of clothes, and I don't have to pay more than anyone else. I wear a B/C cup bra depending on where I get it from, and I don't have to pay any more than anyone else.

If I was a size whatever and didn't have to pay more for my clothes, I would be fairly miffed if I was also over a DD and had to pay more for my bras.

Only a few days ago it annoyed its women shareholders by promoting clothes that show off too much cleavage.

Now Marks & Spencer has angered those customers with a lot of cleavage... by starting to charge extra for bigger-sized bras.

A protest group has been formed to try to force the chain to return to its previous policy of one price fits all.

M&S has put an extra £2 on its range of Ceriso Polka Dot and Floral Print Padded Bras, if the cup sizes are DD-G...

Read More >> (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034417/Bra-bust-M-amp-S-accused-levying-tax-bigger-breasts.html)

Sometimes news is fun :)

Dont know seems reasonable, if they cost more to make or they dont move as many of them it may cost more or earn less unless there was a price difference

Why is this even news. If you go to any retailer, you'll find that the tall sizes and the fat sizes are extra. It's always been like that.

Bullshit. I shop at a number of stores that have clothes in the 'petite' range, the '14+' range and the 'tall' range. I don't pay less for pants because I'm 'petite', and I don't pay more for tops because I got a big rack.

Were that to change, yes, I'd be fucking outraged.

Bullshit. I shop at a number of stores that have clothes in the 'petite' range, the '14+' range and the 'tall' range. I don't pay less for pants because I'm 'petite', and I don't pay more for tops because I got a big rack.

Were that to change, yes, I'd be fucking outraged.

:eek2:

Sorry, my being a 17 year old actually shows itself every once and a while.

Only a few days ago it annoyed its women shareholders by promoting clothes that show off too much cleavage.

Now Marks & Spencer has angered those customers with a lot of cleavage... by starting to charge extra for bigger-sized bras.

A protest group has been formed to try to force the chain to return to its previous policy of one price fits all.

M&S has put an extra £2 on its range of Ceriso Polka Dot and Floral Print Padded Bras, if the cup sizes are DD-G...

Read More >> (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034417/Bra-bust-M-amp-S-accused-levying-tax-bigger-breasts.html)

Sometimes news is fun :)

I love the alliteration in the title.

Bullshit. I shop at a number of stores that have clothes in the 'petite' range, the '14+' range and the 'tall' range. I don't pay less for pants because I'm 'petite', and I don't pay more for tops because I got a big rack.

Were that to change, yes, I'd be fucking outraged.

Frequently in the US, at least as I can recall on my most recent trips to clothing stores, sizes S through XL or 2XL are one price, while 3XL and larger are indeed more expensive.

Not sure why bras have to be, though.

Bullshit. I shop at a number of stores that have clothes in the 'petite' range, the '14+' range and the 'tall' range. I don't pay less for pants because I'm 'petite', and I don't pay more for tops because I got a big rack.

Were that to change, yes, I'd be fucking outraged.

Hmmm mens dress shirts (talls) are all more in most of the major retailers that I have been to (sears JC pennies and kohles)

Most of your regular small through xxl are about the same but talls and greater then are more

Not enough for me to care though I figure they just sell less of them or cost more to make

More fabric = higher cost.

Anyone arguing against them raising prices on bras is a complete asshat.

Nice generalization -- in fact, it could be considered a flame, seeing as how I'm now going to argue against it and I don't like being called an asshat by someone like you, whose arguments are routinely more full of holes than a colander.

Such a bland world you live in with all that black and white. Are the cup sizes really using that much more fabric as they get larger? They still have to get around the torso. Also, if the more fabric argument were sound, why weren't they charging more for larger sizes until now?

Nice generalization. Such a bland world you live in with all that black and white. Are the cup sizes really using that much more fabric as they get larger? They still have to get around the torso. Also, if the more fabric argument were sound, why weren't they charging more for larger sizes until now?

I dunno. To be dicks?

Well, still, I'm surprised it hasn't been done by now. But, if people really don't like how the company's acting: Don't buy from them. They'll learn.

whose arguments are routinely more full of holes than a colander.

I always thought my arguments were just one big hole. I thank you for your compliment.

Such a bland world you live in with all that black and white. Are the cup sizes really using that much more fabric as they get larger? They still have to get around the torso.
Dude. You don't get to undo them often, do you? There's but a couple thin straps getting around the torso.


Also, if the more fabric argument were sound, why weren't they charging more for larger sizes until now?
Profit margin. Maybe before it was 2,000%, but now they have to make a profit of mere 1,000% if not a lowly 500%.

Sure, if the did the same for larger sizes of other clothing.

They do with some other

But I doubt the real reason is necessarily as much to do with cloth as supply and demand curves

Here some talls are more then larger but regular height piece of clothing ... even though sure cloth usage has to be close

Dude. You don't get to undo them often, do you?

Why was that at all necessary?

There's but a couple thin straps getting around the torso.

Seems to me that if you're generalizing about bras and think they only come with thin straps around the torso, it might be your own experience that needs padding (pardon the pun).

Profit margin. Maybe before it was 2,000%, but now they have to make a profit of mere 1,000% if not a lowly 500%.

Ah, I hadn't thought of that. Not making an obscene enough profit off the labor of sweatshop workers. Thanks for the reminder.

Seems to me that if you're generalizing about bras
Not at all. It's enough that some do. And in either case, the majority of the fabric is in the front.


Ah, I hadn't thought of that. Not making an obscene enough profit off the labor of sweatshop workers. Thanks for the reminder.
Yes. The profit drops - the need to collect moneyz rises.

A gentle lob over the net ...

More fabric = higher cost.

Anyone arguing against them raising prices on bras is a complete asshat.

draws a sizzling return ...

Nice generalization -- in fact, it could be considered a flame, seeing as how I'm now going to argue against it and I don't like being called an asshat by someone like you, whose arguments are routinely more full of holes than a colander.<snip>

... but let's remember that it's a friendly game, folks.

I'm not calling Holy Paradise's post a rules infraction, Intangelon, nor yours either. Right now, I think everyone's just batting ideas around. It's nice. Don't mess up my evening, 'kay?

:eek2:

Sorry, my being a 17 year old actually shows itself every once and a while.

You're a 2004 nation! Help keep the kids off the lawns! :D

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification, complete with apt metaphor.

Substitution effect, perhaps?

It is like buying a hummer during the peak of the gas prices. Women should be more sensitive to the economic crisis and tone down their breasts a little bit. We have to remember that it is not the 90's and the days of the Peg Bundy hairdo and ever-expanding bosom are over.

As an excuse to print pics of scantily clad females?
Scantily clad females with big tits.
Bullshit. I shop at a number of stores that have clothes in the 'petite' range, the '14+' range and the 'tall' range. I don't pay less for pants because I'm 'petite', and I don't pay more for tops because I got a big rack.

Were that to change, yes, I'd be fucking outraged.

Especially since M&S previously had a policy of 'one price fits all'. Not surprising they're getting bad press about it.

Bigger sizes often cost more here, both in bras and other clothes. *shrug*

It is like buying a hummer during the peak of the gas prices. Women should be more sensitive to the economic crisis and tone down their breasts a little bit. We have to remember that it is not the 90's and the days of the Peg Bundy hairdo and ever-expanding bosom are over.

I agree. The Peg Bundy hairdo can go. *nod*

More fabric = higher cost.

Anyone arguing against them raising prices on bras is a complete asshat.

That isn't the argument being made. The argument being made is that larger women need bras with a different construction. It is true that a woman with smaller boobs can get away with using a less well-constructed bra than a woman who is more well-endowed. Of course, to me, that just sounds like they're making all their smaller bras lower quality.

Not at all. It's enough that some do. And in either case, the majority of the fabric is in the front.

Depends on the style. The band actually carries most of the weight, so it needs to be well constructed. It is often more likely than the cups to have multiple layers of fabric and/or extra materials for support.

Look at it this way, the bigger your breasts, the more likely you are to find a man who'll buy your bras for you so cost becomes much less of an issue.

I would like to offer my support to these large breasted women.

Actually, one of the things that's bugged me for a long time is how smaller versions of the same things (e.g., women's running sneakers of the exact same make and model as men's running sneakers) don't cost less than bigger things.
Indeed. Just look at kids' clothes as compared to adult.

It occurred to me that there's likely more to bigger bras than just more fabric. One of my friends in high school had huge boobs and she would complain that her bras had many more hooks than the smaller ones (i.e. my bras have between one and two hooks, she claimed that hers had seven) and thicker straps. So this would involve some different designs to suit larger cup sizes as well as additional materials (including additional hooks).

Although I assume that usually places compensate for this by not carrying a full range of bras (I think the largest bras I've seen at the place I go to is DD) and then the places that carry larger bras can charge whatever they please.

That isn't the argument being made. The argument being made is that larger women need bras with a different construction. It is true that a woman with smaller boobs can get away with using a less well-constructed bra than a woman who is more well-endowed. Of course, to me, that just sounds like they're making all their smaller bras lower quality.

I'm not sure if it's lower quality... but if each of my boobs weighs ~1 lb then they don't need much support as they're not really going anywhere anyway and I'm not going to have back problems if my bra isn't supportive (hell, I could go without one if not for pointage issues). If someone's breasts weigh more they need to be held up better or else there will be back problems and the like.

Two things:

1) They backed down:

The well-endowed women of Britain claimed victory last night after Marks & Spencer dropped its £2 surcharge on the price of big bras.

The decision also came as a triumph for the Daily Mail after it highlighted the 'big boob surcharge' on Tuesday.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1178499/BRA-VO-Victory-women-Mail-M-S-axes-big-bust-surcharge.html

2) M&S has put an extra £2 on its range of Ceriso Polka Dot and Floral Print Padded Bras, if the cup sizes are DD-G.

Maybe a padded bra has a meaning I didn't know, but why on earth would anyone with already huge breasts want to wear a padded bra?

I know a guy with a weight of over 300 lbs and he is able to punch out and throw away every participant of this thread combined.

There's a difference between the Hulk and the Blob.

That said, I too find trouble buying clothes, as even the men's stores that extol the image of Mr. Tall, Dark and Handsome don't enjoy carrying XLT or other tall sizes. And God Forbid that they should try to stock any shirt over the 36-sleeve. Most of my clothes I end up wearing baggy, since obesity seems to be such a problem that fat guys are now more common than tall guys.

I only buy suits and other formal/semi-formal/business attire when it's on sale, otherwise I end up paying through the nose. Forget those discount stores, if it's in my size and in that store, it's either a crapload of Hawaiian shirts (I have plenty) or cut to look like a wife-beater, which is something that I really don't need. I can be scary enough as is, I don't need stores labeling me "future-homicidal-maniac" every time I go shopping.

Maybe a padded bra has a meaning I didn't know, but why on earth would anyone with already huge breasts want to wear a padded bra?

Comfort?

Comfort?

Where I'm from, padded bras are designed to make you look bigger.

I'm not sure if it's lower quality... but if each of my boobs weighs ~1 lb then they don't need much support as they're not really going anywhere anyway and I'm not going to have back problems if my bra isn't supportive (hell, I could go without one if not for pointage issues). If someone's breasts weigh more they need to be held up better or else there will be back problems and the like.

You basically just repeated what I just said. Women with smaller boobs don't need bras that are as well-constructed. They can use more cheaply made, less supportive bras.


Maybe a padded bra has a meaning I didn't know, but why on earth would anyone with already huge breasts want to wear a padded bra?

Shaping. Padding isn't always about adding size. Sometimes, it's just about getting the right shape.

Also, most women have one breast bigger than the other and the difference is sometimes significant. With removable padding, her breasts can be made to look better matched.

396 lbs exactly.

I don't know how she moved. But I think she could, I know a guy with a weight of 150 kg (330 lbs) and he is able to move slowly.

I weigh about 330lbs, I move pretty well, Got about a 6 second 40yd...

But, then again, Im 6'3", lol...

I agree. The Peg Bundy hairdo can go. *nod*

That hair was a serious drain on the economy.

Where I'm from, padded bras are designed to make you look bigger.

Well that may be so however I would think it may very well be a comfort issue for bigger sizes. Smaller sizes and being padded I would agree right a long with you.

I agree. The Peg Bundy hairdo can go. *nod*

I figure once the bun was let loose you would have some serious reigns to pull on.

Taxes are bad. Taxes that encourage smaller breast doubly so.

Taxes are bad. Taxes that encourage smaller breast doubly so.

Tax breaks for breast enhancement? What do you think?

Tax breaks for breast enhancement? What do you think?

tax breaks are good, Tax breaks that encourage larger bust doubly so.

Tax breaks for breast enhancement? What do you think?

Ew. Why would you want to encourage fake boobs?

Ew. Why would you want to encourage fake boobs?

I don't care for fake boobs but I was thinking of some sort of "stimulation package" for America.

Ew. Why would you want to encourage fake boobs?

No one one is forcing you to take the tax credit on the boob job.