Loves It, Hates It

"Look for Less" Columns that are not "inexpensive": "Hates It!"

B was recently checking out how to get a singer/actress's outfit "for less." Granted, the outfit she wore was probs way more expensive then the whole outfit's total (and was not B's taste at all, but she just loves reading the "Look for Less" columns to see if there's anything good in them).

The problem came when the total of the clothing piece, shoes, and necklace came to $254.45. The big piece, the actual outfit, was considered "less" because it was $178.50 instead of $255. The shoes and necklace were reasonably priced, but couldn't they have found an up and coming designer who makes a similar shoe but can't charge $57.95 because he/she hasn't established him or herself?

Honestly, B probs wouldn't want to go out and buy the actual outfit (it's a completely different story when it comes to the shoes and possibly the necklace); however, if a number of your readers would not be able to afford to purchase the "less expensive" outfit then how could it make the "Look for Less" column? Shouldn't the prices be somewhat reasonable for the "average person" to afford?

Generally speaking, B does not spend $254.45 on one outfit (granted there are some exceptions but those are few and far between). B is a law student with a law student's salary, not an attorney's so it would be nice to read one of these columns and know that B could actually afford to purchase every piece of the outfit - that is if she actually chooses!