The Ins and Outs of Plus Size Clothing
Plus size model Whitney Thompson of America's Next Top Model
In light of the retail landscape right now, some retailers are responding with what seems like a good business decision: pulling plus-size clothing, which doesn’t turn much of a profit, from brick and mortar stores, offering them only online. But when clothing giant Ann Taylor announced their decision to do the same, all hell broke loose on the blogosphere.
Look, it’s true that fashion knows no size (seriously, check out the Fatshionistas - those girls are seriously good at pulling together an outfit), and that as an overall systemic issue, the fact that it’s hard to find adult clothes in plus sizes sucks. I get it, and I’m incredibly sympathetic.
This post is not meant to be fat-shaming or anything else - ultimately, I just wanted to add something different to the conversation, which is some industry insight as to WHY some of these decisions may have been made.
An interesting sidebar is the issue of vanity sizing. A few years ago, we had a similar trend that affected the other end of the scale - I, at 5′2 and (at the time) 115 pounds, could not shop in a number of stores. In fact, while working at Abercrombie in college (shut up), I had to walk across the mall and dress myself in Abercrombie Kids just to meet the dress code. Yet, we didn’t see the sort of venomous reaction to the idea that adult women had to dress themselves in kids clothes that we’re now seeing directed at the idea that adult women need to order adult clothes online.
That aside, there are some very real, tangible reasons why plus size clothing is being phased out.
The “Average” Weight
The most common complaint is the oft-cited “the average woman weighs 160-something pounds!!! The fashion industry isn’t designing for the masses!!!” critique. The problem with that logic is that it’s, ahem, illogical. An average is the dead middle of all weights - but the most common weight among American women is lower:
Weight Range of American Women
The average weight of American women between the ages of 18 and 35 (the age group which is statistically much more likely to spend money on clothes) is 130 to 140. The 160-something number comes into play because there are women who fall on either end of the bell curve who still count as part of the “average.”
Cost And Construction Of Garments
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that unless you’re buying couture, there’s a very good chance that your clothes are being made in a sweatshop in another country. Like most consumer goods, fashion (especially “fast fashion,” which is code for your low priced fashion-y outlets, like Forever 21 and Target) has outsourced manufacturing to save on labor costs. The unfortunate result is that materials make up the bulk of the cost involved in creating garments.
And when you’re talking about materials for plus size garments, that means a lot. For example, creating a patterned garment for a size 10 involves buying 4 times the amount of fabric than you would to make a size 2 (since this is to adjust for pattern repeats, there’s slightly less material involved for a solid garment).
A simple solution seems to be charging more for plus size clothing; and while some lines do charge a nominal fee, it’s also understood in the industry that this is bad business - consumers feel alienated and discriminated against. One of my favorite case studies of this happened in England, with bras - a store actually charged a surplus for larger sizes, due to the R&D involved in creating a comfortable, gravity-defying bra (and let’s be fair, here - bras have, hands-down, the most innovative technology and intense R&D innovation of any item of clothing). Still, the public outrage was huge, and the store had to back down, taking a cost hit on the bras. They design didn’t stay on the market long.
Fabric is actually not the only cost that is magnified for plus size lines. The construction of the clothes actually needs to be altered, and that poses some problems. A typical Ann Taylor fit model (if they use the industry standard design equation) a “perfect” size 6. Unfortunately, you can only scale the garment you design to her figure up (or down) so much - for plus sizes, the bust line needs to be lowered, the shoulders and knee seams given more room, etc.
While it’s easy to look at that preceding paragraph and wonder why lines don’t get two fit models - one size 6, one size 16, the truth is that the figure differences that exist between ALL women, regardless of shared size labels, are actually more pronounced in plus sizes. What will fit a size 16 apple-shaped woman is all but guaranteed not to fit a size 16 pear-shape.
Smart plus size women’s clothing stores have actually learned to work around this - one of my absolute favorite stores in this niche is CJ Banks (ignore the Substitute T-Shirt shirts on the opening page; the store actually has some massively cute pieces), which not only uses size designations but an “ABC” code to let consumers know that this shirt was made for, say, a size 18 Apple shape. This is a brilliant system, but one that standard brands are not equipped to set up - and certainly not in an economic climate when companies are fighting to stay alive.
The “Petites” Fallacy
These natural figure differences are the reason that comparisons of plus size lines to petite lines (another common complaint on the blogosphere) is false - yes, there are alterations that need to be made to the lines of petite clothing, but the unfortunate fact is that the figure differences aren’t as dramatic. A size 6 can wear a size 6, regardless of her figure (although it may not always be flattering), but that doesn’t hold true for plus sizes.
Modern American Culture
The last complaint I hear/read a lot is that there are virtually no stores that cater exclusively to plus size women. I’d argue that one (Rebecca & Drew in NYC is phenomenally successful because they offer shirts based on bra size, which is often a great way to dress plus size figures), at least in metropolitan areas.
In suburban and rural areas, however, it’s a valid point. But it’s also one that isn’t going to change anytime soon - ultimately, stores open where they are most likely to succeed, and a store catering to a niche market (like plus sizes) is way more likely to succeed in a population dense area than one where the population is spread out and not likely to travel great distances.
Great article! And very informative. I had no idea about some of this stuff.
I know this gets discussed on Jezebel a lot but yeah. It is what it is. I shut up and stay out of it, because I have my opinions on the matter and they probably aren’t very nice.
Those are definitely some interesting points. Admittedly, I’m not super well-informed on the topic, but I have definitely wondered why market forces haven’t corrected the issue already if it were true that there was a mint to be made if designers just made more clothing for larger women. I do have trouble imagining that so many stores would pick their brand image over money if it was as easy as that.