Size 16 Goes Online-Only In Ann Taylor Stores

By May 21, 2009

Ann Taylor will no longer carry size 16 items in their retail stores. “But they’re keeping it online,” our tipster Dena observed. “In other words, ‘Hey, wide load! Stay out of our stores! Oh, but keep giving us your cash.’”

Crain’s New York reported:

An Ann Taylor spokeswoman blamed low demand for the size in both brands, but some industry experts speculate that the elimination is really a cost-cutting measure.

“It’s more expensive to produce,” said one retail expert, explaining that larger sizes need separate patterns cut and fitted, which can be quite costly.

I call BS on this. Guess what, geniuses? Offering the same items online that used to be available in stores means that you still have to design them, still have to cut the patterns for them, and you still have to make them. Just not as many.

Good luck to Ann Taylor, though. I’m sure that this move will work out well for them at a time when, according to the same Crain’s article, 70% of American women wear a size 12 or larger. Other retailers in the same price range, such as Banana Republic, Gap, and J. Crew, ditched their larger sizes for women years ago.

Ann Taylor cuts size 16 [Crain's New York]

Tagged With: , , , , , , ,
«
»

Comments

  1. magnoliasouth says:
    May 23, 2009 at 4:18 am

    So I can add Ann Taylor to the bigotry list?

    I’m below a size 16, but they just lost me as a customer. I’ll NEVER shop in a store that discriminates against ANYONE. It doesn’t matter if it’s size, race, whatever.

    KMA Ann!

  2. personnext says:
    July 14, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    Th thr f ths stry s n dt wh clrly ds nt ndrstnd th csts f kpng ddtnl nvntry fr ft ppl wh rrly cm nt th str.

    f th ft ppl shppd t nn Tylr lt, thy wld kp th tms n nvntry.

    ntl thn, thy cn srv th fw ft cstmrs thy hv nln nd sv csts n nvntry cntrl nd stckng.

    Yt nthr xmpl f th Cnsmrst tkng thngs lttl t fr.

    • mon0zuki says:
      May 21, 2009 at 11:53 pm

      @personnext: I agree with personnext to some extent here – stocking sizes is very expensive for a clothing store. Yes, it DOES suck that they’re locking out larger women, but there IS reason behind it, not just a desire to lock out “fat chicks.”

    • Keter says:
      May 22, 2009 at 2:15 am

      @personnext: I’m sorry, but personnext seems to be the idiot here, not the author of the story. The average woman is a size 14. Add something like a large bust or overall large bone structure, and it’s easy for a woman to need a size 16 and still be of a healthy weight and good looking form. Remember that the clothes must fit the largest proportion on the wearer, even if every other proportion is smaller. For example, at age 19, I measured an unlikely 38-17-36. I weighed 115 lbs and had 3% body fat (yes, that’s actually substantially underweight!) but I wore a size 14-16 because of my build — which guys described as “stacked,” not “fat.” At 48, I’m 20 lbs. heavier, but wear exactly the same size. I’m still a normal weight and have a good figure, but in measurements, I’m big. Go figure.

      • SabreDC says:
        May 22, 2009 at 3:53 am

        @Keter: It doesn’t matter what size the average woman is. It matters what size the average customer is. Businesses are in business to make money. If they wanted to make sure everyone was clothed, they’d give away clothes to whomever needed them.

« Older Comments