The logic is that if Soap A is delivering the fragrance of Mrs X's armpit, which arguably no one except Mr X likes, then no one will buy it (not even Mr X - he gets it free). No soaps sold mean the manufacturer will incur losses - and viola - he will change the perfume formula to George Clooney's whiff. Now arguably, that's something we all want.
So we will all go on a buying spree and skyrocketing sales will make the manufacturer stay course with the product. As a result: we all get what we want.
Money, the most disinterested judge of things, has helped us by indicating what exactly we want and forced the manufacturer to deliver it.
Sound logic - and it works most times... but not every time.
The fashion industry sells all sorts of things. From umbrellas to skirts to umbrella-cum-skirts. Let us for the moment leave aside the fine line between art and madness and let us also ignore whether certain celebrities are essentially Emperors in New Clothes. I shall not argue whether the haute couture industry ends up stitching what we'd like to wear in public.
My only expectation from the market is that people fit into what they choose to buy.
If Mango wants to sell more dresses, it had better get its consumers body proportions right. Else Zara will thrash its market share simply by ensuring that more women fit into its frocks. And when that happens Mango will be forced to discover women have hips and redo its sizing chart. Happy Day!
So why hasn't it happened?
I for instance, struggle to shop in Hong Kong. When I try jeans, the length suggests I should be at least 2ft taller. When I put on a jacket, the shoulders fit but the buttons won't close. And God forbid I ever try on a dress again - each half of my body demands its own separate size!
No I am not heavy, not even polite-speak "healthy". I will need to eat at McDonalds for at least 6 months before AXA increases my health insurance premium.
Nor am I the only one who faces this struggle. I could name a long list friends to vouch for it. In fact, I could name several studies that confirm it. Here's one pointing the problem even half-way across the world:
.. yearlong study... claims that 4 out of 10 [women] have trouble finding clothes that fit them, mainly because sizes are inconsistent from one outlet to another and because what is on the racks is too small.
[FYI the sample was not biased towards 'big girls'. It covered more than 10,000 women aged from 12 to 70. Only about 1 in 10 was obese.]
You may argue that the rise of plus-size brand suggests the market already has an inkling that it is failing to serve certain customers and is moving to restore the balance - but I do not think this is the right example. Big size brands are only fringe players yet. And honestly, there is a difference between large size and right size.
I think the market is working - but not quite how we expected it to. Instead of stitching clothes to the size of real women - the market is trying to make real women shrink themselves into the shape of clothes it makes!
It does this by promoting the idea that thinner is prettier. You can see across media - advertisements, movies, videos, celebrities - anything being promoted is stick thin.
The unfortunate result is women modifying their bodies unnaturally if need be. Excessive dieting, eating disorders and plastic surgeries are all in demand.
Yes the market is a strong force. But that is not always such a good thing.
6 comments:
two obeservations.
1. It costs less to create adverstising pressure on women to look like kate moss than to invest in flexible manufacturing techniques which can do limited runs and handle many more sizes.
2. The "figure" distribution curve is not binomial but is spread out like an amoeba!
3. You are an statistical outlier and that is why the jeans that fit you end up being 2 inches longer!
Actually it doesn't cost much to replace a thin model with a thinner one since you are going to be advertising anyway. As it is, brands are in the business of telling you what is "in" (Buy Big Bags this year!) and creating the perception of what is beautiful / attractive.
It does cost money to modify supplier chains and replace machinery, not to mention undertake research - but I agree with you here, cost is reasonable and can be borne by the company (giving rise to a minority of made-to-order jeans and shirts companies, etc that are springing up).
But, if machinery is capable of handling a large gamut of sizes without killing cost: why is 40% of the study sample size (as mentioned in my post) "have trouble finding clothes that fit"?
I may be a statistical outlier, but 40% of 10,000 strong sample cannot be!
My contention is that market likes inertia. It takes effort to change a way of working, and even more effort/risk to use a normal-dimensioned model when everyone else is using slimlines. Customisation is therefore missing from a lot of big brands (more risk averse, and also more inertia).
I also contend that you will generally find women noticing this non-fittingness more because:
a) their curves require more accurate fitting
b) more of them care more about how things fit!
the clothing retailer can either do mass customization. so that even if there is one waif-like girl from J&K in HK she gets her size. Or it can force a large number of girls to look like a waif through a ad campaign that says thin is in or some such thing.
My contention is that it is cheaper and easier to do the latter (force-fit through ad pressure) rather than do mass customization. Levis tried it. I don't think it got them very far. Mass customization requires capex (flexible lines, investment in IT to keep track of sales and replensihment in realtime, great logistics et al) while advertising is a variable expense.
I think in general women are perfectionists when it comes to fitting. (though everytime I walk on marine drive and look at women in jeans/trousers i just wonder if that study was biased ;)
if there were no markets we all would sitll be living in caves.
how else would someone have said ok you hunt and I will grow the crops and then we will exchange.
markets are the eptiome of capitalism yes but they are also the reason for mankind to evolve.
why else would you and I be in HK when we can get everything, albeit in different degrees, in India?
Really it’s pathetic….unhealthy …an example of how far market can goes to execute things or replace human with machinery…like live robotic body.... (Male model does not suffer this way…seems only happen to female models)
Yes Ansul…. if capitalism/market is not there we may still in caves…..and “you be in HK when you can get everything, albeit in different degrees, in India”…… a good excuse for it…….
Post a Comment