Before we were so rudely interrupted, my sense of unease and dismay over inconsistent sizing within identical SKUs (as explained by our career tech designer) was growing. A consumer’s expectations are not unreasonable if they try on Style #12345 and -if finding it to their liking decide to buy two or more of them- have every reason to expect that the ones they didn’t try on will fit as well as the first. It is unreasonable to expect consumers to try on every single item of the same exact size, style and color. Size and fit consistency among styles of a given brand is something consumers should take for granted -if only because we ask them to.
Follow me: For better or worse, brands are a cognitive shortcut. In an overwhelming and cluttered marketplace, a brand’s reputation makes purchasing decisions easier and faster. If that is where you want to be, meeting expectations becomes an implied contract with the customer. On one hand you expect the customer to trust you to buy your stuff instead of someone else. To me, a minimal part of brand value is consistent sizing; if consumers take you at your word and trust you, they shouldn’t have to check up on you if they buy X quantities of an identical item. If you bought a set of tires and one of them didn’t fit, your trust in that brand would (should) be seriously eroded. I don’t see how this is any different when it comes to clothes. Sure you can say there are minute differences to be factored in with clothes because we are somehow more special than other classes of manufacturing (not) but this is also true of tires. Rarely are items identical to each other but performance tolerances are established, measured and met.