Apparel fit - Is size standardization needed?

A pint is a pint irrespective of where you buy your milk, or beer! A gallon is a gallon irrespective of where you fuel up. A marathon is 26.2 miles be it New York, London, Chicago etc. 

So then why are apparel sizes not standard? Why does a size 12 for example differ drastically across apparel brands?

Do we really want standardization? Or is this a reaction to poorly communicated brand fit intent and sizing strategy?

Let’s myth bust apparel sizing as standard a unit of measure. 

• Inches are inches, centimeters are centimeters these are standard units of measures globally recognized. 
• Human body shapes, sizes, proportions are far from standard, we are individuals we are not standard or average and we are evolving as a species.
• There are no standards as to what a size 12 product should be? 

There are EU guidelines as to a range of body dimensions per size, however these are guidelines for import purposes only, only applicable to Europe and as garment measurements can and should differ from body measurements (due to ease preference and fabric property’s) these are not a suitable consumer facing guideline. 

I would like to challenge the whole concept of a standard sizes. 

We are all individual, that’s our secret sauce. Our individual size, shape, proportion, sense of style makes you uniquely you! Think of your body and your style as your fingerprint, or stripes on a zebra 100% unique with the added complexity that it’s variable over time. 

I would like to draw a somewhat tenuous comparison between apparel taste and food taste. 

We all have individual taste when it comes to what we want to eat for dinner;

• Individual tastes (body proportion?)
• Individual appetites (body size?)
• Individual combinations (outfitting?)

We also don’t eat the same meal every night, every week our tastes evolve, change with the seasons and evolve over time. 

Is buying apparel that different from dining out? 

Sure there are food standards (thankfully) however not applicable for comparing one meal to another. How hot is your curry from one restaurant to another, chili to chili etc. no standard unit of measure here, nor should there be for the fact that we want individualism, choice and differentiation. 

Staying with the restaurant industry comparison, one could draw a connection to the growing voice of plus size, diversity and inclusion in apparel fit & sizing to restaurants offering vegetarian and gluten free dishes, this is now an expectation. 

I would like to make a prediction you have returned more garments than sent back meals in a restaurant. 

How has the restaurant industry cracked the code of managing our expectations on what to expect on our plate and the apparel industry is still very much in the trial and error phase?

I believe the apparel industry should move away from numbers as we as society wrongly assume these numbers in the back of our garments are a unit of measure and therefore a standard that can be compared across brands. 

Do we expect every restaurant to serve the same meals prepared the same way with the exact same portions?

If you agree the apparel industry doesn’t need standard sizes that an apparel size is not a standard unit of measure. Then the whole paradigm can be altered. 

As opposed to 5-7 sizes (XXS - XXL for example) with maybe some length offerings. 

A re-clustering of your consumer base needs to happen. This would include body shape, body size, body proportions. My prediction is this will result in a greater number of size permutations being offered. 

Once re-clustered then a naming convention needs to be established and understood by the consumer. 

An simple analogy I like to use here is the “Starbucks” naming convention “Tall, Grande, Venti”. 

Starbucks have been maniacally consistent here, now these sizes and the relationship between each size is globally understood across countries, cultures, languages.   

Consistency is much more important than a number or a name. Brands can choose to name their sizes whatever they want but consistency and relationship between each size is critical. 

Cause and effect

Re-clustering the consumer base to offer more size permutations will require a disruption of the supply chain. 

No longer can brands manufacture products designed to fit one body shape and proportion then a scale up and down of this proportion into 5-7 sizes across 100,000’s of units and push this onto the consumer. 

An agile, nimble, reactive small batch manufacturing supply chain will be required, this converges with movements such as personalization, customization and sustainability initiatives to reduce waste and over production. Coupled with advancements in body scanning technology to understand an individual’s body dimensions and proportions along with 3D printing that will disrupt the manufacturing landscape. 

This is not bespoke manufacturing, I like to think of this as readdressing the balance of diversity that exists.

If bespoke is a relationship of 1-1 (1 body = 1 garment) and the current status of 7 sizes (XXS - XXL as a crude example) is a relationship of 7-infinite (infinite being the diversity of body shapes, sizes, proportions of the 9 billion plus humans on the plant). 

Perhaps a 30- infinite is a better ratio?

As in the “Starbucks” analogy communication and consistency are directly linked. Once a fit and sizing strategy has been established, communicating this to the diverse consumer landscape is critical and maintaining consistency is paramount. 

Fashion will evolve, evolving your fit and sizing strategy is a must however your consumers must be engaged in the evolution, requesting it and not surprised by it. 

Imagine if “Starbucks” suddenly changed its sizing and naming convention! Either an under caffeinated population, or an over caffeinated population neither would be good!

The consumer deserves well fitting apparel catered to his / her individual body shape, size, proportion and taste. 

It’s a fit and sizing revolution, let’s learn from the past but not repeat it. 

Standardization is not needed nor is it the solution.