Previous entry: "27-August-2001 -- The wild west of DSL" WebWord Home Page Next entry: "27-August-2001 -- Beyond Usability Testing"

08/27/2001 Archived Entry: "27-August-2001 -- WebWord Comment"

WebWord Comment -- My wife told me that she just read something very interesting in a health magazine. Apparently, over the last 10-15 years clothing companies have slowly increased the size of their clothing while keeping the label sizes exactly the same. Let's take an example. If a few years ago a person wore a size 10 but then she gained weight and size, she would still be a size 10. The companies that do this make women feel good and when they feel good they shop more with those companies. In case you're wondering, GAP was one of the first companies to do this. Indeed, they also championed baggy and XXL clothing. Is this deceptive? I'm not sure. In some ways, it is usable marketing because you are building technology (i.e., clothing) around people, their habits and their beliefs. What do you think?

Replies: 5 comments

I can vouch for the change of size over time because of my experience with vintage clothes. Invariably, dresses from the 1950s have these teensy waists that are just impossible. And don't get me started on pattern sizing for do-it-yourselfers. I've found out (the hard way) that I have to buy patterns that are 3-4 sizes larger than my usual ready-made-clothes size. Apparently the pattern companies *haven't* adjusted sizing over the years (which is frustrating in itself). Sigh.

Posted by goo @ 08/29/2001 03:12 PM EST

The fact that women have this sizing system that does not relate to standard measurements really annoys me as a shopper and a usability professional.

Sometimes I do enjoy browsing the store and trying on many different items...but shopping to find the one that FITS does not make my shopping experience better. Depending on the store or brand name, I may be a size 6, 8 or 10. Don't even get me started on the Junior sizes (9 or 11)! But when I find a size 10 that is too small, it makes me depressed! And I lose my thrill for browsing around. I just want to go to the gym.

Jeans are the worst. I have been known to buy men's jeans because I know that the measurement on the tag is going to be the same regardless of the store. I just choose the style that I like best.

Posted by Lori @ 08/28/2001 06:00 PM EST

While we're on the topic, have you read Why we buy: the science of shopping by Paco Underhill? I've been reading it and I think that even human factors pros must read it. It contains interesting insights into how people shop, how men and women are different, and his latest edition even has a chapter on online stores (though I thought it lacked meat).

Posted by Madhu @ 08/28/2001 02:20 PM EST

Jim, there is a "small"... they usually call it "extra fit" or "extra snug". Please spare me the jokes about how I know this stuff :).

As for the size thing in clothing, yes it's a marketing ploy, but a multi-dimensional one.

In one hand, different stores have different size standards. Stores use this to their advantage to trick women into thinking that they're thinner at particular stores. I don't think this tactic is used for men's clothing though. When I can actually find pants in my size (32) in overweight North America, I won't even bother trying them on. They always seem to fit.

On the other hand, it's no secret that women shop (impulse oriented) and men purchase (goal oriented). Because of this lack of standards in the size of women's clothing, women are reduced to trying on different sizes until something fits. Consequently, they spend more time in the store, exposing them to more products that tickle their fancy.

Posted by Francis @ 08/28/2001 01:03 PM EST

Reminds me of the trick employed by condom manufacturers when they decided to sell different three different sizes; "Regular, large and extra large". (No one would buy "small")

Posted by Jim @ 08/28/2001 09:44 AM EST

Subscribe to Webword.com
Receive the best free usability newsletter on the Internet.

URL: http://www.WebWord.com/weblog/