Dear Lane Bryant,
Aug. 31st, 2009 09:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
valis2We've been together a long time, haven't we?
I first met you at the mall, while I was looking for grown-up clothes. You were so liberating! A store where plus-size clothing was the main product, not the afterthought. I went a little nuts, as you might remember, spending a grand over the first two years. I loved your sweaters. It was a match made in heaven.
And we only grew closer. I stopped buying clothes almost anywhere else. I began to understand your stocking cycles. You, in turn, started paying more attention to trends and fashions, and you even started using high-profile plus-size models for your ads.
I mean, there were still some strange moments. Like the time I found that you had stocked three giant racks full of halter tops, and I had to really wonder if you understood your target audience, especially later, when I saw that your clearance section was now overflowing with halter tops. Still, I thought it a momentary lapse of reason. An aberration.
But little by little, these aberrations became commonplace. Slowly but surely, you changed.
I used to find it hard to limit my purchases to under $100. Now I can barely find $100 of clothing to buy.
Let me explain.
I do not need every article of clothing to be in the season's "hot colors." Hot pink and bright turquoise are not my friends. Yes, thank you for the chocolate and the black, but I have enough of that already.
Not every sweater needs a hood. Especially not a nice comfy cotton cardigan marked "sleepwear."
Not every piece of clothing needs to sparkle. I do not want to sparkle. We've had issues with that before, remember? I'm a big girl. I don't need to blind people. And stop with the rivets. A few are okay. More than that, and you start chewing up my washing machine.
I don't mind being a little daring every so often. But a shirt that is so low-cut that you can see the front of my bra? No.
There is absolutely no reason that you need to elasticize the bottom two to four inches of a sweater. Do you understand what that looks like on a plus-size girl who has a bit of a tummy? It is unflattering in the extreme, and very infuriating, especially when the sweater in question is adorable otherwise.
There is absolutely no need to elasticize the bottom two to four inches of your tops. Or put a clingy waist in them, even though the rest of the outfit is about as shapely as a flour sack. An empire waist, sure. But not an across-the-hips waist. You of all people should understand this. One or two shirts, I could understand. But not a significant portion of your offerings.
Speaking of sweaters, when did you decide that all sweaters needed to be either a) shapeless or b) so close-fitting and thin that no shirt can be worn underneath? If these were half of your offerings, I would understand, but when the majority of your sweaters falls into one of these two categories it becomes vexing.
I don't care if everyone is wearing ruffles right now. They are not particularly flattering, and less so on plus-size girls. Adding ruffles to a few blouses is fine. Adding ruffles to the majority? Not fine. I am not a clown. I don't play one on TV.
If the trend (for the past three years, no less) does include lots of patterned tees with funky gothic script and angels and butterflies and heraldic coats-of-arms, then why do you stock only four of them? I have been to major department stores and seen the regular-size departments. They are full of tees like this. Why the ruffled blouses, and not the screened tees? Nearly every plus-size department has more of a selection, including Ed Hardy tees. And why, for two of the four that you are stocking, do you insist on using a regular neck t-shirt and then cutting a four inch slit down the very front? Do you really think that this will lay properly? Do you really think that after repeated washings this will still look good? Also, haven't you noticed that any time you stock screened tees, they sell out quickly? I often can't find my size. Why don't you carry more of them?
Hot pink and orange argyle sweaters? I wouldn't wear one on a bet. I can't imagine anyone in the plus-size world would.
For old times' sake, I tried on your new jeans again, the kind you love to trumpet about. You know, the jeans that are sized according to your own proprietary system. Yes, it's a wonderful idea, but I am still questioning the logic, considering that I tried on the "blue" version, which promises to understand that my hips are bigger than my waist, and yet was disappointed to find that, once again, I could barely get them over my hips because the zipper is so short, and again, they fit like a glove but gave me the most obvious camel-toe ever. This is exactly what happened a year and a half ago. Isn't there any further market research being done? Don't you think it a little odd that you've obviously measured the hip size, but failed to realize that the waist + zip needs to EXCEED the hip size so that people can actually get into them?
Why are so many of your models no longer plus-size? Why can't you stop making the plus-size models pose in contorted positions? I understand that you wish to avoid unsightly bulges, but I would like to see what it looks like without the model grabbing the hem and pulling it away from her, or keeping her lower torso turned ninety degrees away from her upper body.
Do you understand that I went into your store and planned on spending $225, and could barely pick out $140? And that was with buying two black tees that I really didn't even need to buy. I'm really disappointed in you. I thought we meant more to you. Why do you keep getting overexcited about certain trends? Don't you realize that not every trend is flattering on the plus-size? And why aren't you capitalizing on the trends that the plus-size are really wearing?
I think our affair is finally over. We had some good times, but I just can't deal with a hood on my sleepwear and I will not wear a hot pink and orange argyle sweater.
No love,
Valis
I first met you at the mall, while I was looking for grown-up clothes. You were so liberating! A store where plus-size clothing was the main product, not the afterthought. I went a little nuts, as you might remember, spending a grand over the first two years. I loved your sweaters. It was a match made in heaven.
And we only grew closer. I stopped buying clothes almost anywhere else. I began to understand your stocking cycles. You, in turn, started paying more attention to trends and fashions, and you even started using high-profile plus-size models for your ads.
I mean, there were still some strange moments. Like the time I found that you had stocked three giant racks full of halter tops, and I had to really wonder if you understood your target audience, especially later, when I saw that your clearance section was now overflowing with halter tops. Still, I thought it a momentary lapse of reason. An aberration.
But little by little, these aberrations became commonplace. Slowly but surely, you changed.
I used to find it hard to limit my purchases to under $100. Now I can barely find $100 of clothing to buy.
Let me explain.
I do not need every article of clothing to be in the season's "hot colors." Hot pink and bright turquoise are not my friends. Yes, thank you for the chocolate and the black, but I have enough of that already.
Not every sweater needs a hood. Especially not a nice comfy cotton cardigan marked "sleepwear."
Not every piece of clothing needs to sparkle. I do not want to sparkle. We've had issues with that before, remember? I'm a big girl. I don't need to blind people. And stop with the rivets. A few are okay. More than that, and you start chewing up my washing machine.
I don't mind being a little daring every so often. But a shirt that is so low-cut that you can see the front of my bra? No.
There is absolutely no reason that you need to elasticize the bottom two to four inches of a sweater. Do you understand what that looks like on a plus-size girl who has a bit of a tummy? It is unflattering in the extreme, and very infuriating, especially when the sweater in question is adorable otherwise.
There is absolutely no need to elasticize the bottom two to four inches of your tops. Or put a clingy waist in them, even though the rest of the outfit is about as shapely as a flour sack. An empire waist, sure. But not an across-the-hips waist. You of all people should understand this. One or two shirts, I could understand. But not a significant portion of your offerings.
Speaking of sweaters, when did you decide that all sweaters needed to be either a) shapeless or b) so close-fitting and thin that no shirt can be worn underneath? If these were half of your offerings, I would understand, but when the majority of your sweaters falls into one of these two categories it becomes vexing.
I don't care if everyone is wearing ruffles right now. They are not particularly flattering, and less so on plus-size girls. Adding ruffles to a few blouses is fine. Adding ruffles to the majority? Not fine. I am not a clown. I don't play one on TV.
If the trend (for the past three years, no less) does include lots of patterned tees with funky gothic script and angels and butterflies and heraldic coats-of-arms, then why do you stock only four of them? I have been to major department stores and seen the regular-size departments. They are full of tees like this. Why the ruffled blouses, and not the screened tees? Nearly every plus-size department has more of a selection, including Ed Hardy tees. And why, for two of the four that you are stocking, do you insist on using a regular neck t-shirt and then cutting a four inch slit down the very front? Do you really think that this will lay properly? Do you really think that after repeated washings this will still look good? Also, haven't you noticed that any time you stock screened tees, they sell out quickly? I often can't find my size. Why don't you carry more of them?
Hot pink and orange argyle sweaters? I wouldn't wear one on a bet. I can't imagine anyone in the plus-size world would.
For old times' sake, I tried on your new jeans again, the kind you love to trumpet about. You know, the jeans that are sized according to your own proprietary system. Yes, it's a wonderful idea, but I am still questioning the logic, considering that I tried on the "blue" version, which promises to understand that my hips are bigger than my waist, and yet was disappointed to find that, once again, I could barely get them over my hips because the zipper is so short, and again, they fit like a glove but gave me the most obvious camel-toe ever. This is exactly what happened a year and a half ago. Isn't there any further market research being done? Don't you think it a little odd that you've obviously measured the hip size, but failed to realize that the waist + zip needs to EXCEED the hip size so that people can actually get into them?
Why are so many of your models no longer plus-size? Why can't you stop making the plus-size models pose in contorted positions? I understand that you wish to avoid unsightly bulges, but I would like to see what it looks like without the model grabbing the hem and pulling it away from her, or keeping her lower torso turned ninety degrees away from her upper body.
Do you understand that I went into your store and planned on spending $225, and could barely pick out $140? And that was with buying two black tees that I really didn't even need to buy. I'm really disappointed in you. I thought we meant more to you. Why do you keep getting overexcited about certain trends? Don't you realize that not every trend is flattering on the plus-size? And why aren't you capitalizing on the trends that the plus-size are really wearing?
I think our affair is finally over. We had some good times, but I just can't deal with a hood on my sleepwear and I will not wear a hot pink and orange argyle sweater.
No love,
Valis
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:12 am (UTC)That had big, fat, nasty riveted buttons... not on front, oh, no, but under the ass.
My first day at work --and my work is not sedentary, I'm on my feet 70% of the day--I was ready to rip the thing from my body and light fire to my hair and run screaming out onto the prairie. Because the back side of the riveted buttons on my backside was gouging out some of the best skin I ever had.
Why, LB? Why?
And there are not enough v-neck 3/4 sleeve t-shirts, and too damn many shirts that have strings and laces and gewgaws hanging off of them, just waiting to get caught on something.
I've got a pair of khaki capris from Dickies, of all people that, after years of trying the one-season-only paper-thin LB version, are a revelation. LB is good for cotton knickers and a pick-me-up blouse, but that's kind of the limit.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:19 am (UTC)That had big, fat, nasty riveted buttons... not on front, oh, no, but under the ass.
My first day at work --and my work is not sedentary, I'm on my feet 70% of the day--I was ready to rip the thing from my body and light fire to my hair and run screaming out onto the prairie. Because the back side of the riveted buttons on my backside was gouging out some of the best skin I ever had.
YES. What the hell is going on?! Some of this stuff is guaranteed to cause misery. I tried on a pair of jeans that had full-on giant zippers on the back pockets. Giant zippers. Back pockets. Guaranteed to rip out the upholstery in your car.
Even worse--I'm sure you would shudder to see it--they had a sweater where the neck hole was a giant zipper track. I am not making this up. It had zipper heads on each shoulder. Yes. Comfortable, right?
And there are not enough v-neck 3/4 sleeve t-shirts, and too damn many shirts that have strings and laces and gewgaws hanging off of them, just waiting to get caught on something.
Some of them are just absolutely grotesque. They have some really cute stuff that is impractical, but then sometimes they have to outugly themselves, and they'll have something with...oh, say, leopardskin print AND giant fake plastic gems glued to it. Huh?
I've got a pair of khaki capris from Dickies, of all people that, after years of trying the one-season-only paper-thin LB version, are a revelation. LB is good for cotton knickers and a pick-me-up blouse, but that's kind of the limit.
I think this is IT. Enough. I cannot take it anymore. I've been so faithful for so long, and I'm just now realizing that I have no idea who they're clothing anymore, because it sure as hell isn't me.
I guess it's back to Lee jeans for me. And I'll have to cross my fingers and hope that Torrid has the occasional awesome thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:21 am (UTC)And I'm not really enamored of Fashion Bug, either. grah.
I do try department stores, but even still, it's hard to find anything up-to-date. LB? Too trendy with wacky trends. Kohl's/Target? Too blah and too shapeless and tacky.
*hugs in commiseration*
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:39 am (UTC)Sorry, you sort of caught me in a rant I was already having. Bah.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:40 am (UTC)They are SO CUTE.
I don't know if this will take you there or not:
Ed Hardy (http://www1.macys.com/catalog/index.ognc?CategoryID=34048&Size=NOSELECTION&FeaturedBrand=Ed+Hardy&PPP=24&PageID=146238227629188)
Or you can just go to Macy's site and click on plus size tops, and then use the drop-down menu to select Ed Hardy.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:46 am (UTC)Talbot's.
Yes, really. Their petite women's jackets fit me as if custom tailored, and the quality is high. Wait for a sale, but if you need a basic tailored blazer or interview suit, they are *the* best.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:56 am (UTC)YES. And even though they do have a set of staples, sometimes they do inexplicable things with them, like the pink/turquoise thing, and, this time, horizontal stripes. No, seriously. One shirt was sweatshirt grey with lime green stripes. I am not making this up.
And OH GOD the elasticating weird parts of their clothes, we spent a whole season a bit ago where they put elastic around the fattest part of all the sleeves, as if to encourage a slight sausage shape thing. I can't explain it because it MADE NO SENSE.
Yes, what the hell?! What is this about? Also, I don't understand the sweater-bathrobe thing. For a size 6, sure. For plus-size, it makes the hips look quite large. And yet LB had some new versions of it, even though the trend was three years ago!
Sorry, you sort of caught me in a rant I was already having. Bah.
It was a great rant. I enjoyed it tremendously.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 01:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 02:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 02:21 am (UTC)I was attracted to the retro jackets they had until I realized they were plastic. blech.