Comments on: What if plus sizes made up 80% of the market?

By: Men’s vs Women’s: Plus size apparel

Men’s vs Women’s: Plus size apparel — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:52:50 +0000

[...] discussion following What if plus sizes made up 80% of the market? has been very interesting. I’m intrigued by the implications of well to do parents who are [...]

By: Betsy Johnson

Betsy Johnson — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:30:28 +0000

Out of curiosity, I took an imaginary average height girl 9 years 10 months (49th percentile for height) and used the CDC BMI percentile calculator apps.nccd.cdc.gov/dnpabmi/Calculator.aspx to check the BMI percentile for various weights.

With a BMI in the 24th percentile, she would be too slim for a Land’s End size slim and would not fit Land’s End clothes.
With a BMI in the 63rd percentile, she would wear a 10 slim.
With a BMI in the 87th percentile, she would wear a 10 regular.
With a BMI in the 95th percentile, she would wear a 10 plus.

I find it interesting to see the difference between the weight distribution in the population used to create the government charts at the time they were created and the weight distribution in Land’s End customers.

By: Dorothy Klein

Dorothy Klein — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:22:42 +0000

I had a feeling we were already, and have been for a good while in a market where the majority of clothing wearers (not just purchasers) are larger-sized. Given the current variation of children’s biomorphics, the large-size market can only rise exponentially. The apparel industry must remove pre-conceived value judgments regarding obesity, health, and biomorphic variety from production-oriented decision making. If you don’t want to work on large sizes, go to a skinny market, but don’t complain about market density issues. And if you want to look down on fat people, go ahead. Just don’t ask the rest of the apparel industry to join you.
If the larger-size market doesn’t spend as much on clothes as the small-size market, perhaps there are market-driven reasons. Due to all of the above-noted factors (population size per geographic shape, top-heavy+/-bottom- heavy, torso and extremity length variations), large-size structured clothing is a “stab in the dark” as far as fit is concerned. Therefore, the current large-size client is often choosing from shapeless oversized garments (which are worn by a large market segment) lacking in style.
Why can’t the “suit showroom” business model be used for women’s as well as men’s fine apparel? Why can’t women choose from alterable, coordinating dresses and separates that can be fitted to them at the store? Don’t women demonstrate as great a figure variety as men? Wouldn’t this type of business model benefit all sizes of women?

By: Betsy Johnson

Betsy Johnson — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:27:49 +0000

As a shopping mother with kids over a range of years, I have seen a great change in sizing. Many more children’s clothes are available in slim, regular and plus for each size. The hidden button elastic waists in many pants allow each size to cover a greater range of measurements than they used to.

My children range from 2T to 14-16. In older hand-me-down clothes from 10 years ago, they wear regulars. In current clothes of the same brands, my normal (slender not skinny) children are well below the size chart weight range for the slims. We find the situation worse in larger sizes.

I tried to meet my children’s school dress code requirements this year with Land’s End clothes. Unfortunately, by the time we cinched up the slims enough that they wouldn’t fall off, they looked silly.

I’m looking at the Land’s End school uniform website, in big girl pants and shorts, they have 12 styles in slim, 18 styles in regular and 14 styles in plus. The slims cover what would have been regulars a few years ago, and the regulars would have been plus. The change has already happened and Land’s End is producing clothes for the overweight majority of children.

By: Dorothy Klein

Dorothy Klein — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:28:17 +0000

I would like to hear from children’t apparel specialists as to whether distribution of sizes among that market has changed in the last 15 years. It would be especially interesting to hear from those dealing in children’s school uniforms. All children are supplied with clothing by their caretakers. Their size changes more rapidly and frequently than adults sizes do in a comparative time period. Perhaps there are more thin than overweight children in rich households/perhaps not. But since many schools have embraced uniforms as a social equalizer, perhaps actual historical data from these sources mayplus shed some light as to whether or when plus sizes comprise 80% of the market.

By: Miracle

Miracle — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:04:26 +0000

Point is, will consumer consumption increase once being overweight is more accepted? I’m guessing it won’t. Not appreciably.

I don’t think the problem is with being overweight, I think the problem is when people start teetering on obesity. People say “better fit” but there is a point beyond which better fit is almost irrelevant, it won’t look the way it looks on a 12/14. So my thinking is even when you have more money, will you buy MORE clothes that don’t really look good on you? I think that’s why you see more purchases with accessories and shoes.

By: Barb Taylorr

Barb Taylorr — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:36:33 +0000

It seems to me most obvious thing that would change if 80% of the population wore plus sizes is the DESIGNS, and sample sizes we show. I expect part of the reason for the disproportion between the percentage of large people in the country vs. the large sizes we sell, is that many styles were never designed to look good on bigger people.

By: Betsy Johnson

Betsy Johnson — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:18:04 +0000

While wealthier people do tend to be thinner, I have noticed a change among them too, particularly among their children. It is now common for children to be somewhat overweight when their parents are not. At a private beach populated by wealthier people, I not seen people in the morbidly obese range, but have seen many teenage/young adult girls all wearing bikinis, even though their weight would have precluded bikinis 20 years ago. Seeing this makes me think that the weight point at which richer people keep buying clothes has gone up.

By: nowaks nähkästchen

nowaks nähkästchen — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:39:37 +0000

If plus sizes made up 80% of the market…
nothing would change at all.

I may be pessimistic, but even plus sized and obese people (I think there are differences…. a size 18 or 20 is stil something else than a 36 and a size 18 on an wiman that is 1.80 m long is different from a 18 on a woman 1.55m short) have to buy clothes. As long as no one offers something different or better from what is offered now… they will still buy. Just because they cannot go naked. (And this may be a reason why they don’t spend a lot of money on clothes…. why should you if everything you get is boring, tent shaped and ill fitting?)

On the contrary I could imagine if a big company (I don’t know who in the US is big in selling clothes) would introduce a better fitting system (and interesting fashionable designs) and the customers would start to shop there and not at the other shops… then they might consider to change something.

But otherwise… change is something that most companies (and probably also most humans) try to avoid. There is always a risk in it and risks are to be avoided.

By: Lisa Bloodgood

Lisa Bloodgood — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:13:49 +0000

Yes, generally the wealthier people are thinner, but I was super poor for years and I’m a stick. Well, I was, but I’m a size 8 now. I never got over 100 pounds till I was out of high school and was a size 0/1.

I found a height-weight chart here: http://www.shwedarling.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/height-weight-chart.gif

It has 3 body frame sizes and ideal weights for heights for both men and women. Sorry, non-Americans, it is only in feet, inches, and pounds. Note that these things are ideal and probably very arbitrary. Who figured out these charts anyway? According to it, Stuart, you’re just a little above your ideal weight, which doesn’t mean obese.

While clothing can look good on thinner models, it doesn’t need to be on the size 0 model who is obviously emaciated. It can be on someone with more meat on her bones. But why do they always seem to have no bust? Plenty of thin women have a bust and I’ve seen bigger women with small busts, so ???