Tag: Shopping

A dumpster diver took to TikTok to discuss an issue many people do not even know exists. Old Navy, and other companies like it, may be “slashing clothing” before throwing it in the trash, so people cannot wear items found in its dumpsters.

“Old Navy, you’re trash for this,” said Sam Salvage (@sam_salvage), a thrifter who regularly tries to find unused items that stores throw out in their dumps and capitalist graveyards.

Sam Salvage noticed that stores like Old Navy routinely cut up their clothing before throwing it in the dumpster as a way of preventing salvagers from accessing it. The TikToker called the behavior “vile,” which many other commenters agreed with. Others, however, said it was a standard business practice that consumers should expect.

So why would a store like Old Navy throw away clothing with giant cuts in it? Why are commenters saying the company engages in ‘manufactured scarcity’?

What is manufactured scarcity? 

Manufactured scarcity is “the deliberate strategy of limiting a product’s lifespan or availability to accelerate replacement purchases and maintain artificially high market demand.” 

In this regard, manufactured scarcity refers to how corporations manage their resources in order to deliberately encourage consumers to buy more products. It is an intentional restriction of consumer access, often used to preserve a brand’s power.

Companies have a variety of strategies to ensure that people continue seeing their products as “scarce,” such as limiting the production of goods, sudden product cutoffs, planned obsolescence, as well as the deliberate destruction of goods.

How could retail waste relate to manufactured scarcity?

Most brands want to keep up with the latest trends, putting out clothing that reflects consumer interests each season or even each month. For that reason, any leftover items might end up being ‘retail waste’: Items that are no longer wanted or valued by a store due to these high inventory turnover rates. 

It’s important to note that retail waste is oftentimes an outcome of manufactured scarcity, but that doesn’t mean that all retail waste results from manufactured scarcity. In this case, the clothes being slashed up outside point toward it being the problem, as an associate deliberately made the products unwearable when throwing them out. But, not all retail waste is manufactured scarcity, and some methods of manufactured scarcity do not result in retail waste.

For instance, some commenters pointed toward food waste being a result of manufactured scarcity. But, restaurants are oftentimes obligated to throw food out and not donate it. There’s been a variety of evidence that indicates that many expiration dates for products are simply suggestions and are not enforceable. Still, that doesn’t change most establishments’ corporate policies, which try to avoid liability by not serving food that’s technically out-of-date. 

It’s much worse for a company if they sell a product that inadvertently gives someone food poisoning than it is to simply throw the food away. Similarly, while food can by all accounts be “fresh,” any customer who perceives an older food item as a potential hazard could try to hold a restaurant handing it out. So, restaurateurs may not be trying to deliberately manipulate the food market with artificial scarcity. Instead, they’re trying to avoid concerns with liability that exists within our legal system. 

What other companies engage in retail waste?

Commenters were able to identify many other companies that engage in retail or food waste. Their list includes TJ Maxx, Big Lots, Spirit Halloween, and the entire food industry. 

Other companies like Shein have been accused of similar business practices for years, if not decades. That’s the case for many discount retailers as well, which quickly move breakable items out of their stores to make way for new trends. 

“TJ Maxx destroys everything that is breakable then they throw it all out after every season. All the unsold Halloween stuff [is] in the trash, [and] all the unsold Christmas stuff [is] in the trash,” one commenter said. “The people I work with defend the practice. This world is brainwashed, and these comments prove it.”

Why do some commenters think it’s a ‘good thing’ for Old Navy to do?

While many people argued that Old Navy should donate extra clothing, others mentioned that the store doesn’t have to. As a for-profit business, they don’t necessarily have to make charitable contributions using their own products. Since they own the clothing items Sam Salvage found, they are entitled to slash them if they wish.

One commenter explained their reasoning, saying, “Old Navy is not a charity. Would it be nice if they took unsold merchandise to the Salvation Army or something? Yes, but they are under no obligation to do so. They [sell] clothes for profit, if they have clothes they aren’t going to sell. It makes [sense] to dispose of it and make sure it can’t be salvaged. Same concept of a restaurant throwing away an order the customer can’t pay for. They don’t give food for free, and since they now can’t [sell] that order, it’s trash.”

Another commenter added, “As they should! Every company and person that throws goods away should ensure the items are unsalvageable. People who dumpster dive should not be able to make a profit off something they obtained for free.” 

This frustrated Sam Salvage, who replied, saying, “Tell that to the billionaire nepo babies profiting off of the labor of millions while contributing nothing. (I’m not a reseller. I’m a salvager. I donate).” 

Ultimately, the video had commenters split down the middle. Some viewers mentioned how dystopian the world is if companies throw away perfectly good items without a second thought. Others seemingly shamed Sam Salvage for dumpster diving to allegedly “resell” goods, a claim which the TikToker denies. 

@sam_salvage #dumpsterdiving #consumerism #fyp #fashion ♬ original sound – ?

We’ve reached out to Old Navy’s press email and Sam Salvage via TikTok direct message for comment. We’ll let you know if either party responds. 

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Rachel Thomas

Rachel Joy Thomas is a music journalist, freelance writer, and hopeful author who resides in Los Angeles, CA. You can email her at [email protected].

Three women did Fukubukuro shopping to celebrate the new year at a Coach store. They ended up with at least $1,250 worth of Coach bags, yet they paid only $500, something that shocked many viewers on TikTok who had never heard of the custom before. 

@macyandmaliaunfil, a TikTok content creator posting from Hawaii, posted her and her friends’ Coach Fukubukuro haul on Jan. 2nd, garnering more than 3 million views in the span of a few days. In it, she showed off a few high-value items she and her friends got for extraordinarily low prices—a mere $500 for each person’s bag despite some of the items costing more than $600 individually. 

But not every Coach store offers Fukubukuro shopping. In fact, many U.S shoppers have never even heard the term before. So, how did I end up with thousands of dollars of Coach merchandise in each woman’s Fukubukuro surprise gift bag?

In @macyandmaliaunfil’s video, she stated that if you don’t know what Fukubukuro is, you can “look it up.” 

Many commenters assumed based on the video that it was a Hawaiian custom, but that’s not actually the case. It’s technically a custom in Hawaii and in Japan, prominently seen during the New Year period. 

In Japan and Hawaii on New Year’s Day, many stores offer surprise bags with multiple items, oftentimes at a discounted price. These bags traditionally have surplus items that retail stores may want to sell going into the New Year, or general items that the store normally offers all year. 

These purchases always have surprise items that shoppers do not get to see until they open the contents. They are generally not returnable, and therefore, those who purchase them “get what they get.” 

In Japan, these gifts range from electronics to luxury clothes. A variety of stores participate in the New Year’s event, with customers buying in so they can “get lucky.” Contrary to some commenters’ claims, Fukubukuro isn’t always associated with luxury brands, as some bags only cost the equivalent of $30–$50 USD. 

Why is this not an event at stores in the U.S?

Traditionally, stores in the U.S. don’t have Fukubukuro customs. They therefore do not participate in the activity. 

That means, if a customer wants to engage in Fukubukuro shopping during the New Year, they’d have to go to an area like Hawaii or Japan that actively engages in the tradition. 

@macyandmaliaunfil ♬ original sound – macyandmaliaunfiltered

How was the girls’ ‘haul’? 

Ultimately, many commenters thought that the girls in the video had an inordinately positive haul, receiving three to five incredibly expensive items per bag. 

As one commenter described, “That first denim chain Coach tabby was almost $600 by itself,  ask me how I know!” There was also an olive Lana Bag that retails for $495 included in one of the bags. TikTokers have even dumpster dived looking for the bags due to their high value, making them a competitive commodity.

With that in mind, some commenters thought the women in the video were “disrespecting” the Coach bags by throwing them around in their TikTok clip. Others said they didn’t seem as “excited” as they should be, considering the impressive haul they received. 

“Why is yall throwing these bags around… I’ll take whatever y’all don’t want,” said one commenter. Other commenters noticed this behavior as well and thought the women didn’t like many of the items they received. 

But there was only one item that each of the women seemed to dislike. According to the video, a backpack opened in the second Fukubukuro package was “ugly,” which many commenters disagreed with. Some offered suggestions on how to improve the bag, but the women weren’t necessarily interested in it. 

Later on, one of the girls from the video stated they would do a giveaway for the backpack, considering none of them cared for the item, as described in the comments section. 

We’ve reached out to Coach via email and @macyandmaliaunfil via TikTok direct message for comment.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Rachel Thomas

Rachel Joy Thomas is a music journalist, freelance writer, and hopeful author who resides in Los Angeles, CA. You can email her at [email protected].

A woman from Pennsylvania was wearing her Lululemon Wunder Puff jacket out during the winter months. But while waiting for a burger at a restaurant, the Wunder Puff jacket appeared to “melt,” due to a small heater nearby. 

@fabmeeme posted the video online, saying, “At least I didn’t burn the place down… but my @lululemon Wunder Puff vest is ruined.” The video’s garnered over 533,000 since she posted it on Dec. 30, 

How did the Wunder Puff jacket melt?

Many people wondered how a pristine white jacket could melt inside. Well, @fabmeeme was standing next to a very large heater, which may have melted the jacket’s synthetic fibers after waiting in line for so long. 

It appears as though the jacket’s outermost layer slowly melted and dissipated due to direct contact with said heat source. It burned four small imprints in the jacket near the bottom but didn’t ignite despite the close contact with the heater. 

Many people said that synthetic fibers are “more flammable,” but that’s not accurate. Other sources suggest that synthetic fibers are more flame-resistant. Plus, they have a tendency to melt rather than burn for that reason. 

Even with the heater, it seems that other people have had issues with their Lululemon items “melting” for less plausible reasons. Some commenters said that “friction” while skiing burned through their synthetic fibers and made them stick to their skin. Others said that pairs of aligns “melt” in the same way as @fabmeeme’s Wunder Puff jacket did. It’s worth noting that Lululemon clothes can be sensitive to normal wear and tear, with even basic washes ruining them. That’s why there are special washing instructions and ways to care for clothing items from the brand.

@fabmeeme At least I didnt burn the place down… but my @lululemon ♬ original sound – Mrkeepfit

Viewers question the heater’s placement and safety

Other commenters questioned the unidentified restaurant’s decision to place a heater in a very public area with customers. “I don’t think a heater should be out in the open like that, especially in a public space? Seems so dangerous all it takes is one distracted person to really hurt themselves,” wrote one viewer.

Based on @fabmeeme’s later comments, it appears the long customer line “pushed” her up near the wall, which created an obvious fire hazard.

“The restaurant is TINY and super popular/crowded,” @fabmeeme later said. “When we got there the line was out the door.When I got inside I was followed by several other people and was backed against the wall for just a few seconds. I moved from the wall as soon as I could but just that quick it happened. I was trying to make space so more people could come inside and not stand out in the cold.”

@fabmemee clarified that she “loves” the restaurant and would never wish them ill will. She identified the place as “Jackson House,” an incredibly popular burger spot in Harrisburg, PA. 

She also stated that she wasn’t even touching the heater in another comment, adding, “[I] didn’t… [touch it]. When I finally made it inside everyone behind me decided we were all gonna fit inside and I was kind of backed up into the wall before I could even realize it was there. I wasn’t even touching it… just very close.”

The Mary Sue has reached out to @fabmemee via TikTok direct message, Lululemon via their press form, and Jackson House via Facebook direct message for comment.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Rachel Thomas

Rachel Joy Thomas is a music journalist, freelance writer, and hopeful author who resides in Los Angeles, CA. You can email her at [email protected].