Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Will Now Let You Try On Clothes Before You Buy Them (theverge.com)

For many people, buying clothing online is not worth the hassle of getting a pair of pants or a shirt that does not fit. Many retailers have sought to eliminate that risk by offering free returns on clothing, but now Amazon is going even further. From a report: Amazon is launching Prime Wardrobe, a new program that will let you try on clothes before you buy them. Once you select at least three Prime Wardrobe-eligible pieces from over a million clothing options, Amazon will ship your selections to you in a resealable return box with a prepaid shipping label. After you try on the clothes, you can put the ones you don't want back in the box and leave it at your front door -- Prime Wardrobe also comes with free scheduled pickups from UPS. If you decide to keep at least three items you will get a 10 percent discount off your purchase, and if you keep five or more pieces the discount rises to 20 percent.

105 comments

  1. Do what I always do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fart in the pants and send them back.

    1. Re:Do what I always do by slashdice · · Score: 1

      this.

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  2. Oh great by ChoGGi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    used clothes from Amazon, just what I wanted.

    1. Re: Oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just another jacked idea. My mom has been using a service just like this for years. She usually sends all but one item back so I guess such a service makes sense to her.

    2. Re:Oh great by MikeDataLink · · Score: 2

      used clothes from Amazon, just what I wanted.

      How do you know the pair you tried on a Target or JCP wasn't tried on 5 minutes before you? What's the difference between that and this other than location?

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    3. Re:Oh great by Gilgaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can hang out and watch the staff at the retail places fold or rehang the clothes from the dressing room and put them back on the rack if you like... they don't launder them first.

    4. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. It won't be from Amazon. It will be from some random third party with quality and service in the very predictable range of 0 to 100.

    5. Re:Oh great by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      There's a huge difference between clothes that have been tried in the fitting room for a couple minutes and clothes that have been "tried" for a night on the town and then returned. Most people aren't gonna be mucking around too much in the clothes in a retail shop, but who knows what you will do to them at home or elsewhere.

    6. Re:Oh great by contrains · · Score: 2

      The difference there though would be that those clothes still never leave the store, whereas these may have been in any type of home environment before being returned. This says nothing of retail returns, however.

    7. Re: Oh great by adolf · · Score: 1

      Not much stops me from buying some clothes off of the rack at Macy's and returning them (used) a week later...with tags.

    8. Re: Oh great by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      And herpes.

    9. Re:Oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you assume they don't leave the store? Nearly every retailer accepts returns if the tags are still attached and there is no visible damage.

    10. Re: Oh great by adolf · · Score: 1

      On this great day, we all have herpes.

  3. Whole Foods... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is being renamed 'Whole Foods and Outfits'.

  4. Awesome!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No cleaning bills. Wear your 3 outfits, send them back and its better than dry cleaning.

  5. Too bad sizing isn't standarized. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

    The big problem is the lack of standardization in clothing sizes.
    Depending on the brand a Medium Sized shirt on me can fit nicely or it could be Tight and I will need to go to a large version, when then becomes baggy on me. Other brands have finer detail on the sizing, but the size number is only relevant to the brand.
    Then you have the problem with different body types. As a stockier build, many things that fit are either too long, or just tight around the arms and shoulder other than that they may fit.

    Except for having free return shipping. Amazon should ship over a Tailor to get your size.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Too bad sizing isn't standarized. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      The big problem is the lack of standardization in clothing sizes.

      Female voice: What's wrong?
      Man on monitor: I just bought one of these yesterday, and it doesn't fit my consumer, and the store doesn't have any of the other kind.
      Male voice: For more enjoyment and greater efficiency, consumption is being standardized. We are sorry...
      Man on monitor: This is -
      [cut off]

      I'm thinking that Bezos' s00p3r s3krit plan is to get us hooked on buying Amazon Clothes, and then gradually reduce the selection until we are all stuck wearing Mao suits.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Too bad sizing isn't standarized. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      If I read it correctly, the whole idea is that if you like a shirt, you order the range of applicable sizes and send back the ones that don't fit. Something that would be hard retail, but perhaps doable with their logistics, might be to have even casual clothes sold by measurement like dress clothes. Then you'd be more likely to get the proper fit in one try.

    3. Re:Too bad sizing isn't standarized. by enjar · · Score: 1

      Amazon should ship over a Tailor to get your size.

      When I read the headline, I was hoping Amazon had found a way to use a app + cameraphone to make a reasonable 3d scan of a customer's body and then map that onto sizing. They wouldn't need to ship a tailor!

    4. Re:Too bad sizing isn't standarized. by swillden · · Score: 2

      Amazon should ship over a Tailor to get your size.

      You jest, but you really should be able to take detailed measurements of yourself (not hard; but it helps to have a friend) and enter them into the web site, and then Amazon should be able to calculate how each piece of clothing will fit you and show you an image of a virtual dummy shaped like you with the clothes on it. This would not be easy, and would probably require both some serious research modeling how various fabrics fall on different shapes, and some method of acquiring very detailed data on the construction of each piece of clothing, including variation within sizes.

      Couple this with something like Google's project Tango and maybe there's a future in which you strip down, point your phone camera at yourself and have your phone generate a detailed 3D model of your body, then send that model to an online clothing retailer, which can show you exactly how something will fit. Actually the logical next step is to get rid of rack sizing entirely and have each piece of clothing custom-created (by robots) to exactly your measurements.

      Super easy returns are clearly just a stopgap towards the eventual perfect fitting.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Too bad sizing isn't standarized. by c · · Score: 1

      You jest, but you really should be able to take detailed measurements of yourself (not hard; but it helps to have a friend) and enter them into the web site, and then Amazon should be able to calculate how each piece of clothing will fit you...

      The assumption is that Amazon has accurate clothing sizes from its vendors. That's, if you'll pardon the expression, quite a stretch.

      Unless Amazon launches some sort of Amazon Basics for clothing, sizing is going to remain a bit of a crapshoot.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    6. Re:Too bad sizing isn't standarized. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best fitting shirts I have were bought online. But I don't use sites like Amazon where the focus is getting them cheap - I use sites which allow you to enter your neck, chest and arm-length measurements in standard units, and select the best fit based on those from a range of 20 - 30 sizings. I find this works out better than going into a shop and picking out something that looks good from whatever they have in stock that day and trying it for fit. I know there are shops that will take your measurements too, but where I live they only really use the full measurements for suits, shirts are in a limited range of sizes, and usually if I get the right size for my body, it is too tight in the neck (fine if it's not a shirt I will wear a tie with), and if I get the right size for my neck it is too baggy around the body.

    7. Re:Too bad sizing isn't standarized. by swillden · · Score: 1

      You jest, but you really should be able to take detailed measurements of yourself (not hard; but it helps to have a friend) and enter them into the web site, and then Amazon should be able to calculate how each piece of clothing will fit you...

      The assumption is that Amazon has accurate clothing sizes from its vendors.

      They're big enough to demand it. Or they could develop a solution to measure samples themselves.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:Too bad sizing isn't standarized. by c · · Score: 1

      They're big enough to demand it. Or they could develop a solution to measure samples themselves.

      They can't even keep counterfeits out of their system. I don't see them having much luck enforcing size labelling.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    9. Re:Too bad sizing isn't standarized. by swillden · · Score: 1

      They're big enough to demand it. Or they could develop a solution to measure samples themselves.

      They can't even keep counterfeits out of their system. I don't see them having much luck enforcing size labelling.

      Meh. Who cares about counterfeits? Not the customers; if they did they'd return the counterfeits in large enough volumes to make Amazon care.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  6. Great by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will be great for my wife. Not so great for my wallet.

    "But it's 20% off! I'm saving us money by buying more!"

    1. Re:Great by zodar · · Score: 2

      Here's how the rest of that conversation goes in my house:

      "I know how you can save 100% off."

      "I know, I know, don't buy it, God!"

      "You do? Because it seems like you DON'T know."

    2. Re:Great by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      This will be great for my wife. Not so great for my wallet.

      I think that's the point

    3. Re:Great by ardmhacha · · Score: 1

      "Free shipping!!!"

    4. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, I have lived that. Am still living that.

      her "Honey I saved us $200!"
      me "Savings are a smaller percentage of the cost. So saving $200 means you spent what, $2000?"
      her "I don't know, but I SAVED us $200! Aren't you proud of me?!?

    5. Re:Great by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      All true, but if you don't get "retail therapy" other kinds can be even more costly.

  7. RIP Credit Card by zodar · · Score: 1

    Christ. My gf is going to go fucking *crazy* with this.

    1. Re:RIP Credit Card by slashdice · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm waiting for Amazon Girlfriend. They send you 3 girlfriends and you can try them out for a week and return the ones you don't like.

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    2. Re:RIP Credit Card by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Christ. My gf is going to go fucking *crazy* with this.

      She has her own job and money to spend, no?

      If not...you might suggest she gets one...it shouldn't be your problem.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  8. 21st Century Capitalism. by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Prime Video. Prime Pantry. Prime Wardrobe.

    Sure as hell seems like every new feature on Amazon is making a Prime membership rather mandatory instead of merely a nice benefit to cut down on shipping costs.

    I shouldn't be surprised. Being forced to subscribe to every service you use to create a per-customer-cost-for-life revenue stream is the definition of capitalism in the 21st century.

    1. Re:21st Century Capitalism. by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Prime stuff is lining up to compete with warehouse stores a la Costco or Sam's Club.

    2. Re:21st Century Capitalism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, let me pay you for the privilege of buying from you. NOT.

    3. Re:21st Century Capitalism. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Prime Video. Prime Pantry. Prime Wardrobe.

      Next Amazon offering: Prime Numbers

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:21st Century Capitalism. by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      We thought that CostCo - later Sams - was a "good thing" from about 2000 to about 2008, by 2009 we realized that we were spending $30, no $40, no it's $50 per year now for the "privilege" of shopping at this store-o-giant boxes maybe 5 or 6 times a year, getting stuff we don't necessarily want, at prices that aren't necessarily any better than the convenient grocery store down the street.

      I like Amazon, too much in fact, but if they start making Prime the only way to shop there, I'll be buying a lot less from them.

    5. Re:21st Century Capitalism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who is already a Prime member, I'm ok with them adding additional services to what I'm already paying for. Of course the time may come when the cost of Prime goes up signifficantly, but I can only assume that they'll do their research on what people are willing to pay for access to those services. As it is now, the $100 per year for Prime is easily worth it for us.

    6. Re:21st Century Capitalism. by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Being forced to subscribe to every service you use to create a per-customer-cost-for-life revenue stream is the definition of capitalism in the 21st century.

      I wouldn't say you're forced to do anything. You still have the same options you did before Amazon launched this service.

      A membership fee means a guaranteed source of revenue, in turn making it easier to try out new ideas and products knowing that there's a financial buffer mitigating some of the risk associated with it, so you'd expect services like this to be tied to Prime.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  9. This is BETTER for your wallet by Tinsoldier314 · · Score: 1

    To all the dudes (and dudettes) out there with wives and girlfriends (boyfriends, or girlfriends too, I don't judge) spending their money on clothes, this is much better! I don't know about you but there have been many occasions when my credit card billing period ended before the 15 shirts/pants whatever that she ordered were returned and refunded. I end up having to pay off the balance regardless of the fact that $400 bucks was refunded by the time the statement actually arrived. On rare occasion that even puts me at a negative balance, it's absurd. With this new Amazon option, the benefit is you are only charged for the things she's actually keeping so you don't have to worry about that. OH and if you have a revolving balance? Imagine the daily interest you were paying for something that was just gonna get refunded anyway!

    1. Re:This is BETTER for your wallet by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      You need to get a wife/girlfriend who has her own money and buys her own clothes.

    2. Re:This is BETTER for your wallet by DogDude · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you but there have been many occasions when my credit card billing period ended before the 15 shirts/pants whatever that she ordered were returned and refunded.

      In all seriousness, it sounds like you should be spending some money on mental health treatment, instead of more clothes.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:This is BETTER for your wallet by Tinsoldier314 · · Score: 1

      Mixed finances is common among adult relationships but thanks for commenting.

    4. Re:This is BETTER for your wallet by Tinsoldier314 · · Score: 1

      Interesting. When a guy above commented, "The big problem is the lack of standardization in clothing sizes." he got a +5 Informative but when someone comments on a shopping behavior that is a natural corollary to poor clothing size standardization they get trolled. The whole basis of Amazon's offer is to facilitate trying clothes on before making the financial commitment. Have you ever bought your own clothes or do you assume everyone just buys a triple pack of t-shirts in plastic every few years and nothing else?

    5. Re:This is BETTER for your wallet by DogDude · · Score: 0

      I buy my own clothes. The idea of buying 15 pieces of attire at any one time, to me, at least, indicates some kind of mental illness.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    6. Re:This is BETTER for your wallet by Tinsoldier314 · · Score: 1

      Given the aforementioned lack of standardization in clothing size means you have to order extras. A few t-shirts, a few button-up shirts, a few shorts and a couple pants for the new summer season. Keep the two or three that actually fit and are pleasing and return the rest. This is common practice when purchasing clothing online which is why you see a $100 Billion dollar company catering to that shopping model.

      Can identify which mental illness is suggested by this behavior and why Amazon is coddling these mentally ill individuals?

  10. Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by jbridges · · Score: 2

    Used to be Vanity Sizing only messed up the woman's clothing market. But now it's infected men's clothing as well.
    Phrases like "relaxed fit" are only the first clue. There are now all kinds of tricks to telling what the actual size will be. If you see any kind of adjustments or elastic you can be sure they will be super oversized to make men feel better about their growing girth.

    All this makes it brutally hard to buy clothes that fit based on measurements!

    The sad part is, I don't think we can turn back. Consumers love the idea of wearing a smaller size than their real measurement, so like the marching morons with their speedometers that lie, we keep buying the vanity sizing.

    1. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Usually relaxed fit has to do with the pant leg length and the room in the crotch/ass.

    2. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Not length, but width of the leg.

    3. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      It hurts the retailers if people keep returning clothes, so retailers have an incentive to pressure manufacturers to have accurate sizing.

    4. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All this makes it brutally hard to buy clothes that fit based on measurements!

      I make clothes from scratch, starting with pattern drafting. Buying clothes based on measurements will always be a crap-shoot. There are countless curves and angles that can not be communicated effectively. Most "size charts" are laughably simplistic. They might tell you if a garment will be too small to stretch over your body, but if you actually care about how your clothes fit, you have to try things on.

    5. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      See Carlin's bit about "loose fitting jeans." It's been going on for decades.

      http://lybio.net/george-carlin...

    6. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It'd be a whole lot easier if everyone just wore stretchy spandex outfits like in 70s sci-fi movies.

    7. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I live in America. That's a horrible idea.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All this makes it brutally hard to buy clothes that fit based on measurements!

      Soon enough we'll get rid of rack sizing entirely and you'll just provide your detailed body measurements (like a tailor would take, but measured with your smartphone) and the clothing will be custom made to fit. I give it 10 years at the outside.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ok, here's a better idea: people with up to a certain BMI (25?) are allowed to wear stretchy spandex outfits. People over that threshold are only allowed to wear baggy sweatclothes. This way, both groups have clothes that only really need to come in a handful of sizes and pretty much fit everyone, and don't need any kind of special cuts.

    10. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I remain a bit skeptical but I'll sign on as a matter of general principle.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      It's already started. My girlfriend used likeaglove smart pants so she could find jeans that fit her well. She's got a badonkadonk and lymphadema so it's been hard to find pants she likes, the smart pants found her a good match that she's happy with.

    12. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In the pants I've tried, it appears to mean that the waistband is about an inch larger around.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It'd be a whole lot sillier if everyone just wore fashions from Fritz Lang's Metropolis.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:Vanity Sizing - now in men's clothes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MTailor already does exactly this. I'm a big fan!

      https://www.mtailor.com/

  11. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been doing that for years with other webshops in the Netherlands.
    Free delivery and free returns. I order several sizes and see which ones fit best.

    What's so special about Amazon here?

  12. Cool. I'm buying underwear by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Cool. I'm buying underwear.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  13. Amazon big data can't even tell that I'm fat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm fat, really fat, like 6'0" 380lbs. I've bought clothes in this size, and never bought any clothes for anyone else. Amazon still has never figured this out, and constantly recommends me clothes that will have Zero percent chance of fitting. How they are going to send anything remotely close to fitting will remain to be seen.

    1. Re:Amazon big data can't even tell that I'm fat by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      I think you pick the size and outfits you want. I don't think they randomly send you clothes.

    2. Re:Amazon big data can't even tell that I'm fat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... You think this is Amazon sending you random items willy-nilly, and not you picking out the items and sizes yourself? Are you a moron?

  14. Re:Cool. I'm buying underwear by Hardness · · Score: 1

    Pervert.

  15. Whipped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So hard not even the spine remaina

  16. Now adding even MORE extra packaging! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want to ship boxes around the country adding weight and landfill mass while burning fuel for NO DISCERNIBLE REASON? Amazon, the app for that!

    1. Re:Now adding even MORE extra packaging! by slazzy · · Score: 1
      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    2. Re:Now adding even MORE extra packaging! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Want to ship boxes around the country adding weight and landfill mass while burning fuel for NO DISCERNIBLE REASON?

      Well the alternative is everyone driving their SUV to the mall (10-60 minutes away perhaps) just so they can try on clothes in person. Replacing that with delivery drivers from Fedex/UPS ferrying boxes back and forth, and improving efficiency by combining shipments onto one truck for one neighborhood/route (so that 100 customers get their clothes delivered by 1 truck, rather than 100 people driving their personal vehicles to the mall), seems like it's actually better for the planet. The main downside is the cardboard boxes which they don't seem to reuse that much, but cardboard is highly recyclable and actually is recycled heavily by big companies. I don't know what you mean by "adding weight and landfill mass". Amazon is pretty bad about adding any packing materials to their boxes actually (they just toss the goods in there and tape it up usually), and I don't see how this adds to the landfill any more than people driving themselves to the mall.

      Seriously, if you think about it, online shopping is likely far more ecological than shopping at a local B&M store. The main downsides are 1) the inability to see something up-close and touch it and try it on (without sending it back), 2) having to wait to get it unless you pay for expensive shipping, and 3) the lack of the social aspect of shopping, and getting a little exercise from walking around which shopping in a mall forces you to do.

  17. That's nice... what about furniture? by mark-t · · Score: 2

    Seriously... online business is decimating brick and mortar stores but there is absolutely no way I would ever buy something like a sofa without trying it out first.

  18. So, pretty much Stitch Fix? Zappos? BirchBox? by enjar · · Score: 1

    I guess the only missing part is combining this with the "auto renew" function they already have for toothbrushes and the like. "Send me five shirts I might like every three months" doesn't seem too much of a stretch here. I know my wife has ordered many pairs of shoes from Zappos (bought by Amazon in 2009) and they make returns very easy, so she will get multiple sizes to see which fit the best and return all the others.

  19. Luckily for the rest of us... by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fart in the pants and send them back.

    That would concern me more, except that neither I nor anyone else I know need XXXXXXL pants.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. And can't be by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Jacket and long-sleeve shirt sizing especially seems crazy to me. You can't boil down a shirt to just "XL" or "L" - often the "L" jackets fit me perfectly, except I have long arms so the sleeves are too short... so I usually get to choose between baggy jacket or sleeves that are too short.

    I am sure hoping with the increase of technology in manufacturing that pretty much all shirts and pants can be ordered with a variety of sleeve lengths/chest size/neck size/waist/inseam.... just like dress shirts. At least pants you can mostly order that way (though even then sizes do not seem fully consistent).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. NOT good enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want Amazon to fly a drone out to me with my new pants within an hour! If I don't like 'em, I'm sending them back on the drone...

  22. Oh yes it is! Oh no it isn't! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    >For many people, buying clothing online is not worth the hassle of getting a pair of pants or a shirt that does not fit.

    For me it's ok. If I walk into a clothing store, E.G. Nordstom, there's maybe a 20% chance I'll find something that fits and is shaped reasonably and doesn't cost a stupid amount of money. However having found some fitting clothes at M&S and fitting clothes at Nordstom, I certainly can look up the clothes online, filter by size, brand and price and have a close to 100% chance of finding shirts and trousers that are likely to fit. The occasional misfit will cost me maybe $35, but that's a lot better than schlepping to the other side of town multiple times to find one item of clothing and probably blowing more than $35 feeding the family or them buying ancillary mall crap.

    For whatever reason, M&S in the UK make trousers that fit and Nordstrom in the USA makes shirts that fit. So when an item starts to wear out, I start looking online and swap it out when I find and buy a replacement.

    This is so much better than how clothes shopping used to be.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  23. Cancelled my Prime due to AMZL shipping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because Amazons AMZL shipping sucks and is mostly late or missing.

  24. How does this make business sense? by wired_parrot · · Score: 1

    If the minimum order is 3 pieces of clothing, and assuming that the average consumer only buys 1, that means Amazon needs to hold 2 piece of unsold inventory for every 1 piece they sell. That's a substantial amount of inventory that needs to be held to justify each sale. The only way I can see this working is if they price their items higher to account for the costs of the clothing that is returned without being purchased. How does this model make business sense?

    1. Re:How does this make business sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the minimum order is 3 pieces of clothing, and assuming that the average consumer only buys 1, that means Amazon needs to hold 2 piece of unsold inventory for every 1 piece they sell. That's a substantial amount of inventory that needs to be held to justify each sale. The only way I can see this working is if they price their items higher to account for the costs of the clothing that is returned without being purchased. How does this model make business sense?

      Simple. They will make it up on volume.

    2. Re:How does this make business sense? by SmSlDoo · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind, that if you order 3-4 items, at most you can save 10% and that is assuming you keep everything.
      So people wanting to get 20% off will always order at least 5 items, and will be more inclined to keep at least 5.

    3. Re:How does this make business sense? by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      Do you have any concept of the profit margins in fashion?

    4. Re:How does this make business sense? by hackel · · Score: 1

      Amazon already holds countless pieces of unsold inventory, for free, for its 3rd warehouse sellers. They don't seem to care. Whatever they're doing has been working for them for quite a long time now.

    5. Re:How does this make business sense? by wired_parrot · · Score: 1

      The unsold inventory being held for 3rd party vendors will eventually be sold and transformed into cash for their bottom line. The expectation is that the inventory is as closely matched to demand as possible to minimize unsold items.

      With this model, on the other hand, consumers are buying into it with the expectation of trying and returning items they don't like it. A substantial percentage of the inventory will be locked in try-ons and returns at any point in time. Even if the returned item is sold to another buyer, that new buyer will likely have returns of their own, thus ensuring the cycle continues.

    6. Re:How does this make business sense? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Whatever they're doing has been working for them for quite a long time now.

      As long as there are always more suckers to buy their stock, the ponzi scheme will continue.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    7. Re:How does this make business sense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the minimum order is 3 pieces of clothing, and assuming that the average consumer only buys 1, that means Amazon needs to hold 2 piece of unsold inventory for every 1 piece they sell. That's a substantial amount of inventory that needs to be held to justify each sale. The only way I can see this working is if they price their items higher to account for the costs of the clothing that is returned without being purchased. How does this model make business sense?

      As a rule of thumb, a retail store sells items at twice the cost they paid a wholesaler. Fashion is an exception: The markup at a mall store is often 5x. Amazon doesn't pay rent to the mall. They don't pay employees in high-cost-of-living locations to staff a store. They have no losses from shoplifters.

    8. Re:How does this make business sense? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The standard at most mid-tier boutiques are 2.25 (keystone) - 3 times cost.

      By mid-tier I mean men's t-shirts in the $50+ range, jeans in the $120-$250 range and button-downs in the $129-$300 range.

      100% + markup might sound like a lot, but by the time you factor in the cost of money, rent, employees, shrinkage, more you have an anemic profit margin.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    9. Re:How does this make business sense? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Some European fashion retailers have been doing this for a good while, and still manage to turn a profit. In fact free returns and only paying for the items you keep is starting to become the norm here.

      I am sure that this practice of taking a lot of returns, and having to receive and repackage them, eats into the profits of retailers a bit, but they make it up in volume: hassle and cost of returns has been one of the biggest problems that consumers had when mail ordering apparel. Assume those costs and you'll sell more, which means you will have more clout when negotiating with fashion labels, which is extremely important. A boutique owner once told me that selling clothes is the easy part, almost anyone can do that. The hard part is to make a decent profit, and you do that when buying your stock. Which involves some tough negotiating.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  25. In other words by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The items are marked up at +20% and if you buy more than 5, the penalty is removed.

    Any "discount" you ever get is only the removal of a markup.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The items are marked up at +20% and if you buy more than 5, the penalty is removed.

      Any "discount" you ever get is only the removal of a markup.

      This is Amazon, so presumably these are non-exclusive items that can be comparison shopped across multiple retailers. As such, Amazon's price will approach some balance point between their cost, their corporate strategy, the market price and the value of this service.

      Put another way, you are already paying a markup for various gimmicks and inefficiencies no matter the seller. Amazon is just offering a new(ish ) wrinkle that customers may actually think is worth their money.

  26. Re:Cool. I'm buying underwear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Specifically, women's underwear. Sniff, sniff. Ah, that's a keeper.

  27. Killing the environment by hackel · · Score: 1

    Amazon continues in its mission to complete destroy the environment. All of their deliveries are bad enough, but free shipping back and forth just to TRY ON clothes? Come on... Until they have a viable drone or other delivery programme that is carbon-neutral, no responsible person can participate in such a horrible, polluting enterprise.

    1. Re:Killing the environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon continues in its mission to complete destroy the environment. All of their deliveries are bad enough, but free shipping back and forth just to TRY ON clothes? Come on... Until they have a viable drone or other delivery programme that is carbon-neutral, no responsible person can participate in such a horrible, polluting enterprise.

      The trucks that ship cloths to the mall use the same type of fuel as the trucks that ship the packages to your house. The car that moves you, the 100 other shoppers who go to the store today, and 20 store employees to work also burn gas.

      My local mall has an electrical substation next door. Given the power required to run the AC in summer and heat in winter, there is no other way to get that much electricity into a building the size of three football fields.

      Are you sure you want to keep people going there just to save the environmental cost of a cardboard box being mailed a second time?

    2. Re:Killing the environment by LunaticTippy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I used to feel this way too, but it might be misguided. Imagine a hundred people all driving to the mall to try on clothes - that is 100 cars making 200 round trips, plus all the electricity wasted at the mall on HVAC, lighting, as well as all the items that don't get bought and the army of trucks to supply the mall with products.

      Those 100 people could all be served by a single UPS truck making one big trip. The whole thing might be greener than the old way, even with all the wasted boxes and returns and whatnot. It is certainly cheaper, which keeps a hard lid on resource use.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    3. Re:Killing the environment by SnarkSide · · Score: 1

      It's hard to know what an appropriate system would be. I really hate the idea of everyone getting everything they buy delivered from online retailers. I also look at department stores and question the logic. Many retailers have a store full of stuff, but much of it isn't of any interest to many people. I don't have a better idea, but it's not hard to see the the inefficiency in online individual delivery of every consumer good a person could possibly want, or on the other hand the department stores filled with vast quantities of items nobody will buy.

  28. Consumer right in EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In short, in the European Union, any goods or a services bought at a distance. That is online or mail-order gives you have the right of return for any reason without justification for 14 days.

    http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

  29. Re:How does this make business sense? Shops do it by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    The only way I can see this working is if they price their items higher to account for the costs of the clothing that is returned without being purchased. How does this model make business sense?

    That is what happens in shops - they stock many different sizes and have to wait for the right-sized customer to come in and buy.

    But this way, Amazon swaps the overheads of retail outlets for the overheads of transportation costs, which I would guess are a lot lower.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  30. goodwill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please select clothing that is acceptable to Tanzanians, as they will be the ones to wear them after you throw them out.

  31. Grownups use tailors by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Schoolboys may buy standard sizes off department store racks. It often doesnt cost all that much more to go to a real [wo]menswear store and have clothing properly adjusted.

    1. Re:Grownups use tailors by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      At which point I've gotten into an extra layer of complexity for my clothes. Currently, I pick them up in the store, maybe try on a few, and pay for them and leave. I don't have to find a fitter and go through measurements and then pick them up next week. OK, OK, I'll get off your lawn.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  32. Amazon already had this without needing Prime by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    Most of their clothing and accessories are already eligible for Free Returns, without needing Prime.