Why Made to Measure?
|
|
Time to read 5 min
Why have we adopted the made-to-measure model?
Firstly, in practical recognition of the full diversity of women which simply cannot be reflected in “standard” sizing. Secondly, this model is in adherence to our commitment to reducing our footprint through only producing desired garments, and by doing so we can do our part in limiting the environmental impact of the fashion industry.
Why should you consider a made-to-measure garment?
One of the most compelling reasons to opt for made-to-measure clothing is the impeccable fit that it provides. Unlike ready-to-wear items that cater to generic and unrealistic size charts, made-to-measure garments are crafted specifically for your body measurements. Made-to-measure garments are also crafted with precision and attention to detail. Not to mention, you can select the detailing you prefer whether that is the rise and silhouette of your trousers, or simply adding monogrammed initials to your shirt cuff. Our skilled tailors take the time to ensure that every stitch is perfect, resulting in a piece that stands the test of time, and is reflective of your own unique style.
A brief history of clothing sizes
“Standard” sizing is utter bs. Groundbreaking, we know. Who exactly is it “standard” for, except perhaps a mythical woman of a bygone era? This is well represented in the fact that only 10% of mass-market and 0.6% of luxury apparel apparel brands even carry the sizes that make up the majority of the U.S. population. [1] Then when we get to the specific dimensions of those sizes, they are most often based off of an ‘hourglass’ body type, which comprises less than 10% of the female population - and is even less common as we get older given that our waists expand as we age. [2]
Ready-To-Wear clothing has existed for a relatively short period of time, just since the industrial revolution, and did not become widespread (particularly for women) until the 20th century. Previously, clothes were made to fit each person either by the individual themselves, their family members, or professional tailors and dressmakers.
The (attempted) creation of a universal standard for sizing in America did not occur until the 1940s, and unsurprisingly it was done very problematically. Men’s sizing data was more easily obtained, as they were required to have their measurements taken when joining the military. In order to create women’s sizes they recruited 15,000 women, predominantly those from a lower socioeconomic background who needed the participation fee, and took their measurements. Using the unquestioned assumption that most women had an hourglass figure, the primary basis from which sizes were created was bust size. [3] The most deeply flawed part of this data “collection” however, was that non-white women had their data erased. This skewed definition of the “normal” body-type simply confirms that from their outset, “standard” sizes were never meant to fit everyone. [4]
The “typical” American bodies. Source: https://twitter.com/BrendanCormier/status/1114536634480041984
“Size universality is an alluring idea that appeals to our need for order, but order is a false god that would actually make it harder to buy clothes by limiting the shapes and dimensions available for our diverse bodies.” [5]
By the 1980s, this universal standard was ditched and manufacturers were left to define sizes themselves. This ushered in an era of vanity sizing, where brands pursued a strategy of flattering their customers by shifting down the numbers of their sizes - despite these not being concretely associated with any specific measurements. [6] This practice has carried on to this day, with wide discrepancies between what a size 8 could be in any particular store, and is all the more frustrating when shopping online and unable to try on a garment for yourself. Consumers understandable adaptation to this? Order multiple sizes and send back the ones that don’t fit. Unfortunately, the environmental ramifications of this practice simply add to what is already a highly pollutive industry, which brings us to our next topic —
The sustainability question
According to a Mckinsey study, nearly 70% of returns are attributed to poor fit, and nearly 30% of all online apparel purchases are returned. [7] Subsequently, many of these returns simply go straight to the landfill – particularly in the realm of fast fashion. Practically, for companies that do not put a strong emphasis on moral or environmental values, if it costs more to get that item to another customer than to dispose of it then into the incinerator it goes. Most retailers don’t specifically advertise how they handle returns (bad look!) but we do know that in 2022, 9.5 billion pounds of clothing returns ended up in landfills. [8] This outcome has resulted from a chain of bad decision making, from poor design choices, to improper sizing guidance, and a lack of investment in the technology to effectively handle return processes. It is also yet another example of how disconnected we have become from the value of our garments, that from the consumer to the business we view them as something disposable. Our model makes an attempt to confront this from the garment production stage; ensuring that comprehensive and individualized measurements are used in the creation of the garment, such that we always achieve a proper fit.
The other key dimensions of the fashion industry’s sustainability issues are those of overconsumption and overproduction. Globally, our shopping habits have changed drastically; consumers purchase 60% more clothing than in the year 2000, and keep those pieces for half as long. [9] The average garment is worn only 7 times before it is discarded. [10] This is understandable when you can purchase a top online for less than a latte that was never intended to last past that 6th (or even 2nd) wash anyhow. Social media drives micro-trends at an alarming rate, making it easier and more desirable to try on different styles and identities, and subsequently discard them. This has shifted our mindset away from truly valuing our clothes, investing in lasting and well-made pieces, and even taking the time to develop our own personal, enduring sense of style. These consumption patterns are also driven by the business side, inherent to the fashion industry are trend cycles changing from season to season, social media has simply sped these up.
In driving trends and guessing what will land, companies will inevitably miss the mark sometimes and wind up with surplus inventory. Approximately 30 percent of all clothes produced globally are never even sold, according to the Australian Circular Textile Association (ACTA). [11] And fast fashion isn’t the only culprit of disposing of items at this stage; Burberry was infamously found destroying their products rather than cheapening the brand by selling them at a lower cost, a practice that is not uncommon amongst luxury apparel brands.
At Impostor, we were not satisfied with the current availability of high quality women’s professional garments, nor in the traditional approaches to creating women’s clothing overall. We are confident that a made-to-measure approach offers the best option in consistently delivering beautifully made garments that will fit and diverse body type, and that the wearer can be confident in good conscience that they are contributing to a more ethical and sustainable method of producing their garments. One that honors the uniqueness of women, the clothes that we wear, and the natural resources required to produce them.
[1]https://www.voguebusiness.com/fashion/tanya-taylor-plus-size-inclusivity-profit
[3] https://time.com/3532014/women-clothing-sizes-history/
[4]https://www.businessinsider.com/eugenics-experiment-set-the-course-for-womens-clothing-sizes-2022-11
[5]https://www.vox.com/2019/10/17/20898585/sizing-fit-prediction-clothing-bodyscan-made-to-order
[8]https://www.businessinsider.com/returns-to-retailers-sent-to-landfills-2023-2
[10]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-price-of-fast-fashion-11567096637