Zero - the Next New Size

Today's Women's Wear Daily (WWD), the fashion trade publication, finally made note of this phenomenon in today's article, Those Zeros Keep Adding Up, by Rosemary Feitelberg. My friends know I've been talking about toying with the idea of starting a petite low-sized clothing line for months. I've even been contacted by an early reader about this idea! (Alas, the funding issue was the real problem with bringing my idea from concept to well...reality.) Everyone is now finally paying attention to the expanding and undertapped fuller-figured market...but that leaves us small people in a real lurch! But the article notes how certain designers are really cashing in on the slender framed.

"Robert Duffy, president and vice chairman of Marc Jacobs International, recently said Marc Jacobs sells more zeros than any other size in its collection and, truth be told, he has never seen a cutting order for a size 14." Lela Rose started offering zeroes because her clientele was swimming in her size twos. Nicole Miller is even planning to introduce a subzero size next season! (It was bad enough trying to explain what a size double-zero is...am I going to have to explain that I am wearing a negative two now???) What is funny is that this "sub-zero" is going to be based off of a 23.5" waist and 35" lower hip...which is what most retailers claimed their inflated zeroes to approximately be.

The article offers several explanations for the rise of the zero, including the fault of the media for focusing on the "never-too-thin mindset." The booming popularity of the zero is claimed to be a result of the overexposure of the infamous overly-skinny women of the runway. Ed Bucciarelli, CEO of Henri Bendel agrees and mentioned that "we live in a very celebrity-conscious world...[where] some are trying to emulate the girls they see on the covers." I certainly agree with Feitelberg on the unhealthy obsession of the American public on thinner and thinner models, movie stars, and socialites. (there is some counter push as well - like Madrid fashion's model ban) Regular readers know my feelings about this from my Fashion Week New York posts here and here.

What is interesting about this particular analysis is that it completely focuses on the high-end, expensive designers and the high-end fabulously wealthy patrons who can regularly afford such fare. It is crystal clear that the designers mentioned don't want anything to do with larger half of the female population. They are not catering to the masses - and the masses are generally heavier. It is not just an accident that Marc Jacobs doesn't sell to the average sized or higher woman. Marc Jacobs is notorious for micro-picking his sales staff for acceptable stylishness and attractiveness. No kidding that nothing was cut in a size 14...there's no such woman in the Marc Jacobs (or insert most any other high end label) universe!

Feitelberg offers several other possibilities that dovetail with the too-thin idea. Vanity sizing, the system in which a garment label indicates a numerial size smaller than what the same garment would have been in earlier seasons, is a major cause of consternation among the thin. "Some might be all too familiar with what a shopping challenge zero-ness poses.... Even that isn't small enough [for some people]." The thin are literally being sized out of existance by the clothing industry - or at least, for the mid-priced and lower ranges.

I am amused that Feitelberg mistakenly equates zeroness with petiteness, by completely misreferencing the Saks incident. She sees some designers expanding their sizes downward as a means to capture the underserved petites market. "The news caused such an uproar the retailer has since said the department will be reinstated. As things stand, zero is 'one of the sizes that sells out pretty quickly' at Saks, a company spokeswoman said. Theory, which also offers items in a double zero, and Alice + Olivia are among the popular labels with size-zero customers, she said." Both Feitelberg's (and possibly the high-end designers') reasoning is faulty, as the reason for the backlash (and subsequent mia culpa by Saks) had nothing to do with the lack of small options. Instead, the problem was that the petite customers were alternately deemed fat and tasteless, or expected to put up with designer labels that created smaller sized clothing (but not shorter statured). Petite does not mean thin!

The informative parts of the article actually touch upon the mass market segment of the industry. Feiltelberg highlights Jennifer Hoppe, a zero-sized, 110-pound woman living in NY (interestingly, her height is not mentioned - but I suspect she is taller than 5'4"). This interview actually highlights most of the problems that petite and/or thin people face. "She often finds herself shopping at Gap, Banana Republic and Old Navy - sometimes in the children's department - to try to find clothes." She spends hundreds annually to alter her garments because the standard sizes just are too big. She actually mentions her dream of opening a store for small people "even though [she] knows it's so politically incorrect."

Hoppe also touched upon a topic that I've mentioned in the past before too - size discrimination. She wrote an article about the "reverse descrimination she faces" in For Me, where she is the lifestyle editor (the magazine is closing, as of the Oct 2006 issue). "People often think it's perfectly OK to comment about how I'm really small and the fact of the matter is they would never say that to an overweight person." Mentioning the lack of clothing options also gathers backhanded non-sympathy from sales staff. "They'll say, 'Isn't that a great problem to have?'"

I've been arguing that there's profit to be made by means of a contrarian strategy. How can you possibly get a great return on investment if everyone's jumping in on the craze along with you? (Do we need reminders of the dot-com era as an extreme example?) Early designers (or investors) have an extremely high advantage. I have long been trying to convince people that creating a tightly focused thin petite line, particularly for professional wear, would almost guarantee loyal customers. Of course, this always bumps into the problem of production costs for smaller batches. But there's no denying that if a decently designed line was offered that fit this sub-market, it would be loyally followed. Even Kristi Yamaguchi mentions that "if I find something I kind of like, I feel pressured to get it. I know if I wait, it will be gone. Stores need to carry more small sizes." The article mentions that thin shoppers therefore must buy full-priced items, before all the goods are gone. Considering the potential savings if I calculate the value of my time, I probably should do the same instead of scoping out deals.

Under-served markets, like petites or problem sizes, are generally a captive audience. You can pretty much sell them anything and they'll buy it. (look at all the people that still bemoan the original Petite Sophisticate line...uber frumpy!) Mid-priced labels like Banana Republic and Ann Taylor are just wisely cashing in on the petite opportunity. Someone should definitely get a major jump on the under-served super-short and/or small - WWD has already started wising up to it!

Industry Sizing Standards

Well, it comes as no surprise, but the sizing standards for women's clothing is completely all over the place - both within and between brands. In menswear, their system of sizing is, for the most part, based on real measurements - neck, arm length, waist, inseam, etc. For menswear, there's not that much playing around with the numbers for the consumer's vanity. Men get standardization. Women don't. What gives?

Women have no idea how to describe their clothing size to other people. It usually comes down to "I'm a size 2 in Banana Republic, size 0 in Ann Taylor, size 6 in ...." You have to admit, this is a little weird, not to mention completely annoying and inconvenient. I long suspected that the reason for why it's done is twofold.

First, women's shapes are so different, that standardization is hard for manufacturers. Not only are there differences in height and weight, but that weight is distributed very differently for everyone. Someone can be slender or curvy. She can have a large chest but not have wide hips, or any other combination. To be fair, there have been efforts to push standardization upon clothing manufacturers. SizeUSA is an ongoing study and standardization project jointly sponsored by the clothing industry and the U.S. Department of Commerce (Unfortunately, I'm not quite willing to pay several hundred dollars to get a report). The American Society for Testing and Materials has done the same for a variety of categories. So if some standards have been recently set, what gives?

This is the second, harder half of the answer. But basically, it's because women have shown that they like it better and therefore, don't demand a more sensible system. Women as a whole don't like admitting personal numbers, particularly weight, size, and age. And for all these things, is it a coincidence that lower seems better? The entire 0,2,4, etc. sizing scheme is a deliberate effort to add a layer of abstraction to sizing clothing. The focus is no longer on the real measurements anymore, but, again, on this floating scale of nice low numbers. It is certainly not a lack of information that prevents clothing companies from clearly indicating the actual measurements. After all, they specified the actual measurements in the first place! But rather, it's a consumer bias towards the fake scale. There is definitely a social attitude, healthy or not, that 'skinnier means better' for women. Somehow, being a size 8 sounds much more appealing than having a 28" waist. And if a size 8 sounds better, why not size 4 for the same actual waist size? If making the shopper feel slightly better about her size can tip the scale towards a purchase, why should manufacturers change the way things are done?

"Oh my God! I can't believe that I can still wear a size 6!" a woman in the dressing room next to mine exclaimed. It used to surprise me how excited and happy than woman sounded. But over the years, I've heard similar refrains so many times in dressing rooms that it's undeniable. Deep down, everyone knows if they've been gaining or losing weight, so no one's really fooled - but the women in the dressing room would prefer to keep her illusion even though she really knows differently.

Size inflation (when a label for a particular size is placed on a garment that was considered larger than that size in the past) has been rampant during the past few years. I find it particularly painful because I have, for the most part, been completely sized out of the major brands. I've noticed that Banana Republic has shifted 2 "sizes" already for skirts in the span of less than a decade, which was noted here in the cons section (stores claim that if you sort of fit a regular 4, you'd go up one size in petites). Americans have been getting bigger over the years - both taller and wider. It makes sense that clothing has shifted towards bigger people. J.Crew, for example, has special sizing to account for the trend. They carry clothes for tall people and size 16. They've also expanded their swim wear for D cups, longer torsos, and "slimming" suits. Good for them! I'm all for this. Why shouldn't taller or bigger people get things to fit? But what particularly bugs me is that A) actual small sized clothing is disappearing, to be replaced by similarly labeled clothing a lot bigger, and B) it's a real effort to figure ways of dealing with it.

The partial solution is to get women to stop buying into the current sizing system and demand standardization. According to TC2, the consulting firm that performed the SizeUSA study, companies have already readjusted the fit so that more people can purchase from their new standards, which in turn, leads to a more loyal and satisfied customer base. However, I hope that this will also lead manufacturers to adopt a universal industry standard for sizing. Or if I had my way, just tag every article with every real measurement that matters.

So how does this help me? Well, it's clear that the size demographic that I fit into is tiny (no pun intended). So I'm screwed anyway. But it's cruel that manufacturers right now give me a glimmer of hope by posting their outrageously incorrect sizing charts and by producing sizes like 00 that seem like they should work. Hey, if something's not going to fit, just let me know. It's ok - just stop lying about your sizes and I'll appreciate that I won't have to waste my time looking.