“Solving sizing in fashion e-commerce: How to navigate virtual fitting rooms”
The Sizing Problem
Sizing in fashion has long-rooted problems: a brief history
Harrods department Store, circa 1905
Source: www.commons.wikipedia.org
The history of fashion sizing is engrained in the shift from bespoke tailoring to mass-produced ready-to-wear clothing. Before the 19th century, clothing was always custom-made, with tailors creating garments based on individual measurements. Standardized sizing began with military uniforms in the 1800s, which required efficiency and consistency. Chest measurements were the foundation for men's sizes, but women's clothing remained custom or pattern-based for decades.
The first major step toward standardizing women's sizes came with the USDA's 1939 study, which collected body measurements from thousands of American women. However, the data was skewed due to a lack of diversity among participants and questionable methodologies. The 1949 National Bureau of Standards (USA) study refined this data, leading to the introduction of the “Commercial Standard” in 1958, which categorized sizes into ranges like "Misses" and "Women." Despite these efforts, sizing struggled to account for diverse body shapes and was often criticized for reinforcing the idealized hourglass figure.
Enter the changing or fitting room
Fashion retail began in small, specialized boutiques in 17th and 18th-century Europe, particularly in Paris. These early shops catered to aristocrats, offering custom-made garments and exclusive access to the latest trends. Boutiques allowed customers to interact directly with shopkeepers and try on items, marking an early version of the fitting experience.
By the mid-19th century, grand department stores like Le Bon Marché in Paris and Harrods in London expanded on this idea, introducing fitting rooms to accommodate a growing middle class eager for ready-to-wear clothing. Changing rooms became a fixture, offering privacy and enhancing the allure of shopping by helping consumers visualize themselves in their purchases.
These early practices laid the groundwork for modern retail habits, and engrained in the modern consumer the habit of trying on clothes (or shoes) to assess their fit.
Sizing inconsistencies: an endemic challenge
Inconsistent sizing across clothing brands is a widespread issue driven by multiple factors related to industry practices and market strategies. One major reason is the lack of universal sizing standards. Brands often develop their own sizing charts to cater to specific customer demographics, creating variations based on their target audience's preferences and body types. For example, a brand catering to younger, fashion-forward consumers may use smaller fit models, while those targeting older or curvier demographics may adopt more generous sizing. This individuality allows brands to differentiate themselves but leads to significant inconsistencies for shoppers.
Inconsistent sizing is not only a result of differing brand strategies but also stems from the complexities of product development processes. A garment's sizing often starts with a single fit model chosen based on the creative director's vision, which may not represent the brand's broader customer demographic. This top-down approach prioritizes aesthetic ideals over inclusivity, creating patterns and sizing that fit the model but fail to align with the diversity of real body shapes within the target audience.
Furthermore, brands that rely on external manufacturers or suppliers frequently delegate the creation of paper patterns to these third parties. While this practice streamlines production, it introduces deviations from the brand's intended sizing because of differences in interpretation, expertise, and regional size norms used by the supplier. These variations are compounded by the absence of robust quality controls to ensure consistency across different production batches. Consequently, the size labeled on a garment may not match the brand's advertised standards, adding another layer of frustration for consumers trying to navigate already inconsistent sizing.
Historical shifts in sizing standards further complicate the issue. Over decades, societal ideals of body shapes have evolved, influencing how garments are designed and labeled. Practices like vanity sizing, where garments are labeled smaller than their actual size to boost consumer confidence, have exaggerated this problem. Additionally, geographic variations, such as differences between U.S., European, and Asian sizing systems, amplify confusion.
Charts created by The Washington Post using statistics released by the American Society of Testing and Materials and created by data visualiser, Max Galka
E-commerce's response to sizing issues: the size chart
The fashion e-commerce size chart emerged as online shopping gained popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s, becoming a key tool for brands to address the absence of in-person fitting rooms.
Initially, these charts were straightforward, providing a general guide based on assumed standard body measurements. However, as online shopping exploded, brands sought to streamline the digital experience, often adopting a single size chart per gender to cover their entire catalog, regardless of product or fit. This practice, while efficient for retailers, often left consumers confused and frustrated, as it failed to provide the nuanced guidance needed for the wide variety of fits and materials offered by modern apparel. It also overlooks critical variations in design, such as slim-fit versus oversized styles, the stretchiness of fabrics, or seasonal differences like winter coats versus summer dresses. A size guide for a stretchy jersey top might not accurately translate to a rigid denim jacket. By treating all garments as if they conform to a single standard, brands inadvertently create a disconnect between consumer expectations and the actual fit of their products.
Men's Ambiguous Clothing Size Chart
Source: www.evo.com
Another persistent issue with fashion e-commerce size charts is the ambiguity over whether they reflect body measurements or garment dimensions. This lack of clarity can mislead consumers; for instance, a "bust" measurement might refer to the circumference of the wearer's chest or the finished garment, which will fit differently depending on ease and cut. This confusion is compounded by inconsistent terminology, leaving consumers unsure how to interpret the provided numbers or how closely they should adhere to the chart when choosing a size.
E-commerce size charts are further undermined by inconsistencies in product development and manufacturing. As previously discussed, deviations in sizing can occur during the pattern-making process, especially when external suppliers are involved. This results in garments that don't consistently match the size chart. Quality control failures can exacerbate this problem, with variations between production runs leading to discrepancies even within the same size. Consequently, consumers who rely on size charts may still end up with ill-fitting garments, discouraging trust in online sizing tools.
Even in the best-case scenario—where size charts are accurate and transparent—they remain underutilized by consumers. Many people lack access to measuring tapes at home or may find the process of taking their own measurements cumbersome. Even when they attempt it, human error is common, particularly with difficult-to-measure areas like shoulders or busts. For example, a woman measuring her bust may drop the tape (or keep it too tight) as she attempts to measure around her back, or someone measuring their shoulders may misjudge the correct points to include (additionally to not being able to reach them).
This combination of effort and potential for error discourages consumers from engaging with size charts, leaving them to rely on guesswork or familiarity with a brand's sizing, which often proves unreliable.
Other resources for the online fashion shopper: pictures and fit information
When shopping online, the imagery of models wearing the product is one of the most prominent tools available to consumers for gauging size and fit. However, these visuals are unreliable due to the priorities behind their creation. Fashion photoshoots are designed to make garments appear as appealing as possible, focusing on aesthetics rather than providing accurate fit information. Models often wear samples, which may not align perfectly with production sizes, and stylists routinely modify garments to improve their on-camera appearance. For instance, pins or clips are used to adjust the fit of the garment to the model's body, masking potential issues like excess fabric or misaligned proportions. Even when brands include the model's height and weight, these details are often insufficient, as they do not account for variations in body shapes or how the fabric drapes differently across diverse builds, and combined with the highly-altered photoshoots can be flat-out misleading.
Clipped clothes on mannequins
Source: blog.mannequinmadness.com
Another challenge lies in the frequent absence of essential product information that could help consumers make informed decisions about sizing. Critical details like fabric composition, stretch, and intended fit (e.g., slim, regular, oversized) are often missing from product descriptions. This gap arises from systemic inefficiencies in the fashion production process. Brands frequently fail to transfer data from product lifecycle management (PLM) or enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems into their e-commerce platforms. Even when this information exists in technical documents, it is rarely made accessible to e-commerce systems (e.g. PIM - Product Information Management). As a result, fit descriptions or fabric details are either omitted or inaccurately guessed by content creators, relying on misleading imagery (see photoshoots discussed above) rather than technical specifications. This disconnect between the product's intended fit—shaped during development by patternmakers and creative directors—and the messaging presented online leaves consumers without reliable guidance, compounding their difficulty in selecting the right size.