(See what we did there? Like the love child of ‘Got milk’ and ‘You’ve been tangoed’)
Laura Reynolds looks at the hype surrounding the collaboration.
Just a week to go until the man in red arrives...
Take H&M for example. It’s always been a little bug bear of mine that, compared to everywhere else, their clothes appear to be one size smaller. Whilst a 38 may pass for a 10 in Topshop, you’d be a 12 in the same size at H&M. Now, I have done some research into this and according to various sizing charts, H&M have obviously done away with the guidelines, as a European size 36 = UK size 8, 38 = 10, 40 = 12 and so on and so forth. In doing so, however, H&M appear to have overlooked one minor issue: we care about the number on the tag!
In my opinion this is a massive error on their part: even the most reluctant of shoppers knows there is a universally acknowledged ‘psychology of size’. Although I’d like to think that I’m above the mind games of Marks and Spencer, I have to confess that I’m a sucker for so called ‘vanity-sizing’. We all know the thrill that comes from traipsing to the fitting rooms only to discover that your usual size is practically billowing in the wind and you’re going to need the next size down. It’s a miracle: you’ve obviously lost weight, perhaps you’re sick, who cares? You’re officially skinnier than when you woke up!
Don’t be fooled, however: retailers are well aware of how good such a cruel, cruel trick is going to make you feel and know how much more likely it is that said trick is going to result in a purchase. I’m the first to admit it, there’s definitely a size that I consider myself to be and whilst I’d quite happily part with my hard earned cash/student loan for smaller, there’s no way I’m handing it over for bigger. I just can’t do it, I just don’t want it in my wardrobe!
But ‘vanity sizing’ alone simply cannot account for such a disparity between sizes. How can there be a whole two sizes difference between the trousers that fit perfectly in Gap and their counterpart in Mango? Surely there has to be some sort of logic to sizing?
Surely there has to be some sort of logic to sizing?
Apparently not. According to the National Retail Federation, although there were once government guidelines for sizing they have long since been forgotten, and most current manufacturers use their own ‘fit-model’ based upon the proportions of their target audience.
So there we have it. This would explain why I could go sailing in a size 10 shirt from M&S, but be committing an act of public indecency in the same size from Zara. M&S are obviously presuming that their customers are of the ‘busty’ variety, whilst Zara are clearly catering for the less top-heavy shopper.
But what of men’s sizes? From a female perspective it all seems so much simpler: small, medium and large, isn’t that how men’s clothes work? Once again the answer has to be no. Whilst three sizes may suffice for basic items such as t-shirts (let's face it, all men are a medium) and underpants (a more sensitive issue), more complex sizing is required when it comes to jeans and trousers. On which front, men seem to differ quite considerably from women: “Of course men care about their waist size, they’re just more pragmatic than women, I’d never buy something that I didn’t like just because it was a smaller size.” It all sounds so sensible, if only we knew what size we were …
H&M sizing is all mucked up, their sizes are for little people and all the clothes are that little bit tight around the arms, crotch, etc. Shame
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report