PURCHASING CHILDREN'S CLOTHING

(Mrs.) Elsie K. Williams

Textiles and Clothing, College of Home Economics, Iowa State University

INTRODUCTION

For this study, children's clothing has been interpreted as wearing apparel for children from birth through adolescence, to include the entire period of physical growth and development, with full realization of an appreciation for the other areas of personal development which correlate with and are affected by physical growth: namely social, physiological and emotional development. It is specifically concerned with ready-to-wear.

Various methods of obtaining information were used, including a search for literature on the subject that might serve as guidelines. It was concluded from an almost fruitless effort that meaningful studies of the impact and implications of the United States' adoption of the metric system for sizing of children's clothing are nonexistent.

Other methods used for compiling information were: conferences with managers and owners of retail stores directly involved with the sale of children's ready-to-wear; correspondence with various individuals concerned with the clothing industry, both on the manufacturing and distribution level; informal conversations with consumers of different ages with varying backgrounds of experience and education, but who are all presently and actively involved with purchasing children's clothing; conferences with professionally employed people in textiles and clothing, both in education and business; conferences with students at Iowa State University who are majors in textiles and clothing and have had an opportunity to participate in a workstudy program conducted cooperatively by the university and various retailstores; and assistance by two graduate students in their preliminary efforts to: (1) study and evaluate present methods used for sizing children's clothing in the United States and (2) study responses of a group of high school girls enrolled in a class in home economics. (These studies are still in process and no definitive results are available at the present time.)

PRESENT IMPACT

The present impact of the increasing worldwide and domestic use of the metric system is minimal on the consumer of children's clothing. This generalization is based on the following facts:

(1) For all practical purposes children's clothing on the retail market in the United States is sized by the customary system. This is true whether the clothing is produced domestically or is foreign made. Foreign made clothing sizes are converted to the English

(2) Few consumers have had any contact with children's clothing sized by the metric system, so obviously they have not considered the possibility of the use of the metric system of sizing children's clothing, much less given any thought to the possible advantages or disadvantages of such a system of sizing.

(3) A small percentage of individuals who have had an opportunity to purchase children's clothing in countries outside of the United States have been confronted with the metric system in clothing sizing. Generally, the sales person is able to make the conversion for them and guide them into buying the correct size. This is another example of America's expecting people from other countries to bridge the gaps in communication rather than doing it themselves.

CURRENT SIZING PRACTICES

In no consumer activity is there greater variety and inconsistency in indicating size than there is in the area of clothing. Vague terms as "small," "medium" and "large" (or the letters S, M, L) are common for designating sizes such as: 0, 3, 6, 12, or 18 months. Another manufacturer may choose 0, 1⁄2, 1, 11⁄2 for garments with comparable dimensions. To add to the confusion, a size "12 months" is not necessarily the same as size "1 year.' The letter "X" is frequently used to indicate an "in-between" size, such as in a size range of 1 to 3X.

Ambiguous numbers which have no relationship to age may also be used to indicate size. A prime example is the sizing of shoes with a range of sizes from 00 to 13, with the age of the child being fitted almost totally unrelated, except for the fact that the larger the number, the larger the shoe. Further classification is made for width by such terms as narrow, medium, or wide. Some manufacturers choose to designate width by letters such as A, B, C. From experience, consumers learn that A is comparable to "narrow," B is comparable to "medium," and C means "wide." More specific and satisfactory size indications for clothing are based on actual body dimensions. These are sometimes used in addition to vague descriptive terms or abbreviations (small, medium and large or S, M, L), or they may be used by themselves. The body dimensions used to indicate size are usually those critical for the particular garment, such as girth for two piece pajamas and training panties. and inseam leg length on creepers or slacks and trousers.

Clothing for infants and toddlers is often sized with an arbitrary letter or number accompanied by a height and weight chart based on the recommendation of the U.S. Department of Commerce [1]. This probably is the best method of size marking presently in use. Similar standards have been developed for Boys, Girls, and Sub-Teen and Teen-age girls, but rarely, if ever, are clothes for these age groups sized by height and weight.

Each manufacturer also classifies its garments for individual types. In small children's sizes the designation is frequently Infants. Babies, Toddlers, and Children. For boys the classification may be regular, slim, husky or robust. Girls' classifications may be regular and chubbie. As the youngster

approaches adolescence and begins to experience rapid change in body proportions and size, an entirely new classification becomes necessary. For girls, the range may be pre-teen, sub-teen, teen, hi-teen, junior, etc. Boys may be designated as student or prep. Some numbers or letters overlap in each type classification, so it would be possible - even likely - that a baby, his toddler sibling, his teenage sister and his mother could all be fitted in a "size 3" in various garments.

More examples of the wide range of sizing techniques commonly practiced in the United States could be cited, but those listed should adequately illustrate the inconsistency and confusion that exists.

In an attempt to get some consumer reactions to the system of sizing presently in the use in the United States, mothers of children in various age groups were interviewed. When they were asked if they felt the present system of sizing was adequate, the general reaction was one of surprise - they really hadn't thought much about it. They were used to it and accepted it. Guided by a few leading questions and given time for a little deliberation, they could cite specific instances of inconsistency and confusion, but had given little consideration to changes that would make for improvement. When asked if they felt a change to a metric system of sizing would be a good idea, a very small percentage of homemakers interviewed had considered the possibility but none were familiar enough with what such a change would involve to have a firm opinion. Those who were aware of the possibility of a change had obtained their information through reading articles recently published in newspapers and popular magazines.

These discussions with homemakers were on a very limited basis, and while their reactions may be typical of U.S. consumers of clothing, it would suggest that a broad scientific study would be needed in order to determine how to begin an effective educational program for the consumer on the metric system of sizing.

Correspondence and discussions with people in the clothing industry at both the retail and manufacturing levels indicated that the industry has not progressed much beyond the awareness state in its consideration of what a change to the metric system in the United States would involve.

There are many instances of garments being produced in other countries for the United States market, but all necessary conversions and markings of sizing are done prior to their arrival in the United States. A few large companies have retail outlets outside the United States. Sears, Roebuck and Co., for example, has stores in Mexico and Central America. "Garments for these locations are manufactured to metric specifications issued by Sears and also purchased on the open market - all using metric dimensions [2]."

POSSIBLE FUTURE EFFECTS OF METRICATION

As indicated previously, at the present time the use of the metric system for sizing clothing in the United States is practically non-existent; nor is there any indication of a trend toward a voluntary adoption of the metric

On this basis, it would appear that the clothing consumer in the U.S. will not be affected to any great extent by an increasing worldwide and domestic use of the metric system in the near future if no specific program of coordination or encouragement is undertaken by the Federal Government.

If the United States were to change to predominant use of the metric system, however, it would seem logical to change to a labeling system where size was indicated by critical body dimensions. With such a uniform system, it is conceivable that a child's shoes and socks, or his undershorts and slacks could be a consistent size regardless of manufacturer source.

Sizing clothing is a unique problem, inasmuch as people are not of standard size and proportions. Therefore, it is possible that a change to the metric system could be a disservice to the consumer if we did not retain the essential advantages of our present system. It would be important to the consumer to retain typical classifications of certain garments. These serve as a valuable guide to proper fit, but the size label should also include vital body dimensions. For example, a 13-year-old girl could identify her type (subteen, pre-teen, or teen) by comparing her body size and proportion to type descriptions, (such as those used by the pattern companies), but if actual size labeling was done in terms of specific body dimensions, it would undoubtedly take much of the guesswork out of fitting and help eliminate costly mistakes or extra time required by both the consumer and retail salesperson in finding the correct size by trial and error.

Neither would it be entirely beneficial to force the clothing industry to standardize sizes. Many manufacturers use the Recommended Commercial Standards of the United States Department of Commerce as a guide in their sizing system, but they reserve the right to adapt these standards to their market [3]. Style is an essential factor in the "cut" of a garment, and style is important in sales. For example, one brand of western jeans in the U.S. is famous for its trim style of fit. If the manufacturer had to conform to some standard dimensions set by the industry, his unique "style" would be lost. A comment such as: "I always buy (brand name) for my daughter. It is the only one that fits her properly," is not uncommon. It is conceivable that standardization of garment sizing could result in some individuals being unable to ever buy a well-fitted garment. If size could be stated in terms of body dimensions, comparison of brands could be made more easily, quickly, and accurately.

If the United States should change to the metric system, it would be inevitable that some consumer resistance and confusion would be involved, particularly during the early period of changeover, when it is probable that garments would be available on the retail market marked by either system.

Undoubtedly the greatest resistance to a change would be among older consumers who are used to and are generally satisfied with the "status quo," and have not had and will probably never have the opportunity to learn the metric system in a formal educational situation.

Both advantages and disadvantages are foreseeable in a changeover from the English system to the metric system of sizing.

The main disadvantages would undoubtedly be economic and psychological. Some predict that the greatest obstacle to be overcome would be human

resistance to change. Learning, unlearning and relearning is always a large undertaking and on a nationwide scale it would be even more momentous. Undoubtedly the lion's share of the burden of change would fall on the industry itself: in equipment changes, training and retraining personnel, and cost. The consumer would pay ultimately, but how much and for how long, and whether the final result would be more economical for consumers are questions presently unanswerable.

The permanent advantages, however, would appear to outweigh any short-term disadvantages.

If a change to the metric system should become mandatory, it would provide the clothing industry with the need to totally rethink and re-evaluate present sizing practices and to make changes that could result in a more uniform and simplified system. Changing to the metric system would therefore provide the opportunity to "wipe the slate clean" and make a fresh start. Obviously, the same total overhaul could be done with our present system, but it seems highly unlikely that the industry would voluntarily choose to make sweeping changes as long as the customary system is in effect.

The children's clothing market would probably benefit more by a specific and uniform system of sizing than would any other segment of the clothing industry for two particular reasons: (1) A higher percentage of clothing is purchased as gifts for infants and children than for adults [4], and thus there is more chance of costly errors in selecting the needed size, and (2) many articles of clothing for infants and children are prepackaged and purchased without trying on, again increasing the possibility of choosing the wrong size. A sizing system that would reduce the number of errors made in size selection would result in direct savings in time and money as well as greater consumer satisfactions.

There is a trend toward self-service in all segments of the retail market and the clothing market is no exception. Labor costs and the rapid turnover in sales personnel, as well as inadequately trained personnel, are among the reasons for this trend. The advantages of improved methods of size labeling in a self-service market are obvious.

A more adequate system of marking for clothing sizes should also result in a more efficient operation for mail order companies and services. There could be substantial savings in time, money and frustration if consumers could reduce the number of errors in selection of sizes.

A thorough, well-planned and well-executed educational program designed to familiarize the consumer with the adopted system for size marking would be essential prior to the appearance on the retail market of any articles of clothing marked by the new system. An even more vigorous and thorough training program would have to occur with retailers and retail sales people. Well-informed sales people, able to explain to the consumer how metric sizes compare to the customary sizes, could take much of the anxiety out of a new system of sizing for a large majority of consumers.

Conversion charts containing the minimum of essential information, conveniently located for easy reference by both the sales person and the customer would be essential. A number of charts might be needed, depend