This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Spotted an advert on UKC today posted by a leading outdoor clothing supplier. They were looking for a female model for their new range. I thought the wording was interesting-
"Our photoshoot samples are all size 12 therefore please ensure you will fit the clothing correctly before applying."
Why cant we live in a world when everything is out in the open, rather than beating around the bush. We can all read between the lines. They want a slim girl, early to mid 20s, probably blond, whos willing to work for minimum wage just for the chance of a free cagoule!
"Our photoshoot samples are all size 12 therefore please ensure you will fit the clothing correctly before applying."
Why cant we live in a world when everything is out in the open, rather than beating around the bush. We can all read between the lines. They want a slim girl, early to mid 20s, probably blond, whos willing to work for minimum wage just for the chance of a free cagoule!
3
23
47
1
In reply to ogreville:
Haven't seen that. Is it worth asking why their sample sizes are 12, when the average size in the UK is 16? Would there be any answer they could give which *wouldn't* offend the majority of UK women?
> "Our photoshoot samples are all size 12 therefore please ensure you will fit the clothing correctly before applying."
Haven't seen that. Is it worth asking why their sample sizes are 12, when the average size in the UK is 16? Would there be any answer they could give which *wouldn't* offend the majority of UK women?
4
8
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Not really, since we all know the answer: we'll sell more if we advertise with size 12s.
I agree with your implication though, it's a disingenuous way to say "size 12s only". Odd one, can't really say "size 12s only" without criticism, but can't not say it either...
> Is it worth asking why their sample sizes are 12, when the average size in the UK is 16?
Not really, since we all know the answer: we'll sell more if we advertise with size 12s.
I agree with your implication though, it's a disingenuous way to say "size 12s only". Odd one, can't really say "size 12s only" without criticism, but can't not say it either...
3
1
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Do you have any data on the average size of UK female outdoor enthusiasts? 12 might be entirely representative.
> Haven't seen that. Is it worth asking why their sample sizes are 12, when the average size in the UK is 16? Would there be any answer they could give which *wouldn't* offend the majority of UK women?
Do you have any data on the average size of UK female outdoor enthusiasts? 12 might be entirely representative.
39
1
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Sample size 12 in manufacturing is quite standard. Most models are skinnier than that (fashion models are usual size 6!) . So it could be worse. I think for young women size 12 is about average.
Sample size 12 in manufacturing is quite standard. Most models are skinnier than that (fashion models are usual size 6!) . So it could be worse. I think for young women size 12 is about average.
12
1
2
1
2
3
In reply to Martin not maisie:
If the UK average is 16 I'm sure the "outdoor woman" average will be smaller and anyway, 12 isn't exactly emaciated is it. The average model is probably smaller still.
> Is it worth asking why their sample sizes are 12, when the average size in the UK is 16? >
If the UK average is 16 I'm sure the "outdoor woman" average will be smaller and anyway, 12 isn't exactly emaciated is it. The average model is probably smaller still.
17
In reply to ogreville:
I though the ad was fine. Size 12 may not be average across the UK but for 'active, outdoor enthusiasts' I doubt it's a long way off. I'm a 12 and feel boringly average - albeit not the best looking!
Perhaps I'm missing something but I think it's a good thing that they're trying to find someone that actually does something. Meh, maybe I need to learn to be more readily offended...
Edit - Oh I was so slow.... Great minds and all that!
I though the ad was fine. Size 12 may not be average across the UK but for 'active, outdoor enthusiasts' I doubt it's a long way off. I'm a 12 and feel boringly average - albeit not the best looking!
Perhaps I'm missing something but I think it's a good thing that they're trying to find someone that actually does something. Meh, maybe I need to learn to be more readily offended...
Edit - Oh I was so slow.... Great minds and all that!
Post edited at 21:19
19
In reply to ogreville:
Have you seen their website and the current models? It's actually nice to see normal people wearing the clothes for once!
And I'm sure they don't have much control over the sample sizes they get given.
Have you seen their website and the current models? It's actually nice to see normal people wearing the clothes for once!
And I'm sure they don't have much control over the sample sizes they get given.
3
In reply to DaveHK:
Yes. 24 (ish). Or thereabouts.
But I could argue that all the fit young things are more likely to do their shopping on sales and online, being price-led. Catalogue shoppers paying full price might be older, richer and more comfortable. In which case, the model wouldn't be representative. And in any case, the argument is that it's not trying to be representative, but promoting an idealised version which is exclusive of the majority of the customer base.
Me, I'd love to see an advert with two pictures: one depicting the 'dream' and the other showing you what it'll *actually* look like on someone your size.
> Do you have any data on the average size of UK female outdoor enthusiasts? 12 might be entirely representative.
Yes. 24 (ish). Or thereabouts.
But I could argue that all the fit young things are more likely to do their shopping on sales and online, being price-led. Catalogue shoppers paying full price might be older, richer and more comfortable. In which case, the model wouldn't be representative. And in any case, the argument is that it's not trying to be representative, but promoting an idealised version which is exclusive of the majority of the customer base.
Me, I'd love to see an advert with two pictures: one depicting the 'dream' and the other showing you what it'll *actually* look like on someone your size.
3
In reply to Martin not maisie:
You could argue that but most people would realise that you were trying just a little too hard to make up for the shortfall in your earlier reasoning.
> But I could argue that all the fit young things are more likely to do their shopping on sales and online, being price-led. Catalogue shoppers paying full price might be older, richer and more comfortable. In which case, the model wouldn't be representative.
You could argue that but most people would realise that you were trying just a little too hard to make up for the shortfall in your earlier reasoning.
Post edited at 22:13
12
2
In reply to DaveHK:
Now then, Dave, exactly what shortfall would that be? I asked a question, rather than promulgated a stance. My suspicion would be that the catalogue company are selling an idealised version of their product to a demographic which doesn't, by and large, conform to the ideal.
I know *why* they're doing it, and I can't say that I'd be all *that* @rsed to take offence to it, given several decades of conditioning to the same basic principle (I doubt many companies would use my mug to sell their product, although I was once one of the 'faces' for a cow vaccine marketing strategy. They used long shots. With lenses that needed their own tripods). But there is a point in there - why are samples in smaller sizes.
I had a quick fish for data on outdoor clothing sizes, but the only real source requires a subscription of several hundred quid to access figures. So my straw poll would be based around my wife - and if I put her dress size on a public forum, bad things would ensue.
But if you want a bicker, give me a few hours to lemsip up and sleep and I'll happily oblige.
> You could argue that but most people would realise that you were trying a little too hard to make up for the shortfall in your earlier reasoning.
Now then, Dave, exactly what shortfall would that be? I asked a question, rather than promulgated a stance. My suspicion would be that the catalogue company are selling an idealised version of their product to a demographic which doesn't, by and large, conform to the ideal.
I know *why* they're doing it, and I can't say that I'd be all *that* @rsed to take offence to it, given several decades of conditioning to the same basic principle (I doubt many companies would use my mug to sell their product, although I was once one of the 'faces' for a cow vaccine marketing strategy. They used long shots. With lenses that needed their own tripods). But there is a point in there - why are samples in smaller sizes.
I had a quick fish for data on outdoor clothing sizes, but the only real source requires a subscription of several hundred quid to access figures. So my straw poll would be based around my wife - and if I put her dress size on a public forum, bad things would ensue.
But if you want a bicker, give me a few hours to lemsip up and sleep and I'll happily oblige.
1
5
8
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Because sizes 8-16 generally correspond to descriptive sizes as:
8 - XS
10 - S
12 - M
14 - L
16 - XL
So 12 is 'M'.
Size 12 has been used for 'blocks' and thus samples in the clothing industry for years. From the basic size 12 block, patterns are created for the other sizes by a process called grading, which involves increasing the dimensions of the flat pattern block in two dimensions. The grading process takes account of the target market morphological variation (how body width varies with body height, plus body shapes).
Men's clothes use the same principle, but use a size 40" for the basic block, IIRC.
I do hope you liked the 'grade equivalent' table...
> Is it worth asking why their sample sizes are 12
Because sizes 8-16 generally correspond to descriptive sizes as:
8 - XS
10 - S
12 - M
14 - L
16 - XL
So 12 is 'M'.
Size 12 has been used for 'blocks' and thus samples in the clothing industry for years. From the basic size 12 block, patterns are created for the other sizes by a process called grading, which involves increasing the dimensions of the flat pattern block in two dimensions. The grading process takes account of the target market morphological variation (how body width varies with body height, plus body shapes).
Men's clothes use the same principle, but use a size 40" for the basic block, IIRC.
I do hope you liked the 'grade equivalent' table...
25
1
5
In reply to birdie num num:
Mrs Num Num can just about squeeze herself into size twelve spandex leggings
Swoon. Any chance you can post a link to the photo's?
Mrs Num Num can just about squeeze herself into size twelve spandex leggings
Swoon. Any chance you can post a link to the photo's?
3
In reply to ogreville:
I'm assuming the store knows their markets, and want a model who will appeal to women. Should we force women to conform to a norm they may not hold, "you shall only accept size 16 models, or we will consider you sizeist."
Should there be a standard of looks for models too, banning the beautiful in case they make others feel less worthy?
I'm assuming the store knows their markets, and want a model who will appeal to women. Should we force women to conform to a norm they may not hold, "you shall only accept size 16 models, or we will consider you sizeist."
Should there be a standard of looks for models too, banning the beautiful in case they make others feel less worthy?
2
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Really, the average is size 16? That makes me shudder just a little bit; that means that for all the size 10 and 12 women out there, there are an equivalent number, presumably who are size 20 upwards. Where's that number come from? I'm not questioning your accuracy, I'm just curious and would love to read more and get a better understanding.
For what it's worth, I always thought 12 was about average, and when I'm that size I feel very slightly over weight for my frame size.
Really, the average is size 16? That makes me shudder just a little bit; that means that for all the size 10 and 12 women out there, there are an equivalent number, presumably who are size 20 upwards. Where's that number come from? I'm not questioning your accuracy, I'm just curious and would love to read more and get a better understanding.
For what it's worth, I always thought 12 was about average, and when I'm that size I feel very slightly over weight for my frame size.
2
In reply to ogreville:
I read the advert and had a think about women I know who might be interested, and actually couldn't think of many. Reason being most female climbers I know are size 8 and 10.
I read the advert and had a think about women I know who might be interested, and actually couldn't think of many. Reason being most female climbers I know are size 8 and 10.
3
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
Not necessarily. Clothes sizes are probably highly skewed towards the smaller end of the distribution, with the lower end constrained by skeletal dimensions but the upper end far less so.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of women are below 'average'.
> Really, the average is size 16? That makes me shudder just a little bit; that means that for all the size 10 and 12 women out there, there are an equivalent number, presumably who are size 20 upwards.
Not necessarily. Clothes sizes are probably highly skewed towards the smaller end of the distribution, with the lower end constrained by skeletal dimensions but the upper end far less so.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of women are below 'average'.
1
In reply to Men on this thread:
You have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by commenting on this thread. Best avoided
You have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by commenting on this thread. Best avoided
8
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
These women's sizes generally mean nothing to me, but I do remember once knowing a woman who told me she was size 12. I actually thought she was a quite fat. So, if size 12 is average, it just shows that if your social circle generally consists of fit climbers and mountaineers, you're used to women who are well below average size. I'm surprised they're looking for a model that big.
> For what it's worth, I always thought 12 was about average, and when I'm that size I feel very slightly over weight for my frame size.
These women's sizes generally mean nothing to me, but I do remember once knowing a woman who told me she was size 12. I actually thought she was a quite fat. So, if size 12 is average, it just shows that if your social circle generally consists of fit climbers and mountaineers, you're used to women who are well below average size. I'm surprised they're looking for a model that big.
Post edited at 10:13
2
4
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Oops.........
> You have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by commenting on this thread. Best avoided
Oops.........
3
In reply to Robert Durran:
The size someone is and the size they say they are may not be the same thing.
I can climb 9a+.
> These women's sizes generally mean nothing to me, but I do remember once knowing a woman who told me she was size 12. I actually thought she was a quite fat.
The size someone is and the size they say they are may not be the same thing.
I can climb 9a+.
Post edited at 10:48
1
In reply to climbwhenready:
I'm pretty sure she wasn't lying about her size - I just suspect that size 12 is quite a bit bigger than most fit, active women.
> The size someone is and the size they say they are may not be the same thing.
> I can climb 9a+.
I'm pretty sure she wasn't lying about her size - I just suspect that size 12 is quite a bit bigger than most fit, active women.
1
3
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Really annoys me that Rab happily make mens clothes up to XXL, but in women's they only go up to a 16
Really annoys me that Rab happily make mens clothes up to XXL, but in women's they only go up to a 16
5
In reply to ogreville:
I worked in a clothing shop which did some outdoor/travel/ski clothes and some casual for about 3 years. 12 is absolutely not average, and people who say 12 is fat are quite frankly idiots. Some girls who are active are tall and need larger clothes naturally. And funnily enough quite a lot of tall, athletically built girls are into the outdoors. And we frequently had women asking for a better size range. Some brands are utterly descriminatory in their sizing - for example Roxy simply doesn't do large sizes - you're hard pushed to get a 16, and in addition to that they size smaller than others producing in effect a 14. And the major shops feed into this, not only buying adhering to the sizing systems but also coulouring schemes. Not all girls like pastel pink.
I worked in a clothing shop which did some outdoor/travel/ski clothes and some casual for about 3 years. 12 is absolutely not average, and people who say 12 is fat are quite frankly idiots. Some girls who are active are tall and need larger clothes naturally. And funnily enough quite a lot of tall, athletically built girls are into the outdoors. And we frequently had women asking for a better size range. Some brands are utterly descriminatory in their sizing - for example Roxy simply doesn't do large sizes - you're hard pushed to get a 16, and in addition to that they size smaller than others producing in effect a 14. And the major shops feed into this, not only buying adhering to the sizing systems but also coulouring schemes. Not all girls like pastel pink.
6
In reply to Casa Alfredino:
This is a major bug bear of the wife, she doesn't climb but in the last few years she has started coming out on the back of the bike.
Apparently 99% of female motorcycle gear is anything from pastel to neon pink. She hates it.
> And the major shops feed into this, not only buying adhering to the sizing systems but also coulouring schemes. Not all girls like pastel pink.
This is a major bug bear of the wife, she doesn't climb but in the last few years she has started coming out on the back of the bike.
Apparently 99% of female motorcycle gear is anything from pastel to neon pink. She hates it.
1
In reply to Casa Alfredino:
And in the opposite direction, I'm a size 6 and 5 foot 1 and find it very hard to find outdoor clothes that fit. Outdoor brands only seem to go down to a size 8 So going down smaller as well as larger would be good. And not always purple coats...
And in the opposite direction, I'm a size 6 and 5 foot 1 and find it very hard to find outdoor clothes that fit. Outdoor brands only seem to go down to a size 8 So going down smaller as well as larger would be good. And not always purple coats...
3
I am not that much into females sizes, but remember my uni times ex was size 12 and she decently was not slim. Just a bit overweight. Visually majority of female climbers I meet are slimmer than she was.
In reply to Casa Alfredino:
That's not fair, some brands also offer a purple option.
> Not all girls like pastel pink.
That's not fair, some brands also offer a purple option.
2
In reply to ogreville:
Does not size 12 (aka M) work all over the world? I can imagine that it might be more difficult to find models if you went smaller (thinking of North America) or larger (thinking of Eastern Asia).
I am not really surprised that samples are in one size either. It's just a sample, hence they need a person who can fit into that size. Doesn't sound fair, but is there a better solution?
Does not size 12 (aka M) work all over the world? I can imagine that it might be more difficult to find models if you went smaller (thinking of North America) or larger (thinking of Eastern Asia).
I am not really surprised that samples are in one size either. It's just a sample, hence they need a person who can fit into that size. Doesn't sound fair, but is there a better solution?
1
In reply to Fantastical:
Can you just buy kids stuff? Should be cheaper, too.
> And in the opposite direction, I'm a size 6 and 5 foot 1 and find it very hard to find outdoor clothes that fit.
Can you just buy kids stuff? Should be cheaper, too.
In reply to ogreville:
So what type of male model do the gear manufacturers look for?
Presumably 6'2" with broad shoulders and a v-shaped torso because that's the average right?
So what type of male model do the gear manufacturers look for?
Presumably 6'2" with broad shoulders and a v-shaped torso because that's the average right?
1
In reply to humptydumpty:
Kids' stuff tends to not fit properly around the hips annoyingly. Have done in the past though. Only place I can buy outdoorsy trousers seems to be from Sportsdirect where Karrimor go down to size 6 with a shorter leg length. Not great quality though!
Kids' stuff tends to not fit properly around the hips annoyingly. Have done in the past though. Only place I can buy outdoorsy trousers seems to be from Sportsdirect where Karrimor go down to size 6 with a shorter leg length. Not great quality though!
In reply to nutme:
Why is it that it seems difficult for blokes to understand that 12 is proportionate to your height? If you are 5 foot and 12, that's not the same as 6 foot and 12. It's the same difference as saying a bloke is 5'5" and 34" waist or 6'7" and 34" waist. Surely not that difficult a concept?
Why is it that it seems difficult for blokes to understand that 12 is proportionate to your height? If you are 5 foot and 12, that's not the same as 6 foot and 12. It's the same difference as saying a bloke is 5'5" and 34" waist or 6'7" and 34" waist. Surely not that difficult a concept?
1
1
In reply to Casa Alfredino:
Because they are checking out the tits instead
> Why is it that it seems difficult for blokes to understand that 12 is proportionate to your height?
Because they are checking out the tits instead
7
2
In reply to Casa Alfredino:
Duno, I am 5'7" and have a waist of 30". My best mate is 6'2" and wears 30" as well. Just a 'bit' longer. Both considered to be normal rather than slim or fat.
Duno, I am 5'7" and have a waist of 30". My best mate is 6'2" and wears 30" as well. Just a 'bit' longer. Both considered to be normal rather than slim or fat.
2
In reply to nutme: Personally I would say (again having worked in a clothing shop for plenty of time) that 30" waist is slim. Most people were buying 34-36" waist. And women were mostly buying 12-16. What I'm saying is that the number is pretty irrelevant unless you look at the over all package. But maybe I'm just being obtuse?
4
1
In reply to Lusk:
Its pretty easy to Google - why ask UKC?
This thread has got a bit creepy for my liking
Its pretty easy to Google - why ask UKC?
This thread has got a bit creepy for my liking
1
1
In reply to the sheep:
How old are you, 5 years old?
> Because they are checking out the tits instead
How old are you, 5 years old?
2
7
In reply to Chambers:
I don't think guys would look as good in women's clothes!
> Never mind the sizeism, feel the quality of the sexism!
I don't think guys would look as good in women's clothes!
1
In reply to Casa Alfredino:
You missed my post on grading of pattern blocks, then...?
I could point out that men's shirt sizes are based on neck size (not height), jackets on chest (not height), and trousers on waist (not height).
There's a link between height and girth, but it very much depends on assumptions about body shape: ectomorph, endomorph, etc. Clothes patterns are graded based on an assumed target market anthropometric distribution. That's why they don't fit everybody, and why Arc'teryx doesn't fit me, because I'm not the wedge-shaped superhero they design for...
> Why is it that it seems difficult for blokes to understand that 12 is proportionate to your height?
You missed my post on grading of pattern blocks, then...?
I could point out that men's shirt sizes are based on neck size (not height), jackets on chest (not height), and trousers on waist (not height).
There's a link between height and girth, but it very much depends on assumptions about body shape: ectomorph, endomorph, etc. Clothes patterns are graded based on an assumed target market anthropometric distribution. That's why they don't fit everybody, and why Arc'teryx doesn't fit me, because I'm not the wedge-shaped superhero they design for...
2
In reply to Casa Alfredino:
Size is also dependent on your build. I have a fairly sturdy frame, a fair amount of muscle and a decent rack - I'm a 12 (usually, sometimes a 10 on my lower half, sometimes a 14 on my upper) and although I wouldn't say I was slim I also think you'd be hard pressed to describe me as fat. But I know people who take the same dress size and are more podgy than me, it's just that they have a slighter build to put the fat onto.
I wouldn't be surprised if the UK average is a 16, most non sporty women (and men) I know are definitely on the larger end of the scale. But I'd imagine 10-12 is about average for fit outdoorsy women, certainly it ties in with my impressions from the ones I know.
Size is also dependent on your build. I have a fairly sturdy frame, a fair amount of muscle and a decent rack - I'm a 12 (usually, sometimes a 10 on my lower half, sometimes a 14 on my upper) and although I wouldn't say I was slim I also think you'd be hard pressed to describe me as fat. But I know people who take the same dress size and are more podgy than me, it's just that they have a slighter build to put the fat onto.
I wouldn't be surprised if the UK average is a 16, most non sporty women (and men) I know are definitely on the larger end of the scale. But I'd imagine 10-12 is about average for fit outdoorsy women, certainly it ties in with my impressions from the ones I know.
2
In reply to captain paranoia:
Yeah i totally get what you're saying. My point was that saying 12 is fat is stupid, and that it depends on build more than a number. It seems to me that women get more pigeon holed as fat/abnormal than men. If as a man you went round saying you're a 32 or a 34 people wouldn't really bat an eyelid, but for some reason, the same doesn't seem true for women. Shop buyers seem to adhere to old measurement charts based on 1960s numbers rather than new numbers which reflect the current sizes of people. I know this only because we would sell out of 14-16 very quickly as they'd (the shop buyers) not buy as much of it...
Yeah i totally get what you're saying. My point was that saying 12 is fat is stupid, and that it depends on build more than a number. It seems to me that women get more pigeon holed as fat/abnormal than men. If as a man you went round saying you're a 32 or a 34 people wouldn't really bat an eyelid, but for some reason, the same doesn't seem true for women. Shop buyers seem to adhere to old measurement charts based on 1960s numbers rather than new numbers which reflect the current sizes of people. I know this only because we would sell out of 14-16 very quickly as they'd (the shop buyers) not buy as much of it...
2
3
In reply to ogreville:
Back to the OP.
Rab have a selection of products they want modeled, which are all the same size - no point in advertising for models who won't fit into them, a statement in the advert that you must fit into a size 12 saves wasting everyones time with phone calls/emails from unsuitable girls in the 8-10 or 14-16 size categories.
Why size 12?
It probably is the average size of the Rab market.
Smaller (so slightly lighter and less bulky) for the reps to drag round the country showing shops.
Lets be brutally honest - smaller clothes look better on the hanger and yes when showing off samples hanger appeal is everything.
Back to the OP.
Rab have a selection of products they want modeled, which are all the same size - no point in advertising for models who won't fit into them, a statement in the advert that you must fit into a size 12 saves wasting everyones time with phone calls/emails from unsuitable girls in the 8-10 or 14-16 size categories.
Why size 12?
It probably is the average size of the Rab market.
Smaller (so slightly lighter and less bulky) for the reps to drag round the country showing shops.
Lets be brutally honest - smaller clothes look better on the hanger and yes when showing off samples hanger appeal is everything.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...