Fashion designers and clothing distributors should be required to meet and maintain standardized sizing in order to avoid vanity sizing
Vanity sizing is a strategy of altering the measurements of commodities, mostly apparels, to endear them to the consumers. By using this strategy, cloth manufacturers tend to make different size clothing for labels that are similar. Most of them refuse using the strategy; however, reports indicate that practically all of them are victims (Faust 130). They include the likes of H&M, Banana Republic, Ann Taylor, Old navy, Coldwater Creek, and Eddie Bauer. Clothing sizes, notably for women, initiated during the 1920s in the United States when typical household items were substantially catalogues (Faust 141). Self-sewn and tailor-made apparels were replaced with ready-to-wear clothing. Due to this transformation, the U.S government sponsored a study to define the size of an “Average American Woman” in the 1940s (Nguwen n.p.). The research was a success as a scale was developed. However, in 1970, it was re-evaluated and adjusted. The government did this to include nonmilitary personnel and non-whites (Nguwen n.p.). A French model, Brigitte Bardot, who theoretically used to wear a size 8, was now at size-0. Nonetheless, in 1983, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Department of Commerce terminated their initiative of standard sizes as it was considered useless and subsequently, the manufacturing companies had the authority of establishing their sizes. It made it is possible for one size differing as far as five inches between the famous designers. Currently, vanity sizing is prevalent in society and mostly used as a marketing strategy to attract customers. Nevertheless, it poses severe ramifications like promoting unhealthy conditions in individuals, increases the searching span for clothes, does not entice other consumers and finally, its deceitful thus can significantly affect the image of the company. Therefore, fashion designers and clothing distributors should be required to meet and maintain standardized sizing in order to avoid vanity sizing.
Fig. 1. Changes in sizes: Vanity Sizing (Nguwen n.p)
Opposition Point
Prevalence of vanity sizing by the manufacturing and retailing entities is founded on the attribution theory. The main argument of the theory is that people perceive the behaviors of others and create impressions of why the behaviors have happened. In short, behaviors of individuals are linked or attributed to numerous motives, which can be extrinsic or intrinsic. From consumer behavior research, which relies on the attribution theory, practices that strengthen the perceived attractiveness of commodities –apparels for this case – inspire great intentions to purchase. In the context of vanity sizing, having smaller- or larger-than-actual size labels results to attractiveness that is bolstered. That is, the labels induce the thinness feelings (for the case of smaller-than-actual size) on consumers; therefore, making them feel better about themselves and consequently purchasing the apparel.
From the above notion, it is evident that the key opposers of the research thesis are the manufacturing and retailing apparel bodies, and their opposition point is that vanity sizing is beneficial because it increases their sales. Further, they can defend their opposition point by changing the perspective. Another way of defining their opposition point – from the perspective of the client – is that it promotes consumers’ self-esteem. According to an article, Imagining thin: Why vanity sizing works, published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, physical attractiveness (mentioned in the last paragraph) is positively linked with self-esteem (Aydinoglu &Aradhna 2), thus backing up the ideology – opposition point – that vanity sizing evokes the self-esteem of consumers. The scholarly article further states that the central goal of human’s existence is self-enhancement, which is a motive that improves and maintains self-esteem and aligns with the self-enhancement theory (Aydinoglu &Aradhna 3).
In layman language, effective marketing strategies are those that advocate for self-esteem. Since females admire and strive to acquire a thin body, an imagination alone of them fitting in a smaller sized garment (vanity sizing) would trigger such self-related imagery and eventually attracting them to the apparels. Therefore, the clothing’s manufacturing industry believe that gimmick is worth it. However, vanity sizing does not only decrease, in other situations or types of apparels, it tends to be adjusted upwards. A study done on Asian American and Caucasian college women concluded that small “breastedness” is related to lower breast satisfaction, thus low self-esteem. Due to this behavior, manufacturers attach larger-than-actual size labels as they will give women the idea that their “breastedness” size is large (Ennis 29). Vanity sizing is commonly conducted in women’s clothing, as they are the most affected individuals when it comes to body size. In men’s clothing, it is not very common, whereas, in children’s, notably babies, it is negligible or absent. It is because children are not aware of the clothes’ sizes they wear, more so they are not self-conscious about it; therefore, no incentive for the apparel manufacturers to practice vanity sizing in the apparel of children (Ennis 30).
Refuting the Opposition Point
The manufacturers and retailers of apparels depend on vanity sizing to increase their revenues. They point out that vanity sizing benefits the consumers through increasing the consumers’ self-esteem. Nonetheless, aside from these benefits, vanity sizing is connected with detrimental concerns to both the consumers and the capitalistic entities. The concerns include lowering the self-esteem of consumers, spoiling of the company’s image, increasing the searching time of consumers, and lastly, promotes unhealthy behaviors.
Vanity sizing is habitually carried out towards the smaller sizes (towards the larger sizes is for apparels like bras, which form a negligible portion of apparels) to reach a broader market or target. Therefore, most consumers expect that the apparels they will buy to have reasonably low size numbers. A problem develops when the same brands have larger numbers, have not adhered to the vanity-sized trend or the sizes are downshifted to a degree that is minimal. Because this action contrasts with the smaller-than-expected size, instead of promoting self-esteem, the reverse will occur (Hoegg et al. 71). Also, self-esteem can be reduced in another way. For instance, if an individual was size 0 a decade ago, then currently, he is deemed to be size 00. It is because, to him, ten years ago, his body size was the smallest, and due to the vanity sizing that downshifted, he has become even smaller. For those who are not aware of vanity sizing, which comprises a substantial number of the consumers, they will be negatively affected by this (Hoegg et al.78). Bestowing to a peer-reviewed article authored by four psychologists of diverse fields, consumers tend to undertake in compensatory consumption when their self-esteem is threatened. That is, when the customers’ self-esteem is lowered, they will seek out products of unrelated dimensions to affirm the threatened scenarios of the self. Therefore, if the clothing sizing is not up to their expectations, they will most likely look for products that improve one’s appearance, such as jewellery or make-up (Hoegg et al. 71).
The other concern of vanity sizing is that it can lead to the opposite of what manufacturers and retailers expect; spoiling of the brand’s image. In Seth Ketron’s research, he terms vanity sizing as unperceived deception – dishonest information – and could curtail the response of consumers when they become aware. He further states that retailers engaging in this practice do so at their own risks. He classifies others as honest, as they are not the ones branding the apparels with unreal sizes; however, he categorizes them under the same group of ramifications (Ketron 40). It is because customers will not be able to distinguish the honest and dishonest retailers. In addition, if customers perceive dishonesty in the products, they will not purchase them any more (Ketron 41). Therefore, affecting both the retailers and manufacturers, which is contrary to what the strategy is for.
The third negative effect is that vanity sizing has made shopping to be a headache. It is due to that a single manufacturer creates an apparel with the same real measurement to fit a particular body, but attaches labels with vast ranges of sizes. For example, identical pants – with the same size shape, and color – from one manufacturer are branded with different sizes, from small to large (Ennis 31). In addition, the practice of not standardizing sizes makes one not to know the size of apparel to purchase. This phenomenon is well illustrated by Ennis (pg. 31). In his study of vanity sizing, he found out that size 6 at Bebe, size 4 at Abercrombie and Fitch, size 9 at JCPenny and 9 at target are ideally the same exact size.
Lastly, it advocates for mindsets that are unhealthy. Americans – or the average individuals – prefer to hide their weight-gain aspects, thus vanity sizing coming into play (Ennis 26). It is speculated by Hoegg et al. (pg. 7) that vanity sizing is playing a significant role in the obesity epidemic; it is accelerating the life-threatening condition. It is because a smaller-size-than-actual makes people believe they are thinner than they really are. While, the larger-size-than-actual labels are seen to lead to compensatory consumption; therefore, if consumers seek comfort in foods like ice-cream and chocolate, it will worsen the condition.
Conclusion
Vanity sizing is the practice of giving dishonest sizes to articles than the real case, particularly apparels, and is done to promote the sales. The manufacturers and retailers utilize the attribution theory to understand this consumer behavior. Although the consumers’ self-esteem is bolstered in the process, detrimental consequences can result in both the capitalists (retailers and manufacturers) and consumers. The consequences include the lowering of self-esteem in some consumers, destruction of brand image, wastage of time in searching for fitting apparels and lastly, health complications.
To combat this issue of vanity sizing, the entire stakeholders – retailers, manufacturers, regulatory bodies and consumers – need to play a role. The manufacturers can opt to eliminate the size numbers as they are as good as meaningless. Retailers can choose not to sell apparels that offer unreal information, whereas the consumers need to adjust their viewpoints and feel happy about their bodies. Nonetheless, the best approach is by the standards being implemented.
Works Cited
Aydinoglu, Nilufer Z., and Aradhna Krishna. “Imagining thin: Why vanity sizing works.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 22.4 (2012): 565-572.
Ennis, Holly. “Vanity sizing: The Manufacturing of Self Esteem.” Dialogues@ RU: Journal of Undergraduate Research 5 (2006): 26-37.
Faust, M-E. “Apparel size designation and labeling.” Anthropometry, Apparel Sizing and Design. Woodhead Publishing, 2014.
Hoegg, JoAndrea, et al. “The flip side of vanity sizing: How consumers respond to and compensate for larger than expected clothing sizes.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 24.1 (2014): 70-78.
Ketron, Seth. “Consumer cynicism and perceived deception in vanity sizing: The moderating role of retailer (dis) honesty.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33 (2016): 33-42.
Nguwen, Diana. “A Brief History of Women’s Clothing Sizes—and Why You Just Went Up a Size.” E! News, 18 Mar. 2015, www.eonline.com/fr/news/687475/a-brief-history-of-women-s-clothing-sizes-and-why-you-just-went-up-a-size. Accessed 18 May 2020.