Because I'm cranky about finals, I'm going to complain about L.L. Bean

So, today I got a L.L. Bean women's clothing catalog in the mail. It featured their new "Contemporary Fit" line, which is clearly an attempt to be a little more trendy, maybe a little more youthful (though still in a preppy New England way, of course--I mean, there's a skirt with lobsters on it!). It's kind of moving in a J.Crew direction. And I thought some of the pieces were honestly kind of cute--like this and this.

And then I saw this notice:

"Sizing is different than our traditional sizing; see page 40 for more information."

So I saw page 40.

Apparently "Contemporary Fit" means smaller:

• The largest size is an XL, but while an XL in the traditional sizing is 18-20, an XL in Contemporary Fit is a 16.
• Not only that, but the Contemporary Fit size 16 is different from the traditional sizing: the waist is smaller, and the hips are smaller (but wait! the bust is bigger!).

Now, for this post to make sense, I have to come clean, even though it doesn't thrill me to do so: I generally wear an XL. In numbered sizes, I wear a size 14-16 on top, and (in many stores) an 18 on the bottom (in some stores a 16 is fine; I've even had 18 be too small; and I remember one skirt in Target which was almost too big in a 14).

And yes, just writing these numbers down makes me want to issue all kinds of disclaimers about my big bones--which is such a cliche, but yes, I do have a big frame--but really, whether my dress size means I'm as big as a barn, or, say, simply trying to find something to clothe a 6' 4" frame, is irrelevant here: for whatever reason, I'm too big to wear these clothes.

Now, there are already quite a few stores that don't go up to a size 18 (*cough*J.Crew*cough*), or that offer size 18 online but not in the store (so I never get to try their stuff on ahead of time), and I can live with that (it's frustrating, but I figure, it's far worse for women who can't fit into any mainstream sizes, and I often can).

But it's pretty galling when a store that normally offers clothes in my size (L.L. Bean goes up to a 20 in Misses sizes, and 26 in Women's) decides to come out with a new! shiny! cute! cool! contemporary! line--but not for me. Because, apparently, I am too fat to wear new! shiny! cute! cool! contemporary! clothes.

(Well, cool by L.L. Bean standards, anyway.)

* * * * *

Coda: I sent L.L. Bean an e-mail letting them know about my disgust. Within an hour or so I had a response, thanking me for my comment, and letting me know they'd passed my comments along to the Corporate Office, which wouldn't be able to respond individually, but takes customer comments very seriously. Because L.L. Bean's reputation is the result of listening to customers over the years.

The customer service person then added:

"I would like to remind you that we still carry all our traditional item in a traditional sizes and fit [sic]."

Dude, apart from the grammatical errors? SO how to miss the point entirely.

* * * *

(And if anyone feels like making any "well, if you weren't so fat..." comments, you can just save the electrons. Thanks.)

Comments

[Rev Dr Mom]

I am so with you on this one. It is insulting, really, that clothes manufacturers can dictate by size what we get to wear. And I am REALLY disappointed in L.L. Bean for doing so.

[Another Damned Medievalist]

The whole 'traditional' size thing (outside of Mma Ramotswe) is just annoying.

Oh, and I know you. You're like three inches taller than I am, aren't you? And I'm not particularly short.

And also ... wtf with the proportions. Do you know how tired I am of not being able to find clothes that fit me because I have a small waist and big hips? and a smaller upper body? because we are not all apple-shaped?

Actually, I *can* find clothes that fit. It's just that they are usually in the designer sections of stores. And not cheap.

Sorry --- just felt like adding to the rant

[Susan]

Oh, I am so tired of trying to find clothes that fit. Especially mail order (the only places to buy clothes less than an hour from here are walmart & target). So I sometimes order in two sizes, knowing I'll return one. But like ADM, my waist is relatively small for my hips (or my hips are huge for my waist), so things don't fit well. For good clothes, I don't mind altering down so the waist fits properly, but for a regular pair of jeans? really?
Anyway, curse the manufacturers.

Oh, and if anyone is hung up on numbers, just know that US sizes have all actually got bigger in the last 10-20 years. In the UK sizes used to be up one (i.e. a US 10 would wear a UK 12), but now it's usually 2, so a US 10 wears a UK 14).

[phd me]

That just bites. What a wonderful message: You have to be THIS small to fit the image of women who are allowed to wear our shiny new clothes. As if we need more reminders that real-sized woman don't have any advocates in the designer world!

[Notorious Ph.D.]

I gave up on clothing manufacturers when one locally-based national clothing chain proudly announced on their website: "We carry size 00." Because size zero just ain't small enough.

[Rudbeckia Hirta]

I can't wear J.Crew clothes either -- even though the clothes bear a tag that has a number that corresponds to the size I usually wear. Their clothes seem to be designed for someone with the proportions of a 13-year-old boy with breast implants.

@notorious phd: Size 00 is the new name for the size that used to be called 2 many years ago. But they're now using the number 2 to stand for the size that used to be called 6. (And so on and so forth)

If I had more time (and skill) I would sew more of my own clothes.

[joy]

LL Bean needs to get its head out of its ass regarding its clothes for women.

For years I have found it galling that it calls its "regular" female sizes "Misses" and its "large" female sizes "Womens." Goddammit, we're all women. Could we just have a wide range of women's sizes and call it a day? Why do the larger women have to have a separate, linguistically identified clothing line? Why am I supposed to consider myself in a perpetual state of pre-womanhood because I'm short and relatively thin?

[Thoroughly Educated]

Ooh, I am so with you. My peeve du decade is that Bean lists Plus sizes as a separate entity at the end of their list of categories of women's clothing. Not that I've actually, you know, bought any clothes from them in years, because even their plus sizes seem to be made for people with huge shoulders, lower-primate-style arms, and no boobs.

And, while I'm ranting, can I observe that somehow at Talbots, which has suited my shape well for many years now, I've suddenly become a (Woman) Petite? And no, I'm not old enough to have started shrinking. I'm 5'5", with legs that are long in proportion to the rest of me, and all of a sudden all the pants on offer are 4-5 inches too long for me. Excuse me, I'm AVERAGE HEIGHT. And TALBOTS, of all places, thinks its clientele are getting TALLER? Earth to Talbots? I'm the leading edge of your middle-aged audience, and height is not where we're growing.

[clio's disciple]

Right, I'm peeved too. Even in LLBean's regular sizing, I fall in an awkward place: too big for many of their "Misses" sizes (which top off at 16 for several styles) and too small for "Womens" (which start off at 18W). Also, a woman can be both "plus size" and short, and "plus petite" clothing is hard to find.

Fortunately, I can sew, so with some effort I can make myself whatever I want.

[medieval woman]

What gets me is that the sizes are smaller everywhere - except the BUST! Have they been Barbiecized? It's like, these clothes are made for an anorexic with implants - i.e., most of Hollywood...*

*and having said that, I know there are women who are naturally thin with a larger bust. But they are by far the exception rather than the rule.

[Dr. Moonbeam]

You know, I would never have guessed that you wear an 18/XL. Huh.

I almost never buy from L.L. Bean; I'm a Land's End kind of gal, if I'm doing mail-order.

[Laurie Brooks]

Hi - this is Laurie Brooks from L.L.Bean. We've been getting A LOT of comments regarding our new Spring 2009 women's clothing line - both good & bad. I understand your frustration trying to find clothes that fit. L.L.Bean is stepping out and trying something new, which is daring for a brand that is almost 100 years old. Our intention with the new line is not to alienate our core customers, but to entice a new customer to shop at L.L.Bean. We need to hear from customers just like you to understand what is working and what you want from us. I’d love to hear more from you. Please feel free to email me at lbrooks@llbean.com. You can also find me on Twitter @LLBeanPR.
Thanks
Laurie Brooks
L.L.Bean

[Historiann]

Wow, New Kid--you're big enough for them to send out the corporate PR people.

I don't buy from L.L. Bean any longer because they moved all of the jobs to China--very little of their operation is left in Maine, outside of the retail stores, order fulfillment, and customer service.

[Kate]

Wow. Isn't it also a little, I don't know, inaccurate to call a REDUCED size clothing line "contemporary," since contemporary Americans are on average larger than past Americans? Sheesh. Few of us are naturally built to be small-bodied.

[stylo/cycle]

NK;

I'm not positive about this response, but I"m going to put it out there because it's a quite common feature in North American sizing to use *smaller* numbers for sizes previously up one or two sizes. So the 16 contemporary fit may be the same as an 18 traditional fit. Why? Because of recognition that we are getting taller and bigger.

I think of it this way: In France a woman where wears a '10' in the US would wear a dress size '40', and a dress size '14' in the UK. We make numbers smaller here because we *think* they will appeal to shopper's egos.

To now which side of the game LL is playing, you will have to see whether the body measurements that correspond to the new 16 are the same as the ones that correspond to the old 18. I would not be surprised if they did.

Oh, if only we went back to using ladies' tailors who made our clothes to measure, and like my great grandmother, would 'pish-tosh' the entire idea of 'standardized sizing'.

[Susie]

I would infer that the designers of these smaller-sized clothes did not have your body type in mind. i.e. your body type is not correct for THESE clothes or most of JCrew's line, A&F, others, but I'm sure is fine for other clothing lines. Get over it.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

stylo/cycle - as my post made clear, I'm talking about the body measurements for the sizes. I didn't just compare the numbers, but bust-waist-hip measurements. The 16 is smaller than the traditional 16, and is not the same as the traditional 18.

Susie - thanks for the oh so helpful comment. There's a difference between body type and size. I've tried on plenty of clothes that fit fine, but don't look right on me because they're not cut for my shape. That's fine, that happens. If you don't even make the clothes big enough for me to try on, then I can't tell if you're making them for my body type or not. If by body type you just mean size - well, why *shouldn't* designers have my body type in mind? It's not like there aren't LOTS of other women as large or larger than me.

More importantly, my problem is not with a store not offering things in my size, or I'd have written a post about how evil JCrew is. My problem is with a store that USUALLY offers things in my size putting out a new self-consciously more fashionable line, and not offering THOSE in my size.

Ms. Brooks - I appreciate you commenting here. I will e-mail you further.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

And hey, wow, Susie wrote from LLBean! So nice to have more LLBean input!

Susie, if you are a designer: I LIKE the clothes LLBean is offering. I think many of them are super cute and I would LIKE to be able to wear them. If you don't want to offer them in my size because you think that it ruins the design to have to put it on someone my size - well, wow, have you no concept of how offensive that is? My dress size tells you nothing about what I look like or whether I'd make your clothes looks good/bad. And even if I am the hugest cow in existence, why does that mean I'm not allowed to wear cute clothes that fit me?

[New Kid on the Hallway]

And my last spam on my own blog: I only mentioned Susie's location because I didn't think it was appropriate for an LLBean employee (or at least someone using LLBean computers) to comment on this post and not reveal her bias.

And because the comment was snotty.

I wouldn't have done so if, say, she worked for/posted from a different company. And I don't have any plans to reveal anyone else's location/IP/whatever. But drive-by snotty comments annoy me.

If y'all think it was inappropriate for me to do that, tell me and I can edit it out.

[Rana]

Do you know how tired I am of not being able to find clothes that fit me because I have a small waist and big hips? and a smaller upper body? because we are not all apple-shaped?

ADM, are you me? Because that's exactly my experience. (And it's why I've never liked LandsEnd - they are shaped the other way.)

I am rather disappointed to learn that L.L.Bean's decided to limit their new line in this way. It wouldn't affect me - I'm a 6-8 - but it makes me have bad feelings about a company that I used to love unreservedly.

Don't larger people deserve to look cute and stylish too? Isn't their money just as good?

How about a line that BOTH appeals to new customers AND doesn't alienate existing ones? Win-Win!

I'm glad the jeans I bought from L.L.Bean are well-made so I won't need a new pair any time soon - my incentive to buy new ones dropped dramatically upon reading Susie's comment.

[Kate]

I think it was appropriate for you to reveal that Susie wrote from an LL Bean computer because, frankly, she was the only one expressing nastiness rather than thoughtfulness. I want to know that about LL Bean employees because it helps me decide where to buy my clothes and outdoor items.

[Janice]

Wow, Susie! I intend to get over L.L. Bean right to the recycling bin with their catalogue and a phone call to my sister to cross the store off our summer shopathon list if this is the kind of attitude that comes with a new clothing line.

Sorry, Laurie! Your response is professional and thoughtful. We do understand that companies and designers want to try new things. But I expect your size ranges could use some serious tweaking, especially when I see things like a maximum height in the range for 5'7" and the size shrinkage.

[Leslie M-B]

I'm only related to two people who can walk into a store and find clothes that consistently fit them. One is my aunt, an Olympic athlete. The other is my sister, who works out more than three hours a day. Both are incredibly trim and have body fat around 13-15%. And to be completely honest, my sister often walks into a store, finds clothes that fit her dimensions, and then orders them online in "tall."

Yes, I'm jealous of these women. But it just shows how the clothing industry is catering to women who are exceptionally young (e.g. who do not have the bodies of mothers) or exceptionally privileged to have the time and money to keep their bodies in a proportion that pleases the fashion industry.

Right now I'm 5'9" and 170 pounds, which is about 15 pounds more than I usually weigh. I look more "sturdy" than "fat," but when I can't buy a button-down blouse because it can't accommodate my post-breastfeeding-size breasts, and I can't zip up a size-14 dress because my rib cage is too wide, my shoulders and back too broad, and breasts too large (I'm only a C cup, people!), it's frustrating.

You have my sympathies, NK. Susie definitely does not get it, as I have this same problem at places that allegedly sell clothes for my body type (i.e., where middle-aged women shop--and I'm 33), such as J. Jill, Talbot's, Ann Taylor, and Nordstrom. I'm not going to shop at plus-size stores because those clothes aren't cut right for me, either.

[Rana]

That dress IS cute. I can see why you'd want to wear it.

Here's a bit of cold comfort - I couldn't wear it either, at least not without tailoring. The first two measurements are in one size, and the third in another. So. Typical.

It was because this was _not_ the case that I ended up buying the aforementioned jeans - they actually accepted that my hip:waist ratio existed.

So much for that!

[af]

Okay, I'm now totally fascinated by L.L. Bean's response to complaints. Obviously they have real customer service people who respond to emails and occasionally log in to blogs and make professional and appropriate comments about their product.

But "Susie" is presumably also an L.L. Bean employee: do they hire people to search the web and find complaints about their product and make snotty comments? Or is she just a rogue designer who does this on her work computer without the approval of her employer?

Sorry to be so off-topic, but obviously I'm in detective mode....

[karen]

I can see taking issue with the fact that the sizes only go to 16, although it's likely that they did extensive market research ahead of time and might have found not enough heavy women were interested in those cuts to be profitable.

But I can't really fault them for having some clothing in which the waist is relatively smaller and the bust is relatively bigger. As someone who generally likes the look of L.L. Bean but has always found the clothing to be a bit tent-like and ill-fitting, I don't see a problem with there being a diversity of body types that they now fit.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

karen, that makes sense, and I can understand a company wanting to offer different cuts. It's more the no-over-16 that frustrates me, and the implication that cute and new clothes *can't* appeal to those of us who have more matronly body types.

(I'm sure they *did* market research, but I have a hard time believing that heavy women *weren't* interested - I just don't really trust much of the fashion industry on such issues. I'd think it more likely they went after the younger [and usually thinner] audience I think this is designed to appeal to, to find out what would appeal to them, rather than finding out that these cuts *weren't* appealing to heavier women.)

af, I don't know what motivated Susie, but I've already had 2 contacts from LLBean disavowing any association with the comment, so I don't think she was acting on official policy! (unlike Laurie Brooks.)

Anyway, thanks for the comments, everyone!

[Rana]

I'd hope that she's just an unprofessional twit - because she's likely to cost them sales if she keeps this up.

[Amy]

Hey, Susie, bite me!!

Now that I've got that out of the way...

I usually buy Lands' End b/c I think their clothes are cuter than LLBean's women's line (though all the males in my house are frequently in Bean stuff). So, I'm with NK... if they are coming out with cuter stuff to try to win people to the line... will it kill them to offer them in their traditional sizes? As though the 40 somethings who aren't as svelt as they once were are scrambling to wear mu-mus instead of cute lobster skirts???

I, too, saw the cute lobster skirt and immediately wanted one. Now maybe I'll go spend that cash at Lands' End.

[Laurie Brooks]

Hi. This is Laurie Brooks again, from L.L.Bean. I sincerely apologize for “Susie’s” comments. Her comments do not represent L.L.Bean’s views or the way we communicate with our customers. We expect all employees who speak on behalf of L.L.Bean to identify themselves and their company affiliation. Again, I apologize and want to thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Also - I wanted to address a question from “af” - L.L.Bean does not hire people to blog or make comments on L.L.Bean's behalf. What "Susie" did was inappropriate.

On a positive note - all of the comments have been extremely insightful and helpful.

Sincerely,
Laurie Brooks
L.L.Bean

[karen]

I'm sure they *did* market research, but I have a hard time believing that heavy women *weren't* interested - I just don't really trust much of the fashion industry on such issues.

Could be, although on makeover-type shows they often say that heavier women tend to err on the side of wearing camouflaging, shapeless clothing, even though a more fitted look would actually look better.

[dance]

I just got around to clicking on the actual things you pointed out, and would just like to say that those are cuts and styles I have seen look GREAT on statuesque women.

ADM and Rana, count me three with the big hips, small waist. There were two-three years in grad school when drawstring waists were in fashion, and I still miss those years. I don't even try on dress pants anymore.

[sg]

I sympathize with these comments and the OP, but I will point out that most American clothing manufacturers are so busy trying to satisfy you guys that they've sized me right out. Rudbeckia Hirta is correct about the shift in size labeling. I used to fit into Bean's size 4 slacks, and the current size 4 slacks are almost unacceptably baggy. I'm no athlete or starved model--too much thigh for any truly slim slacks/jeans.

Also, Bean's Contemporary Sizing is unfair re: its 2/4/6 measurements, not only its 14/16. Size 2 == 35.5" hip? 35.5 is the old Bean 4 hip. FFS.

Apparently, I am too spindly to be cute. :P

[Rev Dr Mom]

Great comments here.

I am so glad that someone else mentioned the "Misses/Women" terminology--it's not just LLBean who does that; it's pretty standard.

It annoys me no end that places with reasonable stylish clothes often don't go larger than a 14. And if you go looking for 18-20 in places like Macy's it is really insulting--the clothes are less attractive, the departments are usually a mess, and the prices are higher. Do larger men put up with this? I think not.

And I think you were right to call Susie out. If I were someone like the real customer service rep who replied appropriately, I'd sure want to know that other employees were undermining the store's credibility.

[Rose]

This is all fascinating, because I was also incensed by the new "contemporary" line when I read the catalogue last night. The "contemporary" woman is getting taller too. What about the normal sized women who don't happen to be 5'4"?

[human]

Wow, quite the lively discussion, and what a charming contribution from Susie there.

I haven't been able to find a good fit in "normal" store clothes for 10 years. Actually if you consider that I've always been short, it's always been hard to find clothes, but it got a lot harder when I got fatter.

And I finally got sick and tired of always having to go to the dirty back corner of a department store, and whenever I finally DID find something to fit, I had to snap it up even if it was ugly, that I just didn't buy clothes for a few years.

Someone recently introduced me to Catherine's and wow, what a breath of fresh air. Not all the styles work on me but everything probably fits so I can just pick what looks good. It is such a change. I bet these people commenting from LL Bean have no idea what it feels like to walk into store after store and there is nothing there to fit you. It is like the store is saying you don't exist, or that you shouldn't, one of the two -- it really sucks. It's not like it would be that hard to accommodate more people. You just don't want to. Eff that!

[megan]

@af: It's pretty common for companies and individuals to use Google Alerts and what-not to be alerted when they are a hot topic of conversation.

I'm pretty average gal @ 5'6" and 135 lbs., but I too have a horrible time finding clothes because of my body shape (inverted triangle=large shoulders). If someone would design for body shapes instead of using the Barbie mannequin, I'd totally be a lifelong shopper!