Vanity Sizing Is Here to Stay

[View on the web] [Facebook] [Twitter] [Instagram] When Sizes Aren’t Standard, What Do They Mean? [by Rebecca Huval] [A woman in a nice dress.] You might be surprised to learn your standard sewing pattern size. In stores, I’m anywhere from a size 4 to an 8. When I took up sewing as a hobby, I learned that I’m actually a size 12. Why the discrepancy? Vanity sizing. Sewing patterns don’t have to flatter you into a purchase. Zara does. The Spanish retailer’s hip measurement was [two inches larger] than the usual US sizing for an 8 in 2014. That stated size can make the difference between a smiling customer who purchases a “small” pair of pants or a disappointed woman who hurls her “large” pants across the dressing room and leaves the mall. Except for the tag, they’re the same pair of pants. In contrast, some sewing pattern companies have stuck with standardized sizing for [decades]. Certain brands are worse offenders than others. “Chico’s has their own sizing system that has been highly successful for them,” says Lynn Boorady, professor of fashion textile and technology at the State University of New York, Buffalo State. “Women who are a 10 can say ‘I’m a one or a one-and-a-half!’ And what does that mean? Until women stop worrying about the size number in their clothing... it will continue getting smaller. Women get out of the dressing room saying ‘These size 10 pants are not what’s right for me! No, I’m not a double-digit size.’” After sewing taught me the truth about sizing, I became frustrated with retailers. Why can’t we use the powers of our technologies to figure out something as seemingly simple as sizing? We have self-driving cars, for chrissakes! Actually, the US government tried to establish standardized sizing in the 1940s. Before then, we had it much worse. Women’s sizes were based on our ages, like infant clothing is today. Then, the federal government commissioned a study of [15,000 women] to regulate sizing. The women who participated for the small fee were poor, malnourished, and white, Boorady says. What’s more, the resulting standards were based on the bust sizes of an hourglass figure. What could possibly go wrong? Eventually, the government tossed out the troublesome standardized sizing [in 1983], and brands were let loose to use fit as a marketing strategy. Today, brands align themselves with body types, some of them very specific, like [Shoshanna]’s target market of busty women with small frames. However, most brands don’t broadcast the types of bodies they’re catering to because they want to avoid scaring away customers with the bald truth. So we’re left with [infographics] to decipher which brands might work for us. Most brands don’t broadcast the types of bodies they’re catering to because they want to avoid scaring away customers with the bald truth. As it turns out, sizing is far more complex than just measurements. Factor in age and ethnicity, and our shapes take on a broader spectrum of variety. There’s also ease — the amount of room between body and fabric. Everyone has their own preferences when it comes to looseness or tightness, and even those predilections change depending on the style. You might prefer tight bikinis and slouchy sweaters, for example. Combine all of these data points, and sizing balloons in complexity. “Just because the measurements are there doesn’t mean we like the fit,” Boorady says. “I had a college roommate who used to wear her clothes so tight, she had to lay down to zip up pants. I like fits that are looser. We could have the same [measurements] and wear different sizes because we like different fits in our clothing.” Part art, part science, the sizing industry requires an advanced mathematician who reads Vogue. New technology companies recruit for both skill sets as they attempt to solve for this moving target. In the mad rush to find the answer, startups have sprung up with 3D body scanners in tow, such as [Acustom Apparel], or virtual fitting rooms, like [Stylewhile]. Some companies have tried to address the nuance of proportions with their own systems. Jumpsu.it — a company that makes custom, unisex jumpsuits — asks for waist, bust, and hip measurements, then assigns you a size that captures your ratio, like “January.” Others compare the fit of different brands, asking the size of your favorite Levi’s jeans in order to find your perfect pair at Lucky Brand. True Fit claims to be the largest such database, raising [$25 million] this past summer. The Boston-based company has built relationships with roughly 10,000 brands to compile and compare sizing. It wasn’t easy. As it turns out, sizing is far more complex than just measurements. Factor in age and ethnicity, and our shapes take on a broader spectrum of variety. “Brands do use sizing as a form of competitive advantage because they’re catering to whoever their core customer is,” says Jessica Murphy, cofounder of True Fit. “It took years to convince the first set of a hundred brands to give us their data, because if you think about brands like Levi’s and Nike, their fit is everything. It’s like the Coca-Cola recipe, their secret sauce and proprietary information.” Now that it has recruited enough big brands, True Fit can make personalized fit recommendations to online shoppers. This should reduce the large amount of returns that come through e-commerce. Americans return $260 billion in goods each year, and 80 percent of those are clothes or accessories, [according to MarketWatch]. True Fit is also collaborating with IEEE, an organization that sets standards for technology, along with dozens of industry experts to standardize the use of 3D body scanners going forward. Though the effort is still in its early stages, the possibilities are exciting. Could we finally arrive at standardized sizing advanced enough to accommodate our many shapes and desires? Still, recommending an accurate size doesn’t solve for the emotional shock of learning that you’re a large in a new brand. The founding story of True Fit begins with cofounder Romney Evan’s wife. “She’s petite, you would think she would never have problems with fit,” Murphy says. “She tried to buy jeans and ended up in tears… Sizing on women has a huge psychological impact on how we feel about ourselves.” As a result, the team has conducted field research in dressing rooms. “The spectrum of reactions was really fascinating for us,” she says. “It’s amazing, the psychological effect of something that fits well. They smile, they stand up straighter, and have self confidence. When they put on something they don't feel is flattering, they want to rip it off them. [They say], ‘Oh, I can’t buy anything else today, I need to go home and lose ten pounds.’ It’s a reminder of everything that you’re not doing in your life. It’s a very real thing.” Women should just learn to get over it, Boorady says. Flatter and fit matter more than the number on the tag, anyhow, as True Fit discovered in the dressing room. “People need to worry about the size that fits — the number is just a game!” she says. “Nothing’s wrong with us, it’s the sizing. I’ve told friends to black out the tag sizes or just rip the tags out. I mean, who cares?” Clearly, we care. Future technology could conceivably 3D scan our bodies, factor in our style and ease preferences, and then custom produce a piece of clothing, no tags necessary. Someday, our most beloved vanity sizing might have no sizes at all. Ad from our sponsor Just One Thing The Wallet I Love So Much That I’ve Bought It Twice [Insert alt text here] Comme des Garçons [Zipped Cardholder], $65 So, I'm going to make a wild guess and say that you probably already know about Comme des Garçons wallets. I'm not trying to spill any big secret about the fact that they look cool and come in awesome colors. But did you know that [this particular Comme des Garçons wallet] happens to be the perfect size and shape and costs a fraction of what the rest of them do? With a gold zipper that runs halfway around the wallet's square body and two interior pockets separated by an open pouch, it's literally my ideal. For one, it's big enough that I can find it easily in my black hole of a tote without fishing around too long, but not so bulky that I can't fit it in any of my tiny club bags or coat pockets (even the stupidly small pockets in my leather jacket). There's room enough for everything I need inside, too: Credit cards go on one side, cash goes on the other, and coins and other random wallet things (like hair ties) go in the center pouch. When I picked it out, I went into [Opening Ceremony] with the intention of spending $300 on one of those big, square, zip-around wallets that CDG makes in an embossed red leather, but I totally fell in love with the smooth baby blue half-zip instead. At $98, I was totally sold. I love it so much you'd think I'd be better at holding onto it, but I'm currently on number two — purchased last year after I left it on a public transit bus, whoops — and a scare this past weekend had me worried I was going in on number three. My wallet turned up (phew), but an online search during the MIA period taught me that the color has been re-released and is now even cheaper at $68. If it's not clear, that's a sweet deal, and I couldn't recommend it more — for guys and girls alike. —[Cory {NAME}], shopping editor [More good stuff to read today] - [This Bizarre Inside-Out Umbrella Might Be the Goddamn Future] - [Is Being in the Mall a Liability?] - [T-Shirts With Boob Pockets Are Dumb] - [Restaurant Merch That’s Actually Cool] - [Watch: Scientific Beauty Is Total Bullshit] Ad from our sponsor From around the web A selection from the editors at Racked [Woman in a swimsuit.] [Tictail Is Your Gateway to the World’s Most Under-the-Radar Brands] The social marketplace gives “shopping small” a whole new feel. [Read more] [Kendall Jenner in a hoodie.] [This $25 Item Will Make You Look Like an It Girl] And it’s comfortable, too. [Read more] Ad from our sponsor [Facebook] [Twitter] [Instagram] This email was sent to {EMAIL}. Manage your [email preferences] or [unsubscribe] to stop receiving emails from Racked. Vox Media, 1201 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036. Copyright © 2016. All rights reserved.