Textile Research Journal

http://trj.sagepub.com A Proposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers in Finding Well-fitting Womens Clothing, Especially Pants: An Analysis of Size USA Female Data and Womens Ready-to-wear Pants for North American Companies
Marie-Eve Faust and Serge Carrier Textile Research Journal 2009; 79; 1446 originally published online Jul 1, 2009; DOI: 10.1177/0040517508099394 The online version of this article can be found at: http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/79/16/1446

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Textile Research Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://trj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://trj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/79/16/1446

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

Textile Research Journal

Article

A Proposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers in Finding Well-fitting Womens Clothing, Especially Pants: An Analysis of Size USA Female Data and Womens Ready-to-wear Pants for North American Companies
Abstract

Marie-Eve Faust1 and Serge Carrier

The Institute of Textiles and Clothing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

In the USA, Canada and Europe labels that disclose garments composition, origin, commercial brand or price at point of sale are required. No law governs garment size labels and underlying measurements. Standard size chart determination is not an easy task and has always been challenging for national institutes of standardization, manufacturers and retailers. Moreover, size standards are voluntary, therefore those who initiate garment orders can decide whether or not to adhere to national standards. Since size labels and standards are voluntary, some of the buyers or their intermediaries prefer to target specific silhouette and shape markets by adapting their measurements, while others play the vanity sizing card. Confusion occurs as companies in North America all use the same numerical size labeling systems. The research discussed in this paper demonstrates that manufacturers in North America size garments (pants) according to their own, specific target markets (which differ from one another), to cover most of the population; they then label these garments with reference to a single numerical code size labeling system which leads to chaos in the market place. Besides being challenging for the apparel industry, the size label system creates an ambiguous situation for the consumer who cannot rely on the size label to identify a good fitting garment, and thus is spending undue time trying clothes. We conclude that the time has come to standardize the size label in order to provide better fitting clothes for readyto-wear.

Key words body scanning, markets, product meaning and consumer perception: fashion, retail management systems, sizing of apparel

Corresponding author: Assistant Professor of Fashion Retailing, School of Business Administration, Philadelphia University, Philadelphia, PA 19144-5497, USA. E-mail: faustm@philau.edu

Textile Research Journal Vol 79(16): 14461458 DOI: 10.1177/0040517508099394 Figures 110, 13 appear in color online: http://trj.sagepub.com

The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

A Proposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers M.-E. Faust and S. Carrier It has been previously demonstrated by investigators that apparel order initiators and manufacturers do not adhere to established national size standards [1, 2]. In the literature review, numerous causes have been mentioned. The reasons why this is the case range from outdated standards to niche marketing or even vanity sizing (defined as using larger underlying measurements than a given size to appeal to the consumers vanity [3]). From the findings of the research under discussion, focusing on the lower part of the body and pants, it was evident that a practical choice does exist which would allow manufacturers and their vendors to label their products according to accurate measurements. However, such a choice would impose a labeling system that is based upon a set of specific measurements. This approach recognizes that garment buyers and vendors may target and prefer to fit specific consumer segments; nonetheless, pertinent information can still be supplied to the consumer. Womens shapes and silhouettes vary from one to another and manufacturers produce their garments according to one or another specific shape and silhouette, irrespective of the sizes. Therefore, the size label should include a pictogram representative of the front view of a woman with letters (H, X or A)1 identifying front silhouette and the key measurement points. Besides improving customer services by facilitating selection a priori of the right size labels could improve supply chain management by allowing distributors and vendors to order garments which fitted their target market. The objectives were therefore to investigate whether manufacturers produce for a specific target (silhouette), which may be different from other manufacturers targets; to appraise up to what level they cover womens sizes and silhouettes and to demonstrate that a new sizing label is required (re-introducing body silhouette classifications to the sizing code with the concept of the H, X and A silhouettes). To test the look and acceptance level of the proposed new label, we conducted a pilot test. Results showed that 80% of the participants were in favor of a new and more visual presentation for a size label with body measurements and a pictogram, showing the above-mentioned information. The authors subsequently recommend that regulation on the matter of the denomination of sizes and accordingly the information given in the size label itself would be an important milestone for the apparel industry.
1 H, X or A silhouettes precise measurements and ratios may vary from one author to another. For example, ideal X silhouette can be defined as similar in width in the shoulders and hips, with medium bust, small waist, slightly curved abdomen, and slim thighs. In this study, we use silhouette as female visible silhouette from a front profile view [34], whereas shape refers to a threedimensional female body.

1447

TRJ

Literature Review
In the USA, regulations are enforced to ensure that garments are sold with labels which display a minimum of information. Each garment must be labeled with fiber content, country of origin, care instructions, and the identity of the manufacturer or another business responsible for marketing or handling the item2 [4]. Similar regulations are mandatory in Canada. A garment is required to include a label indicating fiber content and washing instructions, the country in which the item was produced, unless it was produced in Canada, and a CA number3 [5]. Europe is no exception and according to the Comite Francais de lEtiquetage pour lEntretien des Textiles4, the composition and the price at point of sale are mandatory information to be affixed on garments. From a commercial perspective, brand name and fiber are required [6]. The general belief is that garments must be marked with information considered important to the ultimate purchaser, but none of the national aforesaid regulations indicate that a size designation label is required. In the apparel industry, measuring approach, standard sizes identification, grading method, and size labeling have been the subjects of conversation for a number of years, and frequently in relation to fit [719]. National surveys based on anthropometric data were the choice solution to achieve standard sizes, thus ensuring that all women found appropriately fitting clothes [7]. Therefore, the Womens Measurements for Garment and Pattern Construction (WMGPC) survey was conducted between July 1939 and June 1940 and published by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1941. The report showed for one part, no correlation between height and weight. Consequently, the data could be used without doubt for sizing charts if divided into the categories of Short, Regular, and Tall. The report also stated that key measurement points, such as bust, waist, and hip, should be used. In 1945, the Association for MailOrder Sales recommended a standard for sizes for the US garment industry: the Commercial Standard commonly referred to as CS215-58, which was issued in 1958 [20]. The Body Measurements for the Sizing of Womens Patterns and Apparel reported the classifications of women as Misses, Womens, Half-sizes, and Junior as well as groups Short, Regular, and Tall with sub-groups within each Bust-hip, Slender, Average, and Full, maintaining the same key point measurements, such as bust, waist, and hip. Finally, the Voluntary Product Standard (PS 42-70) for pattern development and grading was published in 1971 as a revision of the CS215-58 [21], etc. It is important to

2 USA madatory label: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp? IA=WO2005050596&WO=2005050596&DISPLAY=DESC. 3 Canadian Government: http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/. 4 France: Comite Francais de lEtiquetage pour lEntretien des Textiles: http://www.cofreet.com/etiquetage.htm.

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

TRJ

1448

Textile Research Journal 79(16)

Figure 1 Endomorph: top left corner; mesomorph: top right corner, middle left, and bottom right corner; ectomorph: bottom left corner and middle right [26].

point out that when the PS 42-70 standard was introduced, it simplified the sizes specified in CS215-58 by removing the Bust-hip categories, the concept of body shape classifications from sizing code. Yet some authors believed that standards emanating from national surveys were of limited use in their time and are now obsolete [22]. They justified their point of view by the fact that todays women have different body measurements, body shapes and silhouettes than women at the time the study was conducted [2325] or argued that body

shape (and silhouettes) could vary according to the ethnicity lifestyles, nutrition and genes (endomorph: rounded; mesomorph: pyriform; ectomorph: willowy) (see Figure 1) [26]. In order to ensure the best fit, it is the manufacturers responsibility to consider their target customer when developing specifications [27]. In view of that, they often prefer grading their garments according to their target bust, waist and hip measurements instead of a prescribed size chart [28], and nowadays the garment industry is pro-

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

A Proposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers M.-E. Faust and S. Carrier

1449

TRJ

Table 1 Womens sizes frequently found in North America.

Sizes commonly used in the USA according to Goldsberry et al. [33] and Burns and Bryant [28] Junior Junior petite Misses petite Misses Women Misses tall Half-size Missy Women large Women large Plus size All S M 4 34 6 36 3 3 5 5 7 7 8 8 38 9 9 10 10 40 10 11 11 12 12 42 12 12.5 12 15 14 14 44 14 14.5 L 16W 1X 1X 18W 2X 2X One size fits all Canadian sizes from the Canadian General Standard Board Junior Misses Womens Womens (pants) 5 6 10 30 7 8 12 32 9 10 14 34 11 12 16 36 13 14 18 38 15 16 20 40 17 18 22 42 19 20 24 44 26 46 28 48 20W 22W 3X 3X 24W 26W 4X 16 16 46 16 16.5 18 18 48 18 18.5 20 50 20 20.5 22 52 22 22.5 24.5 26.5 15 17

Sizes obtained from Sears catalog Sears petite Sears regular Sears tall Sears plus Sears XS S M L XL 4P 4 6P 6 8P 8 8T 10P 10 10T 12P 12 12T 14P 14 14T 16P 16 16T 18P 18 18T 18W 1XL 20W 22W 2XL 24W 26W 3XL 28W 30W 4XL

Sizes from one European brand Les Trois Suisses 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60

viding more choice for petite and large (plus) sizes [29, 30]. Considering the non-applicability of standards and goal to satisfy clientele order initiators do not adhere to national size standards [1]. That manufacturers or vendors do not adhere to size standards is not a problem in itself. It can even be viewed as market segmentation. The problem arises when they all use the same numerical sizing codes (such as 4, 6, 8, 24) to label garments of varying underlying measurements [31], with subsequent chaos for the apparel industry as well as for consumers [32]. In order to provide more information about the various size labels in use, a summary of sizes found frequently in North American brands and one well-known European brand is presented in Table 1 below. Recently, the international apparel brands have not only presented various numerical codes, but they have also

linked these numbers to a country, again without providing either body measurements or garment measurements. Examples are presented below (see Figure 2). When looking at these an obvious question would be: How is it that a 58, 150 pound woman, a 56, 135 pound woman and a 59, 125 pound woman all claim to wear a size 8?5 [34]. Or again, Are size labels appreciated by consumers? [14]. In resume, Do size labels convey adequate information? or Do size labels fulfill the primary function, that being to assist consumers in selecting the best fitting garment? [35]. Consumers must guess the actual garment sizes or try them on to identify those that fit them best [33, 36]. Research has shown that 52% of women take two or more

http://www.tc2.com/what/sizeusa/index.html, read 2004-03-18.

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

TRJ

1450

Textile Research Journal 79(16)

Figure 2 Size labels from Mango, Steilman and Zara.

identical garments of different sizes to the fitting room and that 50% of the customers who order their clothing via a catalog service return garments due to size or fit [37]. For the consumer, a size label can cause confusion and waste time; for retailers it means cost to handle returns [7, 13] and time spent a posteriori in order to replace clothes on the racks [37], whereas for manufacturers the challenge is defining underlying measurements.

manufacturers and we demonstrated that they were produced for different shapes and silhouettes [2, 38], and since we had access to the database of Size USA, we first analyzed data of the latest anthropometric survey report in the USA, Lets Size Up America (Figure 3) [39]. This gave an overview of womens body measurements in the US, the targeted population for the research, which had a sample containing more than 6,300 women. We then proposed three hypotheses according to the key points of the literature review: H1: Individual North American manufacturers of womens clothing produce for one market, segment, or niche of the population identifiable as a subset of the Size USA database; H2: When considered overall, manufacturers or vendors garment specifications (measurements) define sizes which will cover the whole spectrum of womens sizes and silhouettes in the population, as defined by the Size USA database; H3: The numerical codes on current size labels affixed to garments do not correspond to consistent sets of garment measurements among the various manufacturers and vendors. The validation of these hypotheses would demonstrate that size labeling in North America is deficient and the solution would be to provide further information to accurately identify the garment size. According to our results, we felt obliged to conduct a mini survey. We used two convenient samples to validate that women would appreciate a new size label with more details.

Methodology
The literature review revealed that the apparel industry does not adhere to size standards and that manufacturers produce for a specific target or specific body silhouettes which may be different from other manufacturers targets [2]. The first objective of this research was therefore to show that women have different silhouettes and to appraise up to what level manufacturers cover womens sizes and silhouettes. The second objective was to show that manufacturers all use the same numerical code. The final objective was to demonstrate that a new sizing label is required (reintroducing body silhouette classifications to the sizing code with the concept of the H, X and A silhouettes), since the current size label affixed to garments displays a numerical code associated with a set of measurements that vary among manufacturers and retailers.

Since we measured on a small scale and on a large scale almost 1,000 pants produced by Canadian and American

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

A Proposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers M.-E. Faust and S. Carrier

1451

TRJ

Results and Discussion

According to the literature review, waist and hip circumference measurements are the two most critical body measurements that define sizes for garments that dress the lower part of the body such as pants [7, 22]. The following graph illustrates the distribution of waist and hip measurements drawn from the data of 6,310 women scanned using the [TC]2 body scanner, as reported in Size USA, Lets Size Up America (see Figure 4). While some authors suggest no less than 57 sizes to cover 80% of the female population, others are trying to satisfy consumers with only small, medium and large sizes, or some even to fit them all within the category one size fits all. In this research, we opted to use 11 groups. The reason was that this is the most commonly seen range of sizes (sizes 4 to 24, increments of 2) in North America. There is a total of 12 sizes from size 4 to size 24 because two size labels would typically be supplied for one size designation (for example, 18 and 18W), giving a total of 12 size boundaries or 11 groups. Table 2 presents these sizes and the associated average waist and hip measurements according to Sears catalog [40]. The data cloud extracted from [TC]2 Size USA was then divided according to the 12 sizes/measurements from Sears and taking into consideration the orientation of the data cloud. The results, clustering women into 11 groups (slices),

Figure 3 Womans profile generated by means of the [TC]2 3D body scanner.

Figure 4 White: White women; black: Black women; pink: Hispanic women; yellow: Asian and others.

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

TRJ

1452

Textile Research Journal 79(16)

Table 2 Waist and hip limit measurements of Sears, Canada.

Size Waist circumference Hip circumference 4 27 37 6 28 38 8 29 39 10 30 40 12 31.5 41.5 14 33 43 16 35 45 18 37 47 18w 38 48 20w 40 50 22w 42 52 24w 44 54

data (with upper and lower boundaries), while Tables 3 and 4 provide the values of the boundaries for each system. Even with such a high number of classes, we found that a fairly high percentage (12.3%) of women was left out (outside classes limitations which were: waist between 27.5 and 45.5 inches and hip between 36.5 and 53.5 inches). Moreover, the fringes of our population data cloud in some retained classes would be so wide that they would be of little use in terms of adequately fitting a garment. It is important to point out that, as stated in the literature review, sizes for the smaller and larger women in the population (who are not covered in the most common size range illustrated here) are more likely to be accommodated now with the increase in Petite and Plus size category manufacturers.

Current Offer Analysis

To validate our first and second hypotheses (H1 Individual North American Manufacturers of womens clothing produce for one market, segment, or niche of the population identifiable as a subset of the Size USA database and H2 When considered overall, manufacturers or vendors garment specifications (measurements) define size which will cover the whole spectrum of womens sizes and silhouettes in the population, as defined by the Size USA database), we compared three sets of pants specifications to the [TC]2 Size USA, Lets Size Up America survey data cloud. First, we compared these specifications with our two classifications (equal amplitude and equal number). Figure 7 below shows the data cloud waist and hip measurements plotted with one retailers (Sears) specification and two manufacturers specifications. One can see that each of them is targeting different silhouettes. Sears targets an X woman silhouette (close to the edge of an A), manufacturer #1 targets an A silhouette, while manufacturer #2 targets an H silhouette. This validated our first and second hypotheses (H1 and H2): garment manufacturers use different measurements and silhouettes, and overall they cover the entire female population while using the same size labeling system to identify their pants. The third hypothesis to validate (H3) was that the current size labels affixed to garments provide only numerical codes which vary among manufacturers and retailers. Part of this hypothesis was validated in previous studies of apparel sold in Canada [2, 38]. Validation was done once on a small scale showing that manufacturers do not adhere

Figure 5 Commonly found sizes of the population divided into 11 classes.

are presented below (see Figure 5). This figure clearly demonstrates that two groups of women (more than 10%), those being the very small and the very large ones, must experience difficulties when trying to find clothes since the sizes which are usually found in the market will not fit them. They are either smaller than a size 4 or bigger than a size 24. We pursued with an analysis of the data cloud (representing the dimensions of 6,310 women) to categorize women using the two circumference measurements once again, this time using both equal amplitude and equal number distributions. We chose to divide the sample further into 33 classes (11 sizes x 3 silhouettes) to classify the dimensions and proportions (lower body measurements for pants); again, these were based not only on the actual sizing system currently in use but also were divided into three common silhouettes (A, X and H) established from the waist and hip girth measurements. Figure 6 shows a graph of each of the 33 classes in both equal amplitude and equal numbers from the [TC]2 survey

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

A Proposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers M.-E. Faust and S. Carrier

1453

TRJ

Table 3 Boundaries for each of the 33 classes with equal amplitude.

Circumference measurement limitations for H silhouette Waist Class no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Min. 28.16 29.68 30.75 31.61 32.51 33.38 34.45 35.56 36.80 38.47 40.91 Waist Class no. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Min. 26.78 28.30 29.37 30.23 31.12 32.00 33.06 34.18 35.42 37.09 39.53 Waist Class no. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Min. 25.39 26.92 27.98 28.85 29.74 30.61 31.68 32.79 34.03 35.71 38.15 Max. 28.30 29.37 30.23 31.12 32.00 33.06 34.18 35.42 37.09 39.53 44.41 Min. 38.49 39.62 40.42 41.25 42.06 43.06 44.09 45.25 46.53 48.09 50.36 Max. 29.68 30.75 31.61 32.51 33.38 34.45 35.56 36.80 38.47 40.91 45.80 Min. 37.21 38.33 39.14 39.97 40.78 41.77 42.81 43.96 45.25 46.80 49.08 Hip Max. 38.63 39.91 40.90 41.71 42.54 43.35 44.34 45.38 46.80 49.08 53.62 Max. 31.07 32.13 33.00 33.89 34.76 35.83 36.94 38.18 39.85 42.30 47.18 Min. 35.92 37.05 37.85 38.68 39.49 40.49 41.52 42.67 43.96 45.51 47.79 Hip Max. 37.34 38.63 39.62 40.42 41.25 42.06 43.06 44.09 45.51 47.79 52.33 Hip Max. 36.06 37.34 38.33 39.14 39.97 40.78 41.77 42.81 44.23 46.50 51.04

Table 4 Boundaries for each of the 33 classes with equal numbers.

Circumference measurement limitations for H silhouette Waist Class no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Min. 27.85 29.43 30.53 31.31 32.25 33.05 34.10 35.17 36.33 38.11 40.57 Max. 31.07 32.13 33.00 33.89 34.76 35.83 36.94 38.18 39.85 42.30 47.18 Waist Class no. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Min. 27.08 28.57 29.54 30.46 31.33 32.11 33.11 34.19 35.39 36.96 39.39 Max. 29.37 30.49 31.40 32.20 33.12 34.12 35.21 36.41 38.01 40.56 45.45 Waist Class no. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Min. 25.10 26.62 27.69 28.55 29.45 30.32 31.39 32.50 33.74 35.41 37.85 Max. 28.60 29.64 30.40 31.35 32.20 33.18 34.22 35.43 37.07 39.40 44.27 Min. 38.35 39.37 40.27 41.04 41.87 42.96 44.05 45.24 46.81 48.36 50.64 Min. 36.93 38.38 39.34 40.21 41.02 41.96 43.02 44.08 45.26 46.92 49.20 Min. 36.06 37.05 37.85 38.68 39.49 40.49 41.52 42.67 44.23 45.85 48.11 Hip Max. 36.21 37.58 38.54 39.42 40.21 41.08 42.10 43.17 44.39 46.50 51.04 Hip Max. 37.63 38.57 39.46 40.25 41.06 42.07 43.13 44.32 45.95 48.12 52.65 Hip Max. 38.77 40.19 41.18 41.98 42.81 43.62 44.62 45.65 46.82 49.19 53.75

Circumference measurement limitations for X silhouette

Circumference measurement limitations for X silhouette

Circumference measurement limitations for A silhouette

Circumference measurement limitations for A silhouette

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

TRJ

1454

Textile Research Journal 79(16)

Figure 6 Presentation of equal amplitude and equal number of classes: three silhouettes and 11 sizes.

Figure 7 Data cloud of waist and hip measurements with Sears specifications for sizes 4 to 24 with 18 and 18w (targeting an X silhouette, close to the edge of an A silhouette), and two manufacturers targeting (1) an A silhouette and (2) an H silhouette.

to national standards as well as on a larger scale, where more than 800 pants provided in different sizes and different styles were measured. The results were similar and are shown in the graphs presented below (see Figure 8). We therefore rejected the third hypothesis (H3) the current size label affixed to garments provides a numerical code and varies among manufacturers and vendors, as identically sized labeled pants clearly do not have the same measurements, in some cases even overlapping next size(s). Although these studies were completed in Canada, similar sizing practices are used throughout North America.

According to our understanding, we developed a graphic showing the size labeling process in order to show the combinations of factors that affect and create confusion in the size label system (Figure 9). In order to gauge consumers opinions about a new design for a size label, we used two convenient samples (one of 36 women and one of 103 women: colleagues, friends and university students, in situ and at distance, from 18 to 75 years of age,) and we presented different labels, some showing a womans silhouette pictogram (H, X or A), and some identifying where the measurements for a pair of

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

A Proposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers M.-E. Faust and S. Carrier

1455

TRJ

Figure 8 Left: five order givers specifications and average measurements plus Canadian General Standard Board identification of waist measurements all for size 6 pants, n=25. Right: dispersion graphic of extrapolated measurements at 5 inches for all regular pants sizes from 4 to 18, n=679.

Figure 9 Description of actual size labeling system (based on illustrations used in Faust [38]).

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

TRJ

1456

Textile Research Journal 79(16)

Figure 10 Three existing size labels from: Mango, Steilman and Zara, international ready-to-wear companies.

Figure 11 Size label from Orage Canadian outerwear.

pants were taken relative to a human body. We asked them to identify the three they preferred (10 out of the 139 were rejected since they improperly answered). This information is pertinent since it could be used for the proposed size label.

Potential Label Survey

The literature review undertaken in the course of this research showed that women find it difficult to identify a garment which will fit them with a label using a single number system as their only guide. We presented several existing and potential labels. We showed women from the two convenient samples totaling more than 100 women, three existing size labels from major international readyto-wear apparel companies (Figure 10), one commonly seen label from Orage an international outerwear apparel brand (Figure 11), a pictogram recommended by the CGSB (Figure 12), and three labels designed for the purpose of the exercise. These three showed a range of choices of numbers and representations of body silhouette pictograms, i.e. womens silhouette pictograms with or without measurements (Figure 13). Women were asked to choose

Figure 12 Pictogram from the CGSB similar to that shown in the relevant ISO standard.

the three labels they felt conveyed the most pertinent information. As expected, a majority of subjects (104 out of 129; 80%) chose the labels shown in Figure 13. Most women appreciated the pictogram, although they questioned the

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

A Proposal for a New Size Label to Assist Consumers M.-E. Faust and S. Carrier

1457

TRJ

Figure 13 Sample of global pictures of potential size labels with different silhouettes (based on illustration used in Faust [38]).

use they would personally make of this information since they did not yet know their own measurements. Although inconclusive, this short survey for womens pants indicated that a size label is a critical information source that needs to be improved in order to better serve the garment industry.

tion such as rise or crotch length could be of use to the consumer and should therefore be tested. Likewise, the exact appearance of a new size label should be further tested. Our research was limited to womens pants; it would certainly be of interest to look into the possibility of replicating this study to the full body or with the adult males or children as the target population.

Conclusion
The results of the study indicated that, although they do not use the existing size standards and produce their own, manufacturers in the USA almost cover the full spectrum of womens silhouettes and sizes, but they use identical codes on their size labels. As a consequence, size labels do not provide consumers with the information they require. It was demonstrated that silhouette varies and that additional information would be appreciated by women and should be supplied on pants size labels. This information should reduce both the time taken when shopping for garments as well as that for returns and exchanges, especially so when the retail outlets are distant from consumers homes. It would also improve vendors efficiency in enabling them to better serve a specific market with reduced inventories. Modifying the appearance and information provided by a new size label offers an occasion to modernize retail shopping while eliminating confusion. A number of further research avenues exist. As observed in discussions with women on pants sizing, other informa-

Literature Cited
1. Schofield, N. A., and LaBat, K. L., Defining and Testing the Assumptions used in Current Apparel Grading Practice, Clothing Textiles Res. J. 23(3), 135150 (2005). Faust, M.-E., Carrier, S., and Baptiste, P., Variations in Canadian Womens Ready-to-wear Standard Sizes, J. Fashion Mark. Manage. 10(1), 7183 (2006). Bougourd, J., Sizing System, Fit Models and Target Markets, Sizing in Clothing Developing Effective Sizing Systems for Ready-to-wear Clothing, pp.108151 (2007). USA Mandatory Label, http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp? IA=WO2005050596&WO=2005050596&DISPLAY=DESC. Canadian Government, http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/. France, Comite Francais de lEtiquetage pour lEntretien des Textiles, http://www.cofreet.com/etiquetage.htm. OBrien, R., and Shelton, W. C., Womens Measurements for Garment and Pattern Construction, Bureau of Home Economics, Textiles and Clothing Division, Miscellaneous Publication, No. 454, US Department of Agriculture and Work Projects Administration, Washington, DC, USA (1941).

2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009

TRJ

1458
8.

Textile Research Journal 79(16)

24. Rasband, J., Fabulous Fit, Fairchild Publications, New York, USA (1994). 25. Yu, W., Fan, J., Ng, S.-P., and Gu, H.-B., Female Torso Mannequins with Skeleton and Soft Tissue for Clothing Pressure Evaluation, In Thermal Manikins and Modeling, Sixth International Thermal Manikin and Modeling Meeting (613M), (Fan, J., Ed.), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, pp. 194201 (2006). 26. Stoppard, M., and Younger-Lewis, C., tre Femme un Guide de Vie, Slection Readers Digest, Westmount, Canada (1995). 27. Glock, R. E., and Kunz, G. I., Apparel Manufacturing: Sewn Product Analysis, (3rd Edn.), Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA (2000). 28. Burns, L. D., and Bryant, N. O., The Business of Fashion Designing, Manufacturing and Marketing, Fairchild Publications, New York, USA (2002). 29. LaBat, K. L., and Delong, M. R., Body Cathexis and Satisfaction with Fit Apparel, Clothing Textiles Res. J. 8(2), 4348 (1990). 30. Faust, M.-E., L Utilisation des Technologies de lInformation et de la Communication (TIC) lors de la Fonction Essayage Vestimentaire, MScA, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Quebec, Canada (2003). 31. Workman, J. E., Body Measurement Specifications for Fit Models as a Factor in Clothing Size Variation, Clothing Textiles Res. J. 10(1), 3136 (1991). 32. Kunick, P., Sizing Pattern Construction, and Grading for Womens and Childrens Garments, Philip Kunick Ltd., London, UK (1967). 33. Goldsberry, E., Shim, S., and Reich, N., Women 55 Years and Older: Part I, Current Body Measurements as Contrasted to the PS 42-70 Data, and Part II, Overall Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with the Fit of Ready-to-wear, Clothing Textiles Res. J. 14(2), 108120 and 121132 (1996). 34. [TC]2, Size USA, Lets Size Up America The National Sizing Survey: Body Measurement and Data Analysis Reports on the U.S. Population Report, Cary, North Carolina, USA (2004). 35. Chun-Yoon, J., and Jasper, C. R., Key Dimensions of Womens Ready-to-wear Apparel: Developing a Consumer Size-labeling System, Clothing Textiles Res. J. 14(1), 8995 (1996). 36. Otieno, R., The Role of Garment Sizing in Creation of Customer Satisfaction: Indications from Focus Group Responses, J. Fashion Mark. Manage. 4(4), 325335 (2000). 37. Faust, M. E., Carrier, S., and Baptiste, P., Introducing a New Labeling System for Womens Ready-to-wear, POMS, Boston, USA (2006). 38. Faust, M. E., Proposition dun Modle dEtiquetage Fonde sur lEstimation des Formes par Analogie des Tailles, Ecole Polytechnique de Montral, Qubec, Canada (2007). 39. [TC]2, Size USA, Lets Size Up America The National Sizing Survey Final Report CD (20032004). 40. Sears Catalogue, Sears Catalogue Automne-Hiver, Canada (2004).

9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Diffrient, N., Tilley, A. R., and Bardagjy, J. C., Human Scale 1/2/3, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA (1974). ISO, http://www.standardsglossary.com, The ISO Standard Glossary (1976). Workman, J. E., Body Measurement Specifications for Fit Models as a Factor in Clothing Size Variation, Clothing Textiles Res. J. 10(1), 3136 (1991). Beazley, A., Size and Fit: Procedures in Undertaking a Survey of Body Measurements Part I, and Formulation of Body Measurement Tables and Sizing Systems Part 2, J. Fashion Mark. Manage. 2(1), 5585 (1997), and 2(3), 260284 (1998). Ashdown, S. P., An Investigation of the Structure of Sizing Systems: a Comparison of Three Multidimensional Optimized Sizing Systems Generated from Anthropometric Data with the ASTM Standard D5585-94, Int. J. Clothing Sci. Technol. 10(5), 324341 (1998). Winks, J. M., Clothing Sizes International Standardization, The Textile Institute, Redwood Books, Manchester, UK (1997). McCulloch, C. E., Paal, B., and Ashdown, S. P., An Optimization Approach to Apparel Sizing, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 19, 492 499 (1998). Gould-Decauville, P., Bruere, C., Uhalde-Roux, C., and Khatar, L., Guide Pratique des Tailles dans 36 Pays. Tome II, Etudes Bimestrielles La Vigie Internationale du vtir-textile, (2nd Edn.), Fdration de la Maille, Clichy, France (1999). Turner, J. P., and Bond, T., Made-to-measure Garments for Ladies Catering for Wide Ranging Stature and Length Measurements for Standard and Outsize Ladies, Int. J. Clothing Sci. Technol. 11(4), 216225 (1999). Workman, J. E., and Lentz, E. S., Measurement Specifications for Manufacturers Prototype Bodies, Clothing Textiles Res. J. 18(4), 251259 (2000). Yertutan, C., Problems of Young People Related to Anthropometric Measures of Ready-to-wear Clothes, J. Qafqaz Univ. #8 (2001). Istook, C. L., and Hwang, S.-J., 3D Body Scanning Systems with Application to the Apparel Industry, J. Fashion Mark. Manage. 5(2), 120132 (2001). United States Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards (USDCOTS), Commercial Standard CS215-58 Body Measurements for the Sizing of Womens Patterns and Apparel, A Recorded Voluntary Standard of the Trade, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA (1958). United States Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards (USDCOTS), Voluntary Product Standard PS42 70, Body Measurements for the Sizing of Womens Patterns and Apparel, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA (1971). Schofield, N. A., and LaBat, K. L., Exploring the Relationships of Grading, Sizing, and Anthropometric Data, Clothing Textiles Res. J. 23(1), 1327 (2005). Hamel, C., and Salvas, G., Cest Moi, ma Personnalit, mon Style, ditions Communiplex, Qubec, Canada (1992).

Downloaded from http://trj.sagepub.com by Ngoc Nguyen Thi Thuy on October 22, 2009