![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
I support the headless children.
Except their heads.
I support the headless children.
Except their heads.
This is the correct way to deal with those noisy kids on flights that childless people are always complaining about here.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-530576-100x100.png\")
I know they're pots and not pipes, but something about this reminds me of Super Mario Brothers.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-603961-100x100.png\")
As long as they don't come to life after dark, Gap can continue to spread the seeds of the headless children.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103766-100x100.png\")
I understand the attitude some San Franciscans have towards children and breeders, but this is TOO FAR!
I stole a line from Paula Poundstone where she would tell kids she could take off her head, but it was like a bottle of aspirin so kids couldn't take it off. A few of my younger more gullible family members bought that story for years.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-772833-100x100.png\")
shhhhh. step away from the window. vivisect that fuzzy yellow duck if you want to find their heads.
Now, to be serious, do they go with headless \"models\" so that they don't have to deal with the facial features of the head? I.E. if you used a head which had the features of the predominant group in an area, and you needed to ship them to another store in a different part of the country, you couldn't unless you changed the head? But if you go with headless, they can be shipped anywhere as long as the color of the \"models\" fit the decor of the store(I admit I don't know much about retail clothing, but I would guess you would want them to be complimentary colors to the decor of the department they are in so they don't clash)?
@55378008_GitEmSteveDave: It costs less to make, and its easier to change the clothes on. See, logical reasons.
@silver-bolt: See Gap is just trying to become more economical. Who needs a head when you're trying to sell clothes. Heads don't wear clothes.
@Cat_In_A_Hat: Except hats. And ear muffs. And Mufflers. And Balaclava's. And Wool knit caps..... :)
@55378008_GitEmSteveDave: I think the mannequins with heads are often just as creepy. Their facial expressions are usually really weird. And what if they were creepy little children mannequins? That would be even worse.
The retail mannequin chain:
Banana Republic gets the Full mannequin.
Gap get the headless models.
Old Navy gets torsos with legs, no feet.
@55378008_GitEmSteveDave: I must admit that it is quite hard to find a mannequin with my handsome Latino facial features.
I don't see the problem with this. A cube farmer is just getting a jump on the game, and his crop isn't fully grown yet.
Why does he farm cubes? What does he do with these cubes? Does he draw smiley faces on them and sell them to the owners of headless-mannequins?
I don't get the big deal. Alot of mannequins don't have heads.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
They have always been kind of creepy, yes, but IMO Pottery Barn kids' child lamps have always been worse. Why would you want to see a lamp in which the body is a child's body?
Doesn't bother me. How much does a mannequin without a head costs versus one with one? What are they trying to sell? heads or shirts? Why has no one whined for years with the busts of men and women that are in clothing departments?
IOW, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Anyone who believes there is lives a little too far on the pc, sensitive side if you ask me
Sometimes I come to this site just to chuckle at how you guys make a big deal out of everything. Something's always offensive or gross or misleading or insensitive or whatever. I saw that display the other day and thought it was cute. Personally I find the mannequins with heads creepy, but whatever.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-568700-100x100.png\")
Well, Gap will be bankrupt soon enough unfortunately... maybe they're trying to save money by not using heads? maybe facial features are expensive to reproduce...
@William Gu: Sure they will... every year seems like they inch closer and closer after they get blasted for having lame clothing lineups. Not to mention they can't retain a CEO to save their lives. And the CEOs they take in just make things worse...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-3865-100x100.png\")
It looks like they are growing their own child labor.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-489342-100x100.png\")
I saw this and thought it was creepy...but I always find mannequins at least slightly creepy.
Leaving aside all the obvious thoughts, I wonder what the reaction would be if each mannequin had a random limb removed?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-2237-100x100.png\")
Having worked for Gap Inc, in the visuals dept and actually setting up and dressing the dummies (by dummies i mean mannequins, not customers), i can tell you that as simple as these things look, they are DEVASTATINGLY expensive. I don't remember how much, but enough that headed ones would cost a good bit more. Besides, none of the adult Gap mannequins have heads. Genetic science would prove that their offspring wouldn't have heads either.
@Papercutninja: I was watching How It's Made on discovery and they showed these. It's a pretty involved process, I thought it was just a plastic mold, but it's all this fancy stuff done by hand.
I agree this is weird, but it gets even weirder when they put hats on the headless mannequins.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-152502-100x100.png\")
Equally creepy are the TV commercials where the person's head is cut off in the back and there is some scene going on.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-773220-100x100.png\")
I'm a visual merchandising student.. the reason most children and toddler mannequins have no heads is because while adult mannequins look normal, child mannequins look terrifying to parents because of the \"uncanny valley\" effect. Seeing a molded child's face gives adults a feeling of unease for some reason, and therefore they unknowingly begin to avoid the store.
I honestly see nothing wrong with this display at all, I think it's cute. Then again, I work in a small room in my school's basement with over 50 naked mannequins staring at me..
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-332708-100x100.png\")
All mannequins are creepy, heads or no.
An employee at a shop once startled the bejesus out of my by proceeding to remove the arms of a mannequin off of which I had requested a shirt.
In retrospect, it makes sense that the arms come off -- this makes them easier to dress and reduces stretching on the clothes.
Point being, mannequins often don't have heads for the same reason. Makes 'em easier to dress and you don't have to worry about stretching collars.
& if you've never seen \"children of men\", i'd certainly recommend adding it to your netflix queue. excellent flick.