Kim Kardashian did something pretty cool recently. She put a bunch of her highly-coveted designer clothes up for sale on eBay. For unusually cheap, too. There's a L'Wren Scott dress that started off at $81; a Stella McCartney originally posted for $103. And she's even donating some of the proceeds to typhoon victims in the Philippines.
Well, some as in ... 10 percent.
Selling her clothes is a great idea, as, let's be honest here, there's an unsettlingly large market of people who want to own Kim's pit-stained shirts. But the execution? I'm no P.R. manager, but it seems pretty terrible. Kim's a multi-millionaire. Why are so little of the profits going to typhoon victims? Why not all the profits? Kim was probably given half of these clothes for free! And wasn't it reported that she was upset that she didn't sell photos of North, because she realized she could have given the money to charity?
More from The Stir: Kim Kardashian and Kanye West May Soon Have Some Very Famous Neighbors
I think it's great when celebrities, or anyone for that matter, sell their designer duds on a second-hand site like eBay, as it's where us less financially blessed folk go to pilfer. But there's something a little uncomfy about the fact that Kim is pocketing 90 percent of these proceeds. I mean, if this were done in person, wouldn't it feel weird to fork over a ton of money to the one of the richest celebrities around? Knowing she's just going to keep it for herself? Kinda gross.
That said, I am impressed with how cheap Kim posted her clothes for originally. I'm sure bidding will surpass the original price of the clothes, but still. She started out strong.
Do you think it's weird that Kim is only donating 10 percent of the profits to charity?
Image via eBay