Shopping for clothes makes me wish I was fat

September 11, 2007 12:00 AM

Why don't stores stock more small sizes in mens clothing? The XS/S items sell out immediately, and the L/XL/XXL items are always left over on clearance. This makes my clothing options limited and expensive. What gives?

It makes sense to me that stores want to stock more of the most popular sizes. But if there are zero size S shirts on a clearance rack compared to numerous size L/XL/XXL shirts, isn't it clear to the store that they are losing potential sales?

I ask about this at stores, and am told things like, "We usually only get one or two Smalls in for each style, and they are gone within a few days."

Why?!

posted by reeddavid to Clothing, Beauty, & Fashion (31 answers total)

Averages. The average size for men and women is X, so stores will stock more of X, because more of their shoppers are likely to be size X than size Z.

This isn't uncommon for women's clothes either. I see many 14s and and hardly any smalls or 6s. The average size has gone up over the years, and thus, so have the sizes stores are more likely to stock more of.

Yes, they wind up on clearance more often, but if most men are size L, stocking more of L is logical, even if S sells out faster, because there are simply fewer S customers.
posted by cmgonzalez at 12:12 AM on September 11, 2007

I think cmgonzalez is kinda onto something. I could be wrong but I think part of the reason you're having trouble now is because there is a trend in menswear for things to be very, very fitted.

So, the store may be stocking more mediums than any other sizes because medium is the average size of the customer, but those medium-sized customers are buying smalls in order to get a more fitted look.

This is just a guess, though.
posted by Brittanie at 12:24 AM on September 11, 2007

Response by poster: Yes, they wind up on clearance more often, but if most men are size L, stocking more of L is logical, even if S sells out faster, because there are simply fewer S customers.

Yes, there is a higher demand for size L than size S. But if size S doesn't even make it through the season, let alone to the clearance rack, would you agree that there are even fewer size S items than there are fewer size S customers? If 60% of customers want size L and 10% of customers want size S, then for every six L shirts there should be one S shirt. But often there isn't even one.

There is a higher demand for reduced-fat milk than for whole milk, but that doesn't mean that the grocery store is always out of whole milk. It just means they stock much more 1% milk than whole milk. Why should it be different for clothing?
posted by reeddavid at 12:42 AM on September 11, 2007

Could people who are slimmer care more about their appearance? (The thinking being that people who want to look good also want to look slim). If that were the case, then they're less likely to want to buy something from last seasons range and they're more likely to be happy to pay full price for the latest duds. This would give stores an incentive to limit supply.
(Apologies for any stereotyping here)
posted by seanyboy at 12:45 AM on September 11, 2007

Response by poster: So, the store may be stocking more mediums than any other sizes because medium is the average size of the customer, but those medium-sized customers are buying smalls in order to get a more fitted look.

The stores don't have a clue what size we actually are, they only know what clothes we buy. So if everyone is buying a small, they know this.
posted by reeddavid at 12:46 AM on September 11, 2007

It's because they don't sell. I have the exact same problem as you and have taken it up a number of different stores. The answer is always that XS/S sizes simply don't sell as well and the manufacturers typically only send in a few of them with new stock.

My personal guess? This is somewhat of a North American phenomenon. North American men have an issue with anything labeled "small" so they avoid it like the plague.

It's strange, I know. Sometimes I look at the larger sizes and wonder if the average size of a human male is giant. Some of the medium sized offerings would work as curtains.

A few places that I've had good results with are Zara and American Apparel.
posted by purephase at 12:49 AM on September 11, 2007

Think it might have something to do with where you live? If say, you live in Manhattan, and are buying from chain stores that supply the same range of sizes to every store in the country, that's not going to work out so well for you.

Other than that, confirmation bias? I've dropped a couple of sizes recently, and now my old size seems to be on clearance racks everywhere, when previously I could never find them.
posted by crabintheocean at 12:52 AM on September 11, 2007

You can always fit into a bigger size, but you can't cram yourself into a smaller size. Maybe?
posted by msittig at 1:22 AM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

When it comes to t-shirts especially, I will buy guys shirts because they are longer in the body and tend to be a better fit than the girls ones. I also prefer the heavy style cotton that they're normally made of (unlike the thin crappy ribbed stuff I find that many girls shirts are made from). I tend to buy and XS or S, and I am a very average sized (M/L) girl. This could be part of your problem.

I see a similar trend when I'm trying to buy skinny or straight legged jeans in M/L and can't find any in my size - apparently guys are preferring to buy women's jeans over men's ones because they are more fitted or something. Go figure.
posted by cholly at 1:42 AM on September 11, 2007

If 60% of customers want size L and 10% of customers want size S, then for every six L shirts there should be one S shirt. But often there isn't even one.

Right. But lets run that thought experiment out to its logical conclusion. Lets say that the store originally gets the following:

10 XL
60 L
20 M
10 S

Now, lets say that the store pretty accurately estimates how many shirts they need, so on average they sell 90% of their shirts. That would mean that, at the end of the season they will have:

1 XL
6 L
2 M
1 S

You walk in and see one small and 9 of everything else and think "what gives?" In addition, it only takes one more person buying a small for them to sell out, while it takes six more sales for the large to sell out. (Of course, in real life, stores are always getting more stock).

BTW, I have long lamented this problem, and second the suggestion of European or Canadian chain stores like Zara.
posted by googly at 1:47 AM on September 11, 2007

purephase, it's an Australian phenomenon as well. Everthing's L, XL, XXL etc. XS, S and even M is hard to find - even in sports shops, where you'd think people were a bit thinner.

I'm generally a Small to Medium, so on a recent trip to China found the L sizes to be just right :)
posted by flutable at 3:24 AM on September 11, 2007

related
posted by jejune at 4:43 AM on September 11, 2007

This doesn't answer your question, but have you considered ordering your clothes either online or through catalogs? That way you may have a better chance of getting your size when you order.
posted by fallenposters at 4:49 AM on September 11, 2007

Also, have you tried looking in the Boys / Young Men's sections for your sizes?
posted by fallenposters at 4:50 AM on September 11, 2007

Seconding the boys' section suggestion. You'll likely save money that way, too.
posted by thejoshu at 5:50 AM on September 11, 2007

Confirmation bias. From my perspective, stores are always out of L shirts, size 12 shoes and 36x34 pants.
posted by electroboy at 6:22 AM on September 11, 2007

I think confirmation bias might be an issue, because I wear L or XL depending on the company, and I find clearance racks to be full of XS, S, and M clothes. Even if they simply bought 1/5 each of the five sizes from XS to XL, that would mean that 80% of the clothes are not in your size, and on the clearance rack you are hoping that the nice blue shirt happens to be available in that size. And I'd bet that they don't buy equal amounts of each size, probably more M and L at a guess, so your XS clothes are a real minority, and the really good stuff got bought before the clearance sale, giving you (and me) some pretty slim pickings, as it were.

There may also be some sort of connection to the "vanity sizing" that is going on, even in men's clothes, whereby someone who used to buy XL's will now buy L's and so on. So your XS is bigger than it used to be, and that may mean you have more competition for the clothes sold in that size.
posted by Forktine at 6:42 AM on September 11, 2007

I'll give a third on the confirmation bias; I wear L/XL and find a lot of S/XS/M sizes when going through clearance racks.
posted by TedW at 7:54 AM on September 11, 2007

I have two suggestions:

1. Keep mentioning it to salespeople. For one, who knows? Maybe now and then they'll be able to find a small for you from the fitting room rack or something. And also, they won't know they're missing out on your business unless you tell them.

2. Remember the garments you like when you're shopping, then look for them later online. Especially if you try on a medium and you're like "this fits almost perfectly! If only they had it one size down!" They might have it in small on the website--sometimes for cheaper, too. (I notice sometimes, especially with Urban Outfitters, that last-season stuff that's still full price at the store has already gone on sale online).

(I'm one of those chicks who buys guys shirts in size small, too. I like how the sleeves are just a little bit longer! And the fabric is sometimes softer and more durable, at least at the mid-price chains. Oh, and my man is one of those really skinny guys who insists on buying mediums that he swims in. I don't think he'd admit it was because he doesn't like to think of himself as "small," but who knows?)
posted by lampoil at 9:02 AM on September 11, 2007

36x34 pants.

Yeah, the obesity epidemic is killing me for buying pants. I've mostly been a 36x34 and that's hard enough to find - the common 36x32s are highwaters for me. I've lost a little bit of weight due to healthier living and I should probably be 34x34 now (as in I really really need to wear a belt or my pants start hanging off my ass), but I don't think I've ever even seen that.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:12 AM on September 11, 2007

I'm with electroboy et al. The stores I shop in are always out of XL tall. When I'm searching through piles and piles of M, S, and XS my wonder is akin to purephase's, but in reverse, "Who are all these tiny, tiny men?"

Though I do wonder if the store's buyers don't think, "Well we have to buy enough for all the big guys, but in a pinch, the little guys can go to the boys' section." Fallenposter might be on to something...
posted by the christopher hundreds at 9:46 AM on September 11, 2007

I find the premise of this thread to be specious- if you live on the fringes of the clothing inventory like reeddavid and I (I'm a XL Tall and a 44" waist), you become overly sensitive to the bias towards average-sized clothing.

"Sometimes I look at the larger sizes and wonder if the average size of a human male is giant. Some of the medium sized offerings would work as curtains."

Pardon me, purephase, but not everyone fits easily into overhead storage bins.
posted by Lord Kinbote at 11:26 AM on September 11, 2007

3rding electro boy's confirmation bias - I often curse the excess M's and S's.

TheOnlyCoolTim - 34x34's do exist, and I find them from time to time. Sadly, 34x36 is what I want, but I'm not too embarassed to get the shorter 34's when I need new pants.

44x32 seems to be all the rage.
posted by nobeagle at 12:20 PM on September 11, 2007

Response by poster: Another note: I think the notion of catering to an "average size" is incorrect. The average is made up of the highs and lows. Sizing should follow a distribution of discrete sizes.
posted by reeddavid at 12:43 PM on September 11, 2007

BTW, @fallenposters, as a Men's S/XS, I must note that, while it sounds like a good idea in theory, shirts from the Boys L/XL section tend to have uncomfortably small neck holes (and I don't have a Vin Diesel neck or anything), and, moreover, are often very much the wrong shape (too wide, armpits cut in at an odd angle) for my torso. Of course, your mileage is bound to vary.
posted by myrrh at 1:58 PM on September 11, 2007

I have to disagree with the confirmation bias assumption. I've been told by many retail workers that the most uncommon sizes are s/xs.

Now, this depends on what stores you frequent, but the larger stores (Sears etc.) really do carry more of the larger sizes. You want proof? Take a look through clearance racks. The likelihood of finding any small sizes is incredibly rare.

Lord Kinbote, all kidding aside, I was strictly referring to averages not trying to offend. I'm not even that small, I just like fitted clothing which is difficult to find except for European inspired stores.
posted by purephase at 5:18 PM on September 11, 2007

You want proof? Take a look through clearance racks.

I do. And they are always full of smalls and extra smalls.
posted by dame at 6:08 PM on September 11, 2007

cmgonzalez: "This isn't uncommon for women's clothes either. I see many 14s and and hardly any smalls or 6s. "

Proof of confirmation bias! When you're size 14 they're all 6s, trust me.
posted by loiseau at 7:23 PM on September 11, 2007

You know, the whole "men don't want to buy anything for themselves sized 'small'," with the concomitant implications about how we humans view sizing through the eyes of ego and fantasy instead of reality, is depressingly convincing. Especially when considered in tandem with the utter havoc of the sizing of women's clothing, wherein (depending on how much the manufacturer is trying to cater to my vanity) I can wear anything from a 6 to a 10, although the supposed "official" measurement charts would have me as a 12.

I know quite a few women (besides myself, and the others who've appeared in this thread already) who buy men's small, and I wonder if maybe we're depleting the already limited supply. (If so, sorry, guys!)

And just a couple of thoughts from my own experience: 1) seconding fallenposters and lampoil about buying on-line; I've had much better luck that way than in retail venues; and 2) I've also had oddly good luck finding smalls at Target. This may be a local thing, of course, but might be worth checking out, and the quality of Target stuff is decent if one sticks to basics (t-shirts and the like).
posted by Kat Allison at 8:12 PM on September 11, 2007

I have a different take on this. I'm from the Midwest, but am married to an Asian-American woman, and I have a number of family friends and friendly in-laws who are too. One of those friends is living in the Bay Area, and wears mens' small. He prefers to come to the Midwest to shop for clothes, because he said that in the Midwest, he can find S/M sizes, only the L/XL are sold out. In the Bay Area, which has WAY better shopping, the S/M are sold out. So our availability trumps their better stores when it comes to his very practical shopping attitude.

Could it be that the different proportions of ethnic makeup in some cities/states/regions, possibly combined with a more health-conscious attitude in some cities/states/regions skews availability of some sizes?
posted by HalfSlab at 11:40 AM on September 12, 2007

Where "are too" means "are Asian-American too". Went and messed up my first Ask comment!
posted by HalfSlab at 11:42 AM on September 12, 2007