Why would this ever happen? Is it cheaper to destroy than sell at discount?

ascorbic 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, clothing companies and stores will very commonly destroy clothes if they determine that selling at a discount would undermine the brand value. They do things like cutting holes in the soles of shoes before discarding them.

	▲	thrance 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth. John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

▲

embedding-shape 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some stuff you basically have to give away for people to buy, some stuff just isn't so attractive to most people. With limited store space, you could miss out on profits if you don't update what you have available. Every item you carry is another item you cannot fit to carry.

▲

groundzeros2015 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. The primary cost is distribution, storage, and sales.

A likely outcome is stores carry fewer options and you need to order what you want.

▲

kryptiskt 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think this largely is about brand protection. They worry that discounting the clothes means they will just cannibalize sales of that brand's full-price clothes.

▲

artisinal 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the full price is €6, there isn’t much room for a discount. Destroying and freeing up store space for something that does sell can easily be profitable.

▲

cbg0 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Donating to charity is cheaper than destroying.

	▲	brainwad 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not at scale. Charities only can move so much merchandise themselves, because only a small slice of the population goes to charity shops and/or accepts charitable donations. Allllso maybe the junk that is trashed by Zara is just junk that charities don't want to be burdened with?

▲

dgellow 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thats also the case for a lot of electronics, it’s not just a problem with clothes

▲

thaumasiotes 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Is it cheaper to destroy than sell at discount?

Yes.

▲

thibaut_barrere 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Artificial scarcity + the urge to impose fashion cycles, sadly

▲

hawk_ 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Selling cheaper cannibalizes next season's fashion.

▲

close04 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Particularly for “luxury” brands as selling at a discount devalues the brand. I use quotes because most of those brands sell cheap stuff (double digit manufacturing cost using forced labor [0]) but with a fancy logo making them worth 4 figures.

[0] Better link: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2025/jul/24/made-in-ital...

▲

vrganj 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Luxury brands don't want the poors to be seen wearing their merchandise.

It hurts brand perception.

	▲	dgellow 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That’s pretty outdated, luxury brands have been selling cheaper clothes since decades at this point. It’s not uncommon to see people without wealth wearing luxury branded clothes (though of course they are mass produced and aren’t the actual luxurious clothes, just a way to wear the brand name)