This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing sucks for women's clothing!
I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?"
Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing brands?
This is, to be clear, a sincere question - not a veiled argument against OP or anything! It seems like there are probably some structural or psychological or market forces stopping that from happening and I'd love to understand them. Same with the "womens clothes have no pockets" thing!
>Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing brands?
Because
- in reality it's not much of a problem. Billions of women manage to buy and wear clothes just fine. Some might fit slightly better or worse, but unless you have very special body shape (and even extreme thick/overweight/tall/short are covered by niche brands) you can get in any clothes store and get plenty of clothes to wear
- some random brand making something that fits better doesn't mean any sizeable consumer percentage is going to buy it. First because see above, and also because a lot of clothes purchases are about brand and fashion and status signalling, not mere fit.
- if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only". Obviously brands for thicker and even obese people also exist, but they're seen as a brand of need, not a brand you'd be proud having to wear
> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only"
The elephants in the room from the raw data is it is very clear some brands do not want average middle aged women wearing their products. Anthropology seems to be the most clear about this in that they have a literal gap between their standard and plus-sized ranges that excludes the adult median woman.
Now some brands might do that out of snobishness, but I expect there is a feedback loop here:
1) Young, attractive women want to make fashion choices that signal they are young, attractive women.
2) They buy from fashion lines that don't fit average adult women.
3) Average adult women detect that the fashionable choice is these brands and feel left out, because a fair number of them would also like to be young and attractive again. And a small but significant fraction feel really left out if some clothing brand calls them a size 20 waist / fat / shaped like a rectangle. Clothing brands detect this in their customer studies and respond appropriately.
4) People who just want clothes buy from H&M or wherever and don't write articles about how hard it is to fit clothes.
"Women" isn't really a homogeneous category when it comes to clothing, there is ongoing fierce competition between lots of different sub-groups of the female population to signal lots of different things. Men have it a bit easier because there is basically a 4-quadrant choice between upper & lower class, formal & casual with a lot of intricacy for people who care a lot about what brand of black leather shoe they own. Young girls are closer to men in that they aren't really trying to signal anything at that age, so clothing fits are a lot easier to manage.
By destandardising sizes. It isn't that hard to standardise if an industry thinks it'll help them; the article suggests there is already a relevant standards body. These companies are probably doing it for a reason. My guess would be maybe someone doesn't want to be an XXL 18 at J Crew so they can go to Reformation where they are more of a Regular 14.
> Signal what?
Age, health and status for women. Group membership too although that is generally to a lesser extent.
> I can understand age. But wouldn't everyone want to signal good health and high status?
Yeah, but generally not with fashion. Male fashion tends not to go to the same sort of lengths to showcase legs/torsos/arms/chest that women's fashion does. For men if they want to signal status they tend to buy a car they can't afford or something.
And male health is one of those areas where it is very complicated. A fat, balding man who smells funny can make up for that with a high income. A fat balding woman who smells funny might be able to do the same thing but I can't help feel sceptical at the idea.
Anyway, long story short, the people who aren't using fashion as signalling can just buy a shirt that fits and move on. It's a shirt. They aren't complicated.
There's also the fact that most men aren't very healthy - you'll often see very fit men wearing "revealing" and tight-fitting clothes that show off their muscles etc, whereas everyone else wears less revealing clothes because whatever they may reveal isn't very flattering.
The same is true for most women of course but a lot of them seem to wear revealing clothing regardless of how flattering it actually is.
People with bad health, low status being able to wear the same clothes as young women with good health and status removes the signalling benefit of those clothes.
> But wouldn't everyone want to signal good health and high status?
The thing with people is that they are all different. There are a lot of people who don't want to be of high status or signal it. There's lots of people who don't really care for health and value other things higher.
Some want to carry X sportswear with prominent branding, others take pride in high-price tag items without any explicit branding.
The "I identify with this athlete", "I identify with this musician", "I dgaf what you think of me" groups probably don't intersect much, with brands and offering catering to these and multiple others...?
If you are in taller than 95% for men, and reasonably fit, you might need a bigger waistline (think 36 or more), which is still the same length for pants (up to 34) with your socks showing even when standing (depending on your individual proportions), but much wider around hips and legs than you need. I imagine for shorter men, it's the inverse but equally bad.
Some brands will carry slim and extra long trousers, but if I find a model that fits (not all models from the same brand do), I immediatelly buy a few. Otherwise, I try to get tailored stuff, but that's slow and annoying.
For shirts, it's even worse: unless you can find an extra long version, you are going to be wearing a sail and your underpants/ass will pop out when you sit down. But these are easier to get sewed for you as you can just have a single tailor make many of them as needed.
So it's probably easier for median men, but sizes scale exactly the same without regard to actual proportions for simply bigger people.
> I imagine for shorter men, it's the inverse but equally bad.
Not really, as a quite short guy, many shops will offer me to have the clothes fitted, and if not it's pretty trivial to fit them myself. Maybe on the most extreme end of short it's more of an issue, but in general I suspect shortening pants and shirts is signficantly easier than lengthening them.
I'm a 5'5", 110lbs man. I shop at the teens section and get larges. I may not get the trendiest looks, but I get cheaper clothes that fits and looks good on me!
I also tried Stitch Fix, they had a surprising amount of stuff that could fit me (both fashionably and size wise), albeit not as cheap as kids' clothes.
I might grab something like sweatpants from kids section, but for normal clothes I generally prefer a bit more quality. I work remotely so a good pair of pants can last me more than half a decade, so I don't mind buying quality and having it fitted. But yeah, I feel as a short guy there's actually more than plenty of options for us, I never felt that clothes were an issue. Well, there was a shop once that put the smallest sizes on the highest shelf, I don't know if they thought it was funny, but I didn't go back.
That's fair. I work remotely as well and to be honest I just cycle through the same two pants I got from Stitch Fix and a few collared shirts, and some concert merch for more casual outings.
I was speaking more to waistline — I have a 28 inch waist and the smallest I usually find is like 30 or more, so even a belt can't fix that.
Thanks both for the perspective: yeah, even if simply scaled down proportionally, you are left with too long garments that you can fold/shorten, so a much better situation than tall men who can end up looking like cartoon caricatures if dressed with widely available garments.
And don't get me wrong, tall girls (my sister is 6'1") have it even worse.
Its only a problem for online shopping. In store you can simply grab multiple sizes and see which one fits best. Many online stores try to give multiple measurements of the clothes but even then it's extremely difficult to predict how it will look on you.
Online shoppers seem to solve this issue by just buying multiple items and returning the ones that don't fit. After which the retailer throws these returns in the bin.
> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only".
This is how many brands originally blow up and grow famous. Especially in Asia.
You make clothing in sizes only extremely slim people can wear.
This is an extremely popular brand that specifically does this, and it's hardly the only one:
Lululemon famously had that 'incident' where they flat out stated their brand just wasn't suitable for fat people. Given their brand identity this makes complete sense, whilst also excluding a large group of people. Expect more of this type of edgy marketing — it is in line with the zeitgeist (consider that eugenic jeans ad).
That commercial could have been any attractive woman without changing the tone or meaning. it just drives some people crazy that a subset of humans "controls" like half the land on earth but comprises only 7% of the population, therefore everything about or having to do with that subset or the individuals therein is automatically considered "bad."
There were commercials that had jingles "bust a nut, bust a nut, just open up a can and bust a nut. you can do it in the bathroom, you can do it in the kitchen, you can do it with your best friend [...]" nearly 30 years ago. Commercials are generally in poor taste, but some people read way too much into it.
It's the political zeitgeist. If it were the Biden years, I think it would have been interpreted differently.
One of the reasons why it blew up is the relative silence from American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney, both of whom took their sweet time to respond to the negative press. They were likely pressed to figure out how not to piss off either side of the electorate. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Their silence felt like affirmation of the accusation.
The follow up with other models from other races was good, but it came really slow. The damage was done by the time they figured it out.
> you can get in any clothes store and get plenty of clothes to wear
"Getting into the clothes" is a low bar. I can get into this brown paper bag. Comfort is underrated.
> if some women absolutely can't find something in their size from a specific brand, that makes the brand even more exclusive, like it being "for fit people only".
Heh I think mens sizing signals the opposite: too skinny = insufficiently masculine.
Women in my life often voice their frustration with badly fitting bras or pants. In reality, it really is a problem, but it's a problem everyone just accepts.
It's one of those "if we put a man on the moon, why can't we solve this damn thing" kind of problems.
Throughout my life I've had various girlfriends complain about poorly-fitting bras, especially ones with under-wires that bite or break. It really seems like it should be a solved problem, but I kinda don't think it is.
In reality its a massive fucking problem. This is why so many women end up wearing men's clothing, which doesn't fit their shape at all, just because they're the only things they can find that they can actually fit into!
What special snowflake part of the world do you live in that any woman can walk into any clothes shop and find clothes that fit? Because I call bullshit on that.
Not saying it isn't but the part that's hard to understand is why can't a new brand or a sub brand fix it? It seems almost trivial to label differently, and solve a problem worth solving for and earn money?
And no, don't tell me why existing brand doesn't do it, like all the other replies here.
Based on the article, several brands have clothes that range from the low 20s to the mid 50s which covers essentially all waist sizes. If a woman has a 55 inch waist or a 20 inch waist she cannot buy pants at American Eagle but I wouldn’t characterize it as a massive problem. In fact the article identifies exactly where such a woman could find pants.
If you read the article, you've also seen that the proportions do not scale properly. Waste size is not the only important measurement, and as men it would behoove us to seek to understand this issue before going straight to dismissal.
You realize clothes are more than just waist sizes? Pants, for example, need to account for waist, hips, thighs, and length. All of these are very very different ratios on women of different body shapes.
And what you've said actually confirms that what I said is accurate - women can't walk into _any_ clothes shop and find clothes that fit, which is what the poster I replied to said.
Plus, some of the data there is not consistent globally. I don't know a lot of the brands there, but Uniqlo is one we do have and they do not do 3XL in women's clothing here in Australia.
It's also linked to the modern trend of having tightly fitted clothing. You don't have this issue with skirts, or wider, pleated pants with a high waistline. Those clothes were the norm before the 60's, since it's much roomier and allows to fit a wide range of body types.
> in reality it's not much of a problem. Billions of women manage to buy and wear clothes just fine
No. Billions of women don't have any other choice. Take your wife (or even better, mom) shopping for clothes. You'll learn a lot about "manage just fine". Often its a multi-hour slog through all stores trying to find just one item that doesn't look like shit, and fits somewhat well.
I push back on this "it's only a woman problem". How is this any different for men? Re-read this post, but switch the gender. It seems unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
"The grand scheme" consists of many such "small insignificant problems". And no one said it was only a woman problem. And I explicitly called out one of the arguments, not the "degender, men have similar problems etc."
In the "THe VILLaIN aRC oF VANiTY SiZINg" section, vanity sizing is framed as marketing strategy which is successful because of the psychology around that - linking out to https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10577... for more detail.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time the most profitable marketing strategy is unrelated to aligning with what's optimal for the consumer.
Translating the confusing science speak, basically:
Appearance self-esteem takes a hit when they don't fit in a size. They take it out on the clothes: "I hate their stuff, they suck." They buy more of other stuff to compensate for the hit, whether non-sized accessories (I am pretty) or book/tech (I am smart even if I don't fit).
People confident in their appearance are immune to the effect, and simply think it's sized wrong or runs small.
They use precise but indirect terminology e.g., "heightened level of appearance self-esteem" rather than "confident in their appearance".
Indirect phrasing e.g., "they respond more favorably to products that can help to repair their damaged appearance self-esteem" rather than something direct and easy to understand like "they feel bad that they don't fit, so they end up buying other things like makeup/jewelry to feel better about their appearance".
Being able to easily, and quickly read scientific literature is not a universal trait. You're in the top 1% (probably top 0.1%?) if you're able to do that and actually understand the source material.
The average person has a hard time reading and fully understanding a newspaper article or cooking instructions on a pre-prepared meal.
The first paragraph is fine -- I agree. The second paragraph is a silly hyperbole that comes up over and over again on HN and needs to die. Major newspapers are written for about 8th grade level reading comprehension. Cooking instructions on a prep'd meal are probably much lower -- maybe 5th grade. The "average person" (whatever that term means) living in highly developed nations can read at 8th grade level or above.
Why can't you write that? It is much more accurate than their own version since what they wrote is very suggestive while this is just describing what happened.
I think they read the full paper rather than the snippets and agree most couldn't tell you what Cronbach's alpha is, how ANOVA works, or otherwise accurately interpret the meaning of the results sections in a casual read through. One can grab the full paper on resources such as Anna's Archive if they don't have access via a university or such.
Of course, the trick (once you know) is you don't need a comment summarizing it for you. The abstract is alright in a pinch, but the "General Discussion" in psychology papers is the equivalent of "Conclusion" and aims to discuss the results directly. It's still a bit verbose... but the language should at least be very familiar in comparison.
Of course education could help about this and other psychologically manipulative tactics by corps but such kind of education is heavily frowned upon for being seeing as anti-capitalist and (more propagandistic) as un-american, so there is zero of such kind of education.
Education doesn’t help here, what are you talking about?!
Educated people can read as many books as they want about manipulation and still be susceptible to it. The manipulation works on a much deeper emotional level. We can’t change who we are, no matter how much education we get.
Being told by a brand “you’re fat” hurts no matter how many papers you’ve read or published and “you’re still thin and beautiful and desirable!” feels amazing.
Thankfully, for most people on Earth, the prospect of seeming "Un-American" is not relevant. It's also not a problem to argue against free-market economies - see Austria's second biggest city (Graz), which has an elected mayor from the communist party.
Again, you should avoid buying clothes, but not because women don't like clothes. The problem is sizes. First of all, women's clothing sizes don't mean anything. Suppose you're looking at a dress, and the tag says it's a size 14. You could measure that dress with every known measuring instrument, checking for every known unit of measurement, and you would never find any dimension that was 14 anythings long. Not only that, but you would never find any dimension that corresponded to the same dimension on any other size-14 dress. Not only that, but chances are you would never find any woman in the entire world who would admit to being a size 14.
I'm pretty sure everyone who cares about getting a good fit (and isn't simply trying the clothes on in person) is looking at measurements, which you can usually find for any half-decent vendor (though it may take some poking around their site). The best have it per-garment (or per-cut), less-good but usually still alright is having a guide to the measurements they base their sizing off of.
Even guys can't really get away with just "Small, Medium, Large" if they want a decent fit that they can predict from just the label. Modifiers for the cut become necessary (regular, slim, relaxed, extra-slim, that kind of thing). And that's for clothes that are pretty forgiving on the fit, like knits...
Women's clothes are even trickier. It's basically impossible to boil them down to one or even two size metrics or labels unless you're relying on a shitload of stretch in every other part of the garment, which is something that usually only very bad garments do (think: Temu). Women's proportions are also far more variable. Shoulder-bust-waist-hip often sees some pretty wild differences, like two women will match on a couple of those measurements and be way far apart on the others. Then you've got height to worry about. Dudes can be similarly far outside the norm of distributions for the relations between their key measurements, but it's not as common—most of us have it relatively easy.
Looking at the actual measurements, though, I've found to be very reliable. I buy almost all my clothes on eBay and directly from brands on their websites, with great success, because I know both my own key measurements, and the dimensions of clothes that fit me well (I have some notes, doesn't take a lot of data points to have enough to be pretty accurate). I've also ordered for my wife with a similar strategy, works well there, though you're way more likely to run into cases of "OK there are zero sizes of this garment that will work for you, just gotta give up on this one" because of the issue above.
Ironically, one area that both genders can have trouble with is crotch seam length, though typically on opposite sides of the garment — but in women’s clothing it’s often worse than men’s due to the spectrum of “extra high rise” to “extra low rise” that’s added to the mix in women’s clothing. Aligning with the hourglass-mostly point of the article, the most common is High Rise, which corresponds to the higher ‘resting point’ on the torso cylinder for a waistband when women have gained fat deposits in the usual rearward hourglass places (as otherwise the waistband sits at a severely sloped angle from back to front). For rectangle or triangle folks, you will rarely find Low Rise or Extra Low Rise that have the appropriately-shortened crotch seam. For spoon folks, you have to shop at shops that cater to spoon shape, because most major retailers only cater to one specific shape and stretch simply isn’t enough to compensate for the rectangular to spoon difference (as Lululemon discovered a decade ago or so). That’s because two women with upper leg circumference 30 may have hip sizes varying from 20 to 60, depending on which body type they have and where their fat deposits are — and the two ends of that spectrum do not indicate anorexia/obesity, either. Body shape and fat levels vary that widely under normal healthy circumstances. I envy men’s jeans for their (relative, but not zero) simplicity.
Now that is an interesting dimension (ha, ha) of this I hadn't yet appreciated. I'm used, as a dude of fortunately-normalish proportions and skinny-enough (but not actually skinny) size, to only looking at a single measurement for rise (crotch to waist, measured on the front of the garment) and getting a really good idea of what I'll be dealing with, just from that. From your description I think I've understood the issue you're highlighting, and yeah, that'd be an annoying extra factor to deal with (and I'm sure it's really hard to get two rise measurements out of anybody, just about ever).
You've got me thinking back to a particular brand and style of (not at all fancy) jeans my wife used to love, that they discontinued, and she's never quite found another that works for her as well. From how she described it, in hindsight, I bet this measurement is the key thing she's not managing to nail on her attempts to find a replacement. Wish she still had a pair, I'd go measure front- and back-rise on them so we'd know what to look for!
Show me a sewing machine that can cut, sew, hem, iron, and qacheck a stretch-fabric garment, and I’ll show you a trillion dollar domestic manufacturing opportunity! Until then, look up the object called “sewing pattern”; it’s just a clothes blueprint that assumes you only have a 2D printer (scissors or a pizza cutter) and need a physical guide for the 2D fabric cutter (which will be you), an instruction sheet for sewing (also you), and the assumption that you understand that you should have ironed the fabric beforehand (throw it out and start over). Sewing is an extremely old human craft and may perhaps be the most difficult challenge faced by industrial robotics. Threading a loom for woven fabrics is equally as difficult and is still done by hand, too. Note that most clothing doesn’t fit in a normal desktop cutter because fabrics are typically 40” wide so you end up having to escort the entire process using tool-assisted human labor. They have, at least, figured out how to make robotic top-sewing machines for quilts, so as long as your stitches are in 2D and the fabric is already sewn together, you can have it sew the linear mile of stitches to finish the quilt (but only after weeks to month of piecework and assembly).
Ironically I think the hourglass high-rise means I can wear (some) women's pants without tightness in the crotch, and the extra back rise is great when sitting.
All my life, for most kinds of clothes, like shirts or jackets, buying the standard sizes has never been a problem.
On the other hand, I have never found trousers in a standard size that I would find comfortable. I have always worn only either completely bespoke trousers or standard trousers that have been customized for me by a tailor.
Unfortunately, where I live tailors have disappeared. For now this has not been a problem, because I still have many bespoke trousers made a long time ago. I wonder what I will do when I will need new trousers.
This is not an absolute size related problem. Many years ago, I have been obese for some years. Then I have learned to control my weight (after many failures), and for the last 2 decades I have been a relatively slim male of average height.
Despite this, I was content with standard sizes neither when I was obese, nor now when I am slim.
I am wondering why a lot of professions that existed when I was a child have become non-profitable, because the existence of cheaper alternatives today still does not seem a sufficient explanation. I have grown in Eastern Europe and absolutely everybody (except those belonging to the hierarchy of the ruling party) would have been considered extremely poor by today's standards. Despite this, most people could afford bespoke clothes of very high quality compared to what is available today and the tailors who made them had decent revenues.
Oh that explains why my wife spends so much time obsessing over clothes: trying clothes, buying/returning, buying others, etc. I'm sure a few others can relate.
And she's got a very normal BMI: not underweight, just plain in the middle (5'5" / 124 lbs: something like that) and a very hour-glassy/feminine shape, so many clothes are "made" to her shape/size/weight. I can't imagine what it'd be if she had uncommon "dimensions".
Yeah, the amount of time and energy it takes to find one single piece of clothing that fits at all can exceed the amount of time some people invest in deciding whether to buy a car, what car to buy, and actually buying the car combined. It’s infuriating and humiliating to have the entire marketplace treat you like your body isn’t worth the time of day to for-profit corporations, the most greedy construct available to humanity today. You start to wonder if you’re as worthless as the industry apparently considers you after having to return the fifth pair of jeans for some error in fit that summarizes as ‘the jeans are mediocre median and you are not’.
Yeah, I buy a very high percentage of my clothes on eBay (and also Poshmark, but it ends up mostly being eBay).
What I don't buy used:
- Socks
- Underwear
- Gloves
- Knits in general, as they're too likely to be messed up, though with the odd exception for pieces unusual enough that I figure it's likely they were treated OK, provided the price is low enough I can take a gamble. I think all such exceptions have been 100% linen or ~50/50 silk/linen blend sweaters (these are warm-weather sweaters, basically)
- Jeans. If they get creases and fades I want them to be from me. Plus I have my size dialed in on Levi's STF 501s and I can already get those for like $40 on sale, so... what's the point?
- Modern sportswear in general. I don't have much of this, but what I get, I buy new (though from e.g. Sierra Trading Post, if I can manage it)
Pretty much everything else comes from eBay or poshmark (exception: I don't think quite half my shoes are used, but a lot are).
Belts, ties, trousers, shirts, jackets, coats. Ebay or poshmark.
Shirts: I've got my sizing figured out really precisely with four or five brands. I can shop these really well by size tag. Like, I know with one Japanese brand I can get the "slim" fit of their very-largest Japanese size (these are neck + sleeve measurement shirt sizes) and it'll fit me great for a modern-fit button up shirt, except the sleeves will be a little too short (in the longest sleeve they offer! And I'm not even that big! LOL). I can get the "New York" "slim" from the same place, which they offer with a size one larger than that, and it'll be absolutely perfect, damn near as good as if I'd had a shirt custom made. I know stuff like that about a few brands. They're all nicer brands, so the sizing is quite consistent. All I have to do when I want a shirt is set a few eBay saved searches, and wait for one I want to come up (if there's not one on there already). Sometimes I've even snagged batches of shirts from someone with my size, resulting in stupid-low prices (like, $10/shirt) for things that look like-new.
Jackets: mostly blazers and sport coats. I know my body measurements, and I know the measurements of jackets that fit me well (arm length from shoulder and from pit; waist at middle or top button, depending on 3 or 2 button; length down the back; chest measured across pits; shoulder, front and back measurement, seam to seam). I have a sense of how to size up for winter garments that have thicker fabric and under which I'll probably want to wear thicker clothes. I know the range of standard jacket measurements (e.g. "40R" for a 40" chest, regular length) I'm likely to find what I need in. The vast majority of sellers provide enough relevant measurements that I can achieve an almost-perfect hit rate on these, and the nicer the piece the more likely they are to provide them. I'd say the average I've spent is $100-$120, and some of the ones I've got would have been . I've leaned on these measurements to also get things like a cotton canvas chore jacket, and a leather jacket. Brand knowledge is all but useless for sizing here, jackets vary far too much and many have been tailored. Closest it gets to being useful is that I know a couple outdoors/sporting brands that either make or used to make sport coats, and that theirs run way large (they probably expect that you'll need to move in them, and that you'll wear heavy clothes under them) so not to automatically skip over them because the nominal size would be too small in ~every other brand.
Trousers: Waist measurement is a must of course, nominal trouser sizes are basically gibberish even in good brands, and many trousers have been altered in the waist. Leg length a must (too long is fine, many nicer ones ship intentionally very-long anyway so you can alter them to your need, but too-short is a problem), measured crotch to end of leg so you're not including the rise. Ideally also leg width at the ankle, and rise (crotch to top of waist), though those can be sort-of eyeballed. Many listings will let you know if there's fabric to let the waist out or leg down, and roughly how much. Like with shirts, I have a good
Suits: for a 2-piece, it's just jacket + trouser, there's nothing new here. For vests (if it's a 3-piece, or if buying an odd vest) the main thing to care about is pit-to-pit chest, which I find to be a little more forgiving (I can go very-slightly smaller) than a jacket provided the vest material is on the thinner end, and maybe the length neck-to-hem, especially if you've got a notably long or short torso.
Coats: Like a jacket, but size up an inch or so, maybe more (for some styles that are meant to be worn very loose, a lot more, potentially). These may go over jackets or other thick or layered clothes (e.g. heavy sweaters), and generally you want them to have a looser fit anyway. If you buy them like a jacket you'll find you can only comfortably wear them over a shirt, which makes for a pretty limited coat. Or, if you have measurements of existing coats you like, just base your decisions on those (basically same measurements as a jacket)
-----
It looks like a lot, all laid out like that, but if you already have clothes that fit well in each category, it's really just a half-hour with a surface to lay them flat on, and a measuring tape. Pro tips: measure several examples of each as there's probably a small range of each measurement that works well, pay attention to material thickness and how they fit over different thicknesses of clothes for e.g. jackets to get a sense of what to look for for different seasons, and check with fit guides online to make sure these clothes really do fit correctly (they may feel OK, but look off in ways that may be hard to pin down if you don't know what to look for), and measuring clothes that don't fit quite right can also be useful to figure out what's plainly too much, or too little, in a given dimension. Also, consider as you try on for fit stuff like "do I prefer these trousers to those because of, say, the rise? OK, so I need to make a note of which rise measurement, specifically, I prefer..."
Boom, you've got what you need, and will only rarely need to re-do any of that (waist and chest, especially, may shift a little, and we all get shorter eventually, but otherwise you're good). Measure yourself, too (true waist, hip, chest, maybe neck... I also have hand [around, at the knuckles] and head for gloves and hats, LOL) and you're solidly ready to buy clothes with reasonable confidence online, used or new. If you do get something that fits wrong, measure whatever part's not fitting right to help refine your criteria.
Measurements of your own body are mostly helpful for buying new. Lots of retailers will provide size charts based on body measurements, not garment measurements. For used stuff, it's gonna be 100% garment measurements, which will always be at least a little larger than the corresponding body measurements (so it's simplest to just measure stuff you have that fits well, for this)
>"Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?"
I will settle for making them consistent. Multiple times, I have ordered the same clothing in the same size from the same webpage in different colors, and some colors fit, and the others do not.
I am surprised that a women's clothing startup prioritizing pockets big enough for smartphones hasn't usurped the incumbents. I would have figured the convenience of being able to store a device that people have their heads down in 95% of the time would be sufficient to supersede more vanity related motivations.
So much this for consistency. I remember one particular bad occasion I went shopping for trousers in a store. I tried five, each had something wrong in relation with the size numbers.
First didn’t fit because it was too tight, so I tried one size larger. This one was even smaller than the previous one. So I tried an even bigger one which was only taller. Tried a bigger number now it was way too big. So for fun I tried one with a higher number which turned out to be smaller than the previous one.
When I asked the store assistant, they shrugged and said that was just reality and why you need to try every item individually. It has to do with how much “spare” cloth the seamstress takes when stitching the trousers together, if the original piece of cloth was even already cut to size properly.
These days I buy from the brand own size, the same item and it fits every time.
Used to know someone who worked for a mass production company, outsourcing big clothing orders for UK supermarkets.
It's common for clothing producers (Designers were in the UK in this case, clothes made in china or otherwise) to just pick whoever is in the design office that's about the right size and use them as the basis of all sizing measurements for a given size.
I've even heard of a petite woman being used as the size model for boys 11-12 age supermarket clothes. There's very little thought involved, it's just convenience to be able to tailor the template garment to a real person who's nearby.
In my experience with womens clothing having pockets does not mean they are very practical for phones. Phones are heavy and they can drag pants or skirt/dress down if they are stretchier or don't have a tight waistband which is most of them. If the pocket goes too far down or is too loose or too big the phone ends up too far down and jiggles around which is quite annoying and uncomfortable. Or in items like jeans where the pocket is well designed the phone still sticks out of the top and yet when I bend my knee it jams into my hip in a weird way or I cant sit down with it in my pocket. I am 5'1 so I may just be hitting some size limitations but carrying around a phone in a purse or sticking it into the waistband of tighter pants can be more comfortable than trying to use pockets.
Even as a guy who wears pretty loose straight-cut jeans, having stuff in my pockets can look and feel weird. Especially my AirPods case. In jeans with slightly stretchy denim, the location of my phone is permanently etched into my jeans. I'd be a pickpocket's dream. When I had the unfortunate inclination to wear tight pants, anything in the pockets looked and felt quite bad.
I'm a big fan these days of a small crossbody bag (aka a sling bag). MY problem is that the pockets on my pants are too large and loose and I don't want to worry about things absently falling out when I sit.
Uniqlo makes a solid one for $25. It's light, comfortable, and unobtrusive. Admittedly, it's not ideal for all styles or situations, but I love that it's large enough for items that are definitely too large or uncomfortable for a pocket, like a book, small notebook, or an accessory.
I started bringing a crossbody bag and now I find I drag half the house everywhere like one of those every day carry people because why not, it's so easy to carry stuff compared to using pockets. Very useful to have a battery bank and cables with you.
In women's clothes, if you're trying to target Generic Woman, you often have to put deep pockets somewhere other than the front of thigh, because for various compositional reasons that area isn't reliably available across women's various body shapes. This is how we ended up with one of the coolest innovations in pockets since leggings: the side leg pocket. Everyone has a side leg. You can put a pocket there and it's perceptually irrelevant to people. Some of my skirts have pockets designed along these same lines that can hold an entire Nintendo Switch with controllers attached and it's effectively invisible if I'm sitting in a chair, because no one notices when my thighs are a bit thicker on one side. In leggings it's blindingly obvious that there's a phone there, but leggings are typically bodycon-tight to begin with, so I just view it as "yup, that's a phone pocket" when I even remember where I put my phone at all.
I've ripped quite a few pants (2? 3?) getting up when the phone in the back pocket gets caught on something. And these were pants I considered "heavy duty".
side-leg pocket = ungainly
Knees and by extension thighs move more than hips, and so items in side pockets tend to bounce around and pull down the waistline, when normally they wouldn't in regular pockets.
In my opinion the best pocket is the breast pocket on jackets and heavier garments. I guess if I were a cop I'd prefer the shoulder holster.
Yeah, back waist pocket works incredibly well if you have a 'rear bust', so to speak — the waist-to-hip curve angle can be quite severe relative to men. I have bicyclist thighs so an extra quarter inch on one side is completely invisible — but the placement of jacket pockets is incompatible with my torso shape. I believe(?) on many women's jackets they come out of the factory sewn shut by default so that they don't gape from the angular pressure.
I use only the pockets of my jacket or vest, if I wear one. If it is warm and I have no jacket or vest, I use belt holsters or bags, never the trouser pockets.
If you think you can pull it off, I've become a strong proponent of blazers and sport coats. I call them "wearable purses for men".
For me, this is basically an evolution and refinement of what I guess I've always been trying to do. As a teen, I'd wear un- or partially-buttoned button-up shirts over my t-shirts. Later, zip hoodies as much of the year as I could get away with. I'd also be sad during this whole period when it'd get too warm and I couldn't get away with wearing a coat everywhere (and it got too warm for a hoodie, once I adopted those) and I'd have to go back to putting my stuff in my trouser pockets. That just sucks.
Now, I've gone to blazers and sport coats, which to me feel like a very similar idea but are wildly more practical[1] for most situations I find myself in, and most folks perceive them as looking a lot better, too.
I've found the heavier winter fabrics to be the easiest to pull off. Simple tweeds, or I've got this one really heavy but soft wool twill in grey-black that works great. Corduroy (there are wool corduroys, too!) covers fall really well, and can do for the cooler parts of spring, too.
Summer is trickier. Unlined Summer-weight wools can add effectively zero heat (and keep some of the sun off you!) but may look too formal, especially when nobody else is wearing a jacket of any kind. Really schlubby unstructured cotton, or a simple linen jacket can work without looking "too fancy", but they're a bit high-maintenance if you don't want them to look wrinkled to hell all the time. I haven't quite found what I'd call a perfect solution for me, here.
[1] Why are they more practical? A blazer or sport coat can usually dress pretty far up, and pretty far down, so has better situational range than a hoodie. I also find the pocket layout is just a ton better. My standard way to wear them is keys in left-hip, phone in right-hip, wallet in left-inner-breast. Generally, these leave tons of room in all three pockets concerned for cramming change or receipts or whatever, none of them are crowded. When traveling, I'll give a whole pocket to my passport, right-inner-breast if that one's big enough, or I might give that to my left hip if I don't need my keys (like when flying or taking a train). Sunglasses can go in the outer breast pocket. Hip pockets are usually big enough to temporarily cram leather or knit-wool gloves in, for the winter, when I need to take those off but don't have anywhere to put them, without overcrowding the pockets enough to cause a problem. I can double up my keys and a big ID/keycard in the left hip, when I need to go into the office, still not crammed tight or anything. The hip pockets are also great for those "pocket size" paperback books, and you can even fit stuff like Modern Library hardcovers in there as long as they're not super-thick volumes, especially the older editions that had smaller dimensions.
I appreciate the discussion. I'm always looking for ways to look better, although you wouldn't know it because I'm unkempt and wear old clothes. But fantasy me dresses really well.
> and keep some of the sun off you!
This has become really important to me in the last few years after I realized the impact sunlight has on people's skin (I always think of this [1] or just generally the people I know who don't care about sun exposure). I'm not sure what my ideal summer look will be since I look best in sporty clothing, but don't intend to spend long periods of time with large parts of my skin exposed to direct summer sunlight any longer. The face and back of the neck is the hardest part to fashionably keep safe.
You might also appreciate research into the French accesory 'pochette', which is approximately like a women's clutch in the U.S. except without the gender-specifics (as translations 'folder' or 'case' suggest). Might have to site:fr a search in order to get ungendered results, though.
AFAIK, this is because clothes are generally made by cutting pieces out of massive stacks of fabric of heaps of layers, and the cutting process is never perfectly straight - the pieces at the bottom of the pile will be very different than those at the top.
For me the back pockets are usually good enough to hold the phone when I'm walking then i just put it wherever (bag, table, bike mount, etc) the rest of the time. I wouldn't keep it in my front pocket even if it did fit.
I don't think that xkcd applies. I mean if I am on a clothing seller's website, and they show me a pair of pants and I add 4 colors to the cart of the same size of the same design/model number/style pants, I feel like they should all fit the same.
I have. So I don't buy that it's not a problem just because you haven't had it..
Sometimes they also use different fabric for different colors. Maybe a color is internally consistent, but if you buy one of each they're very different.
That's what sizing guides are theoretically for, if you add more sizing systems it gets even more confusing. I don't think the issue is as bad as the post portrays it though. Its true that sizes can be all over the place but like I am size small woman's and if I buy small most of the time it will fit or at least somewhat fit. I am not a standard model size either as I need things that are for more hourglass figure rather than straight but that just requires being selective about which styles to buy. A medium also usually fits if I need something looser. I double check the reviews if its online or try it on in person and as long as its not something that requires precise measurements its usually fine. For things like jeans I shop in person and try things on from a few sizes or just know approximate size I am or rely on reviews. Many items these days are stretchy and even when they don't fit perfectly they are wearable or you can return them, its not that complicated. I do only shop a few brands or from in person stores or I can often approximate sizing from how big something looks or by looking at review photos.
The pockets thing is similar, not having pockets is annoying but its not that big of a deal. I rather buy something cute without pockets than search for something with some. If it has them great, if it doesnt oh well I will just use my purse. Barely anything fits in pockets anyways and I have a feeling other women feel similarly which is why many of us buy things whether or not they have pockets.
Yes. This is specifically a driver for having brand-specific sizing: knowing what size I am in Wooland Jade does nothing whatsoever to help me assess a potentially cheaper option in Uniqlo Whatever. It's the same lock-in effect as cloud APIs, only implemented through attributes instead. Imagine the chaos in the guitar market if the "bass" in "bass guitar" had up to +/-25% variation between guitar manufacturers — it would be a total nightmare trying to cross-shop guitars away from your current one, and lots of people would just end up glued to a brand so they don't have to do the hard work of assessing 'is this within +/-5% of the bass that fits me now'.
Flipside: drastically changing a brand's sizing standards has repeatedly driven me away from long-time favourites.
This happened to me several times from the 1990s through the aughts. Literally between one shopping session and the next, the same style of clothes (tops, bottoms) which had fit perfectly no longer did, resulting both in a set of returns (of clothing) and non-returns (of myself, for future purchases) to those stores. As someone who generally dislikes the shopping experience, additional and insurmountable frictions such as these are absolutely fatal.
More recently (as I've just commented) it's the widespread adoption of stretch fabrics in non-athletic wear. I may want stretch in some of my workout clothes. I don't want it in my street clothing.
100%. For a time whoever the gap shirt designers measured up for their XL size must've exactly matched my build and height, and had extra long arms the same length as mine. So it was an easy way to get a shirt that fit right, for me.
There's also different definitions of waistline size. Pant sizes "lie" because historically most pants sat further up your waist, now that many of them sit on your hips, they give you a measurement as if they were still sitting higher up so you can compare between the fits with the same number.
Really the only bulletproof solution here is to just go try them on in store and see which fits best.
Pants sizes also lie because they don’t take into account the rise necessary to provide horizontal waistline on women with an angle at their rear waist-to-hip incline. A 14 low-rise waist that flops down at a thirty degree tilt in the front is a worse fit than a 12 mid-rise waist that doesn’t, for example.
It's a great point that I think the article also touches on. Bodies are of many shapes, so the sizing question is as much about, possibly more about, shape as it is mapping any particular dimension to a scale.
There are fast fashion attempts at this like adding elastic material to every fabric so they can get away with having fewer sizes and cuts thus less unsold inventory and availability issues. But everything has a tradeoff. In this case the elastic material degrades MUCH faster than cotton so you have to throw away your jeans quite a bit earlier compared to a quality 100% cotton denim which can last you a decade. This is very unfortunate as most of the fabric in that piece of clothing is perfectly fine and this is pure waste.
I'd noticed the near-universal adoption of stretch fabrics recently, and greatly dislike it. I hadn't considered that this is an inventory optimisation method, though that absolutely makes sense.
I think the market opportunity can be a standard and eventually get labels to include your standard in addition to their traditional labeling.
Figure out the variables (like shape, inseam, width, whatever else) for each article of clothing. Then freely distribute this and begin to catalog popular items. You can crowdsource some of this. The idea is people will look up the clothes as per your scale.
Then after you index a lot of clothes, you can search by exact measurements and then you can hit up clothing manufacturers to use their propriety code in their marketing or promote their brands on your site.
This works in theory, until you discover as the article did, that all manufacturers use one clothing shape — hourglass — and so if your measurements aren’t “bust == hips, waist := bust - 10” then your search engine finds few or no results.
Then just try it out and if does not look good don’t buy it.
I believe that’s how most of us try clothes out. It’s not only a matter of body shape, but also skin color, hair color, facial hair, face shape, hair cut…
You always need to try out the clothes before buying…
People buy heavy SUV when compact car would do, "dress for the job you want", "temporarily embarrassed millionaires", nationalistic fervor for your country getting more territory when even with the current one you don't know what to do, and so forth... Humans are an aspirational animal, and it is pretty easy to sell into that aspiration be it a ticket to Moon or a nice looking on the model jacket :)
To the commenter below:
Exactly. The societies where aspirations have been dampened or completely suppressed have been collectivistic and/or totalitaristic - USSR, North Korea, etc. - ie. where individual will is totally suppressed.
Your question implies the answer. It's probably not a problem that's worth solving. The industry found the most cost optimal way of sizing stuff that works for most people at the desired price and the rest is either served through misfits, alterations or boutiques. Clothing is not some niche forgotten industry where most obvious opportunities still exist.
I don't know about the womens side but on the male side, I recently discovered https://www.tailorstore.com/ and am trying them out for some t-shirts. I'm an odd shape and always struggle to get good fitting clothes so hoping this might be a solution.
Revealed preference vs stated preference answers the question of why women's clothing generally lacks pockets. Women prioritize aesthetics over utility when shopping. Clothing follows trends more than most things, though, which is why this is changing as younger generations prefer more casual and functional clothing.
same, I wonder why this is. Is it just that modelling / marketing is more effective with things as they presently are? It seems there is a market for better fitting clothes -- likely half (or more!) of clothes bought would make the end customer happier if the items just had a better fit. Why have financial incentives not achieved this?
I mean, I get that it sucks online, but in person? Who cares what the label says? I'm an adult. I can easily tell by looking at a garment how it's going to fit me.
That said, if we could just get the critical measure online that'd be fantastic. No need for sizes, I know how big inches and centimeters are.
And, as it turns out, my favorite retailers do in fact include measurements, but I'd rather have a few quality items than lots of garbage, which is also why I own a sewing machine because sometimes I really love a dress but the manufacturer doesn't accommodate my specific frame. I developed this practice when I was broke and shopping out of thrift stores. It allowed me to buy almost anything and tailor it to make it fit. Really broadens your fashion horizons.
With regard to why sizing is difficult, I'd guess it's just consumer laziness or cognitive dissonance. Although it's maybe a little bit of efficiency too. How many models should I produce (and how many lines do I have to run) to fit every woman just right instead of lying to all of them? For pants alone, if you really want it to actually fit, you're going to need ankle, calf, knee, thigh, inseam/outseam, glute, hip, and waist (and crotch to waistband if you're offering different rises). So if you've got even just 5 measurements (probably not enough as no way do all women fit tailored within 5 different calf sizes), you've got 5^9 different products (and therefore machine configurations) to cover just that space, because yes there are women with massive calfs and small thighs or same waist/hip or whatever combination you can imagine) and that's all just for literally one style. If you've got five different pants that's immediately 5^9.
Lots of (american) women are perfectly fine with their 36in underbust but would be shamed to admit they need a 46in hip with their 32in waist for all that ass. Much better to just lie and say I need an 8 which will not in any world ever make it over my butt.
Maybe we can compromise on a 'call it' measurement which is on average 2 less than the prevailing standard would suggest. If your countries' system would have you in a 8, you can 'call it a 6', and then we're all happy.
This is a classic HN reply. The market has solved for what women want: vanity sizing that doubles as (exclusive) social signaling. If you look at the sizing charts from the article, normie brands have a huge range of sizes. The couture / elite brands are all much smaller. It makes perfect sense when trying to build a better-than-normie fashion brand. Do you really think Louis Vuitton or Prada wants women with a size 18 dress size wearing their ready-to-wear clothes? Absolutely not. But they are welcome to (and do) buy bags, shoes, scarfs, and other accessories.
It feels like someone asked an AI to read a year of output from a ruby link roundup newsletter and then had it write a report: many facts, minimal synthesis, and little-to-no useful opinion/summary.
I'm a big fan of this genre of "a person got rich in tech and spent their wealth making an unrelated thing they wanted to exist in the world, untethered from the need to be profitable or self-sustaining."
See also, Jamie Zawinski's DNA Lounge[0] in San Francisco
> if you have any code you actually care about I would watch them like a hawk, in a nice large IDE on the side.
This is about where I'm at. I love pure claude code for code I don't care about, but for anything I'm working on with other people I need to audit the results - which I much prefer to do in an IDE.
Yeah, this feels right on the cusp of being interesting. I think that, being charitable, it could be interesting if it turns out to be successful in hiring and coordinating several people and physical assets over a long time horizon. For example, it'd be pretty cool if it could:
1. Do some research (as it's already done)
2. Rent the land and hire someone to grow the corn
3. Hire someone to harvest it, transport it, and store it
4. Manage to sell it
Doing #1 isn't terribly exciting - it's well established that AIs are pretty good at replacing an hour of googling - but if it could run a whole business process like this, that'd be neat.
Is that actually growing corn with AI though? Seems to me that a human planted the corn, thinned it, weeded it, harvested it, and stored it. What did AI do in that process? Send an email?
It is trying to take over the job of the farmer. Planting, harvesting, etc. is the job of a farmhand (or custom operator). Everyone is working to try to automate the farmhand out of a job, but the novelty here is the thinking that it is actually the farmer who is easiest to automate away.
But,
"I will buy fucking land with an API via my terminal"
Who has multiple millions of dollars to drop on an experiment like that?
> [Seth is using AI to try] to take over the job of the farmer. Planting, harvesting, etc. is the job of a farmhand (or custom operator).
Ok then Seth is missing the point of the challenge: Take over the role of the farmhand.
> Everyone is working to try to automate the farmhand out of a job, but the novelty here is the thinking that it is actually the farmer who is easiest to automate away.
Everyone knows this. There is nothing novel here. Desk jockeys who just drive computers all day (the Farmer in this example) are _far_ easier to automate away than the hands-on workers (the farmhand). That’s why it would be truly revolutionary to replace the farmhand.
Or, said another way: Anything about growing corn that is “hands on” is hard to automate, all the easy to automate stuff has already been done. And no, driving a mouse or a web browser doesn’t count as “hands on”.
> all the easy to automate stuff has already been done.
To be fair, all the stuff that hasn't been automated away is the same in all cases, farmer and farmhand alike: Monitoring to make sure the computer systems don't screw up.
The bet here is that LLMs are past the "needs monitoring" stage and can buy a multi-million dollar farm, along with everything else, without oversight and Seth won't be upset about its choices in the end. Which, in fairness, is a more practical (at least less risky form a liability point of view) bet than betting that a multi-million dollar X9 without an operator won't end up running over a person and later upside-down in the ditch.
He may have many millions to spend on an experiment, but to truly put things to the test would require way more than that. Everyone has a limit. An MVP is a reasonable start. v2 can try to take the concept further.
This article makes a number of the standard arguments for hiring juniors and a couple new ones:
- Companies should hire juniors [at their own perceived detriment] to improve the overall industry
- Hire juniors because strong companies are resilient to junior mistakes [rather than hiring seniors and also becoming resilient]
- Juniors learning fast inspires others
- Juniors will teach your seniors how to use AI
Perhaps you can see why most companies don't find these terribly compelling.
Personally, I suspect we're going to have to wait for capitalism to fix this. Senior engineers will age out and the supply will drop. This will increase the cost of seniors until low-cost juniors start to look like a better option to the median hiring manager.
This post was so in-line with her writing that I was really expecting it to turn into an ad for Honeycomb at the end. I was pretty surprised with it turned out the author was unaffiliated!
> Selling to businesses is very easy. You go to a business and you say "hey, you like making money?" And the business will say "why yes, I do like making money" and you will say "great, I can help you make more money.
This is so wrong it hurts. You'd be amazed at how often "I will save you $X, guaranteed, or your money back" is a non-starter when selling to companies.
I've spent a career very slowly gaining respect for enterprise sales people - going from "Ugh, sales people are all snakeoil salesmen" to "I can't believe what they do is even possible, much less regularly done" over about 20 years.
Selling software to large organizations involves finding a champion within the org, then figuring out the power structure within the org via an impressive sort of kremlinology. You have to figure out who loves your product in the org, who hates it, who can make the buying decision, whose approval is needed, who's handling the details of the contract, and so on. You need to understand the constellation of people across engineering, procurement, legal, leadership, and finance – and then understand the incentive structures for each.
Then you have to actually operate this whole complex political machine to get them to buy something. Even if it's self-evidently in the interest of the whole organization to do so, it's not an easy thing to do.
Anyway, all that to say: "b2b sales are easy" is... naive... to say the least.
I've been watching this process with a keen eye as a technical consultant, and one thing I've learnt is that naive models of large organisations as Profit=Revenue-Costs is totally inadequate for enterprise sales. Yes, it is true that saving money anywhere will improve profits, but you can only sell that to an individual who's personal KPI needles move because of this! If the cost is in dept X but the profit is recorded in dept Y, then don't bother. You won't get a sale, even if it's tens of millions of dollars of saved costs or increased revenue. At best, you can find their common manager and try to sell it to that person, but even that has pits of failure you can all too easily fall into.
Yes. But that's like saying "a racecar would gain a competitive advantage by being faster."
Getting your internal structures right and aligning your incentives is one of the main challenges of building and running a large company! If it were easy, you wouldn't see nearly so many massively-inefficient corporate giants. :)
A big part of that is “I will save you X” is a non-starter. That is not making the business more money. If you have something that will actually make the business more money then they will go “Great if I pay you twice as much will it make me 2X?” and if the answer is yes, that will be a sale every time.
Given how much some companies spend on their cloud services bills without batting an eye, I definitely believe this. They care about making more money, not so much about spending less, even though both are ways to increase profits.
yes, and I think one big reason enterprise might not buy your product even if it is guaranteed to make/save $X is $ is often NOT most important thing to the people make buying decision, specially when it is not your own money to save or gain
This is very true. Look no farther than the perennial problem of department heads spending all their budget to keep their budget. Decision makers rarely care about saving money in isolation.
I might be overstating it, but here's what I see at my company. "Sell" is very different in all of these situations.
- Sell to the champion.
- Sell to the rest of the org.
- Sell to procurement.
- Sell to the implementation project team.
- Sell to the users and get adoption up.
Then constantly demonstrate that you're providing value in whatever terms that department / org thinks is valuable that year.
This is what I’ve seen; it’s hard work, and if you fail to make any one of those sales, it can all fall apart. And you didn’t even mention getting your foot in the door in the first place. I used to chat with our business development guy in the lunchroom. He spent hours on the phone every day getting told no. It took a ton of work just to get from “no” to “maybe later,” and that’s when they didn’t just hang up in him. I think he understood what made our company tick better than anybody else, better than the CEO.
> going from "Ugh, sales people are all snakeoil salesmen" to "I can't believe what they do is even possible, much less regularly done" over about 20 years.
I mean, it still sounds like snake oil salesmen. It's just that that's what it takes these days to even get noticed (let alone make a pitch). rubbing hands trumps a quality product 99% of the time.
Can confirm. At one point in my career (after reflection on the situation) I realized I had been made a champion by a subsidiary of IBM for one of their products. I found myself in some really bizarre meetings with our execs and their executive sales people that left me feeling like a puppet that was made to tell our CEO that we needed this. They really took us apart, It was all very slimy.
I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?"
Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing brands?
This is, to be clear, a sincere question - not a veiled argument against OP or anything! It seems like there are probably some structural or psychological or market forces stopping that from happening and I'd love to understand them. Same with the "womens clothes have no pockets" thing!
reply