Nasty Gal is catching some nasty backlash after their recent “size inclusive” addition to their clothing line. The affordable online fashion brand was called out for its previously narrow size selection. Last Tuesday, Nasty Gal responded to the critique by extending their sizes, with their sizes ranging from 0-18. Fashion lovers rejoiced at first, appreciating the move to be more size inclusive. However, according to plus size women who follow the brand, this size range still leaves something to be desired, as most plus-sizes start from sizes 22 to 24 (rather than 18).
Nasty Gal was excited, saying that they were finally “joining the party” of size inclusive brands. However, not only did Nasty Gal fail to extend sizes in the other direction, by including smaller and petite sizes, but they did not include as diverse a range of larger sizes than they thought. Many plus size women on Twitter deemed Nasty Gal’s expansion as insensitive and ignorant, saying how they still could not buy any of Nasty Gal’s pieces.
Graphic tees and jeans you can find anywhere up to size 18 is not joining the party. It’s a weak attempt to ride the plus size inclusivity wave. pic.twitter.com/nv2r2Bs76v
— FroPlusFashion (@froplusfashion) September 27, 2018
Why isn’t the tag line “We’re finally jumping on a band wagon, we don’t actually care about”
— The Killerqueen (@fresheima) September 25, 2018
Surprising they didn’t have enough time to expand beyond a 2X or even a size 20.
— Curvy Couture (@CurvyCouture1) September 26, 2018
We can say there was at least an attempt to be more size inclusive. However, Nasty Gal’s attempt just didn’t cut it, and we can understand why. When a brand declares to be more inclusive, they are taking an opportunity to make the already size-sparse market better for a diverse range of consumers. If anything, this was a missed opportunity to make more sizes for women who already struggle to find cute clothes in their size. Nasty Gal is planning to add even more sizes to their line, but the intentions of the brand are now in question. They did not get it right the first time, but we’re hoping they’ll get it right the third time around.