Can someone explain failing clothing stores?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, we all know that the Internet is really having a bad effect on stores. People can purchase stuff for less online and get it sent to their home. And I can see how this works for music, video, electronics, toys, among other things. JCPenney is suffering too, but I'm confused as to why.

But the one thing I don't see it working for is clothing, especially women's clothing. Now, being a guy, I know that clothes sizes are generally trustworthy and all that matters is if a shirt cut to fit tight or how baggy pants are. But typically, I want to go to a store and try on pants and shirts just to be certain I like the fit.

Women? OMFG! I'm scared when trying to buy a shirt for my wife. She looks fit and is fit, but damn... if I try to buy her something that is a Junior size, it has be something like a quadruple double extra large. For women's clothing small isn't necessarily small nor medium is medium from one shirt to another. Women kind of have this issue with body shape, hips, chest, maybe belly. So while men's clothing, one size means one size... it doesn't for women... but apparently they still try to use it instead of providing a size that indicates chest, hip, waist. Worse off, men's sizes are based on actual sizes. A 32 waist, is a 32" waist. For women... a 4 is a... who the fuck knows, maybe the 4 grapes a woman can eat a day to be able to fit in it! And it gets even worse, number sizes are so arbitrary that they seem to change with time so as they might as well get rid of the numbers and just put everything together at random.

Where am I going with this?

Driving the bigger loss, the company said, is its decision to speed up the liquidation of poorly-selling inventory, primarily women's clothing.

How can women buy anything like a shirt, dress, blouse, pants... without trying it on. How can stores that generally make a good deal of their money from women's clothing be struggling?

 

[beero1000]

Okay, we all know that the Internet is really having a bad effect on stores. People can purchase stuff for less online and get it sent to their home. And I can see how this works for music, video, electronics, toys, among other things. JCPenney is suffering too, but I'm confused as to why.

But the one thing I don't see it working for is clothing, especially women's clothing. Now, being a guy, I know that clothes sizes are generally trustworthy and all that matters is if a shirt cut to fit tight or how baggy pants are. But typically, I want to go to a store and try on pants and shirts just to be certain I like the fit.

Women? OMFG! I'm scared when trying to buy a shirt for my wife. She looks fit and is fit, but damn... if I try to buy her something that is a Junior size, it has be something like a quadruple double extra large. For women's clothing small isn't necessarily small nor medium is medium from one shirt to another. Women kind of have this issue with body shape, hips, chest, maybe belly. So while men's clothing, one size means one size... it doesn't for women... but apparently they still try to use it. Worse off, men's sizes are based on actual sizes. A 32 waist, is a 32" waist. For women... a 4 is a... who the fuck knows! It is even worse, number sizes are so arbitrary that they seem to change with time so as they might as well get rid of the numbers and just put everything together at random.

Where am I going with this?

Driving the bigger loss, the company said, is its decision to speed up the liquidation of poorly-selling inventory, primarily women's clothing.

How can women buy anything like a shirt, dress, blouse, pants... without trying it on. How can stores that generally make a good deal of their money from women's clothing be struggling?

You know that for most pants, a 32 waist isn't really 32", right? Vanity sizing is a real thing, for men as well as women.

Anyway, tons of people buy clothes online. You get a good idea of your size, and if you're wrong you just send it back.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, we all know that the Internet is really having a bad effect on stores. People can purchase stuff for less online and get it sent to their home. And I can see how this works for music, video, electronics, toys, among other things. JCPenney is suffering too, but I'm confused as to why.

But the one thing I don't see it working for is clothing, especially women's clothing. Now, being a guy, I know that clothes sizes are generally trustworthy and all that matters is if a shirt cut to fit tight or how baggy pants are. But typically, I want to go to a store and try on pants and shirts just to be certain I like the fit.

Women? OMFG! I'm scared when trying to buy a shirt for my wife. She looks fit and is fit, but damn... if I try to buy her something that is a Junior size, it has be something like a quadruple double extra large. For women's clothing small isn't necessarily small nor medium is medium from one shirt to another. Women kind of have this issue with body shape, hips, chest, maybe belly. So while men's clothing, one size means one size... it doesn't for women... but apparently they still try to use it. Worse off, men's sizes are based on actual sizes. A 32 waist, is a 32" waist. For women... a 4 is a... who the fuck knows! It is even worse, number sizes are so arbitrary that they seem to change with time so as they might as well get rid of the numbers and just put everything together at random.

Where am I going with this?

How can women buy anything like a shirt, dress, blouse, pants... without trying it on. How can stores that generally make a good deal of their money from women's clothing be struggling?

You know that for most pants, a 32 waist isn't really 32", right?

Apparently not, because I said otherwise.

Vanity sizing is a real thing, for men as well as women.

Dude Carly Simon knows nothing about me!

Anyway, tons of people buy clothes online. You get a good idea of your size, and if you're wrong you just send it back.

That is a hassle. But apparently not enough for some people.

 

[beero1000]

You know that for most pants, a 32 waist isn't really 32", right?

Apparently not, because I said otherwise.

Vanity sizing is a real thing, for men as well as women.

Dude Carly Simon knows nothing about me!

Anyway, tons of people buy clothes online. You get a good idea of your size, and if you're wrong you just send it back.

That is a hassle. But apparently not enough for some people.

I guess whether or not it's a hassle is a matter of perspective. You could:

1. Have to go to (possibly multiple) stores (during their regular hours), peruse their limited selection, try stuff on, buy it, go home, and have to repeat the trip if you need to return anything. OR
2. Shop online in your underwear, whenever you want, use a search function on a basically unlimited selection that's rarely out of stock, they send it to your house in a couple of days, you decide if you want them and if not, they will pick it up and take it away for a full refund.

I know which I prefer.

 

[rousseau]

I've known people who shop for clothes online.

It's becoming one of the few things I still do in store, probably because I'm an instant gratification type of person. When I need new clothes I want to make sure they fit, get them immediately, and move on with my life while wearing my sweet new clothes. The same thing applies to shopping at Indigo rather than buying used books on Amazon. It's more expensive, but it means I can have the book in my hand right now and read it when I get home. There's also something to be said for having a reason to actually leave your house and go somewhere.

That said, shopping for clothing online is probably something I should get into, because the mall's in my city are pretty limited. Having unlimited selection sounds appealing.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if they give you a full refund, that's a good way of doing it.

 

[Elixir]

Shoes - the bane of my existence. There's not a single decent shoe store in the area, so I order them online. My female business partner does it right - she orders every possible permutation of the shoe she wants, keeps the pair that works and returns the rest. I usually do the opposite -order the size that should fit, find out they don't, and order the size that I estimate to be correct based on the information I got from the pair that didn't fit. The intent is to return the ones that don't fit, but I forget. Now I have a few pairs of practically new, perfectly good (for someone else) shoes that I need to remember to bring to the local thrift store... some day.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm a woman and I buy at least half of my clothing online. If it's a pair of jeans, I usually buy them from Macy's. I buy the first pair at the store, then I watch for a sale at Macys.com and then I buy a few pair. Shirts and sweaters are easier. I like the shirts that Eddie Bauer sells. I'm a small petite and petite women's clothing is becoming very difficult to find in stores. Apparently most big box stores sell by the demographics in the area. If you are a petite woman living in an area heavily populated by large women, you're SOL. I buy several Eddie Bauer shirts when they go on sale. I even buy underwear online.

I also buy shoes online because there is only one brand that is comfortable for my messed up feet. I used to buy all of my shoes at Planet Shoes, but they no longer carry my brand. They were very easy to return and postage was paid both ways. All I had to do to return them was go to a UPS store and hand them over. They even included a shipping label. For me, it's easier to buy clothing online than it is in most stores.

Maybe it's hard if a woman likes unusual styles or has an odd shaped figure, or maybe not. Chain stores allow you to return anything you don't like to the actual store if you don't want to bother mailing it back. I live in a small city about an hour outside Atlanta, so it's much more convenient for me to buy most of my clothing online. Plus, I can catch all the sales since the online stores will bug you to death whenever they have a sale. Most of the things I buy are 40-50% off.

Any other questions about how we women keep ourselves well dressed?

 

[prideandfall]

so clothing as a retail business has a fundamental flaw - actually i think this is a flaw in almost all consumer businesses and is why things like walmart exist and why the retail market has been having so many problems.
it basically comes down to this:
you can go to lane bryant and buy a cardigan for 45 dollars, or you can go to walmart and buy effectively the exact same cardigan of the same quality stitched with the same technique that will last you the same amount of time for 11 dollars.

the entire conceptual justification for upmarket retailer is: A. products you can't get anywhere else, and/or B. products of appreciably higher quality than you can get elsewhere.
since 'planned obsolescence' has become the base level operating parameters for every product manufacturer in the US, it means that the differences in one retailer or the other become increasingly irrelevant.
if EVERY store sells you a coat that is specifically designed to fall apart within a year or two, why would you ever purchase a coat except at the lowest possible price?

so, this is why you end up with walmart... when all products are equally shitty, consumers are going to settle into trending towards the least expensive option.

secondary issue: you can go to a store and shop and try things on, note the name and brand of the item you like, then go home and find it online for cheaper.

 

[Bronzeage]

Retailers who concentrate on everyday fashion are in the same marketing segment as Applebee's and those other restaurant chains that are closing locations. They want the young working professional and white collar workers. That particular segment is hard pressed these days. Between a tight job market and student loans, expendable income is very low.

If anyone is wondering why clothing is so hard hit, you can look to Amazon. Jeff Bezos has managed to forge a delivery system which uses economies of scale to reduce shipping costs to the bare minimum. Your "Free Shipping" is factored into every sale price, and it still beats the retailer who has to make payroll and pay the light bill. There was a time when shipping was a factor in an online purchase, but that worry is a thing of the past. I do a lot of online business and when I buy parts and supplies, I pay shipping. When I buy retail, it's always free(for new items).

A big plus is that online customers tend to show the same loyalty to cyberstores and brands, as they once did to department stores. This means sucking up the cost of returning merchandise is a no lose deal for the seller.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I figured women's sizing is supposed to be a male cloaking device of sorts. We are not to know or seek to understand it.

I haven't purchased clothing or shoes at a store in many years. Why spend half a day exhausting yourself in a mall, wading through a sea of humanity when you can, as was stated, do so in the comfort of your own underwear (or better).
Most male sizing is pretty standard with few exceptions like those who specialize in work wear like Carhartt. There you'll usually find a more generous fit. On line clothes and shoe shopping has evolved. I like that many will let the customer know if a shirt is loose or slim fitting. And shoes? On line is the best to find the shoes you want in your size. I really think on line retailers have come along way in standardization of sizing and probably for this very reason: They want to minimize returns.
Further, once you find your favorite on line retailers, you're good to go. No muss. No fuss.
People in a mall? Eew.

 

[rousseau]

I figured women's sizing is supposed to be a male cloaking device of sorts. We are not to know or seek to understand it.

I haven't purchased clothing or shoes at a store in many years. Why spend half a day exhausting yourself in a mall, wading through a sea of humanity when you can, as was stated, do so in the comfort of your own underwear (or better).
Most male sizing is pretty standard with few exceptions like those who specialize in work wear like Carhartt. There you'll usually find a more generous fit. On line clothes and shoe shopping has evolved. I like that many will let the customer know if a shirt is loose or slim fitting. And shoes? On line is the best to find the shoes you want in your size. I really think on line retailers have come along way in standardization of sizing and probably for this very reason: They want to minimize returns.
Further, once you find your favorite on line retailers, you're good to go. No muss. No fuss.
People in a mall? Eew.

I have the opposite feeling. Hang out in the mall and people watch without the risk of anyone asking you to spend your Saturday night with them.

But then, I live in a University town so my mall experience may be much different than in small town Ohio.

 

[Toni]

There's only so much shit you can buy. That's the first and last reason.

There has been a marked decline in quality of clothing available in retail establishments--even nice ones! over the last 20-30 years. I'm sure my mother in law said the same thing 30 years ago and I'm sure she was right. I saw her closet and back in the day, she passed along one or two things from her younger days. The thing is, I know I am right. I still am holding onto a few items I bought on sale at a decent (but not top tier) department store when I was in my 20's. They are still nice, of good quality, well made, with good fabric. If only I were still the same size!

Some of that is that a lot of retail is designed to be disposable clothing for the under 25 set who have no money, are still figuring themselves out and who change personalities/clothing/style every 3 months. Nothing is meant to last longer than the latest trend.

A lot of trends are frankly ugly.

Other reasons: I'm also short and finding decent clothing that doesn't look like I'm ready for a nursing home or 17 is not easy. I see lovely things that I would love to wear--if only they came in my size or I were 4 inches taller. They are still of lower quality than I typically found 30 years ago but at least they are not ugly.

Also I live in a small city/town with no real options for women's clothing aside from hunting garments --or Target, who has really nice clothing for children. Too bad they weren't in town when my children were...children. For adults, much less short adult women: not so much. I have never set foot in the Walmart in town and don't intend to do so.

The nearest mall is 50 miles away and that is losing its flagship department store that actually carried petite sizes (very limited but...something.)

After that, it's over 100 miles for me to go to a mall or a city with a decent downtown with decent retailers for women's garments. Even then, the pickings are pretty slim for short people. And no: hemming pants doesn't answer the issues of a rise that is incorrect, too long sleeves, misplaced armholes, etc.

Oh, I forgot: there is a nice, unique clothing store downtown in my town but again: almost none of their clothing comes in my size. It's not mainstream/you'll see it all over the mall clothing--which is a plus. It's a little trendy/little classic and made for people several inches taller than I am. If I were taller, I'd indulge.

I know a few online retailers and online brands that are reliable for fit and quality although at least one has dropped in quality in the past few years. So, that's what I do. It's not very satisfying but it keeps me clothed. I have a basic 'uniform' of easily interchangeable tops and bottoms that serve for work. Whatever top I grab will almost certainly go with whatever pants I grab. It's easy and quick. EVERYTHING is washable.

Besides, there's only so much shit you can buy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I suppose that answers that.

Always nice to have a thread with a logical conclusion.

 

[snoiduspoitus]

The bottom fell out when Imelda Marcos stopped buying shoes.

 

[Underseer]

The Internet isn't the only thing hurting retail.

That's why you are confused.

When minimum wage fails to keep up with inflation, a large number of salary workers are affected. Not just the wage-earners receiving minimum wage. When unions are weakened, it's not just union people who make less money. When programming jobs are lost to India (or to H1-B workers), it's not just programmers who have to start putting up with lower wages. When Republican lawmakers pass laws that give tax breaks to companies for shipping American factory jobs to other countries, it's not just factory workers who are affected.

If the burger flipper makes more money, then the ambulance worker will go to their boss and demand more money. If the wages of burger flippers are kept down, then employers can get away with paying ambulance workers less, because a lot of people develop salary expectations based on comparing themselves to other people around them. When programming jobs are lost to other countries, then some of those programmers are going to change careers and compete with other people in other industries for jobs. All of these policies affect more jobs than you think.

Our economic policies have for decades been acting to suppress wages over large portions of the economy.

Republican voters like this because the elites get richer at the expense of all those dirty commoners.

Unfortunately, all of those policies might be good for shareholders, but are bad for the actual corporations those shares own in the long term. Here's the thing: as the wages of large numbers of workers are suppressed, that means to total disposable income of the population goes down.

Guess what happens to most businesses as the total disposable income of the population goes down year after year? The short term benefit of higher profit cheaper labor is offset by long term losses in sales.

This is why Republicans and the corporatist branch of the Democratic party refuse to enforce antitrust laws. If the surviving businesses are getting bigger and bigger slices of the pie, then they probably won't notice that the pie itself is shrinking

 

[sharon45]

I'm not fussy about style, or interested in spending much, so I buy almost all of my clothes from thrift shops.

 

[Underseer]

What is really tragic is that restaurant owners and other small business owners are the ones who push hardest to suppress wages.

So they contribute to shrinking the total disposable income by demanding state and local governments keep minimum wages low.

But guess which businesses get hurt the first when the population as a whole has to tighten their belts? That's right, if your family is having more and more trouble making ends meet, then the first thing they are going to cut from the family budget is going out to eat.

So many of those restaurant owners are putting themselves out of business and don't know it. As more and more restaurants start to fail, restaurant owners place more and more pressure on local government to keep wages down. It's a vicious feedback loop.

 

[LordKiran]

What is really tragic is that restaurant owners and other small business owners are the ones who push hardest to suppress wages.

So they contribute to shrinking the total disposable income by demanding state and local governments keep minimum wages low.

But guess which businesses get hurt the first when the population as a whole has to tighten their belts? That's right, if your family is having more and more trouble making ends meet, then the first thing they are going to cut from the family budget is going out to eat.

So many of those restaurant owners are putting themselves out of business and don't know it. As more and more restaurants start to fail, restaurant owners place more and more pressure on local government to keep wages down. It's a vicious feedback loop.

Eh good riddance. Eating out is a sucker's game. Sure you have to put work and time into making your own food but it comes out just as good if not better and a plate that would run me 25 bucks at a red lobster I can make for the whole family with roughly the same amount of money. Someone once told me that "If you ignore your loved one, you're just teaching him/her that they can live without you." So too is it with chain stores like Red Lobster. When the economy forces people to go without, what they learn is that they never needed those things to begin with.

We recently had a delivery pizza to our door. It was pretty good, but the whole thing cost us like 40 bucks! WTF! I'd rather swear off pizza for the rest of my days then ever pay that again. Really if I make my own sauce, I can make due with store bought biscuit dough and a block of un-grated cheese.

 

[rousseau]

What is really tragic is that restaurant owners and other small business owners are the ones who push hardest to suppress wages.

So they contribute to shrinking the total disposable income by demanding state and local governments keep minimum wages low.

But guess which businesses get hurt the first when the population as a whole has to tighten their belts? That's right, if your family is having more and more trouble making ends meet, then the first thing they are going to cut from the family budget is going out to eat.

So many of those restaurant owners are putting themselves out of business and don't know it. As more and more restaurants start to fail, restaurant owners place more and more pressure on local government to keep wages down. It's a vicious feedback loop.

Eh good riddance. Eating out is a sucker's game. Sure you have to put work and time into making your own food but it comes out just as good if not better and a plate that would run me 25 bucks at a red lobster I can make for the whole family with roughly the same amount of money. Someone once told me that "If you ignore your loved one, you're just teaching him/her that they can live without you." So too is it with chain stores like Red Lobster. When the economy forces people to go without, what they learn is that they never needed those things to begin with.

We recently had a delivery pizza to our door. It was pretty good, but the whole thing cost us like 40 bucks! WTF! I'd rather swear off pizza for the rest of my days then ever pay that again. Really if I make my own sauce, I can make due with store bought biscuit dough and a block of un-grated cheese.

Yep, I notice this especially since buying a car a year ago.

Much easier to keep our house stocked in good, healthy, and fresh food, to the point that I hardly see a reason to go out. Most of the time the food isn't that great, and when it is I could be feeding myself for three days for the price.