Alienating consumers through poor fit and narrow sizing isn’t just a missed opportunity for fashion, it could hinder growth. Despite the rising use of GLP-1 medications such as Ozempic for weight loss, our new research shows there’s still considerable demand for size inclusivity. Brands that fail to address inconsistencies in sizing and representation risk losing loyalty and relevance.
To understand the disparity between consumer needs and what brands provide, Vogue Business surveyed 687 Vogue, Vogue Business and GQ readers in the US and the UK. Of the respondents, 51 per cent were mid-sized (US 6-12), 25 per cent were plus-sized (US 14+) and 18 per cent were straight-sized (US 0-4), while the remaining 6 per cent chose not to share their size.
Amid a challenging retail climate and a luxury slowdown that’s seen sales dwindle across many of fashion’s flagship brands, labels have invested heavily in communicating quality and underlining that their goods are worth the price. But it seems very few are considering the impact of their product sizing on purchase decisions.
Our findings revealed that many consumers, particularly mid and plus-sized, feel alienated by fashion brands, particularly luxury labels. Inconsistent sizing, poor availability and a lack of representation of different body types are not just practical barriers to purchase, but also have an emotional impact on consumers, driving alienation and limiting loyalty, at a time when brands need it most.
We dive into the exclusive data below.
Sizing inconsistencies impact purchase behaviour
The vast majority of consumers (91 per cent) say their clothing size depends on what brand they’re purchasing from, which many find frustrating. Poor sizing and fit are some of the biggest deterrents for respondents when it comes to purchasing, just behind cost and quality. When asked what deters them from purchasing from a brand or retailer, 43 per cent cited poor fit and 36 per cent named inconsistent sizing. Sizing inconsistencies are a bigger concern for plus-size (46 per cent) and mid-size (34 per cent) respondents than for straight-size (25 per cent).
“I find it incredibly frustrating, especially since I end up questioning whether or not something will fit. I also hate having to return or exchange clothing, so I’m left wondering if I should even make the purchase,” a plus-size respondent said.
Part of the reason for the inconsistency is vanity sizing. The average body size has grown over time; in response, many brands have increased the measurements of clothing under each sizing bracket, to boost consumer confidence and avoid consumers suddenly finding their usual size is too small. Perhaps it works. “If it runs smaller, I feel bad. If it runs bigger, I feel good,” said one mid-size respondent. But without a shift to a universal sizing standard, consumers of all sizes can expect fit inconsistencies between brands, creating friction in the shopping experience.
While 79 per cent of consumers said they can find their size at ultra-fast fashion brands “always” or “most of the time”, only 51 per cent said the same about luxury brands. Straight-size (58 per cent) and mid-size (55 per cent) respondents are more likely to find their size when shopping luxury, compared to plus-size respondents (33 per cent). Even for accessible luxury labels like Coach and Ganni, 22 per cent of plus-size respondents said they “can never” or “usually can’t” find their size, compared with 5 per cent of mid-size and 4 per cent of straight-size shoppers.
“Higher end clothing hasn’t embraced ‘vanity sizing’ the way mainstream fast fashion brands have. It can be very disarming and discouraging to order a large from a higher end brand and have it fit like a small. It sends the message that high fashion is only for skinny people. Most people aren’t skinny, and it would be great if designers would acknowledge that we exist. I say this as a person who is mid-size at most,” one respondent said.
There’s limited in-store availability of bigger sizes, so many consumers can’t shop IRL or try before they buy. When shopping online, they are either forced to “size bracket” and purchase multiple sizes, or risk a garment not fitting. Either way, it results in (sometimes costly) returns.
When asked which types of brands respondents have purchased from, many plus-size respondents noted US-based plus-size fashion line Torrid, which launched in 2001 and sells fashion from size US 10-30, in-store and online. Elevated basics brand Quince was also mentioned by several plus-size respondents; its plus-size line runs from 1X through 3X (US 16-24). In recent years, Quince has emerged as a solid luxury alternative for price-sensitive shoppers, and has witnessed substantial growth, with revenues more than doubling from $140 million in 2022 to $340.3 million in 2024. The other brands frequently mentioned were Universal Standard, Marina Rinaldi, Gap, American Eagle and Good American.
More than a third of consumers (38 per cent) said they often return clothes because they are ill-fitting. When asked which garments tend to pose the biggest challenges, 60 per cent chose jeans and 53 per cent chose trousers. Many respondents have issues with the hips, thighs and crotch feeling too tight, despite the waist being too loose. Issues with bottoms were felt across sizes. Over a third of plus-size consumers most often find sizing issues with tops and shirts — particularly with tops that are too tight around the shoulders, armpits or chest — compared with 24 per cent of mid-size and 21 per cent of straight-size consumers.
“[Brands should] consider different body types when creating garments, such as that a size 12 garment made for someone with no curves will not fit a size 12 for someone with curves. It’s not just about making a garment larger, it’s about considering different body types and proportions,” one mid-size respondent said.
People’s weight fluctuates throughout their lives, yet our clothes are rarely designed to adapt. The majority (81 per cent) of consumers said they would pay more for a garment if it were designed to fit more comfortably, such as via adjustable elements that allow for body changes (47 per cent), fabrics that don’t become see-through when stretched (41 per cent), or inbuilt shapewear (31 per cent). Respondents also said they would pay more for garments with pockets, thicker linings, wider lapels that don’t gape when a blouse is stretched at the chest, tops with built-in bras, trousers with adjustable leg lengths, and tailoring or alteration services. Brands could also offer larger seam allowances to enable customers to alter their pieces.
But why don’t more brands operate in this way? “It’s a good question,” says designer Astrid Andersen, whose brand Stel offers adjustable solutions. “Perhaps the customer hasn’t made this demand yet, because they have been told for so long to adapt to a certain body standard.”
There are lower-lift ways that brands can gain consumer trust when it comes to sizing. Respondents highlighted that size charts and garment measurements are often inaccurate on brands’ e-commerce sites, for instance. “Clearer and more widely available size guides would also be helpful, with the garment’s measurements clearly marked on the site instead of just the body measurements,” said one mid-size respondent, adding that she would prefer to see fewer products available in a more diverse range of sizes. Another respondent suggested: “Size charts, garment measurements… and photos with model measurements (not just ‘model is X height and wearing a size L’ — that’s not helpful unless you know her measurements). I would love to be able to compare garment measurements to things I own that fit well.”
Many startups have launched in recent years to help brands more accurately suggest the right size for consumers, using digital twins for virtual try-on and quizzes to determine body type, driven by AI. But currently, these tools are favoured by high street and premium players, with minimal luxury adoption.
Ozempic hasn’t stopped the demand for representation
While we’ve spent a lot of time focusing on representation on the runway, it’s actually consumer sizing that’s affecting fashion shoppers most. Poor fit and size exclusion lead to frustration, reduced self-esteem and negative perceptions of brands, particularly for mid and plus-size shoppers. Around half (48 per cent) of survey respondents said they “feel pressure to lose weight in order to feel fashionable”, a sentiment more pronounced among plus-size and mid-size consumers. And of the respondents who said they feel weight-loss pressure, 63 per cent cited sizing challenges, with online brand campaigns (35 per cent), celebrities (44 per cent), influencers (46 per cent) and runway shows (36 per cent) among sources.
Size inclusivity remains important to many consumers. While some may feel Ozempic has had a negative impact on the fashion industry overall, others are less sure that it’s actually impacted the demand for inclusivity. The majority (60 per cent) of respondents said they feel more connected to fashion brands that feature models who resemble their body type in campaigns. Overall, 67 per said they are more likely to buy from labels who feature a variety of body sizes in marketing campaigns and on the runway. This skews higher for plus-size (78 per cent) and mid-size (70 per cent) respondents, compared to 48 per cent of straight-size.
Just under half (45 per cent) of consumers said they often feel alienated from luxury fashion due to their size; a number significantly higher for plus-size respondents (74 per cent). The majority of consumers (57 per cent) feel that fashion brands do not adequately represent a variety of body shapes and sizes in campaigns, marketing and on the runway — and this feeling is stronger when thinking about luxury (68 per cent).
.png)
However, there was also some pushback on bigger body representation from some straight-size respondents who voiced concerns over being sized out of collections and alienated from fashion marketing themselves. A handful of mid and plus-size respondents said they prefer to see straight-size models in marketing as they view it as more “aspirational”.
This polarisation underscores how internalised our bias towards straight sizing is, and indicates that brands may need to show mid and plus-size bodies alongside straight-size to drive the best conversion. While most consumers may consciously want representation for all — and it’s important to prevent negative feelings in shoppers — a recent study from Florida State University shows that purchase intentions are greater when viewing ideal body types, versus those that are considered more realistic or plus-size. “People want to purchase products that help them achieve their ideal selves,” researcher Jessica Ridgway Clayton told Vogue Business.
Many respondents demand better representation of all bodies, without losing a view of what garments look like in their size.
One straight-size respondent, who is largely favoured by the system based on our data, summed it up well: “Weight, age and gender should all be part of how each of us can embrace fashion. Fashion should display an array of human beings and not a particular genre. Fashion should be inclusive and give everyone a boost of self-confidence without question.”
