Let the Fit revolution Begin

Bobbin, Oct, 2000 by Kathleen DesMarteau

Apparel fit problems continue to plague many consumers, retailers and manufacturers. However, with the super-rapid pace of technological advances and the promise of new size data on the horizon, solutions are beginning to abound.

Pants that are too short, a dress that droops about the shoulders, shorts that sag in there are bunch up between the legs - all of these are common apparel fit problems that consumers deal with on a daily basis as they shop for new clothes.

Apparel fit problems are costly and frustrating not only for consumers but also for apparel manufacturers and retailers, whether the expense comes in the form of returned merchandise, lost sales, brand dissatisfaction or time wasted in the fitting room. The extensiveness of the problem is serious. A Kurt Salmon Associates (KSA) study has indicated that 50 percent of women and 62 percent of men cannot find a good fit in apparel, and other studies have shown that 50 percent of catalog returns are because of fit problems.

This article will explore the roots of the industry's fit problems, as well as some innovative solutions that are currently available or soon to hit the market, including a look at the special fit challenges of the online apparel arena.

Fit Problems and Their Origins

Fit problems have many different culprits, and like quality problems, often can be difficult to diagnose. Here's a look at a few of the major ones:

Lack of Standardization. From the consumer's viewpoint, a common complaint is the lack of standardization of sizes across different brands and stores, i.e., the "Why can't a size 8 always be the same size 8?" argument. Differentiation in sizes between different manufacturers and retailers also is a major challenge for apparel contractors, which must juggle different sizing and grading tables for different customers.

Complicating the situation further are manufacturers and retailers that not only tweak what standard sizing tables do exist, but go one step further. For example, they will determine across the board that what is generally understood to be a ladies' size 10 within the industry is a size 8 for their company. Such strategies usually are intended to flatter the egos of consumers, especially women, who often feel better about buying smaller sizes, and to adjust apparel selections to target markets dominated by overweight consumers. These practices and the fact that different manufacturers have different size standards aren't likely to change because they are connected to each firm's perception of its competitive advantage. However, most industry observers believe they will continue to breed much confusion.

Because women's clothing often is the source of the most deviation in size, some in the industry would like to see actual-measurements include a on size tags, i.e. for waist, length, etc., but manufacturers tend to disagree about the benefits and detriments of adding this information to their garments.

Problems with Size Standards and Grading Rules. Going back a step further toward the origin of fit problems, it's clear that the industry has a lack of current size data about the human body, and that the sizing standards and grading rules in use in the marketplace are outdated and in some cases, seriously flawed.

For example, Nancy Schofield, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Stout's College of Technology, Engineering and Management, has conducted extensive research into the sizing and pattern grading assumptions used in sizing U.S. women's clothing for the upper body. She compared 42 different sizing charts from a variety of catalogs, textbooks, manufacturers and a major retailer against actual body measurement data gathered by the U.S. Army in 1988. (This U.S. Army data is one of the most current, readily available sources of female body measurement data, and was used by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) in updating its standard size tables.) Among other conclusions, Schofield found that while most size standards assume that the difference between the principal girths (i.e., hip to bust, bust to waist, etc.) is constant for all sizes, this is not supported by actual human measurements.

In terms of grading assumptions, Schofield compared 17 U.s. published grading rules against the U.S. Army measurement data, and found more than six major false assumptions in the grading rules, which are commonly used by retailers and manufacturers. For instance, while most grading rules assume that the bust point maintains the same vertical position in the bodice for all sizes, in reality, human measurements indicate that the bust point drops as size increases in most cases.

And Schofield is not the only one who has documented evidence of the lack of human measurement basis behind many sizing standards and grade rule assumptions. Others researchers, such as Susan Ashdown, an associate professor at Cornell University's Department of Textiles and Apparel, also has compared the actual measurements taken by the U.S. Army against the ASTM's misses sizing standards -- and found discrepancies. (See the graph on this page.)