Yeah, no kidding -- especially with strapless designs, you really need to see them on someone with breasts to see whether/how they'll stay up.
I'd totally wear that black/teal ombre dress if I had a hope of finding a strapless bra that could cope with the Rack O'D00m ;P
But, yeah -- why advertise plus-size dresses and then only show pictures of skinny models? Sheesh. Certainly loses them *my* custom, because the dress is going to look very different on a size 16 than on a size 6, and it'd be nice to actually have an idea before spending the money.
A proper corset is the best bet for me -- I'm an F cup, so I need steel boning if I'm going to wear something without shoulder straps. I usually just wind up having this kind of formalwear custom-made by a friend of mine who is a corsetiere as well as a costumer, but it's nice to see off-the-rack options being made in larger sizes.
However, showing them on skinny models not only pisses off their intended customer base, it really is useless in determining how the dress would suit a woman in the 16-28 range that they're selling to.
I have a feeling that they are selling the same dresses to a misses' size range and just photographed them once, and re-used the photos for their plus-sized page . . . but it's a damn shame, and lazy marketing.
By my casual reckoning the plus line was exclusively 16-28, as opposed to the normal prom line which runs 0-28. They seem like different models too, and I'd be prepared to accept that they are large_r_. But I can't quite believe that those are 43" busts holding those dresses up, ya know? And, duh, bad business to try and sell a dress based on what it looks like essentially still on the hanger. If you're trying to make the case that those styles will look good on big girls, then show me!
And TALL -- I was picked up by a scout as a possible plus-sized model, and then was told (when I showed up for the actual casting call) that I was too short -- you have to be 5'10" or taller to be a size 12/14 model (I'm 5'8".)
Apparently, wearing heels does not count.
STILL annoyed about that, since I left work early and fought DC-rush-hour traffic to get to that appointment . . . ;P
God these women are fucking obese. What are those fat sacs on their chest area? Don't they know that the only thing on their chest should be, like, BONES? Like, OMG.
A friend pointed out the page titled "Plus-Sized Prom Designs."
The images baffle me and my friends. Why would you advertise plus-sized designs and not show plus-sized models? Are you not aware that the dress will look different on a size 0 and a size 16? or ...28?
Dress designs do not simply scale upward. You cannot simply enlarge it and have it work.
If you actually want to sell any of these dresses, you need to show them as they are to be worn.
Because frankly, it comes across as obtuse at best, or insulting at worst.
Wrote a letter. Seriously...I can rock a good dress and I'm a size 22/24 but none of those would look vaguely good on me. Scaling up small size dresses for larger women is NOT how its done. Plus size...YUR DOING IT WRONG.
I remember there being an issue about something like this with the Lane Bryant catalog. Their models were regular sizes, not plus sizes at all. People complained about it, and LB said something like (I'm paraphrasing here) "we find that even though women SAY they want plus sized models, our clothes sell better if we put them on regular sizes. So suck it, fatty." Which means they had to make a version of the clothing for smaller women just to put on the model. Blah. This was years ago, I'm not sure if they still do it or what. But I imagine it's a common sentiment.
That happened when they got bought out by Limited, I think was the company back around '01 maybe? Because yeah, from one catalog to the next, they went from a bunch of big ladies showing what the clothes looked like to a bunch of underwear models wearing things. It was bad and in my opinion it's taken the store a while to recover. I've only found things I'll wear in there in the last two or three years. (I have to say I *love* their new jeans cuts.)
They don't do that anymore. their catalogs have legitimate plus sized models now. Granted, their plus sized models are still not particularly large in most cases, but they're not thin like the girls on that site.
that said, I have seen evidence of the exact thing they were talking about. Last time i saw some numbers on it you were still right and that's a shame.
The question is, what can you do about it? Sure, you can blame the woman if you want, but it's not like they're intentionally screwing over plus sized models. They're just as conditioned to look for certainly things as the rest of us are. the only real fix, i think, is for us to see more larger models to get used to the idea.
But it's so easy to design clothes to fit a more generously built person. I've seen them, on beautiful, generously built people. It's stupid that we don't have these cuts of clothes more easily available.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:03 am (UTC)It's part of the design.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:09 am (UTC)I'd totally wear that black/teal ombre dress if I had a hope of finding a strapless bra that could cope with the Rack O'D00m ;P
But, yeah -- why advertise plus-size dresses and then only show pictures of skinny models? Sheesh. Certainly loses them *my* custom, because the dress is going to look very different on a size 16 than on a size 6, and it'd be nice to actually have an idea before spending the money.
-- A <3
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:26 am (UTC)A proper corset is the best bet for me -- I'm an F cup, so I need steel boning if I'm going to wear something without shoulder straps. I usually just wind up having this kind of formalwear custom-made by a friend of mine who is a corsetiere as well as a costumer, but it's nice to see off-the-rack options being made in larger sizes.
However, showing them on skinny models not only pisses off their intended customer base, it really is useless in determining how the dress would suit a woman in the 16-28 range that they're selling to.
I have a feeling that they are selling the same dresses to a misses' size range and just photographed them once, and re-used the photos for their plus-sized page . . . but it's a damn shame, and lazy marketing.
-- A <3
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:28 am (UTC)And I agree. The entire ad campaign is a damn shame.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:39 am (UTC)I mean -- I am HOPING that I'm right, and that they were just lazy and re-used the pictures.
If they're implying that their models actually ARE plus-sized, I'm going to go pay them a visit with THE CLEANSING POWER OF FIRE.
-- A (hopefully not overly optimistic??!?)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 05:09 am (UTC)But, hey, points for the biracial couples.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 09:30 pm (UTC)Yeah, doesn't that just make you feel all tingly. :(
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 11:38 pm (UTC)Apparently, wearing heels does not count.
STILL annoyed about that, since I left work early and fought DC-rush-hour traffic to get to that appointment . . . ;P
-- A <3
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 02:52 pm (UTC)Prom: http://www.alycedesigns.com/images/dresses/6926/img0.jpg
Prom Plus: http://www.alycedesigns.com/images/dresses/46926/img0.jpg
Not sure if it's stupid marketing, stupid photographers or stupid web designers.... but it could be the perfect alignment of three dim-witted stars.
I second Jeremiad's compliment of the back tattoo, quite striking.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 02:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:12 am (UTC)If the owners of this site get Crohn's disease and end up dying choking on their own shit with every gasp until the last, it would be very sad.
Poetic, but sad.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 04:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:16 am (UTC)/sarcasm
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 01:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 02:49 am (UTC)I did.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 02:49 am (UTC)The images baffle me and my friends. Why would you advertise plus-sized designs and not show plus-sized models? Are you not aware that the dress will look different on a size 0 and a size 16? or ...28?
Dress designs do not simply scale upward. You cannot simply enlarge it and have it work.
If you actually want to sell any of these dresses, you need to show them as they are to be worn.
Because frankly, it comes across as obtuse at best, or insulting at worst.
Waiting for flames
Date: 2008-12-08 03:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 03:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 05:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 12:33 pm (UTC)I like it.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 08:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 12:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 12:37 pm (UTC)that said, I have seen evidence of the exact thing they were talking about. Last time i saw some numbers on it you were still right and that's a shame.
The question is, what can you do about it? Sure, you can blame the woman if you want, but it's not like they're intentionally screwing over plus sized models. They're just as conditioned to look for certainly things as the rest of us are. the only real fix, i think, is for us to see more larger models to get used to the idea.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 09:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 03:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-09 11:35 am (UTC)I disagree with that statement.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-09 09:02 pm (UTC)By that reasoning, human rights atrocities are totally okay.
Holocaust? Fuck the Jews; we only care about the Germans.
Slavery? White people weren't enslaved so it's totally okay.
Genocide? Hey, majority rules. All you other people being slaughtered need to suck it up.