Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

To everyone saying "too expensive", I think perhaps you are not the target market. I found the "Egg Baby" outfit that is pictured on the plumgear.com homepage: http://www.egg-baby.com/lightweight-knit-layette-p1ck400-lgr... It is currently selling for $42.25.

Perhaps it's a little expensive, but I believe "plum" here is not just a random word, but is referring to the quality of the goods being rented.

Now, one may separately question whether there is anybody in the target market, who wants these clothes but won't drop the funds to just buy them, but I can't speak to that either way; my family is more the "$5 for the all-the-clothes-you-can-stuff-into-a-garbage-bag special" sort of family. No rental service can compete in that part of the market, as fixed costs to ship one box would eat half my wardrobe "budget".

View on HN

This is a very solid value proposition for the middle class, once you figure in the right numbers.

The subscriptions are for outfit bundles. Under the lowest tier $16 plan, you get 2 outfits, 2 items per outfit. So the cost per item is:

$16 divided by 4 items = $4

However, you need to multiply that by the number of months before the baby grows out of the clothes. Using my 2-year old as an example, I say 2 months per item. So the cost becomes:

$16 divided by 4 items times 2 months = $8

Yes, $8 vs $42 may not make a difference for those on the poor/rich ends of the spectrum - but for the average environment-conscious American mom/dad, it's a major deal. The gap between the consignment bin/walmart/target and the high-end baby boutique is rather large and in my personal experience, not well filled.

"Now, one may separately question whether there is anybody in the target market, who wants these clothes but won't drop the funds to just buy them, but I can't speak to that either way;"

I think that's going to be the problem. My wife used to work for families to whom money was pretty much no object. $42 and $16 are equivalent in their mind, and equal to about $0.25 to a family on a budget. I don't see them wanting the hassle of having to remember to return clothes within 3 months when it's effectively the same % of their income to buy them.

Yeah, but then you've got all this stuff and you eventually try to unload it on someone else who just had a kid. Is it any more difficult to return clothes then it is to store them?

For me, the cost of baby clothes isn't killing me, but if I crunch the numbers and this is cheaper, then I'd be convinced simply because I like the idea of re-use from both an environment and a de-cluttering angle.

For many, the act of giving away clothes to another new mother is very satisfying

I know several people in that range as well (and apparently am getting into it myself these days): For them, getting rid of stuff is hard as well. A known "Getting rid of things" path is also good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com