Everyone knows that when going to an all-you-can-eat restaurant, there will be people of all sizes and all appetites gorging and picking at food. The whole concept is for there to be an evenness in pricing, and that going with anything other than an empty stomach is perhaps rather silly. Clearly there are those whose stomachs have a greater capacity than others, so to a degree, there is unfairness in the whole set-up. Still, there is at the same time a fairness because the details are known beforehand, and the up-front information allows people to opt for such an establishment is they want. The only real unfairness in everything is the ludicrous price of drinks, and so in a way, the 'subsidy' (if there is one) to those who push up the average consumption of food comes from the general consumption of drinks to wash down the good value food.
Having explained in general terms the above, I feel entitled now to move on a tangent to the approach adopted in the retail world, and more particularly in 'fashion', where there is no such logic employed in the pricing of things. Take the case of a company called Bonprix, which has recently been advertising that its prices are excellent and that sizes range from 6 to 32. The concept of charging a flat price for all sizes is wholly unfair. Yes, I know there are many factors that determine the sale price of an item, and that the ancillary costs are possibly no greater in some cases for a larger rather than a smaller item. Nevertheless, my contention is that there's no way on this earth that a small pair of women's shorts in a size 6 should cost the same as a similar (in the loosest sense of the word) pair in a size 32. To have fourteen different sizes from tiny to fucking large is noble in catering for the general public, but a complete and utter tax on small people because they are subsidising the fat fuckers.
In the restaurant analogy, it is the case that to a small degree there is some flexibility because a thin/small person could make sure of a completely empty stomach and then eat a lot, while a fat fucker could decide on an amount of food smaller than normal. This introduces a sense of tailoring (forgive the pun) that sees some minor balance to the 'one price feeds all' approach. The tailoring in the fashion world is rather less fair because you are the size you are at the point of sale - you cannot just 'get a bit more' for a change. The woman who picks up a size 6 pair of shorts could most probably get three pairs out of the size 32 variant. But in the fashion world, fat fuckers are subsidised. Until there is a proper and fair deterrent then fat people will continue to dress at the expense of others, and the 'others' who are most unfairly affected are the smallest and skinniest in society. It's no wonder that average weights are growing as they are.
Moving sideways within the retail world, I notice that it is only clothing where retailers rarely feel they need to charge by the size of clothes or the amount of material or work that went into making the product. In almost every other department, 'big' costs more. In a range of suitcases, you will always find that the larger the case, the higher the price - logical of course, but not a principle that transfers to fashion. Take a better example, something material and closer to people - bed sheets. If anything, the work involved in creating bed sheets of different sizes varies hardly at all, and so the only real difference is the amount of material needed to cover the different sizes of mattress. But the 'king size' sheet will cost a lot more than the 'double' and more still than the 'single'. Why? Cotton sheets are sold in a fair way, with a correct pricing model, while cotton shirts are not. How silly.
QED
...
No comments:
Post a Comment