Vanity sizing: more efficiency than ego
August 16th, 2007My recent post on vanity sizing generated a lot of discussion. I talked about the popular interpretation of this trend, which is that the industry is pandering to our egos as we get larger as a population, but Kathleen from Fashion Incubator offered a different perspective. It is worth bringing this out of the comments and into the main page because Kathleen is a pattern maker and has a true insider’s viewpoint on production as it happens in factories today.
Kathleen’s main point is that, far from being about our egos, the evolution of the sizing curve is driven by efficient material utilization…
“Consider: most manufacturers cut a size range of 6-14, nearly all do, if not, 8-16. Now, sales wise, the vast majority of orders are in the center of the size spread. Now, as the average person gets heavier, over time, sales begin to weigh in (excuse the pun) on the upper end of the size range so the size spread is off kilter. Now why does this matter? It matters because of marker design and allocation (arcane as I said). To make an efficient marker (keep fabric waste to a minimum) you need balance. For every size 6, you need a size 14. For every size 8, you need a size 12. The 6/14 and 8/12 balance each other in a marker. So, if you have orders for too many of the larger sizes and not enough of the smaller sizes because people are getting fatter, you don’t have balance because now you need 3 size 12’s for every size 8 or 2 size 14s for every size 6. So, you change the sizing structure. This way it rebalances.”
Read more detail in Kathleen’s comment itself, or take a look at the related entries on her blog:
No doubt the industry uses our egos as a powerful marketing tool (and I’m still suspicious of those “skinny mirrors”), but they also drive profits by reducing production costs. And regardless of the industry’s motivation, this sizing evolution trend will probably continue as long as we are getting larger on average. My advice to men and women who are faced with being “sized out” of American clothing labels (when the smallest size available is too big) is to shop European and Asian clothing labels instead.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:32 am
If this is true…that the manufactoring side of the fashion industry needs to balance the sizing orders in order to remain efficient…then why not adjust the markers? instead of having the 6’s balance the 12’s and the 8’s balance the 14’s couldn’t we have the 6 balance the 14’s etc. As the CONSUMER, I am having hard enough time with non-standardized sizing between manufacterers without having to deal with size changes within a manufacterer! This efficiency issue with the manufactorers is only making it harder for the consumers. yes, it is true that we as a nation are getting fatter. So why not work with that fact and offer improved options for the upper sizes rather than have the old model forced to work with the new reality?
August 16th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Very, very interesting.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:37 am
The thing that baffles me is that the size charts displayed by many stores are simply completely inaccurate. For example, Banana Republic claims a size 0 is meant for a 24″ waist and 34″ hips. This seems like a reasonable set of measurements for a size 0 to me. But I wear a size 0 there, and I am a good 2-3 inches bigger in my waist (depending what horrible things I have eaten during the week), and 2 inches bigger in my hips. And believe me, I do NOT wear my clothes too tight. That is one of my biggest peeves not to mention totally uncomfortable.
Their petite sizing is even more off. I have worn anything ranging from a 0P to a 4P (usually a 2P), yet their size charts indicate that I should be a 6P. It makes me wonder what the big secret is and why they feel the need to make up their measurements (of course, they always have some sort of disclaimer that individual garments may vary and this is only a guide…no kidding).
As for European designers, I’m still left confused. I wear a 36 at H&M, which I think translates to a size 6. Yet I have never seen anything less than a 34 in American stores (and living in NYC, I have been to more H&Ms than I can even dare to think about). Rather than meaning that I wear a size 6, I think it means I wear a size 2 (with a 34 representing a size 0). I know they have a 32 in Europe, as I had the experience of shopping there in its native homeland of Sweden, but it doesn’t seem to have carried over into the American market.
In conclusion, sizing issues give me a headache.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:37 am
I think size charts with breast/waist/ hip is very helpful, it only becomes inaccurate when you throw the all the different body types in the mix. I always try on everything and avoid online shopping. I must say toddler sizing is even more inaccurate and confusing. I wonder does bra size go thought the same sizing revolution as we get taller, heavier and bigger.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Whatever the reasoning, I really wish they’d get a better system. I’d rather try on 4 different shirts than the same shirt in 4 different sizes.