1 / 35

IFFTI Conference, November 2005, Tokyo SIZING and LABELLING

This presentation discusses the importance of sizing and labelling in the fashion industry. It explores the challenges and initiatives related to size and shape research, as well as proposes a global scheme for sizing in the industry.

jcalhoun
Download Presentation

IFFTI Conference, November 2005, Tokyo SIZING and LABELLING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IFFTI Conference, November 2005, TokyoSIZING and LABELLING Dr. Alistair Knox Nottingham Trent University School of Art & Design

  2. Overview: sizing & labelling • background to size – shape issues • NTU research • European initiatives • proposal for a global scheme

  3. Context • designers, pattern-cutters, graders need to know customers’ sizes and shapes • people are still getting bigger – on average about 0.4 kg per year (ref. UK Health Survey 1998) [from a SizeUK press release]

  4. Related NTU research [image taken from E-Tailor project report IST-1999-10549]

  5. NTU size/shape research • market research for many retailers, brands: 2D/3D + size charts • 16 surveys over 10 years • SizeUK – bodyscanner UK survey – with LCF, ULC + retail consortium • E-Tailor (EU) • Intelligent pattern alteration • 3D body shape on smartcard • national size survey white paper • National Textile Center (USA) – joint research on shape analysis • links with NTU teaching • 3D body scanning for plastic surgery evaluation Smart-card system for mass customisation

  6. Ready to wear sizing issues

  7. body size & shape • normal = large range of heights, girths, body types • socio-economic plus regional & national / ethnic variations • somatotype trends

  8. size labelling schemes S M L XL XXL … or 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 … or 0 1 2 3 4 …. or … what?

  9. International complexity & confusion Table 1 Womenswear sizing [based on Winks (1997), table A4]

  10. UK and Europe: sizing co-operation 08 December 1998 - Neckermann, Frankfurt 30 June 1999 - Otto, Hamburg European Size Comparison & Letter Code Belgium France Germany Greece Ireland Netherland Spain Sweden Switzerland UK 26 January 2000 - AEDT - C&A - M&S, Brussels 05 July 2000 - Research Institute, Hohenstein 05 December 2000 - Freemans, London 26 June 2001 - H & M, Stockholm 24 January 2002 - Puma, Herzogenaurach 18 September 2003 - Otto, Hamburg

  11. CEN proposal- aim to improve international standards • National standards, e.g. BS3666; new standard BS EN 13402 • European standards: CEN13402 • technical committee TC248 • drafts for definitions, measuring standards, sizing • ISO standards

  12. Aims • based on standard definitions and body measurement procedures [EN 13402] • logical system using the minimum number of digits • one code system for most clothing products • easy to understand for the consumer • to be implemented Europe-wide

  13. CEN Proposal • 3 digit specification code for buying, computer processing, consumer ordering • each digit is a code for • primary dimension [girth] • secondary dimension [e.g. 1(narrow hip) .. 5(wide)] • height indicator [e.g. 1(short) …. 9 (tall)] • code can be supplemented on a size label by the prime dimension in cms (for communication) and a pictogram

  14. code structure - womenPrime Dimension (PD) code number plus subsidiary girth and height code numbers BASIC STRUCTURE OF SIZE INDICATION (women) BustorWaist first digit(PD) + Hip second digit + Height third digit

  15. Building up the CEN code Bust 80 84 88 92 96 code 2 3 4 5 6 Hip very narrow average very wide narrow wide code 1 2 3 4 5 Height 160 164 168 172 176 code 2 3 4 5 6 final code 412 423 434 445 456

  16. Example with pictogram – men “334”

  17. Perceived difficulties with CEN scheme • complex and potentially confusing, e.g. current size 48 could become = 934, and 50 = 184 • will need 4 digit code for men over 2 metres • children’s tops and bottoms will be different codes • does not take advantage of the prevalence of the most common combinations of bust, waist, hip for simplicity

  18. ‘German’ counter-proposal

  19. Alternative – 2 digit half-girth plus height/shape letter [Otto Versand et al.]

  20. None of these proposals gained wide acceptance by commercial representativesNeed for a simplified global scheme“more research needed”

  21. Market research for Designers, Buyers and Merchandisers • what size are our customers? • what shape? • what is “good fit” for our products? • ANSWERS FROM SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS

  22. HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION - narrow distribution: 1-3 size variants enough - almost ‘normal’: about as many tall as short

  23. GIRTH DISTRIBUTION - broad spread : needs 10+ size options - asymmetric : long ‘tail’ for bigger sizes

  24. Market research for designers, Buyers and merchandisers • what size are our customers? • what shape? • what is “good fit” for our products? • ANSWERS FROM SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS • how many size / shape / height options is it economical to offer? • is there a simple, universal labelling scheme which communicates the offer options?

  25. Figure 6: Height v Bust for ‘size 12’ bust 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185 height [cm] little correlation between height & girth

  26. shape variations; shape averaging

  27. commercial solutions for ready-to-wear • Heights • often 1 standard is enough in a market • sometimes short/petite & tall/long options • there will always be a few exceptions • Girths • often 5 girth variations cover the bulk of the market • with 4 or 5 cm increments, 10-15 sizes may be needed for complete coverage • Shape • mannequins & block patterns will need adjusting from time to time • no two people are identical; electronic 3D averaging can give good standards for general fit purposes NTU body shape averaging

  28. Options / issues for any proposed new standard • simple versus complex code • should be meaningful to customers and suppliers: simpler the better • ‘meaningless’ size label code? [e.g. “14”] • could be redefined as required (as now), but non-standard confusion • Actual girth: metric measurements used globally • “just” some Anglo-Saxons may need to adjust! • Dual labelling; conversion tables • a new system can run in parallel with any existing • Pictogram: visual communication including other key measurements for easy understanding

  29. Labelling proposal- use prime customer measurement

  30. Girth example(women’s tops)–actual metric measurement (cms)

  31. Length – code letter for height / leg length

  32. Trouser example with ISO pictogramvisual communication: diagram with garment’s key dimensions women men Size 124X [was 18 extra tall] Size 96L [was 38 long]

  33. Other implications • Unisex possibility • Customer resistance to change • education • industry consensus • phase in over time • reduces vanity sizing scope • no ‘shape’ categories – fully flexible • customers likely to know their own key dimensions • should help reduce returns (especially mail-order) • may help mass customisation

  34. 104 60 84 Conclusion • Simple proposal, easily adaptable • could suit most garment types • combination of standard metric prime measurement, almost universal height/length code letter • visual supplement = pictogram with other measurements, garment-dependent Alistair Knox Size 104L [was 42 long]

More Related