Why standard clothing sizes exist (and why they suck)
A version of this article was originally posted by CEO Bobby Östberg on LinkedIn, 9th November 2020.
You’ve probably lost count of the times you’ve fallen for an item of clothing only to give up on it after trying on every size. You’re not alone. Size recommendation tools can help slightly, but what they can’t do is solve a fundamental problem with standard sizing — the closest size often isn’t the correct size.
So how did standard sizing come to dominate fashion and, more importantly, does it still make sense to use it? The answers might frustrate you more than trying on jeans.
Why does fashion use standard sizes?
In the early 19th century, the Napoleonic Wars broke out just as the Industrial Revolution was in full swing. The need to produce an unprecedented amount of military uniforms coincided with the technology to do so. But it wasn’t enough to just make lots of uniforms. They also needed to fit.
To produce at the necessary scale, standard sizing systems were devised with general body measurements centred on an individual’s chest size. These were fairly reliable as they were based on a limited range of body types belonging to fit and able young men.
Later in the century, the growth of what became known as “white collar” jobs led to a higher demand for white shirts than tailors could keep up with. The military sizing system was adopted into civilian life, with alternative systems developed for female sizes too.
Mass market fashion was born. This new industry could make and sell an unprecedented amount of clothes, leading to remarkable growth. But there were also inherent problems that persist to this day.
Why are clothing sizes so different?
Ever noticed how ostensibly the same size might fit from one brand but not another? Why is it that so-called standard sizes aren’t really standardized at all?
Well, as nice as it would be for every brand to carry sizes consistent with those that fit you, the chances of you falling neatly into such a limited set of parameters is slim. Very few of us conform to average body measurements. This is especially true for women, who have more dimensions to vary. Human bodies are simply too diverse to be catered to by convenient S, M and L size categories.
For these sizes to fit anybody at all, brands need to lean towards specific demographics. Age, wealth, lifestyle, nationality and ethnicity are just some of the factors determining body dimensions. Those first standard-sized military uniforms fit reasonably well only because they were based on measurements of exactly who they needed to fit — European men of similar ages, lifestyles and fitness.
Sizes have also gotten smaller over time. This is due to vanity sizing. That’s when a brand marks down an item’s size in order to flatter the shopper.
A survey by Marisota.co.uk reported that 80% of women would enjoy shopping more if they were thinner. Vanity sizing exploits this, making consumers feel more positively towards a product and, subsequently, more likely to buy it. That’s partly why a women’s size 12 in the 1950s would be a size 6 today. (Although it’s not quite as dramatic as it appears. Back then, women’s sizes only began at 8, not 0.)
So-called standard sizes actually vary across brands, price-points, regional markets, and even time. This is necessary under the current system, but also severely limiting. Unreliable sizing has become even more of a barrier as retail shifts online, away from the purchasing confidence granted by fitting rooms. 78% of consumers say they’d order more if they could be certain that clothes fit.
Problems beyond fit
After 200 years of standard sizing, several issues have emerged beyond the obvious — that the closest size isn’t always the correct size. The advent of ecommerce has only piled on further problems for both companies and consumers:
Standard sizes limit market reach
Even a relatively good fit often involves compromise and consumers lack confidence trying new brands. Consequently, fashion consumers are very loyal to brands that do fit them, but it can be hard to reach them in the first place.
Standard sizes increase return rates
Ecommerce makes it more expensive to find out clothes don’t fit. Somebody has to pay for them to reach the consumer and potentially come straight back again. When the retailer covers the financial risk, their bottom-line takes a hit. When they ask the consumer to cover it, they create an additional barrier to purchase.
With smaller companies less able to eat the cost, the long-term ramifications may mean fewer new brands entering the market and fashion as a whole becoming more homogenous and less creative.
Standard sizes encourage poor behaviour
The unreliability of standard sizing encourages consumers to act in ways detrimental to both the environment and the industry, for example, by ordering multiple sizes with the intention of sending some back. But brands need to take responsibility for this. Standard sizing creates a culture that says the consumer is the wrong size, not the clothes.
That we should expect people to fit clothes rather than the other way around is absurd and almost certainly amplifies the pressure to conform to certain body types, regardless of how healthy or realistic they are for the individual.
What to do about it?
The way we consume fashion has changed a lot over the past couple of centuries — and no more so than in the past couple of decades. And yet the way we produce clothes has largely stayed the same.
It’s remarkable how few online retailers offer so much as a reliable size chart to help consumers make informed fit choices. With the immediate pressure on retail from the COVID-19 pandemic, and the long-term shift towards ecommerce, fashion companies can’t afford to be complacent. Whether or not they opt for scalable custom-sizing solutions, such as the one offered by ZyseMe, innovation will be necessary to succeed.
