We all want stores to stock inclusive sizes.
But it’s harder than it looks.
I hear this all the time. “Why don’t shops just have everything in more sizes? There’s obviously a market for it. Don’t they like money?”
It sounds simple: stock more sizes and the customers will come.
After stocking sizes 6 to 26+ for 3 years, I can tell you. It’s not.
Inclusive fashion is hard to make profitable. Let me explain…
The first problem is stocking the shop, AKA cash flow.
If a store stocks 5 sizes (XS-XL or 8-16), and want 2 per size, they need to order 10 pieces. If each garment costs $100 and sells for $200, that store needs $1,000 to fund that stock.
If a size inclusive store stocks 10 sizes (XS - 5X or 8-26), 2 per size, they need to order 20 pieces. If each garment costs $100 and sells for $200, that store needs $2,000 to fund that stock purchase.
You need double the funds to stock one line.
The next problem is merchandising the stock.
Stocking 10 instead of 5 sizes per style requires more physical space (or fewer options).
Double the sizes means double the rack space. Customers want their size in stock and on the floor, so inclusive stores need double the rack size for each style they stock. We also want to show the styles on more than one body size. We need more mannequins which doubles the amount of styling in store.
You need more space, so your rent will be higher.
The third complication of inclusive sizing is marketing.
You need twice as many customers for each line. You need to sell 20 units, not 10. That’s more marketing, and more labour hours to support those customers.
Also, some styles just don’t resonate. Even different colours of a popular style can be a miss. If the style doesn’t hit it sells slowly which ties up your cash, and means you can’t buy the next style. You could give it an extra marketing push (also a cost); or you’re forced to discount it to fund your next stock purchase.
You need to market one line to twice as many customers.
The next challenge is profitability.
Because we have more sizes per style, there’s more risk of needing to discount the sizes that don’t land. Not all sizes in one style will work well, grading different sizes is a skill. Let me show you how profitability looks different in size inclusive and non inclusive stores:
Non inclusive store:
-
5 sizes x 2 items = $1000 outlay
-
5 sizes x 2 items = $2000 revenue (if all sold at full price)
-
Profit $1000 (50% gross profit)
Size inclusive store (if things go well):
-
10 sizes x 2 items = $2000 outlay
-
5 sizes x 2 items = 14 sold at full price, 6 sold at half price = $3400 revenue
-
Profit $1400 (41% gross profit)
-
With double the space and marketing effort
Size inclusive store (if things don’t go as well):
-
10 sizes x 2 items = $2000 outlay
-
5 sizes x 2 items = 10 sold at full price, 10 sold at half price = $3000 revenue
-
Profit $1000 (33% gross profit)
-
With double the space and marketing effort
Your profit margins will probably be less than non-inclusive stores.
It’s even more complicated if you’re also a designer and manufacturer
I don’t manufacture products, but here's what I’ve learned as a size-inclusive retailer.
Designing great plus size fits isn’t just adding a % to a straight sized item. Just because your waist is x% bigger than the straight size, doesn’t mean your neck is. Just because your hips are wider, doesn’t mean your torso is longer. It requires multiple fit models to grade a style well. It still won’t work on everybody, but neither do straight sized clothes.
The difference between brands who just scale up their measurements, vs those who actually grade styles on different sized models, is obvious. And again, it’s a higher cost: to do grading well, you’re talking about at LEAST twice as many samples and models. There’s also the cost of extra fabric and fixings, different packaging, size tags and labels – all additional expenses. Some manufacturers have minimum order quantities per size. So, you need to be sure you’re going to sell enough of each size to make it worth it.
If you’re a wholesale brand, you're probably not going to sell many extended sizes to retailers, because there are very few stores that stock plus sizes. So you have to rely on marketing to sell directly to these consumers. If your label is also a retailer, you have all the same challenges listed above with increased investment in units and floor space per style, and greater risk of low profit margins.
Should we just have smaller ranges?
The obvious response to this risk is to reduce the depth of investment per style, i.e. order less per size. But then you can end up with the opposite problem: the style is a hit, but you’re sold out of some sizes. There’s usually an ordering or manufacturing lag, or no option to restock at all. So, you’re now missing out on sales because you reduced your risk. You also reduce customer confidence, because you often don’t have their size. So maybe they don’t bother coming to you next time.
The other option is to order fewer styles. But of course, this means less choice, and again missed sales due to lack of options.
GLP-1s
And I haven’t even touched on the GLP-1 of it all. The proliferation of weight-loss drugs has pushed back decades of progress in size inclusiveness. Thin bodies are “in” again, body positivity and body neutrality relegated to their niche corners of the internet. There’s less incentive for brands to be associated with bigger bodies, to widen their tent for the various shapes and sizes that actually make up our society.
Cost of Living
Then there’s the ongoing cost of living crisis, making consumers more discerning than ever. We’re more conscious of our spending, thinking about cost per wear and “do I really need it?” Less impulse buys, fewer add-ons, less shopping as recreation. Stores and brands have to work harder for every purchase, every unit sold. And compete against the impossible prices of the Sheins and Temus of the world, that are somehow still providing that dopamine hit at an affordable price. We don’t want to think too hard about the how…
Long story short: being size-inclusive is not simple.
On the surface, it seems like it should be. I wish it was. I want it to be, so badly.
But it’s not: it doubles the cost of doing business, without the guarantee of a double return.
What about big brands?
All of this doesn’t excuse big brands who make the foray into plus sizes, don’t invest in stocking it in their stores or marketing it well, then back away from it (hi Witchery). They’ve obviously underestimated the investment required to do it well, and I wonder if the damage this caused their brand means they would have been better off not bothering.
So, am I completely insane?
If large brands can’t make it work, with their financial backing, strong online presence and a national network of stores, it’s objectively complete insanity to think a tiny self-financed business with three casual staff and a dream can do it.
To be honest, my books show this.
It’s not pretty.
But I’m driven by hope. I can see the numbers creeping up. As I refine my buying, I’m seeing more styles sell through (or close to) faster, and at full price. I’m seeing subscribers and followers grow as more people discover the ONLY store in Australia stocking multiple brands of inclusive fashion. I’m slowly seeing more online orders flow in.
I don't know if it will be enough
I don't know if Oh Ramona can stand on her own legs fast enough to avoid being added to the list of size-inclusive businesses who tried and failed. If not, it won’t be through lack of effort or passion. I strongly believe that stocking a wide range of sizes should be the norm. It should be the standard every clothing business meets as a minimum. But three years in, I know why it’s not. I get it. It’s really, really hard for a size-inclusive business to be profitable.
It’s not all doom and gloom though
Despair? No!
For all the failures, there are still some businesses trying (like mine). The dandelions are pushing up through the cracks in the concrete. Seek out and keep supporting those. Visit our stores, invest in our products and wear them proudly. Support your favourite size-inclusive brands with your whole chest. They’re not doing it because it’s easier or more profitable; they’re doing it despite it not being those things.
How you can keep inclusive fashion stores open
-
Buy full price from us when you can.
-
Support our sales when you can’t.
-
Give feedback on fit, so brands can keep improving.
-
Shop with independent retailers and keep them open.
-
Don’t let the fast fashion wasteland win.
Here's a non-exhaustive list of independent brands available in Australia doing size-inclusiveness well (many of which, we stock in our store!): Cherry Bobbins, Hope + Harvest, Curator SF, Curvature, Frock Me Out, Nooworks, De Gail, Amble, Mata Traders, Six Times Seven, Made590, Sanct, Less Common, Ebony Bolts, Alkinaa, Elk, Sük Workwear, HoMie, Squint... who have I missed?
Fashion is more than just clothes
Clothes are one of the simplest forms of self-expression.
What do you want to express when you get dressed every day? What values do you want to project to the world?
Businesses exist to make money.
Without profit, businesses close.
It’s just maths.
None of this is caused by, or the responsibility of people looking for inclusive sizing.
If you believe, like I do, that we need size-inclusive retail in Australia?
Come and buy from us.