Priscilla Of Boston Spray-Paints Unsold Wedding Gowns To Keep Them From Grubby Poor People

Priscilla of Boston, a high-end bridal chain best known for making Grace Kelly’s wedding gown, came to an undignified end last week when current parent company David’s Bridal shut it down. This news wouldn’t have made national headlines if an alert shopper in a Minneapolis suburb hadn’t noticed unsold dresses by the rackful being wrecked with red spray paint and tossed in a dumpster.

Yes, it’s wasteful and appalling. David’s Bridal claims that the gowns, most of which retailed for more than your first car, couldn’t be donated due to contractual obligations to high-end designers. Worried about the “brand dilution,” the suppliers don’t want their brand-new gowns filling a thrift store rack, or, evidently, being worn by poor people.

In an initial statement, David’s Bridal explained:

Priscilla of Boston has always donated quality bridal gowns to a variety of charitable causes. We do not, however, donate unsaleable dresses that are damaged, soiled or in otherwise poor condition.

Your helpful bridal fashion hint for today: avoid spray-painting unworn gowns in order to keep them out of “poor condition.”

David’s later issued another statement to NBC’s Today show, claiming that they would try to salvage some gowns for brides in need.

While it has been Priscilla of Boston’s policy not to make donations of sample dresses that are in poor condition, we recognize that some of these dresses could possibly have gone to worthy causes. David’s Bridal has already begun bringing together all of the remaining Priscilla of Boston gowns to evaluate them and ensure that they are donated to our charitable partners wherever possible.

Edina boutique takes heat for trashing $4,000-plus gowns [Star-Tribune]
Priscilla of Boston Wedding Dresses Destroyed in Dumpster [Fox 9]
Bridal chain apologizes for destroying wedding dresses [Today Weddings] (Thanks, Kelly!)

RELATED:
Eddie Bauer Outlet Destroys Unsold Clothing, Throws It Away
H&M Store Cuts Up Unsold Clothing, Throws It Away

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Dallas_shopper says:

    Wow. Assholes.

    • SaltWater says:

      I’m sure the material or fibers that comprise those garments are recyclable.

    • Bsamm09 says:

      Here’s my take on why you shouldn’t donate: TAXES!!!!

      Say the dress is originally valued at $5,000 on their books as inventory. Now it is nasty but is still worth $2,000. You have to write the dress down $3,000 on your books because inventory is kept at lower of cost or market.

      Since they are going out of business, they most likely have no income. In order to write off a charitable contribution (assuming they are C-corps) you must have income.

      If you destroy the dress and make the value $0 and trash it, you get to write off the full amount. NOLs are valuable if you want to buy a company.

    • airren says:

      Came here to say exactly that. Wow. Just double Wow.

    • KyBash says:

      They’re assholes because they honored their agreements with the designers?

      What next? Should married people who don’t cheat be called assholes? What about people who wear seat belts or drive within the speed limit?

      The designers demanded their creations be sold at retail or be destroyed. The company kept their word they’d honor those demands. It was a slipshod way to do it, but it was probably the only way they could think of.

      • sagodjur says:

        The company had the choice to make the agreement with the designers. If you make an agreement to be an asshole on the contingency of the dresses not selling or your company going out of business, you’re still an asshole.

        • MMD says:

          This, this. A thousand times this!

        • PsychoRaven says:

          Exactly. To have made such a deal to begin with is just stupid. The designers are assholes too then. Why waste materials etc? If anything make the deal so that they send any unsold stock back to you. Then you can send it elsewhere to be sold. What they did was just wasteful and disgusting. Hell recycle the material at least. Don’t just throw it away where it’ll end up in some dump.

          • justhypatia says:

            That’s what I don’t get. OK designers have sticks up their asses, I get that, get a seam ripper and salvage the fabric! There is probably yards of it in those wedding dresses.

    • kobresia says:

      I guess the bookstores who are contractually obligated to rip the covers off unsold books and magazines prior to discarding or recycling them so they can’t be salvaged and resold on the used market are also “assholes”.

      I know it probably comes as quite a shock, but the US Government also has, at times, destroyed huge amounts of serviceable equipment (they shoved thousands of jeeps and trucks into the ocean at the conclusion of WWII), as well as milk & other agricultural products, in order to prevent the market from being flooded. What “assholes”.

      Why are the poor entitled to these things? Sure, it’s generous to donate excess unsold stuff to those less fortunate, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with destroying something that some dumpster diver or thrift-store profiteer (you know, the sorts who aren’t needy, but shop thrift stores to find the name brands that are in good condition to resell at a high profit) may otherwise salvage and ask full used value for on eBay.

      • sagodjur says:

        Yes, the bookstores and the government are wasteful assholes for the same conduct. I used to work at a bookstore that did that. I felt bad every time because it was so wasteful. They didn’t even recycle them. They just threw them away and they ended up in landfills.

        If someone could sell the items on ebay, then the original store could do the same and salvage some of the expense.

        “Why are the poor entitled to these things?”

        Because they’re goddam human f***ing beings who could benefit from charity donations. Why are rich people who win the birth lottery or the talent lottery entitled to destroy property that would benefit others just because they selfishly don’t want to help people in need? Anyone who is that selfish needs to lose all their private property until they learn to share because no one is solely responsible for their success or failure in our society. Give something back or go live in the woods by yourself and stop using society’s resources.

        • humperdinck says:

          Thank you.

        • kobresia says:

          You show an alarming lack of a grasp of basic economic principles. So yes, let’s just watch all those stupid farmers go bankrupt because they’ve flooded the market with perishable products and are fighting for the bottom dollar just to get something rather than having the surplus sit unsold because they want to at least break even. It’s nice that some of the surplus the government buys to shore-up prices goes to gubmint cheese for those who are really in need, but destroying excess commodities helps maintain sufficient scarcity to keep the bottom from dropping out of the market.

          You also have an alarming lack of grasp of how bookstores work, despite having purportedly worked in one. I’m just a reader of books, and I know that the owners of those stores have to send the front covers of all unsold books and magazines back to the publisher to prove they weren’t sold & were destroyed (or at least swear that they tore them off), so they don’t have to pay the publisher for them. The waste means that the publisher isn’t having to compete with their own unsold merchandise on the secondary market and that the bookstore also isn’t out any money.

          Simply being a human being does not entitle anyone to anything, much less something that belongs to someone else.The second you start talking about providing one person an entitlement over someone else’s property because you don’t think that second individual is making the fullest and best uses of their property, you’re pretty far into socialist territory. Charity donations to those less fortunate are of the stronger parts of exercising virtue, and it should be left at that. Socialism robs society of much of the potential to perform conscious acts of altruism (which is something we mentally thrive on), and that’s about the worst crime against humanity that there is.

          • sagodjur says:

            “You show an alarming lack of a grasp of basic economic principles.”

            How is it competing with your own products if you’re giving them away to people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford them?

            “You also have an alarming lack of grasp of how bookstores work, despite having purportedly worked in one.”

            Yes, we ripped the covers off. That doesn’t change the exceptional amount of waste involved with throwing the books away.

            “Simply being a human being does not entitle anyone to anything, much less something that belongs to someone else.”

            You’re failing to convince me that you are a human being if you hold such an opinion. Simply being a human being entitles you to the lower tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Unfortunately, greedy bastards the world over have rationalized as you have that keeping such rights from people for selfish reasons is a virtue.

            You say socialism like it’s a bad thing.

            Rich people don’t get rich by supplying their fellow human beings with the things that they need. They don’t create jobs because their magnanimous and altruistic. They do so because it increases their wealth.

            Altruism is great when it is voluntary, but leaving the poor to starve because not enough people are being altruistic because the 1% at the top are hoarding every cent they can find is a travesty greater than rich people being a little less rich because the rest of society decides it’s not a virtue to be a greedy bastard.

    • JustMe2011 says:

      Wow. The only assholes here are people who disagree with what’s been done. Try to get something through your thick skulls if you can:

      It’s THEIR property.

      Why should those who own the dresses give them away if they don’t want to? It doesn’t matter how “wasteful” you think it is, it’s their property.

      You know what else is wasteful? You using a computer that could be sold and the money given to poor people. Why aren’t you doing that? Have any extra space in your house? Why not put up a homeless person?

      What’s hilarious is that other people think they have a right to decide what some store should do with its own goods. Would you like me to tell you what to do with your property? It hardly matters how expensive these dresses are. You are more than likely considered “rich” by extremely poor people, so using your own standard, they should be able to tell you what to do with what you own. Sell your car, donate the money, or just donate your car. No? You must be an asshole, then.

      But I guess people can’t get past the feeling of self-righteousness they get when they stick up for “poor people.” As long as that sticking up involves nothing more than whining about how others aren’t donating enough.

      • psm321 says:

        But he’s USING those things. If he were throwing out (and on top of that destorying so it couldn’t be picked out of the trash) something that was useful, then we could call him an asshole. Also, are you implying that nobody doing what they have a legal right to do is a jerk? I don’t see Dallas_shopper saying they didn’t have a right to do what they did.

        Let’s try it your way:

        Wow. The only assholes here are people who disagree with what’s been thought. Try to get something through your thick skulls if you can:

        It’s THEIR mind.

        Why should those who those who have their own brains not judge people’s actions if they want to? It doesn’t matter how “wrong” you think it is, it’s their mind.

        You know what else is wrong? You judging Dallas_shopper. Why are you doing that?

        What’s hilarious is that other people think they have a right to decide what some person should think. Would you like me to tell you what to think? It hardly matters how much I agree with your opinion. You should think that Walmart, Best Buy, Republicans, and Democrats are jerks. No? You must be an asshole, then.

        But I guess people can’t get past the feeling of self-righteousness they get when they stick up for jerks. As long as that sticking up involves nothing more than whining about how others are judging the jerks.

      • OnePumpChump says:

        The manger is the DOG’s property!

  2. Coffee says:

    Meh…seems kind of dickish, but on the other hand, I don’t know if there are any poor people out there who really need a $4,000 wedding dress donated to them by a bankrupted company.

    • Dallas_shopper says:

      They should be content to walk down the aisle in burlap sacks, no?

      My marriage ended in divorce. Wedding dress went to Goodwill. Je ne regrette rien.

      • Coffee says:

        Don’t shove words into my mouth. I’m just saying I would have a bigger issue if they were throwing away more essential items like food or utilitarian clothes.

        • Dallas_shopper says:

          Waste is waste.

          • Murph1908 says:

            No, it’s not. Not even close.

            If a company destroyed $100,000 worth of food instead of donating it, it would be much worse.

            • Dallas_shopper says:

              I repeat: waste is waste.

              • Murph1908 says:

                Not even close.

              • rmorin says:

                You’re being dense just to be dense. A wedding dress that is 4,000$ is only worth so because society decides it is based on aesthetics and popularity of the designer. Functionally it is not very useful outside of a very niche industry.

                4,000$ worth of dried goods however is much more important because it has very real value in that it can feed a hundred people for a week. You are not considering the effect waste has and are just being obtuse.

                • Dallas_shopper says:

                  Agree to disagree.

                  BTW, if you know the meaning of the word “obtuse”, surely you also know the meaning of the word “vituperative.”

                  Have a super day.

                • Dallas_shopper says:

                  Agree to disagree.

                  BTW, if you know the meaning of the word “obtuse”, surely you also know the meaning of the word “vituperative.”

                  Have a super day.

      • mehitabel says:

        +1 Edith Piaf reference

      • Jane_Gage says:

        Get married after you have your college degree and a decent wage. People’s priorities are so fucked up. Getting married, home/pet ownership, especially having kids and eating out–luxuries and not essentials.

        • Dallas_shopper says:

          Where did I say I got married young before I finished college? Not seeing how your comment is relevant to my experience, or accurately describes why I got divorced.

    • AmberDaisie says:

      Or you could always consider donating them to an organization that could auction them off and use the profits to help poor people.

      • Coffee says:

        This seems like a more reasonable course of action, definitely. Giving someone no money a $4,000 wedding dress just seems to me like those extreme home makeover shows where they turn some poor person’s house into a mansion…it’s a nice gesture, but ultimately it’s kind of a waste of resources and manpower that could be better spent elsewhere.

        • RandomHookup says:

          Especially if the poor person has to pay taxes on the improvements and then a higher property tax.

          “Need a car, homeless guy? Here’s a Bentley…don’t forget to take care of the insurance and it only uses premium gas. And you’ll need to pay the state for new tags. Good luck.”

          • Coffee says:

            Exactly…I’m not saying “screw the poors”; I’m just saying that this is probably the last thing they need right now.

      • Rachacha says:

        They could not donate them due to contractural obligations with the designers. Don’t blame the store, blame the designers.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

        Well, if they were able to be sold, wouldn’t the parent company, David’s Bridal, sell them at their stores? I’m assuming David’s Bridal sells wedding dresses.

        • kennedar says:

          David’s Bridal sells less expensive gowns. I would doubt that any line of gowns being sold in Priscilla of Boston would be carried by David’s Bridal.

      • mehitabel says:

        great idea!

    • Skittl1321 says:

      No one NEEDS a $4,000 wedding dress, but I think poor people love looking beautiful on their wedding day just as much as a middle class person. ($4,000 is way too cheap a wedding dress for the wealthy.)

      My wedding dress only cost half that (I got it from David’s bridal, wanting to saving money over boutiques, but picked the second most expensive dress in the store- oops.. still cheaper than a boutique), but I donated it to an organization that distributes them to those who cannot afford such luxuries (mostly prom dresses, a few wedding dresses). A family friend worked the distribution the day my dress was given away. The story of the woman who was able to get the dress, expecting to be married in a prom dress, but instead finding a real wedding dress, makes me just as happy as my memory of wearing the dress. I often wonder whether she kept it, or passed it on since then. My wedding dress was the absolute most beautiful thing I ever owned, but I was never going to wear it again. Donating it gave it new life. These spray painted dresses were just completely wasted. That’s just sad.

    • human_shield says:

      All that white fabric would keep them warm under the overpass.

  3. GMFish says:

    I’m just waiting for a restaurant to poison its garbage to keep the homeless from eating out of its dumpsters.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

      You mean besides keeping it outside unprotected? Mmmmm Sam and Ella special.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      While it’s not poisoned (as far as I know), it’s not all that uncommon for restaurants to destroy food instead of donating it out of liability fears.

    • Darury says:

      I’m more suprised there haven’t been lawsuits against restaraunts for food poisioning after someone ate out of the dumpster. Obviously those businesses should be providing proper refrigeration for the waste material in case someone eats it.

      • joako says:

        Why would you trespass onto someone’s property and then sue because what you stole wasn’t fit for human consumption?

    • kosmo @ The Soap Boxers says:

      I poison my own food at home.

    • Admiral_John says:

      I used to work at McDonalds when I was in high school (back in the late 80′s) and when we took the trash out at night we were told to pour bleach over the bags to keep people from eating out of the dumpster.

    • spf1971 says:

      They don’t even have to poison it. based on the logic here, they are assholes for simply throwing the unsold food into the garbage, they should be serving it to people who can’t pay.

      • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

        Except that giving away free food puts the company at a liabilty if a homeless person decides to sue for some reason. A company like McD’s has deep pockets too.

        We do have a local store who gives all of their leftover chef case stuff to a shelter who serves it to the homeless. They have several local stores that give their stuff to the same shelter. The chefs case is huge with some amazing food in it. The shelter comes and picks it up and assumes all liability for any problems.

      • imasqre says:

        The “problem” is safety and health regulations. While the food may be perfectly fine to eat, legally, restaurants have rigorous standards to abide by.

  4. Rachacha says:

    Everyone is appauled by this act, but other than unnecessarially dumping gowns in the landfill, the company probably took less of a financial hit by destroying the dresses than they would have by donating them to charity. People they interview on the news have been saying “Donate them to shelters so that poor people can have clothes” Really? A homeless person is going to volunteer to walk around in a $10,000 uncomfortable wedding gown?

    The manufacturers have a right to protect their brand, and if they do not want the gowns back, and say they can not be donated to charity, they need to be sold at retail or destroyed.

    Am I alone in my thinking? Someone please explain why this is such a huge deal that it has been on the national news for 3 days now.

    • consumeristjohnny says:

      So there is no charity that could actually sell these to a bride for CASH? OR somebody needs to explain to me why David’s Bridal could not put the dresses in another store at another location and sell them as well. I also have a huge issue with a BANKRUPT company destroying assets. Is their position that a creditor could not get even $20 for some of these dresses? Borders just recently liquidated, and I did not see them burning books or throwing ASSETS away. That is the issue to me.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

        Then does it not make much more sense that they are actually under CONTRACT, as the article states, with the dress designers to destroy the dresses? Usually if you violate a contract, despite public opinion, you can still get penalized.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Are the contracts valid when in bankruptcy? Once they enter bankruptcy they give their assets to an expert in bankruptcy procedures. They would decide if and how any assets would be sold off to pay debts.

          If gift cards can be rendered void in a bankruptcy, then I don’t see how contractual obligations are not as well, especially since contracts involving financial obligations ARE rendered void.

          • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

            Actually, Priscilla of Boston DID NOT make Grace Kelly’s wedding gown. According to the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Her Serene Highness, the Princesse Grace de Monaco’s dress was:

            “Designed by Helen Rose, American, 1904 – 1985. Made by the wardrobe department of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Culver City, California, founded 1924.”

            http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/56621.html

      • SamiJ says:

        Booksellers like Borders do destroy book all the time. The rip off the covers and return those to the publisher as ‘unsold’ books. The actual pages get tossed.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        First, I have no idea why you insist on capitalizing certain words for emphasis. There are these things called italics…

        Anyway, in order for a charity to sell a dress, there needs to be a donation. Did you miss the part where the dresses weren’t donated in the first place because there were contractual obligations with the dress designers? Also, did you miss the part where David’s Bridal shut down the Priscilla of Boston stores? It’s the name of the whole chain, not one store in Boston. If the agreement with the dress designers is that they have to be essentially destroyed rather than donated, chances are, there’s an agreement that these expensive dresses don’t show up alongside the non-designer dresses at regular David’s Bridal stores. And do you actually think getting $20 per dress (even if you had 1,000 dresses) would do anything for a company that shut down a whole chain?

        And yes, Borders did destroy books. Bookstores frequently are required to take the covers off excess books rather than donate them.

        • MrEvil says:

          Does HTML code even work in the comments?

          this should be in italic
          This should be bold
          this should be underline

          If you can see my HTML code then odds are the reason Johnny used caps is because there’s no BB or HTML code to bold or italicize his words.

          • MrEvil says:

            Hmmm, I’ll have to remember this for later. Underline doesn’t work though. Probably need an eye exam too because I have trouble telling the difference between Italics and normal in this font.

          • PunditGuy says:

            Ah, but did they leave in the blink tag?

          • Keith is checking the Best Buy receipt of a breastfeeding mother (for tips!) says:

            Also, using tags is a pain in the ass.

            • George4478 says:

              This is why I use caps to emphasize. Give me an italics key on my keyboard and I’ll start using those. Until then, people who don’t like cap emphasis can go pound sand, for all I care.

        • Dalsnsetters says:

          He does that because that’s what he does. Check out his posting history. Randomly capitalized words, comments that show no acknowledgement of factual comments that came before, complete disregard for anyone else’s comments.

          Sometimes I think consumeristjohnny’s only job here is to troll.

          No, sorry. I always think consumeristjohnny’s only job here is to troll.

          /FTFM

      • LightningUsagi says:

        Actually, Borders did throw stuff away. At the end of their last day, everything left over went into the dumpsters. My mom was there right before closing, and saw it…then came back a while later to salvage some stuff.

      • Bsamm09 says:

        An NOL is probably worth more than a charitable deduction you may never get to take. From a tax standpoint: Destroy and write-off.

        • RandomHookup says:

          You keep throwing around “NOL” like it’s a term everyone should know. I had to look up that it means “Net Operating Loss” and I’ve been in the business world forever.

          • nybiker says:

            Yeah, me too (as to having to look it up, as while I have been around awhile, have not been a business owner).

        • H3ion says:

          FWIW, an NOL is useful only when there is preset or future income against which to use it as an offset. For a bankrupt company, that seems a bit problematical. For that matter, so does a charitable deduction. It might have been a class move had David’s taken the dresses from its subsidiary and made the donation. Presumably, David’s is not bankrupt.

          • H3ion says:

            “Preset” should have been present.” Is the lack of an edit button a consumer issue?

          • Bsamm09 says:

            NOLs can be sold. There are specific steps you have to structure the deal to keep them intact but they have value.

          • Bsamm09 says:

            From my software — “the surviving corporation generally inherits the NOL carryovers of the disappearing corporation in (A), (C), non-divisive (D), (F), and non-divisive (G) reorganizations. The surviving corporation inherits all of the NOL carryovers to which the disappearing corporation is entitled even though the surviving corporation may not acquire 100% of the disappearing corporation’s assets in the reorganization.”

            Regs. §1.381(c)(1)-1(a)(1)

            —NOLs are an asset actually a DTA (deferred tax asset)

    • LanMan04 says:

      A homeless person is going to volunteer to walk around in a $10,000 uncomfortable wedding gown?
      —————-
      Auction off the gown for $5000, feed homeless people for weeks. The End.

      • HalOfBorg says:

        They can’t – it’s the whole contract thing. I’m sure it specified exactly what could be done with them. I agree that they SHOULD have been auctioned – the company(s) holding the rights should have sold them on Ebay and donated. Good press all around.

    • MMD says:

      It’s national news because it fits right into the national discussion of economic disparity in this country. In this scenario, Priscilla of Boston is a symbol of the 1%, doing whatever is necessary to keep the unwashed 99% from getting anything.

      Maybe they truly had no other choice contractually, but it was pretty tone-deaf of them to discard these dresses so publicly. Strategically, they should have hauled those dresses to the dump themselves so their waste wouldn’t be so visible. It may not matter for the PoB brand name, but it’s blowing back on the parent company.

      • LabGnome says:

        This is why I think people are freaking out. It seems a little misplaced given the contractual agreement with the designers, but I understand it. This has a big emotional tag to it since it ties in with marriage.

        In an emotionally but not logical way the connection could be, the 1% would rather destroy your fantasy dream dress for your marriage to the one you love than let you (a poor person) get it.

      • rmorin says:

        This is what’s wrong with the whole 99% garbage. No one owes you anything in this world. Instead of worrying about your own charitable contributions, you’re looking at a company and saying “hey you should be donating”.

        Ever think that maybe, just maybe that some of the people that bought 4,000$ dollar dresses worked really, really hard to afford such a luxury? That they are not some aristocrats eating caviar and smoking cigars with $100 dollars bills but that they are middle class people, who made a choice to buy something really nice for their big day? That someone worked over-time for three months, just so their partner or daughter could afford this? Not really very fair to then for them to simply be donating such a luxury item (no one will die without a wedding dress).

        Charity is great, but you should focus on yourself and not who you perceive to be some sort of nebulous “1%” and what they are doing.

        • MMD says:

          Way to completely distort my words and my point.

          First off, I said it PoB was functioning as a symbol of the discussion going on and that’s why people are talking about it. You chose to read far more into that statement than was ever intended.

          Second, waste is waste. Period. And it’s the waste of perfectly good resources that have so many people frustrated (Whether you choose to see that reality is up to you, I guess, but to ignore this sentiment is rather short-sighted in my opinion). I have every right to criticize waste where I see it. Even if PoB contractually could not donate the dress, they could have torn up the dresses and donated the fabric to one of the organizations mentioned elsewhere in this thread. But that would require effort and thoughtfulness, both of which were seriously lacking here.

          No one owes anyone a $4000 dress, but individuals and corporations have a collective obligation to act thoughtfully and responsibly. Do you really think that rendering so much material useless is a responsible or thoughtful thing to do?

          • rmorin says:

            but individuals and corporations have a collective obligation to act thoughtfully and responsibly

            And who decides what’s responsible and thoughtful? You? Me? My Mailman?
            There is not some magical higher standard to which universally applies to people and companies. Your definition of “thoughtfully and responsibly” is different from everyone else’s.

            These designers are looking after their own self interest. The dresses are only worth as much as people value them. Giving them away for free reduces the value of the brand. What you are doing is advocating for the designers to take a financial hit (both immediate and potentially in the future) so that their resources can be redistributed to others.

            Again, why do you care what anyone does as long as it is not illegal and doesn’t harm you? You are stating that you are smarter more compassionate and have more foresight then those who made the call that they should be destroyed. Get off your high horse, you donate to whatever you want to support and be done with it.

            That’s the problem with your 99% garbage. Yes there is financial inequity in the country, and instead of I don’t know doing something about it people simply blame some poorly defined group of people for the issues. It reminds me of kids complaining that someone has a better toy on the playground, instead of working together so everyone can access the toys they want, people sit indignantly in Zucatti Park and demand that the kid with the better toy give it to you.

            • MMD says:

              “Your definition of “thoughtfully and responsibly” is different from everyone else’s.”
              Not everyone else’s. Read the comments. I’m not the only one who has a problem with this.

              “Who decides…”
              That’s a valid question. One that you seem unwilling to consider in any kind of thoughtful manner, based on your flippant suggestions.

              And I’ve yet to see anyone explain adequately how allowing dresses to be spray-painted and dumped helps the prestige of a luxury brand.

              “Again, why do you care what anyone does as long as it is not illegal and doesn’t harm you?”
              Because I’m not a solipsist. Because caring about only what might affect me personally is an extremely narrow worldview.

              It’s not “my” 99% “garbage”, but I suppose it’s easier for you to limit the argument to just me rather than acknowledge that there are much larger forces at play here. One of the things I’m “doing about it” is talking about abuses of power (which I feel this story represents) with everyone I can with every chance I get. It’s called having a conversation. It’s called spreading awareness. It’s looking at the bigger picture outside of my own sphere. Whereas you’re defending the wholesale destruction of potentially valuable materials and essentially telling me to shut up and mind my own business.

              How does not talking about things help anyone?

              • theduckay says:

                “And I’ve yet to see anyone explain adequately how allowing dresses to be spray-painted and dumped helps the prestige of a luxury brand.”

                How is this so hard to understand for you? Only having the wealthy purchase and be seen in the wedding gowns retains the brand’s prestigious value and image among the wealthy community who would most likely purchase from them. Having poorer people wear the gowns decreases its value in that the brand isn’t seen as “exclusive” anymore to the rich, and they would therefore chose another brand to purchase gowns from. This is pretty common-place in all types of high-end fashion brands. Not saying if I agree or not, but I don’t get why you don’t understand how it works.

                • Kuri says:

                  In my honest opinion, I’d say this does more damage to the brand than someone who isn’t a celebrity wearing it.

                • MMD says:

                  I’m fully aware of the designers’ fear of “brand dilution”. I think it’s misplaced and smack of an elitism that is actually out of style, considering the recent trend of “high-end” designers pairing with “mass market” retailers. Missoni and Target, Versace and H&M, etc.

                  However, you completely missed my point. Does Vera Wang or whoever want one of her dresses spray painted and dumped in a public dumpster? How do the specific actions discussed in this story protect the brand?

                  • MMD says:

                    Oh, and furthermore, since the dresses “had to be” trashed because the couldn’t be sold, doesn’t that send the message that no one wanted them?

            • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

              I think there is a general higher standard that most people can agree on. I’ve been in many situations where large groups have come to a consensus to do something that is moral and good, not because we have to but want to. I think that if you put 10 people in a room, 8 or 9 of them could come up with a standard they could all agree on. There would be one or two assholes who won’t for whatever reason.

              Hell, if you look at the posts here, I am pretty sure those numbers would play out pretty well

        • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

          Heaven forbid that a company do something out of the kindness of their hearts to help the less fortunate because someone else might have worked really hard for the same item. You should go to a homeless shelter and tell a poor hungry 5 -year-old that they can’t have that free meal today because it wouldn’t be fair to you because you actually had to work to pay for your food. Never mind that they have to sleep in a room on a mat on the floor full of loud coughing, farting, stinky drunks and lead a miserable life. You work for your food so no one else should get it for free!!

    • crispyduck13 says:

      Poor people get married too you know. Or maybe you didn’t know.

      • jebarringer says:

        I didn’t know that wearing an expensive dress was a requirement for getting married.

        • jaya9581 says:

          Isn’t that the point? These get donated so that those less fortunate can afford them. Even a “cheap” wedding dress is expensive.

  5. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

    We hear stories exactly like this at least once a year, don’t we? Unless you can wear one of these to a job interview or it keeps you warm when your utilities get shut off, I really don’t see the loss to the impoverished in this country.

    • EdK says:

      “Pam Philipp, who runs Operation Glass Slipper, a Mendota Heights nonprofit that donates prom dresses to low-income girls and sells donated bridal gowns at low cost to raise money for their shoes and accessories, was incensed.”

      So, there’s that..

      • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

        The there is Brides Against Breast Cancer, who take donated wedding dresses and sell them in order to offer services to breast cancer patients.

  6. CharlesFarley says:

    Sell them to the P-Funk. They always need good wedding gowns for their stage show.

    • The Porkchop Express says:

      I think P-funk could still use them with the paint on them. Could go with Clinton’s hair!

  7. u1itn0w2day says:

    It is waste but it’s not like they’re ripping up coats that could keep someone warm.

    • Hoss says:

      Coats are easy to come by through charities. Imagine a very poor girl wearing such a dress on her special day. She would feel like royalty

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

        Then shame on whomever doesn’t make her feel like that no matter what she wears. It’s her special day, Gadget-damn it!

    • FLConsumer says:

      Nah, that’s H&M’s job.

  8. AlteredBeast (blaming the OP one article at a time.) says:

    What they should have done, while avoiding brand dillution:

    Give all the gowns to women engaged to U.S. military. Vets, those over seas, etc.

    The public LOVES that stuff, and it sounds better for so-and-so brand to be associated with it.

    • katarzyna says:

      That’s a pretty good idea. I’d also add, give the dresses to women who *are* vets and are getting married.

    • Worstdaysinceyesterday says:

      Phenomenal idea! A truly giving act with some beneficial pr to boot.

    • Rachacha says:

      Does PR really matter when a store is shutting its doors?

      The designers were the ones who made the retailer agree to sell or dispose of the dresses in a certain manner, so they are really the ones calling the shots. Unfortunately, they have never been mentioned in any news stories that I have seen, so they get no bad PR.

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      Now that’s an idea. +1

    • Cicadymn says:

      Brilliant!

      HR, I’ll take 20 of this guy.

  9. Reader101 says:

    I went to Priscilla’s in October…at that point all of the dresses they had in stock were in poor condition (and still thousands of dollars). All of them were ripped with many stains. They were not even salvageable.

    They probably could have found a better way to dispose of them…like donating them to high school drama programs. But, from what I saw, the gowns were not in any condition to be used in a wedding.

  10. Vox Republica says:

    I can vaguely understand a company not wanting their brand diluted or besmirched or whatnot by ending up in a cutout bin or thrift shop. However, the designer’s reach once that clothing is rung up and sold. There is exactly nothing they can do to prevent such a purchased dress from ending up donated–and dresses do, indeed, end up donated; know many divorcees that want bulky mementos from two husbands ago?

    So in essence, the purported end result (brand dilution) may still occur, and the designers/retailer look like jerks in the process. Granted, this certainly would not affect their brand in their actual retail clientele; it’s all conspicuous consumption anyhow, so the idea of such an aggressively elite brand might actually help in that regard.

    • Galium says:

      brand dilution = something others can not afford to have so you are unique having one, and can brag that you do. = snobbery. BS comes in many packages.

    • ShruggingGalt says:

      I don’t know the problem here. If they were to sell them off, some people would just sell them on eBay for more but less than full retail.

      Then we’d have a post here about how a buyer has pics of a wedding dress after being put into a chipper shredder because they thought it might have a problem, and since the designer doesn’t allow sales on eBay it MUST be counterfeit….

  11. italianbaby says:

    better yet, why didn’t they auction them off for a few bucks and then donated the money to a women’s homeless shelter or women’s abuse shelter. what a waste.

  12. FreeMarketFan says:

    If they wish to destroy their own product, so be it.

    • MMD says:

      Yeah! Waste of perfectly good merchandise and resources be damned! Free market! Yay!

      • OutPastPluto says:

        Not “free market”, personal liberty.

        If it’s your property then you are free to dispose of it any way you see fit.

        That includes smashing it, shredding it, or otherwise making it unusable or unsalvagable.

        There isn’t even a “civic responsibility” reason to badger a company into preserving a bunch of overpriced wedding dresses. These items are simply an example of conspicuous consumption run amok.

    • Nunov Yerbizness says:

      Agreed. Nothing is stopping any of the bleeding-heart responders on this thread from using their own money to buy wedding dresses to donate to the poor, or from donating their own wedding dresses.

      Bleeding-hearts seem to get very high-handed about what other people should do with their property.

      I agree that it’s wasteful, and certainly not environmentally responsible. But because it’s someone else’s property, unless I’m willing to step forward and write a check for all of those unsold dresses, it’s none of my business how someone else disposes of their own property.

      Personally, I think weddings are a luxury, and no one is entitled to a luxury. Plenty of people manage to get married without a big theatrical show about it.

  13. shepd says:

    If you’re poor to the point that you would wear a wedding dress to keep warm, I expect the spray paint shouldn’t be a bother.

    If you’re poor and getting married, then you go in your Sunday best anyways, as me and my wife did.

  14. rpm773 says:

    Instead of an “X”, I would have gone with a red spray-painted “A”

  15. nicoleintrovert says:

    I am donating my wedding dress to the Mary Madeline Project. They have seamstresses who cut the dresses up and use the fabric to make funeral gowns for babies who have died from SIDS or stillbirths etc. They could have easily given the dresses to a charity such as this one. As an aunt of a child who passed away from SIDS it really frosts my cookies that they’d destroy the dresses instead of doing a little research for potential charities. UGH!

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      That sounds like the perfect charity for this sort of thing. They can “destroy” the gowns in a way that meets their contractual requirements, while helping a good, albeit depressing, cause.

      We have two daughters and SIDS was one of my constant nightmares. I can’t even imagine the horror of going through something like that.

    • PixiePerson says:

      They could still do that — the spray paint is pretty clearly not all over the entire dress. A clever seamstress could work around it by removing the painted layer or using fabric from the back or just cutting the paint out.

    • LightningUsagi says:

      That’s amazing. I was trying to come up with a solution of what the material could have been used for other than home ec classes and design schools. I’m going to do some reading on them and what they take right now.

    • orion70 says:

      Not for those purposes per se, but I think years ago wedding dresses were cut and repurposed all the time. My Mom’s wedding dress was made into either a maid of honor dress or maybe a confirmation dress or something for her younger sister, and I believe even after that it was cut down to make something else like a baptism gown.

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        It’s still a fairly common tradition to turn a wedding dress into a Christening gown.

  16. The_IT_Crone says:

    So then don’t donate them to a Goodwill. Donate them to an organization that will auction them off, still going to people paying good money for them so you don’t dilute the brand. Maybe an art museum or something.

    Dumbasshats.

    • Rachacha says:

      When you are talking hundreds or thousands of dresses, they would be sold at auction in a lot that would be picked up at a bargain by some other bridal retailer for pennies on the dollar. The retailer, knowing that they paid $100 for a $5000 gown would be more than happy to sell the gown for $500. No matter how you slice it, selling or auctioning the gown for less than the “accptable” price (as determined by the designer) dilutes the value of the dress.

      • Jules Noctambule says:

        I would think that having your brand of dress spray-painted and dumped in the trash wouldn’t do a whole lot for your brand image, either.

  17. JakeChance says:

    Look, it’s stupid, short sighted, and clearly a waste of time and materials but it’s their right to do so. If you don’t like it, simply don’t do business with them or their parent company. Apparently at their prices, many of us wouldn’t be doing business with them anyway so what does it matter? It’s like the maker of those super luxury yachts saying all poor people suck. Oh we’re really going to boycott him? We were never a target audience to begin with, sorry.

    • Tim says:

      I’m really getting tired of people who comment here to say “[subject] is will within his/her/their rights to do [action].” Of course this company has the right to do this. No one is literally proposing a law to force this company to do something else.

      This point of this blog isn’t necessarily to judge whether what someone does is legal or not. There’s room within “legal” to argue whether something was right, ethical, moral, smart, stupid, profitable, etc. Sometimes, obviously, people do things that are illegal. But reminding people that there is no law or regulation prohibiting the destruction of products that this company owns is just stupid.

      • Bsamm09 says:

        I’d argue that there is a law pushing them to destroy rather than donate. Tax Law. They can’t use the charitable deduction if they have no income and to write the cost of the dress completely off it has to be worthless. Make it worthless and enlarge your NOL or donate it and get nothing?

  18. Hedgy2136 says:

    Why is what I choose to do with my property anybody’s business. I would applaud them if they chose to donate the gowns, but it’s their choice. They aren’t assholes.

    • ancientone567 says:

      YES THEY ARE! This is part of what is wrong with America and other parts of the world. Creating waste when it does not need to occur. Recycle you idiots.

      • yabdor says:

        So what parts of “brand dilution” and “contractually obligated” are giving you trouble? Businesses exist to make a profit. If the law is written in such a way that this action maximizes their profits then perhaps you should complain about the law rather than the unfortunate consequences of its implementation. If you don’t care for their business practices then you are free to start a competing business and let the market decide. And absolutely no where does it say anything about keeping the garments out of the hands of the poor. That’s just a sensationalistic headline the Consumerist has chosen to use to inject an element of discord that doesn’t appear to actually exist. In journalist jargon we call that “bullshit”.

        • MMD says:

          Consumerist also has what journalists call “freedom of the press” to phrase things how they choose to phrase them.

          You’re free to argue with the phrasing, but if a design company explicitly doesn’t want their stuff donated so folks who aren’t rich can’t get them for less (or for free, or at all), they are in effect doing what the headline states.

          In a free society, we absolutely have the right to criticize this business practice.

          • yabdor says:

            No one is arguing your right to gripe about a business practice. And it’s precisely the point that keeping the garments out of the hands of the poor is a completely unsubstantiated assumption without a single shred of supporting evidence. There’s absolutely nothing to suggest that was their motivation other than the aforementioned assumption. That’s called “cyclic reasoning”. So if you prefer innuendo and implication against cold hard facts that is your prerogative. But you are essentially saying that you think it’s perfectly ok to misrepresent the facts(or the lack thereof) b/c it makes your brainstem happy to be mad at someone you think is a jerk. And I have to say I’m not terribly impressed by anyone who chooses to parse information based on that criteria.

            • Talmonis says:

              That’s ok, we’re not terribly impressed with people who waste resources in such a blatant manner. Oh, and designers that hide behind “brand dilution” clauses suck eggs.

              • yabdor says:

                Your sense of entitlement is amusing. So which do you think is worse? The blatant waste of the merchant or people who feel they have to lie to make a point that doesn’t actually exist?

                • Kuri says:

                  No more entitled than some baby designer who is too worried about their brand no longer being seen as “elite”

            • MMD says:

              What do you think brand dilution means?

              A luxury brand would be considered diluted if someone who’s not deemed luxury-worthy gets their hands on it, would it not? And donation implies that the item is given to someone less fortunate or in need, does it not? You don’t have to like the semantics of the headline, and you could maybe argue that it’s potentially an exaggeration. But the basic premise is sound – it is completely disingenuous to pretend even for a second that there’s no class warfare involved when we’re talking about “brand dilution”.

              There’s nothing cyclic about this logic. It’s just logic.

              • yabdor says:

                In the future you might actually want to read what I wrote. Brand dilution is class warfare? That’s not even wrong. But we shall try and be worthy of your over inflated sense of grandeur. Wyatt… you’re an oak.

                • MMD says:

                  I read what you wrote, took it on, and explained why you were wrong. You seem unwilling to have any further discussion about it. That’s ok. Those who won’t debate usually can’t.

    • MMD says:

      When you live in a society, you have to expect that people are going to be at least a little interested in what you do with your property. You may have the right to throw all of your recyclables in the trash, but I have the right to call you out on being wasteful if you do.

  19. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

    Actually, Priscilla of Boston DID NOT make Grace Kelly’s wedding gown. According to the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Her Serene Highness, the Princesse Grace de Monaco’s dress was:

    “Designed by Helen Rose, American, 1904 – 1985. Made by the wardrobe department of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Culver City, California, founded 1924.”

    http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/56621.html

  20. JM says:

    I used to work for a large retail company. They all do this. Our company would destroy clothing if it was deemed to be damaged in some way, even if the damage was something like the manufacturer put the wrong buttons on the shirt. I never understood why they didn’t donate all of that clothing.

    • Don't Bother says:

      I work for Target, and they have to do this with food as well. One night, because of a bad storm here in Indiana, the generator shut off and all the freezers did as well. They were able to get the back up generator in order, but not before the food has been exposed to room temperatures.

      Every, and I mean, every piece of food in coolers and freezers, was thrown out. I had several costumers ask me why were weren’t donating it. We can’t donate “damaged” goods, no matter how long it’s actually be melting in the freezer. I’m sure there’s a Beyond 30 Minutes Rule or something, but it’s hard to deem a Lean Cuisine poison because it might have thawed a little.

      Don’t get me started about the food costumers–err, guests– leave around the store. We don’t know how long it’s been in the wrong place, so we have to defect it out of the system.

      • Skittl1321 says:

        But your food was damaged due to power loss. Letting people eat it could be a public health concern. These dresses were damaged by the company, so that they couldn’t be donated/resold.

  21. Mole90 says:

    Just buy a can of white spray paint and fix it up.

  22. DragonThermo says:

    Makes sense to me. If you can’t sell them to the 1%-ers, why waste them on the 99%? Like throwing pearls to swine.

  23. HalOfBorg says:

    Rights holders should have auctioned them on Ebay and donated profit to local soup kitchen.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

      Why don’t these people donate anyway then, rather than spend their money on garbage dresses?

  24. Nyxalinth says:

    Could also have been tittled with:

    Yet Another company Caught Being Dicks, Does an About Face to Look Good

  25. Doubting thomas says:

    OK, So they could have done something nicer. So what? They had absolutely no obligation to do so. Their sole obligation, as a company that produces luxury items no one really needs at all, is to provide a profit for those individuals and organizations that invested in their company. To dilute the market with these gowns would have lowered overall demand for their product in 2 ways. 1. Someone who can afford a $10,000.00 wedding dress doesn’t want to be in the same gown as Bertha from the trailer park. It’s not warm and fuzzy but it is reality. 2. The fewer of their dresses that exist the higher the price they can get for them. To donate them would have been bad for their business, and their stockholders.
    No one ever died or got sick because they didn’t have a fancy wedding gown. No one is entitled to a designer dress.

    • Bsamm09 says:

      If they are not making any money a charitable donation means squat. Destroying them and getting the full write-down is way more valuable.

    • CosmosHuman says:

      Bertha and the 1% probably never meet. I’m not Bertha, but I am in pretty bad shape right now, sitting here shivering as I can’t afford to turn the heat past 60 degrees. I just received my first UI check and it all went towards the rent. I’m enjoying my peanut butter on white bread sandwich every meal from the food bank. Some of you may know me from my recent (or not) posts. I am late with my car payment. I have not been able to pay any credit card bills. The only thing i am trying to keep up with: rent, foot, electric, heat, cell, and internet. A friend will help me if I need money for dog food for Cosmo, but I am OK right now. Hell yea I am depressed. I have sent resumes out, called a “headhunter”, but they don’t deal with social workers. All my creditors have my Google VM number only. I have four cards with balances and can you believe only one day late the calls started! I just wish someone could tell me what to do now!

  26. sqeelar says:

    Such a sweet take on the old Emperor’s New Clothes story where the poor bride spends a small ransom for clothes which have no value in the real world and will be destroyed before anyone actually values them. Prisciless.

    Strange that a store that sells on perceived value and a huge markup would deflate their own myth.

    I’ll be sure to ask the bride where the dress is coming from, and make a judgement as to whether she should be trusted with any thing of value.

    • Nobody can say "Teehee" with a straight face says:

      No… It’s because they sell on perceived value and designer labels that they had to destroy them. Allowing the poor and undesirables to wear your clothing would dilute the designer name, hurting their label value.

      That’s all it is. You don’t want your luxury brand to be associated with bargain bins and poor people, for it will cease to be a luxury brand.

  27. drewsumer says:

    Look, having a screaming drunk hobo in a wedding dress is 1000x better than just a plain ole screaming drunk hobo.

    But seriously, there are multiple charities that work to provide wedding dresses for servicewomen and the future wives of servicemen. Give the dresses to some of those organizations with the caveat that after they are worn, they must be returned if there’s some weird ‘brand dilution’ concern. I’d hope there wouldn’t be, of course, but I would like to see some PR flack try to explain with a straight face how a member of a family who is serving the country wearing one of these dresses cheapens it.

  28. Bsamm09 says:

    Here’s my take on why you shouldn’t donate: TAXES!!!!

    Say the dress is originally valued at $5,000 on their books as inventory. Now it is nasty but is still worth $2,000. You have to write the dress down $3,000 on your books because inventory is kept at lower of cost or market.

    Since they are going out of business, they most likely have no income. In order to write off a charitable contribution (assuming they are C-corps) you must have income.

    If you destroy the dress and make the value $0 and trash it, you get to write off the full amount. NOLs are valuable if you want to buy a company.

  29. Razor512 says:

    wedding dresses are extremely cheap to make, the wedding name just causes a 30,000% price markup

    if they were really as expensive as they make them out to be then they would not be so quick to destroy them

  30. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    My family used to have a charity and ran a thrift store where people would pay 10¢ for a dress like that. The chances of finding just the right size is extremely low. The store was in a poor area and was very popular. Nobody came to the thrift store looking for a deal on a designer dress if they were capable of buying a similar item new.

  31. MMD says:

    I was forced to endure the purchase of an incredibly overpriced bridesmaid dress from this horrific shop. I tried on the sample dress (which was only *slightly* too small for me) and they forced me to order a dress that was 3 sizes bigger to justify charging me even more (because the inflated size bumped me into “plus-sized” territory. This was clearly so they could then charge me more during the alterations phase of the process, even though I repeatedly told them that I lived out of state and would not be returning to them for alterations. They were pretentious and rude, and I would have walked out if my doing so wouldn’t have started family drama and anxiety for my future SIL.

    Learning of their demise has made my day.

    • BayardMozie says:

      Unless they held a gun to your head, they didn’t really “force” you to buy something you didn’t want. You just caved. Try to do better next time!

      • MMD says:

        Way to miss the point of my post based on one word.
        No, no one held a gun to my head. I chose to keep peace in my family.
        Try to read more carefully next time.

  32. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    Apparently a $4000 wedding dress doesn’t cost David’s anything close to that and it’s cheaper to toss it than ship to another store.

  33. dolemite says:

    When I worked at a department store, we did the same thing. It was similar to a K-Mart. Any old merchandise, or slightly damaged merchandise (including clothes, food, furniture), etc. was tossed in a trash compactor. I asked the manager why we couldn’t donate it, and he said corporate policy.

  34. ancientone567 says:

    It is just very wasteful which is a crime in my book. The only right thing to do was donate them not destroy them. I know what this snooty company stands for now and won’t deal with them ever.

  35. kcvaliant says:

    I am fine with this. Donating or selling at a loss further hurts the other stores profitability, it also would hurt name recognition.

    No one was hurt or effected their chances on buying a dress.

    Do you all complain this much wen disney revaults movies to keep value up and extra stock in circulation?

    • MMD says:

      “Donating or selling at a loss further hurts the other stores profitability”

      How, exactly?

      “it also would hurt name recognition.”

      Whose name recognition? The store’s? The designers? How would donating something to a worthy cause hurt?

      “No one was hurt or effected their chances on buying a dress.”

      Huh? Please write clearly.

      “”Do you all complain this much wen disney revaults movies to keep value up and extra stock in circulation?”‘

      Ridiculous comparison. Disney doesn’t destroy DVDs when they “revault” their movies. They don’t destroy the original film, either. And revaulting means they’re taking extra stock out of circulation, so again, please write clearly is you want anyone to take you seriously.

      • Nobody can say "Teehee" with a straight face says:

        Luxury brands depend on their label being luxury to… well… be a luxury brand. As was stated before, they destroyed them due to an agreement with the designers. No designer for a luxury item like a wedding dress wants to be associated with the poor and homeless.

        And yes brands themselves are worth LOTS of money. Associating a luxury dress with the poor for a designer might be similar to associating the Disney name with pornography. It would hurt their image, and cause value to be lost in their brand.

        • MMD says:

          There’s no way that a non-rich person wearing a designer gown hurts a brand’s image more than having a designer dress found spray painted and wastefully trashed in a dumpster. Trash is not luxurious. In fact, since the dresses “had to be” trashed because the couldn’t be sold, doesn’t that send the message that no one wanted them?

          • Nobody can say "Teehee" with a straight face says:

            I agree that it hurts their image because they were discovered doing it. But it’s obvious they were never intended to be found out and made into a media story. If they knew they would have been found out and have it leaked to the media, they wouldn’t have done it.

    • Kuri says:

      The major difference is that Disney doesn’t recall and destroy unsold copies of their movies, they just stop printing new discs.

  36. kcvaliant says:

    I am fine with this. Donating or selling at a loss further hurts the other stores profitability, it also would hurt name recognition.

    No one was hurt or effected their chances on buying a dress.

    Do you all complain this much wen disney revaults movies to keep value up and extra stock in circulation?

    • RandomHookup says:

      Except (1) they were going out of business and (2) the dresses were from other designers (I’m assuming here that they didn’t carry the PoB name).

      This action probably hurt the brand name (if they plan to sell it or reuse it) more than dumping the dresses to a charity. I’m not sure there’s an easy way to dispose of them, but it almost always looks bad to destroy that much stuff without at least trying to recycle them.

    • Kuri says:

      The difference is that Disney doesn’t recall and destroy unsold copies.

  37. Matthew PK says:

    How is this different then when Uncle Sam mandated that care dealerships destroy working vehicles to qualify their buyers for a tax credit?

    • dolemite says:

      Because the point of that was to not only encourage new car buying, but to take old broken down 12 mpg gas guzzlers off the road.

    • RandomHookup says:

      And I believe those cars were sold for scrap and/or recycled in some way. Just throwing them in the dumpster is a little different.

  38. axolotl says:

    To everyone complaining that ruining a brand new wedding dress is a waste, what do you think happens to most dresses after the wedding? After using it exactly once (hopefully), It gets put in a closet and never touched again.

    • MMD says:

      But these never even got that one use.

      Some people hope to pass wedding dresses down to family members (though I’m aware that doesn’t happen as much as maybe people hope it will). Some also make christening gowns out of bridal gowns. Some sell or donate their gowns so they can be used again. None of these scenarios are possible when the dress is in a dumpster.

  39. BayardMozie says:

    First I was all “that sucks!”. But then I thought “who cares… these are luxury items that are overpriced anyway and you can’t eat a designer dress or wear it to keep warm”. But then (finally) I went back to “that sucks!”, because it dawned on me that these dresses could have been sold – even at half price – and a lot of money could have been generated, which *could* go for things that the needy really could use like food and practical clothes.

  40. pinkbunnyslippers says:

    Too bad there isn’t a Cameron Hughes of bridalware…

  41. pinkbunnyslippers says:

    This is all resting in the hands of the designers. People like Vera Wang don’t want her $15k dresses being sold down at Liquidation Warehouse for $950, because then she starts becoming irrelevant as a high end dress maker. If you don’t like it, guess what – don’t buy her sh*t. She won’t care either way, which is why she’s getting away with selling dresses that cost more than a year of car payments, and you’re making car payments that cost less than her dresses.

  42. Zydia says:

    I see where they’re coming from, but if throwing them in a dumpster is enough to fulfill their obligations, then so should simply cutting off all the tags/identifiers before quietly getting “rid” of them. Businesses are generally good at being crafty and finding loopholes, this should be so easy. Unless those dresses have tracking devices.

  43. JustMe2011 says:

    Wow. The only assholes here are people who disagree with what’s been done. Try to get something through your thick skulls if you can:

    It’s THEIR property.

    Why should those who own the dresses give them away if they don’t want to? It doesn’t matter how “wasteful” you think it is, it’s their property.

    You know what else is wasteful? You using a computer that could be sold and the money given to poor people. Why aren’t you doing that? Have any extra space in your house? Why not put up a homeless person?

    What’s hilarious is that other people think they have a right to decide what some store should do with its own goods. Would you like me to tell you what to do with your property? It hardly matters how expensive these dresses are. You are more than likely considered “rich” by extremely poor people, so using your own standard, they should be able to tell you what to do with what you own. Sell your car, donate the money, or just donate your car. No? You must be an asshole, then.

    But I guess people can’t get past the feeling of self-righteousness they get when they stick up for “poor people.” As long as that sticking up involves nothing more than whining about how others aren’t donating enough.

    • MMD says:

      Sure. It’s their property.
      But people every right to take issue with a wasteful business practice.
      Sorry if it’s inconvenient for you to think about a issue from more than one angle.

      • JustMe2011 says:

        Lame reasoning. It’s only “wasteful” to your viewpoint. Sorry you can’t handle a perspective different from your own.

  44. ole1845 says:

    You go to a bridal shop to try on gowns. A bride might try on a couple of dozen dresses. When she chooses one she orders a BRAND NEW one. The ones at the salon were likely tried on a hundred times and full of sweat, deodorant, lipstick, makeup, coffee, etc. Yuk.

  45. Wolfbird says:

    Sometimes, I hate not being poor. I never get any free stuff >:[

  46. Miss Malevolent says:

    I don’t see what the big deal is.

    “Waste is waste”.
    “Poor people want nice wedding gowns too!”

    Blah blah blah…

    All I see is this tearing of clothing and gnashing of teeth about ridiculously over priced clothing, that will more than likely only be worn 1 day out of someone’s life. In fact, I think people spend more time and thought in purchasing that “perfect gown” than the life long commitment they’re supposed to make to the one they’re marrying.

    I think it’s just as wasteful for someone to create or buy a $4000+ dress as it is to destroy or donate it.

    Our priorities as a society are not in order. And we are paying for it.

  47. AngryK9 says:

    Well, they own the damned things, they can do whatever they want with them. How would YOU like it if I saw you intentionally damaging your clothes and throwing them away instead of donating them to Goodwill, and I plastered your ugly little face all over the internet because of it?

  48. BradenR says:

    Sounds terribly wasteful Certainly the poor don’t need (although want) very expensive dresses but what would have been the problem of cutting up the dresses for the fabric. That would have a resale value

  49. ReverendTed says:

    What a bunch of Jerks! Boycott Priscilla of Boston! Oh, wait…

    At any rate, if the dresses were genuinely “unsalvageable”, then it makes sense to throw them away. If they’re throwing them away, then I can see the logic in rendering them obviously unwearable so that someone doesn’t grab a load of them out of the dumpster and auction them off under the designer’s name.

    If they weren’t genuinely unsalvageable, then it probably seemed a lot more expedient to throw them away than to donate them. Less paperwork in the midst of the liquidation of PoB.

    I’m not saying that makes it ok, but I can see where they might have come to this conclusion.

  50. Libertas says:

    Unless you are personally footing the bill for this junk, nobody should really care about what happens to this crap as it is none of your business.

  51. human_shield says:

    That’s their right to do so. Personally, I like to go down to the local food shelter, bust out a bunch of burgers in front of the line of hungry homeless people and take a bite before smashing the burger and shitting on it.

    • JustMe2011 says:

      And your lack of understanding in the difference between this store and your story speaks only of you. It doesn’t make the point you were hoping it would.

  52. Darkneuro says:

    Clothing stores do this all the time. The designers don’t want the gowns back-it’s last year’s model- but they don’t want it found for $50 at the local thrift store because then they’ll have to fend off people wanting ‘that designer gown’ for $50. I’m surprised they just dumped ‘em instead of farming them out to other stores, actually.

    • Kuri says:

      That “Last month’s/year’s fashion” crap is one of the problems I have with people.

      People need to fucking grow a pair and wear what they want to wear.

  53. Kuri says:

    Eh, honestly I would say that all these dresses being unsold says that the designers aren’t that relevant anyway.

    Plus I don’t see how they should get uppity over a tag that’s hidden somewhere on the article of clothing, so I doubt anyone would know nor care about their name anyway.

    And while I do recognize that this is their property, well, fact is, contract or not, once the money exchanged hands to sell the clothing what happened to it is effectively out of the designer’s hands once the contract wasn’t met, which I would imagine includes selling the dress so the store makes a profit.

    By this logic, when a car dealership is going out of business they should be allowed to just pour kerosene on the lot and set the whole thing ablaze so no one else can use the vehicles there.

  54. tehbob says:

    It depends. Depending on their contract they might have done this for legal reasons. However if they spray painted the dresses not because they were legally not allowed to dontate them (and to insure when they were thrown away people would not try to use them), but so that by spray painting them they could just throw them away, yeah thats crazy.

  55. calchip says:

    Someone should fish the dresses out of the trash, buy a gallon of Goof-Off, treat the areas spray painted, and gently wash (or dryclean) the dresses. Problem solved.

  56. El_Red says:

    Hmm… I would still pick these dresses up. A seamstress can hide/remove some paint damage. Though not as pretty, these dresses can still be repaired and make someone happy.

    (I’ve salvaged some boots once, cut by a company and discarded due to minor defects. 200$/300$ quality warm winter boot. Repairs on each pair costed 20$-30$. Some I gave out, some I donated. It was well worth it.)

  57. Theoncomingstorm says:

    While I hate to see anything go to waste, it is their merchandise and they can do with it what they wish.

  58. shinazzle23 says:

    OH NO!!!!!

    Next you’ll be telling me DeBeers keeps the supply of diamonds artificially low to keep the price artificially high!!!

  59. mokie says:

    BS. The people who started this complaint are the ones who were eyeballing the dumpsters hoping to make a bundle on eBay. Shoppers who’d been in the store in the final weeks said they were down to crappy and damaged items, which is exactly what the store says it threw out.

  60. soj4life says:

    Isn’t there some soon to be military wife program that they donate dresses to all of the time?

  61. dilbert69 says:

    The store OWNS these gowns, which means they get to do with them as they wish. While giving to charity is noble, it’s not a legal or moral obligation.

  62. DCwiExplorer says:

    I remember a story recently about a charity helping members of our armed services get prettied up for their weddings, even if the wedding was on a military base. There’s plenty of deserving people who aren’t “poor” that these could’ve gone to.

  63. unimus says:

    Lady Gaga would love to have those soiled dresses for her next concert.

  64. RiverStyX says:

    They can do what they want, its their supplies. Personally, I would’ve had them shredded and sold to a company that buys fabric in wholesale. Can use it for all sorts of things..from pillow-stuffing to making paper money.

    But the irony might not be lost, as only poor people would wear such a thing in this condition. Watch, you’ll see some drunk morons show up in a vegas chapel with a dress that’s been painted entirely red to match the color.