« Books for Africans | Main | Markets in everything »
Is there "vanity sizing" in clothing markets?
Imagine the temptation to sell nominally-marked small sizes (but the clothes are still large) to those who do not "deserve" them. Does this appeal to self-deception -- also known as vanity sizing -- occur on a wide scale? Do we observe ongoing private sector inflation when it comes to clothes sizes? Kathleen Fasanella, a successful apparel pattern maker, says no, it only looks that way sometimes:
Sizes are not created equally; not all mediums from company to company are identical and nor should they be! Manufacturers necessarily target a given consumer profile -even push manufacturers have target demography- and it is more common for consumers of a given profile to share anthropometric characteristics than it is that they not. A medium simply indicates the middle size of a given manufacturer's size run; that's it.
...let's say that everybody had to use the same sizes, can you imagine the number of sizes the western wear company would be forced to carry as compared to the tutu maker? ...consumer expectation that they should be able to walk into any store, anywhere and pick out a medium and expect it to fit them but that's just not reasonable.
Read Kathleen's whole post, and here are some rough data. Here is a typical charge, which also names some (supposed) culprits, such as The Gap, Ralph Lauren, and Banana Republic. I do not have the expertise to evaluate this debate, but I am more generally intrigued by claims that non-uniform, heterogeneous standards are more efficient than pure uniformity. Note that the fashion industry has never tried "hard enough" to create uniform standards. I've opened up the comments for those who are more sartorially minded than I am. A related but not identical question is whether movie critics suffer from "praise inflation" over time.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 11, 2005 at 07:27 AM in History | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e550834ab98833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is there "vanity sizing" in clothing markets?:
» Site traffic from Fashion-Incubator
Those of you with blogs and websites know you can pull up all kinds of interesting factoids about visitors to one's site. In that vein, here are some interesting things about the site traffic here. Countries breakdown Understandably, most of... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 12, 2005 3:28:05 PM
» Vanity sizing from Tversover
Tyler Cowen skriver i Marginal Revolution om "vanity sizing", den tendensen man mener å se til at klesstørrelser har økt i USA (og kanskje i Norge, hva vet jeg) slik at folk ikke skal føle seg så fete fordi de... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 16, 2005 3:50:50 AM
» Site traffic from Fashion-Incubator
Those of you with blogs and websites know you can pull up all kinds of interesting factoids about visitors to one's site. In that vein, here are some interesting things about the site traffic here. Countries breakdown Understandably, most of... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 26, 2006 2:01:52 PM
Comments
I think you are missing the trees for the forest. The efficient alternative to weird sizing schemes is sizing according to an objective characteristic, such as the waist size in inches. This cannot be dismissed as impractical, as it is already how, eg, many men's pants and some bras are sized.
Vanity strategies, if they exist, exploit the fact that size is not just a way of buying clothes that fit but also a signalling mechanism of some sort. If size were just a way of buying clothes that fit, objective sizes would be used everywhere, and they aren't. So a priori we should expect vanity sizing in some clothing markets, and we should be suspicious of any argument that vanity strategies in clothes sizing do not exist.
I think the question is not whether the choice of a particular mapping between marked size and actual size is a manifestation of "vanity sizing". Rather, we should ask why some clothing markets elect not to use objective sizing measures while others do (eg, why aren't dresses sized in inches, anyway, rather that weird dimensionless size units, while men's suits are more often sized by an actual anatomical dimension). That, I suspect, is where you will find that the market structure reflects the dominance of "vanity" strategies over objective-sizing strategies.
--G
Posted by: Grant Gould at Jul 11, 2005 9:00:11 AM
You had made mention of Movie Critic inflation. I can't speak about that, but on Music Critic inflation, it MUST exist. I am sorry if this comes off as snobbish, but the grand majority of music being made today is absolute garbage. I can remember back when people/bands like Elton John and Led Zeppelin were accountable for their vacant, but popular, music. Nowadays, we would be lucky to have people that were half as talented as Elton John and Led Zeppelin. But, could you imagine some critic giving every new album a bad review. He, in a sense, would be marginalized.
Posted by: Ian Lewis at Jul 11, 2005 9:05:22 AM
I've always been bewildered by the sizing of women's clothing. Men's non-dress shirts often suffer from the small/medium/large problem, but suits, dress shirts, and pants all come in inch measurements. I can walk into any store, pick up a 30" x 34" pant, and wear it home without trying it on. My girlfriend, on the other hand, refuses to buy any brand of jeans other than LEI because they're the only ones she knows will fit and won't have to spend time trying on. It seems like objective sizing for women would make everybody happier. Maybe the numerical, largely arbitrary sizing is a case of momentum?
Posted by: Timothy at Jul 11, 2005 9:39:51 AM
Men's clothing follows a fairly logical pattern when it comes to choosing between general sizes and precise measurements. It's okay to sell outerwear, non-dress shirts and underwear in general sizes (S, M, L, XL) because these items don't need to fit precisely.. Pants and dress shirts, in contrast, have to fit precisely, and indeed they are measured in inches (collar and sleeve for dress shirts, waist and inseam for pants). Makes pefect sense to me.
Posted by: Peter at Jul 11, 2005 9:55:36 AM
I have two old pair of pants, marked 32 waist, that I cannot fit into. I recall these pants fit the same as every other pair I had back then.
Every pair of pants I have purchaced recently is also marked 32 waist, and they fit just fine.
It seems to me that 32 inches is a fairly objective standard, no?
Posted by: Mike at Jul 11, 2005 10:05:15 AM
It's possible that the numerical system for women never caught on because it would be a little more complex. Not just waist and inseam, but hip measurement would be optimal--from personal experience, I have to buy to hip size because I have a hip/waist ratio larger than most manufacturers size for (excepting, perhaps, certain targeted lines--again with the medium argument above). Cut and fabric also play a part: for example, some women have trouble finding woven shirts that fit in a medium, but have no problem with a fabric that gives, like a knit. Why this should be more a factor for women's clothing than for men's? The body may be bumpier, but I don't think there's that much less variation among the male population as far as proportions. (Incidentally, Old Navy runs rather large for their sizes in general, yet I have noticed the most variation among sizing of individual pieces in Ann Tylor.)
As far as vanity sizing examples, I have heard that Victoria's Secret bra cup-sizes are somewhat misleading, but have not confirmed this personally.
But perhaps it is a conspiracy by tailors and couture to keep the made- or adjust-to-order market in business. Tailors in department stores these days--location of inefficiency?
Posted by: anonagal at Jul 11, 2005 10:06:53 AM
Measuring the inseam and waist in inches is hardly a sufficient objective measurement. (And is the waist for your actual waist or for your hips?) Unless you don't care how you look. (Which I suppose is the case for most men.) You still need to guess at the rise of the seat, the width of the thighs, the tapering of the legs, how much it flares out at the hips, and so on. For shirts you need to know the width of the shoulders, how full or slim the fit of the chest is, the length of the torso, the thickness of the wrists, the cutaway of the collar, and so on.
With the rise of internet shopping for clothes more of these measures are being listed but there is still a reason most people try clothes on before they buy them.
Posted by: Justus at Jul 11, 2005 10:37:08 AM
The stores may *want* to force women to try on clothing. Rather than allowing them to walk in, grab a shirt, and leave, make them plan a twenty-minute trip; make them pick up five things and try them on; get their friends to linger. They may gain back in *impulse sales* what they lose due to the "None of these fit" effect.
Posted by: Ben M at Jul 11, 2005 11:29:16 AM
Could it be just an attempt to force people to try the thing on, in the hope that they will then buy it?
Posted by: David at Jul 11, 2005 11:31:42 AM
I'm a casual enough clothes buyer that I don't have an opinion about vanity sizing, but I don't think there's necessarily a deep motivation behind the weird sizing non-system for women's clothing.
I suspect that habit is enough--it would be costly and risky for a manufacturer to switch over to measurement-based sizing, and they may not think the aggravation it causes customers is a good enough reason to take the trouble to change.
Posted by: Nancy Lebovitz at Jul 11, 2005 12:55:15 PM
The worst are baby clothes! Half my son's 6-9 month clothes are smaller than his 0-3 month clothes. And it's not exactly practical for him to try on each outfit in the store.
I agree: 32" mens pants means from 31"-36" - just as useless as women's sizes (at least they still do shirts right...)
Posted by: Paul N at Jul 11, 2005 1:26:44 PM
Vanity Sizing definitely exists at certain chains. My wife can choose what size she wants to be by choosing where she shops.
We have a game: we look at the mannequins and try to guess what size she'll be. We have found a strong inverse correlation between numerical dress size and the average relative prices of dresses for a given store/chain. Of course, since correlation is not causation, another possibility is that changing in a Max Mara dressing room makes her svelte, while Penney's cause her to swell up.
Posted by: Tylerh at Jul 11, 2005 2:26:58 PM
"It's possible that the numerical system for women never caught on because it would be a little more complex."
Yes! Both size AND shape have to be considered. There is a lot of variance in the waist:hip ratio in women, so you would have to have a bunch of different hips sizes for each waist size. Then if you are talking about one-piece dresses, you have to take the variance in bust sizes into account as well. So there are 3 different measurement points on women's bodies that clothes have to fit. From my personal experiences clothes shopping, it seems that different brands are designed for different ratios between these points.
(If any of the ladies reading this thread can direct me to the skinny waist, wide hips brand for jeans and pants, I would be very grateful, because I've had a difficult time finding pants that accomodate a relatively low waist:hip ratio.)
Posted by: Jacqueline at Jul 11, 2005 2:31:35 PM
Bull-fricking-loney there's no vanity sizing! I don't know about variation between different lines, but there has definitely been size inflation over time. Want proof? The companies that make sewing patterns have been using the exact same size measurements for decades. (At least since the 1960s-70s--that's as far back as my pattern collection goes.) According to Simplicity, a 26 1/2 inch waist and 36 inch hips make one a size twelve and have for the past thirty-odd years. According to the sizing chart on the JCPenney web site, that same 26 1/2 inch waist and 36 inch hips currently fall between a size 4 and 6. The last pantsuit I bought for my about-that-size self was a size 2 at Casual Corner.
Jacqueline: You want Gloria Vanderbilt jeans. At least, I tend to have the same problem and those jeans are the only ones I've found that fit me nicely.
Posted by: Jules at Jul 11, 2005 2:59:51 PM
No one denies
1. The entropy of sizing and fit
2. The inflation of sizing
3. The variations existing between sizing standards employed by any given manufacturer
but these are not "vanity sizing" related. The entropy of fit and sizing is far more complex than that -to say nothing of poor process controls that account for disordinate shrinkage between the cutting and prewashing of goods for stores. Vanity sizing is a myth; it is not economically rational because the range of smaller sizes of a manufacturer's core customers would then be forced to shop elsewhere. Perhaps the posting Fit and Sizing entropy would be enlightening.
http://www.fashion-incubator.com/mt/archives/fit_and_sizing_entropy.html
Posted by: Kathleen Fasanella at Jul 11, 2005 3:44:37 PM
Standardized sizing is tough. As others have noted, there's also the issue of fit -- for example, where a design's waistband actually is. With mid- and low-rise trousers and jeans more popular among women of all ages, hip size can be more significant to sizing. Mid- and low-rise pants must be larger around the waistband than a comparably sized traditional, higher-waisted pant, because they fit at a wider point on most women's bodies. So telling me a pant has a 28-inch waist doesn't really tell me what I need to know. In that case, it could be somewhat more significant to know that the manufacturer considered it a size 10, or whatever. (And I'd still try it on, regardless of how it was sized.)
On the other hand, I do think that many brands have evolved over the years to cater to the maturing bodies of Baby Boomers and Gen X. I wear a smaller size now than when I was in high school in the '80s, even though I weigh 15-20 pounds more now. Another puzzling issue: I also must wear tall/long sizes now but never needed to when I was younger. I'm about 5'10 but have a fairly long torso.
Posted by: Kari at Jul 11, 2005 4:26:39 PM
I wonder how much size inflation is based on real vs. nominal factors. How much bigger and fatter has the average woman gotten over the past 30 years? As for movie critic praise inflation, maybe movie critics judge films relative to recent releases (ie judge Fantastic Four compared to, say, the mediocre Batman Beyond rather than the excellent X-Men 2) rather than on their own individual merit or compared to the entire canon of cinema. A reason for this might be that if people want to go out to the movies as a social event, they'll decide which movie they see based on how good it is relative to the other movies available. In this case, we aren't dealing with praise inflation, but rather a decline in the average quality of recent films - something I can buy in to.
Posted by: Sarah at Jul 11, 2005 5:15:41 PM
Having been sensible enough to elope (with the Grant Gould who opens this comment thread, no less) I can't comment from personal experience, but my female friends assure me that wedding dress sizing is from another planet. Because, you know, all women want to be a size 10 (or 8, or 6, or whatever) on their wedding day, and this can be much more easily accomplished by quietly relabeling all the dresses down a size or two than by somehow fitting substantial weight loss into the wedding plans.
Posted by: Andromeda at Jul 11, 2005 6:50:20 PM
I agree with a number of women who point towards the greater variation on woman's body shapes than men's. That said, I also think you're overanalyzing the issue and think vanity is very definitely in the mix. No woman wants to be a "large" and some clothes are sized to avoid the issue! Kari's post is an example of patterns getting larger but remaining the "same size."
Count me in among the woman who tend to resolve the problem by focusing on a preferred brand. In my case, it's Lands End. With just a few, few exceptions, I know a size "X" is going to be exactly the same size no matter which style of within a class of clothes (pants or tops).
Jacqueline -- you might also try Lands End. They tend to provide a variety of "fits" for real women.
Posted by: Roaring Tiger at Jul 11, 2005 7:42:10 PM
I would point to three things to substantiate a vanity sizing. The first is anecdotal: at JC Penney's, I pay $30 for a pair of jeans and I'm a size 14/16. At the Gap, I pay $60 and I'm a size 10/12. I buy a tanktop from Target for $6 and I'm a large; at Old Navy, a similar tanktop is $18 but I'm a small.
The second is the odd fact that when I bought jeans in high school, almost twenty years ago, the Gap sized women like men. IOW, I bought jeans that were 30/32. Waist and inseam. Yes, the cut of certain jeans fit better or worse, but that's why there are 'relaxed fit' and 'slim fit' and 'boot cut' and 'low rise' - those variations change the fit but my waist and inseam measurement still don't change. At some point in the mid-90s, the Gap changed, as did Levi's, to some bizarre system of 10/12/14 and so on, with odd numbers being for longer legs, or something rather obscure. Personally, I think they did it to mask the size issue, and possibly for the reason someone else mentioned above: I can no longer walk in, grab a pair of 30/32s, buy, and walk out.
(This is why now I wear men's jeans. I walk in, grab a pair of 30/32s, purchase, and walk out.)
The last bit is one I don't see mentioned here, which is the pattern industry. At some point during the 30's, as I was once told, there was a variety of pattern sizes. The manufacturers -- Butterick, Vogue, MacCalls, Simplicity, et al -- got together and came up with standards. On every pattern, if you flip it over, you'll see the chest/waist/hip measurements and the corresponding sizes for each. They're the same on every one. A 30" waist is a size 12, IIRC, and it will be so on a Vogue pattern -- at $18 -- or a knock-off SewEasy pattern that's only $4. But then, people who sew often know how to tailor patterns, because few women fit perfectly into the old 36/28/38 dimensions.
All that said, I find two things annoying in the fashion industry these days. One is the idea that I'll be flattered into thinking I'm somehow quite skinny by dint of having paid three figures for a piece of clothing; the other is that women's clothes most definitely have a built-in obsolescence now. When I'm still wearing jeans I bought in the 80s that are holding up, but every single pair of jeans I've bought in the past two years didn't make it past six months' lifespan... it's a sign.
Posted by: sGreer at Jul 11, 2005 8:16:53 PM
"Vanity sizing is a myth; it is not economically rational because the range of smaller sizes of a manufacturer's core customers would then be forced to shop elsewhere."
You haven't seen size 0 dresses? I have.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Jul 11, 2005 8:18:36 PM
If you look at this from garment manufacturers' side, it's a pretty difficult problem. Customers come in all shapes and body types, and they have to be covered by a very limited number of clothing sizes. Actual hip or waist measurements for size 12 are different depending on customers demographics - race, age, fitness level etc.
So each major manufacturer uses a fit model - a set of dimensions for each type of garment, for each size, which is designed to fit reasonably well most of its customer base. As an example, typical distribution of measurements for teenage asian girls would be very different from middle-aged african-american women, but you are still expected to have size 8 and size 12 ! So what you call a particular set of dimensions, 10 or 12 is somewhat a marketing question. As long as you are buying from the same major manufacturer, and their fit model remains the same, clothes of the same size can be expected to fit the same.
Military was facing another facet of the same problem for years. Let's say you are designing a new tank. What should be the distance between gunner's seat and a particular control, so any gunner could comfortably reach it ? You can't make tanks in S, M, and XXXL sizes, and it is not always possible to make the seat adjustable as in passenger cars.
There is a number of interesting trends in this area. With the growth of online purchases, development of virtual mannequins (see how Land's End uses them), and evolving technologies of mass customization, I expect the way many people shop for clothes will change considerably in the next few years.
Posted by: Nick at Jul 11, 2005 8:35:35 PM
Many of the commenters have noted that sizes for men are relatively standardized, but the ladies are left to fend for themselves. What I have not seen is any note as to why the neck and sleve sizes are used for men in the first place.
It turns out that there was a sample survey conducted for the military in the run up to World War II so that they could specify proportions for the contractors supplying uniforms. They determined that only these two measurements were sufficient to determine the other proportions. Naturally, they were less interested in getting similar meaasurements for the ladies.
This, in effect, was a government standardization that, as far as I can tell, is now all but forgotten. Note, though, that such data collection is not without its costs, and so I wouldn't expect the ladies' sizing problems to be rationalized any time soon.
Posted by: Green Bear at Jul 11, 2005 9:37:21 PM
Actually, Kathleen both *is* a size 0 and knows how to make a size 0 dress. Also, women's sizing used to have an objective meaning, but it was a scale on a patternmaker's tool, so it meant more to the manufacturers than to the customers.
One thing worth mentioning here: she is not claiming that sizes don't evolve. They do evolve because customers are getting bigger, and sizes have to change commensurately (among other reasons, and this is my own interpretation, so go read Kathleen's site). Let's look at an extreme illustration: Think of what a size 0 or 2 looked like in the middle ages, and what an average (14?) woman looked like then. Now imagine if they still made clothing that size and using that scale: nobody would buy a size 0, and the *average* woman would fit into a size 40. So, yeah, they scaled a 0 up to fit a 0 woman, and the rest of the sizes scaled upwards as well. They didn't do it to "make rich women feel good" or whatever the usual justification is, they did it to sell clothes profitably!
Posted by: Eric H at Jul 11, 2005 10:17:52 PM
Eric: actually, having done a bit of historical reenactment, I was surprised to find that the average waistline (with corsets, mind you) of women around the time of the American Revolutionary war was roughly 32" to 36" -- what we'd call a size 14 to 18, approximately.
Ignoring the excesses of the mid-19th century and the almost obscene amount of waist-compression so popular from about 1830 to 1910, prior to that the average woman would probably be today's modern 12 to 16, and was as much for easily four or five hundred years.
This is ignoring the highest classes, of course, who were always at one extreme or another, with the time/energy to be on the skinny side. But given that the most common place to find 0 through size 4 dresses is in the really expensive boutiques (or the junior's section), hey, maybe that trend continues.
Posted by: sGreer at Jul 11, 2005 10:47:46 PM
