Edward Casabian writes:
I'm a mostly loyal reader of Marginal Revolution and have a question for you.
Why is it that the vast majority items on sale in a clothing store are almost always XL or XXL? I was in Old Navy last weekend and wanted to pick up a few t-shirts, but virtually all of them were too big for me. The same went for shorts and jackets. I am average size, about 5'9"
I would think that there would be more small, medium and large size clothing as these items would cost less to produce and seem to have a higher demand as evidenced by the inordinate amount of large clothing that is always on sale at department stores.
I believe the same goes with footwear. The most popular sizes (9-11) always seem to be out of stock.
I can't vouch for these stylized facts but I do have the same casual impression.
One simple hypothesis is that the less common sizes have more unpredictable demands, relative to inventory, and so they are more likely to end up in surplus. They're also more likely to be unavailable when you need them, though perhaps that latter state of affairs is less noticeable.
I also question whether you will find an equivalent overrepresentation of XL at Banana Republic (I guess no) and what that means about the clientele of Old Navy. The company which owns both may be pursuing a market segmentation/price discrimination strategy and Mr. Casabian is expressing his preference for more search and lower prices instead of reading MR all the time.
The most general question is which clothes sizes should be most likely to experience oversupply. My guess is that occurs when branding is least important and the possible durable goods monopoly breaks down. Maybe people buying XL are less interested in brands (or brands are less interested in them) and thus their market is more likely to be flooded.
These are just my guesses; maybe Kathleen Fasanella would know the answer.
This is highly asymmetric, XS/S/M (old M/L/XL before the obesity epidemic hit) tend to be undersupplied.
When people like a model, but their own size is not available anymore, they might consider clothing one size too large, but rarely one size too small. So when ordering amounts, you take some margin on the larger sizes, but not on the smaller sizes.
Where I shop I see the 2XL stuff around too, but also plenty of clothes that would only fit a hobbit. It may be that extreme sizes both ways are more likely to either run totally out or be oversupplied, but the small sizes at Old Navy are more likely to be purchased for larger children? I like Slocum’s hypothesis re. Amazon vs. brick and mortar stores.
My experience is that the same overrepresentation does occur at Banana Republic (though perhaps not to the same extent). But as one reader noted, the hardest to find sizes are those in the middle (e.g., jackets will sell out in sizes 38-42, with 36s and 44s and up more likely to be found).
Right. What you find online is that most trouser styles are simply not available in 29×30 or even 30×30 at all.
Well, in observing the frequency of very small sizes, I was mainly talking about Banana Republic. There are other brands where that’s definitely not the case (you will never find smalls on J. Crew’s sale rack), so it’s not a universal phenomenon. This might have something to do with the sort of person who shops at J. Crew vs. Banana Republic (e.g., hipsters vs. chubby suburbanites).
It seems to me though that at least with on-line retailers, which obviously have no need to stock all the sizes in some sort of equal proportion to satisfy rare customers but can stock according to long-run sale patterns, that it should be easiest to find sizes in the middle range, because that’s the sizes most people have. The stores should’ve ordered much more of those sizes in the first place and thus would have left-over sizes that are roughly proportionate to the percentage of the population that occupies each size. So it seems that the middle-sizes should be much better represented, not just equally represented, and this first point is definitely not the case at any retailer I can think of (and my experience is that the second isn’t either).
I have usually found both the very small and very large sizes to be the ones most frequently found on sale racks.
However, if indeed XL is overrepresented, I would hypothesize that people are more prone to buy a smaller size than they actually require, in the hopes that they will lose weight to fit into it — or perhaps flattering the receiver, if it is a gift. For example, a woman who wears a size 8 or 10 would probably prefer that her husband mistakenly thinks she is a size 6 rather than a size 14.
As a result, a thrifty shopper can find high quality, unworn women’s clothing in sizes 2-4-6 at bargain prices in thrift and consignment stores. In those stores, you don’t often see much selection in the larger sizes.
As far as shoes, I generally see the smaller sizes and the larger sizes on the clearance racks, while there is little available in the most average sizes.
Perception bias.
Whatever size I am, they ain’t got.
It’s all about safety stock for full-priced items. If you have a guy at a department store willing to pay full price, you do NOT want to be out of stock of their size. It takes only one negative experience to lose a customer, which is why retailers hate stockouts. When an item’s full price, you’ll find every size in stock, except for maybe 2XL. And more than 1 or 2 of the weird sizes need to be carried. It takes time or may be impossible to replenish stock for those few stores that sell out of their weird sizes.
Well, it could be because there’s a glut of extra-large people.
huge people are less common that normal sized people. the shirt makers are stupid and don’t account for this during production. All the normal shirts get bought up, the big ones don’t. So now we have a ton of big shirts that aren’t selling, so their price falls, and you see them on the bargain rack.
Umm…it’s actually pretty simple. Kids these days, in massive quantities wear their clothes larger than their actual size. Skinny kids wearing 2XL clothes is a fairly common phenomenon. That’s what it is. It has nothing to do with anything else. It’s just the style these days.
It’s important to remember that the customer who buys what we call “plus sizes” has less disposable income and have been disproportionately affected in this downturn. Via: http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=362 this quote (this form won’t accept blockquote, quotes or formatting).
Economists Susan Averett and Sanders Korenman studied the effects of obesity on wages, using a sample consisting of individuals aged 16-24 in 1981 who were 23-31 in 1988. They showed that women who were obese according to their Body Mass Index (BMI) in both 1981 and 1988 earned 17 percent lower wages on average than women within their recommended BMI range.
Keep in mind that Old Navy/Banana Republic production time lines stretch 12-16 months in advance of store delivery. Iow, they respectively determined production of inventory according to (minimally) year old economic consumer spending levels. It’s also significant to remember they are each vertical operations. Were their goods sold to other retailers, they likely would have noticed a downturn in orders and in which sizes, and reduced production lot sizes accordingly. Retailing their own stuff, they can only plan according to previous year’s sales.
Old Navy’s customer is younger (read: thinner) than B/Republic’s.
Generally, sales in plus sizes don’t perform as well as regular sizes. Several high profile manufacturers have dropped their plus size lines in the last two years. I’ve written a great deal about this topic.
I’ve spent time living in Sub-Saharan Africa and noticed that many people there wear Western clothing that, by US standards, is far too big. Perhaps, more people can fit into bigger sizes, so excess inventory in large sizes is easier to sell off in bulk to other parts of the world than similar clothing in smaller sizes. To Steve C.’s point then, retailers may be less adverse to be overstocked with such merchandise.
You’ve all got it wrong. What looks good in a size 2 dress or blouse doesn’t necessarily look good in a size 14. Think horizontal stripes, sleeveless, backless or voluminous folds of fabric. the things that look good on a stick model don’t look good on a curvy woman.
Also, geography matters. Houston Banana Republic stores always has lots of large sizes on clearance racks while New Orleans does not. Houston folks are more fit; New Orleans, not so much.
Tyler’s variability theory makes the most sense to me. Notice that it even covers the “avoid stockouts” argument. The percentage of stock above expected sales needed to keep stockouts at a given low level is higher for small-volume items than for big sellers.
The mirror phenomenon – more stockouts on odd sizes – may occur more with odd sizes than with normal ones also, but we don’t see that when we shop for normal sizes, so the sample is biased. In other words, Mr. Casabian will notice that the sale rack has a lot of 2XL’s, but will never notice when 2XL’s are sold out at regular prices.
While in college (and already into marginal analysis to some degree), I was often in charge of getting t-shirts for various events and clubs (because there is nothing that will get a college student to show up for an event like free food or t-shirt). I found that, regardless of ratio of Mediums I got versus all other sizes, I would be guaranteed to run out of Mediums first. I think the farthest I got into the experiment (before graduating) was something like 75% of the shirts being Mediums. And I still ran out.
I think there is a combination of effects, including the “better too big than too small”, “I’m *about* to fit into a medium”, and herd mentality.
So while it may not be as indicative of the entire population, that’s been my experience.
What is this guy talking about? XL is the most popular size and is almost never on clearance racks, which are almost entirely made up of size S.
As you may or may not know, most all ready-to-wear clothes are fitted to a single “fit model” (who will probably be a size 4 or 6 at higher-end retailers, or 8 or 10 at lower-end retailers.) Patterns for other sizes are scaled up or down from here, but not “fit” to actual bodies.
My general observation (I am a woman who wears a small size) is that there is frequently a glut of a particular style in either larger or smaller sizes in the sale section. My theory for why this is so is that as styles more drastically scaled up or down, errors in fit are more likely to be introduced, resulting in garments that are hard to sell.
(For instance, as women’s sizes get smaller, not only do manufacturers need to narrow the bust, they also have to move the bust line up, but the neckline goes up less quickly. Also, generally, the waist will need to be reduced by a different amount than the bustline, and depending how the shirt is supposed to drape this may be tapered smoothly, or there might be a big jump due to darts or gathers. There are many, many different ways to introduce errors into this process, resulting in a shirt that makes the wearer’s breasts look lumpy, which, obviously, is not a shirt that will sell very well.)
I would further postulate that clothing in odd colors or prints in the sale section is more likely to be found in common sizes like medium and large.
Has nobody considered the impact of body image?
We feel fatter if we have to pick the largest size available. Having a few sizes above us might make people feel better about their self image, that self-image boost thereby fueling the satisfaction to buy more clothes or create a positive impression of the store.
There’s no XL or XXL in our stores.
For places that don’t produce their own clothing (most cheap to mid range retailer, including big box, Old Navy, and Banana Republic) are forced by suppliers to buy by the box. An exemplary box of shirts that I often unpacked was four XL, four L, four M, two XXL, and two S. We had more than than 12 XL-M shoppers per 4 XXL and S shoppers. So, at the end of a sales week where we ordered enough XL-M, we had a glut of XXL and S that were basically forced on us by the supplier.
The supplier could sell each box with a single size, but then we could adjust our orders to the actual distribution of customers.
Amy wrote:
“I’d also like to point out that I RARELY see this problem at department stores such as Macys, Nordstrom or Bloomingdales. Occasionally with special occasion dresses, swimwear, etc, but with the main stock I can usually find 1-2 of every size on the rack on the floor.”
There’s a big difference btwn vertical manufacturers/retailers like Old Navy, Banana Republic, Gap and department stores like Macy’s, Nordstrom’s etc. The difference is (as I said before), vertical manufacturers only sell what *they* produce according to merchandising plans drawn up at least 16 months in advance.
Department stores like Macy’s et al, have what’s known as “sell through guarantees”. It basically amounts to a consignment agreement. The store orders X quantity of goods from a manufacturer. If the goods don’t “sell through” at least 85%, the department store can ship back what doesn’t sell. So of course, if they have larger sizes that aren’t moving and the sell through is under 85%, they ship it back. It’s not so much that department stores plan better, it’s more like a shot gun approach. They’ll take it all (mostly, assuming the margins are there) and ship back what doesn’t sell. Gap/Old Navy etc can’t do that. There’s inventory at corporate that has to be peddled one way or another.
Has anyone brought up the concept of wide body shape variances in the XL-XXL range? It could be that enough XL and XXLs are stocked to reflect the population, but that the population doesn’t reflect the XL or XXL sizes.
Interesting insights Dylan. Do you think that might have something to do with my observation that many departments do have plenty XL or XXL items but don’t carry larger sizes in pants?
About five years ago my wife and I asked a buyer at Macy’s why it was so hard to find the smaller men’s sizes. He said there were two factors: first, their suppliers generally only sold them sets of 8 shirts – two each of S/M/L, and one each of XL and XS. That was a nationwide practice, so it didn’t matter where the store was, they got the same distribution of sizes. Then you take into account the fact that this was the San Francisco store: lots more Hispanic and Asian men in the area than the rest of the country, and SF has about the lowest mean BMI of any big city in the country. And you would get exactly the opposite problem in, say, Minneapolis – a glut of smaller sizes. Don’t know why they didn’t just ship the excess clothes around the country behind the vendor’s back….
Basically the stores want extra of the off-sizes. This is their clearance items. Clearances bring people to the stores, who will often buy non-clearance items. Having a clearance sell out is bad for business, thus clearances are stocked with the sizes no one wants, to prolong the clearance.
Interesting conversation, but as a woman who wears 2XL (and has a relatively high income and more disposable income than most of the people I know), I have a different take. It would never even occur to me to shop at Old Navy or Banana Republic. If they have anything in my size, I wouldn’t even know. Why would I shop at a store for “normal” sized people where the selection of clothing in my size is limited, at best? It’s simply not a good use of my time. I’d rather shop the women’s dept. at a department store, or at a plus-size store, so odds are good that anything I see is likely to come in my size.
You economists probably have a word for that.
Come to think of it, anon’s explanation is as good or better than mine.
Also, I’m uncertain about terms here but I don’t want to be offensive. If you don’t like “overweight” just substitute “big.” All the relevant concepts have the same distribution issue — weight, size, BMI. The high end is more spread out.
This topic’s several days old, but I thought I’d weigh in. I’ve noticed this glut of XLs and XSes even in brands that disproportionately target young, slender hipsters – particularly American Apparel.
This trend tends to hold up everywhere I shop and in every size category, including in shoes. The answer is likely a mix of selection bias and the obvious factor that most people buy the “average” sizes in the middle range, for several reasons. Highly desirable clothes, or shoes, are subject to the selection bias – observers probably aren’t looking at the ugly, or unfashionable, clothing. When something is in high demand for whatever reason (on trend/low price), it is quickly snapped up because there are more people who are looking for average sizes, and fewer people who wear XXS/XS and XL.
There is a second reason for the slower pickup of XS and XL, which Kathleen partially weighed into. Along with overweight customers tending to have less disposable income, underweight/smaller customers, if they are buying adult clothes, may be younger teen girls or boys – and they also tend to have less disposable income to spend on clothing relative to most adults, even if style is a primary concern.
It’s probably because the smaller sizes get sold out first, not necessarily more quantity of the larger sizes. Just less people in that category. http://www.cargopantsformen.info
Comments on this entry are closed.