• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

This has been touched on a couple times here.. Plus Size Plus Gear?

tomahawkins

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 3, 2019
Posts
1,798
Location
Bellingham, WA
 

jt10000

步步高升
Skier
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Posts
1,128
Location
New York City
Every person is different and will be truly be privileged on if they are on the cheaper side of the spectrum. In real life, it's a mix of privilege and "oppression", cheap and expensive when it comes to dealing with the sport. At the end of the day, it averages out. If your average is on the cheaper side, kudos to you. If you fall within the expensive side, that's just life man. You're not being oppressed. It's just the nature of the physical universe we live in that we're subject to the laws of physics and the attendant economics as a consequence of these physical limitations.
"It's just physics that the world in which more power rests with people like me caters to the needs of people like me while ignoring large swathes of the market not like me."

Barf.

No, it's not just about "laws of physics" and "economics" but also power and representation in our society, where in outdoor clothing at least for years there has been insufficient attention to the needs of large parts of the market. Your excuses "it's just economics" is the same BS we've heard so many times ("Women don't like that, that's why we don't make it for them. Just make the smallest men's size available in pink and that's enough." "Black people don't do that much - no money to be made catering to their hair. It's just economics"). This is a garbage point of view in a world in which we have bazzillion choices if you're an "normal" (your word) person.

Your thesis is not just offensive, it's stupid too, because we keep reading stories of breakthroughs in reaching underserved markets (or at least the larger ones that are underserved due to gender or race) with serious money to be made. Maybe things cannot be quite as cheap or have as many options as for a larger market segment , but the extent to which companies do not even try represents them leaving money on the table and missing opportunities to develop huge brand loyalty as pioneers.

There is a bit of chicken-and-egg on the economics side, with the need for more plus-size clothing to get more plus size skiers (see excerpt from Analisa below with emphasis added on the business opportunity). But in the long-run, there's money on the table that can be made by being more inclusive.
Analisa said:
I'd like to set straight as someone with a professional background in both plus and outdoor apparel. The average US woman is a size 14 (the overlap between straight and plus sizes), and ~45% are limited to plus only. Plus makes up a small part of the ski market currently, but you need plus size ski gear before you're going to get many plus size skiers. There are also several groups where the majority or even vast majority of members wear plus sizes, like ethnicity, age, and disability status. We love to claim that "the mountains don't care what color you are," but Black women skew more towards plus size (and before anyone comes for health / activity status, they tend to have healthy health markers at larger weights). It appeals both from a business case sense and a fairness and equity standpoint.
 
Last edited:

Wade

Out on the slopes
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Posts
929
Location
New York
I have a question for people posting in this thread advocating for more plus sized clothing options in skiing. I’m going to preface it by making two things clear.

1. I want our sport to be inclusive. I want people to have access to the sport regardless of size, shape, race, gender etc.

2. I’m genuinely interested in the answer to my question. I’m not asking these questions to make a point or take a side in this discussion.


Basic economic theory dictates that if a market can be served profitably, companies will enter that market. In many circumstances, those early market entrants may have an opportunity to generate higher than normal profits until competitors also enter the market and profits normalize.

if it is possible for this market to be served profitably, and if we accept that the reason that companies generally exist is to create wealth for and deliver profits to their shareholders, it seems unlikely that companies wouldn’t attempt to generate additional sales and profits by servicing the plus sized ski apparel market.

So I had just assumed it was economics. That the reason companies don’t enter this market is because they don’t think it will be profitable for them.

if it is not economics driving decisions around apparel companies entering and effectively catering to the plus size market, what is it? Are the societal issues related to the plus sized ski apparel market so deep seated that companies are allowing themselves to be influenced by those issues to such an extent that they are passing up opportunities to deliver additional profits to their shareholders?
 
Thread Starter
TS
crgildart

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,325
Location
The Bull City
if it is not economics driving decisions around apparel companies entering and effectively catering to the plus size market, what is it? Are the societal issues related to the plus sized ski apparel market so deep seated that companies are allowing themselves to be influenced by those issues to such an extent that they are passing up opportunities to deliver additional profits to their shareholders?

I suspect this is a double edged sword.. There's not much opportunity for these folks without A) proper fitting boots and B) proper fitting jackets and pants. If you don't go all in on both those critical pieces of equipment one or the other has a higher risk of failure. Boot companies are waiting for outerwear companies to commit and outer wear companies are waiting for boot companies to commit.
 

Rich_Ease_3051

Getting off the lift
Pass Pulled
Joined
May 16, 2021
Posts
734
Location
Sydney
This reminds me of Asian fit goggles.

Asian fit goggles are goggles with a bit of foam in the nose area for flat nosed people to seal it and prevent air blowing in to the goggles.

I don't remember Asians complaining about misrepresentation with normal goggles that only fit Caucasian noses.

Companies like Oakley just fucking did it and introduced Asian fit category and other companies soon followed suit.

Because there's money to be made selling millions upon millions of goggles to flat nosed Asians. The cost and modification to equipment is not that major anyway: just a bit more foam.

Some Caucasians and other races with high bridged noses even buy the Asian fit ones. They like the extra bit of padding to seal out cold air.

This is an example of economics trumping "inclusivity" when there's money to be made and the economics makes sense.

There's an economic issue with the majors expanding their plus size line up but they cannot address it honestly because they shot themselves in the foot going all in on the woke messaging.
 
Last edited:

LuliTheYounger

I'm just here to bother my mom
Skier
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Posts
446
Location
SLC
if it is not economics driving decisions around apparel companies entering and effectively catering to the plus size market, what is it? Are the societal issues related to the plus sized ski apparel market so deep seated that companies are allowing themselves to be influenced by those issues to such an extent that they are passing up opportunities to deliver additional profits to their shareholders?

I think a lot of it is lack of skill & lack of predecessors in the industry, honestly.

The biggest quasi-economic factor I've heard is that most small design teams have to choose between grading S-M-L vs. grading to plus sizes, so every start up team more or less has to make a choice between the two, because they just don't have the time or resources for both.

S-M-L pattern grading is still the standard that people learn in school, and the sort of easy mode where there's a lot of resources, industry experience, etc. Sure, they're missing out on a lot of people – but it's safe. There's blocks that have been in the industry for 100 years with just minor edits; you're rarely starting from scratch. There's just a lot of infrastructure in place to support those sizes. You can make S-M-L gear that's based on basically the same block as everyone's else, fiddle with the overlaying features a little, and sell them to people that know their sizes because they've worn S/M/L at every other brand that uses the same blocks you do.

Plus size patterning is more... under-explored, I guess is the word? Pattern graders typically aren't trained in it, or they are but it's trained as like a "specialty" thing. The number of people with industry experience is limited, and resources / pre-existing blocks / etc don't necessarily exist, or a team just doesn't have access to them. It kind of becomes a loop where no one's done it before, so no one wants to try. I think a lot of teams just don't feel confident about making plus-sized gear, and no one wants to be the person that screws up with company money. Releasing a size M jacket that's basically identical to a jacket made 50 years ago is really easy, whereas doing a plus sized line and doing it well takes a lot more investment, and even then most brands are still kind of stuck in the "experiment" phase where there's a good chance that they do screw up and don't make anything that consumers actually want.

To me that's the actual economic part - it's not a lack of possible consumers or a lack of interest from consumers, but there's a pretty severe disconnect between the infrastructure that exists around making apparel vs. the actual people that want to buy it.
 
Thread Starter
TS
crgildart

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,325
Location
The Bull City
Can we all agree with the boots first mentality that is so strong in this community? I've got to say that of all the plus sized people I do see out on the trail.. 95% of them are on snowboards.. maybe(probably?) because the snowboard boots fit them better..
 

David Chaus

Beyond Help
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
5,529
Location
Stanwood, WA
Basic economic theory dictates that if a market can be served profitably, companies will enter that market. In many circumstances, those early market entrants may have an opportunity to generate higher than normal profits until competitors also enter the market and profits normalize.
The assumption that basic economic theory accurate describes human behavior (theory that assumes people will behave rationally) is not always the case and often it is never the case. People make decisions based on emotion and often try to explain the decision in rational terms, however the decisions to produce clothing are sometimes based on factors the individuals making the decisions are not aware of, for instance a skewed assumption of what “normal” sized people look like, or “normal” ethnicity and skin color. Or for that matter, “style” which encourages a perception of how someone should dress to project an image.
 

Rich_Ease_3051

Getting off the lift
Pass Pulled
Joined
May 16, 2021
Posts
734
Location
Sydney
"It's just physics that the world in which more power rests with people like me caters to the needs of people like me while ignoring large swathes of the market not like me."

Barf.

No, it's not just about "laws of physics" and "economics" but also power and representation in our society, where in outdoor clothing at least for years there has been insufficient attention to the needs of large parts of the market. Your excuses "it's just economics" is the same BS we've heard so many times ("Women don't like that, that's why we don't make it for them. Just make the smallest men's size available in pink and that's enough." "Black people don't do that much - no money to be made catering to their hair. It's just economics"). This is a garbage point of view in a world in which we have bazzillion choices if you're an "normal" (your word) person.

Your thesis is not just offensive, it's stupid too, because we keep reading stories of breakthroughs in reaching underserved markets (or at least the larger ones that are underserved due to gender or race) with serious money to be made. Maybe things cannot be quite as cheap or have as many options as for a larger market segment , but the extent to which companies do not even try represents them leaving money on the table and missing opportunities to develop huge brand loyalty as pioneers.

There is a bit of chicken-and-egg on the economics side, with the need for more plus-size clothing to get more plus size skiers (see excerpt from Analisa below with emphasis added on the business opportunity). But in the long-run, there's money on the table that can be made by being more inclusive.

My thesis is that cheap, perfectly fitting, and readily available clothing alone will not turn people on to this hobby.

It's the summation of distance to resort, clothing, accommodation, boots, health, income, skis, pass, food, athletic ability, etc, that will determine if the hobby is right for the person. Each of these components lie in a cheap to expensive spectrum. Adding them all up, will determine where the person lies in the totality of the cost spectrum of the skiing hobby.

It's whether they can tolerate the sum final cost that will convince a person if they will take up the hobby or not.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
crgildart

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,325
Location
The Bull City
My thesis is that cheap, perfectly fitting, and readily available clothing alone will not turn people on to this hobby.
We've already established that you know KNOTHING about how 90% plus of America and the world lives day to day. Here you prove it again..
 

jt10000

步步高升
Skier
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Posts
1,128
Location
New York City
Are the societal issues related to the plus sized ski apparel market so deep seated that companies are allowing themselves to be influenced by those issues to such an extent that they are passing up opportunities to deliver additional profits to their shareholders?
Yes.

Yes they are.

For sure economics plays a part in terms of momentum and start-up costs (it's easier to do what's always been done and infrastructure might not exist for the new thing). Plus risk aversion.

But absolutely also social issues and biases. We see this is so many domains - in hiring, production, in marketing to historically underserved groups.

If you look at board rooms and leadership and see people all who look a certain way, then you should realize it's not just economics.
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,297
Location
Reno
There are so many false comments in this thread that I'd like to set straight as someone with a professional background in both plus and outdoor apparel. The average US woman is a size 14 (the overlap between straight and plus sizes), and ~45% are limited to plus only. Plus makes up a small part of the ski market currently, but you need plus size ski gear before you're going to get many plus size skiers. There are also several groups where the majority or even vast majority of members wear plus sizes, like ethnicity, age, and disability status. We love to claim that "the mountains don't care what color you are," but Black women skew more towards plus size (and before anyone comes for health / activity status, they tend to have healthy health markers at larger weights). It appeals both from a business case sense and a fairness and equity standpoint.

With that, technical / fit design work has 2 guiding principles:

1. Does it fit on the body.
2. Does it function on the body.

Point 1 is where plus sizes differs from other fit cases, like short and to some extent, tall sizes. There are no options on the market for: shell ski pants, shell ski jackets, softshell top or bottom, no ski or rain gear with high performance membranes (polartec, eVent, Gore Tex), midweight or heavyweight puffy coats, any down item over 650 fill down, any wide calf ski socks. I believe that men's short sizes need more options, but it is a very different situation compared to having 0 options that will even go on your body. I know a few women who have the time and resources to sew their own garments, and a few that ski in low quality gear by being extremely picky with their days, but the majority of plus size women I know who are interested in skiing are waiting for better gear. I've wanted to nominate them for some really cool pass & lesson scholarships in our area, but gear that can keep you dry in the PNW snow for 3-4 hours is a missing prerequisite.

Point 2 is where I'm not convinced about a company like MADE. For example, both rise options hit below the belly button, but every successful pant I've seen in the plus size space sits above the belly button, below the ribcage. Their AI can deduct their measurements from those 2 pictures, but it doesn't tell you that someone with an apron belly needs a waistband that fits above or below it because otherwise it has no chance of staying closed when they bend at the waist. This is where a lot of companies have failed with plus expansions. Like Kari Traa's attempt used all the right measurements, but didn't adapt the patterning for plus size bodies at all (particularly rise and waistband width). Comments about Burton's XXL & XXXL have similar issues with inadequate rise. Now, MADE might be different, but with 3 years of design experience on their entire team and 0 in plus (especially considering fashion students work on up to size 6 mannequins in fashion school), I'm skeptical.

Further:
  • Plus should absolutely be financially viable for most ski companies. Eddie Bauer & LL Bean only hit about a billion in revenue per year and have been able to service small sectors of plus outerwear for years. OR and Trew are investing heavily with revenue of $57M & $9M, respectively. Eddie Bauer and LL Bean have offered some basic technical outdoor pieces to plus with $1-2B in revenue. Compare that to Patagonia ($1B), North Face ($12B), and Arc'teryx ($800M). Columbia was around $1-1.5B when they launched their plus collection.
  • MADE is not much more expensive than Arc'teryx or Patagonia, but the quality doesn't compare. A 3L Polartec Neoshell jacket goes for $645 with a really basic built (basic full zip, velcro cuffs, no extra pockets or pit zips). That goes for $400-450 commercially, and commercial offerings has the potential to mark down (~$250-300). Arc'teryx uses more Gore / Gore Pro, which have higher membrane test performance, as well as more intricate patternwork that dramatically increases factory costs, but vastly improves how gear moves with the body.
  • There's not that much of a difference between designing stretchy knits and structured wovens. There's a little more forgiveness from a measurement standpoint, but there's almost as many variables that can go wrong. Hence why Kari Traa doesn't have extended sizes in base layers despite seeming like an easier category.
Lastly, I wish the article acknowledged the sheer amount of unpaid work that has gone into contacting, convincing, and collaborating with brands on size extensions. I'm friends with a few of the women working on the OR, Gregory, and Trew plus runs, and an insane amount effort goes into getting brands to notice them, convincing them that they do hard enough things to need technical gear, and gear testing prototypes.
Thank you for this thoughtful post.
As noted, this is not the first time we've discussed it.
 

Rich_Ease_3051

Getting off the lift
Pass Pulled
Joined
May 16, 2021
Posts
734
Location
Sydney
Can we all agree with the boots first mentality that is so strong in this community? I've got to say that of all the plus sized people I do see out on the trail.. 95% of them are on snowboards.. maybe(probably?) because the snowboard boots fit them better..

If I have to pick just one thing, just one, that will predict if a person will pick up the hobby or not, it's stoke.

If you don't get the stoke, if you don't catch the ski bug, there's nothing that will convince you to take up the hobby.

Stoke is the one true thing that will turn people on to this hobby.

The next thing that's required for people to try the hobby, is ski boots. If you fall outside the max mondo size, you can never experience the hobby as you need boots, any boots, to ski. It doesn't matter if they hurt, as long as you can fit in one. You can still catch the stoke with painful rental boots. Many beginners did. I did.

Clothing is the further down the line of what will convince a person to take up the hobby. You can ski in just a Nike hoodie and jeans like a jerry or top of the line Arcteryx shell and pants. If you don't catch the stoke, it doesn't matter what you wore the first time you skied. No stoke, no love for the hobby.

Stoke is all that's needed to turn people on to the sports. Everything else is just an excuse (well except maybe boots that you can fit in).

Stoke is an arbitrary thing. There's no predictor for stoke. Not your age, income, race, body size, height, health, wealth, nothing. Stoke is stoke. Some people will catch it, some people won't.
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,297
Location
Reno
This reminds me of Asian fit goggles.

Asian fit goggles are goggles with a bit of foam in the nose area for flat nosed people to seal it and prevent air blowing in to the goggles.

I don't remember Asians complaining about misrepresentation with normal goggles that only fit Caucasian noses.

Companies like Oakley just fucking did it and introduced Asian fit category and other companies soon followed suit.

Because there's money to be made selling millions upon millions of goggles to flat nosed Asians. The cost and modification to equipment is not that major anyway: just a bit more foam.

Some Caucasians and other races with high bridged noses even buy the Asian fit ones. They like the extra bit of padding to seal out cold air.

This is an example of economics trumping "inclusivity" when there's money to be made and the economics makes sense.

There's an economic issue with the majors expanding their plus size line up but they cannot address it honestly because they shot themselves in the foot going all in on the woke messaging.
To this point, while I was working at Northstar I remember a day when a ski instructor came into the shop to shop for goggles.
He had his goggles in hand, held them out to me and said, "This is the third pair of goggles I've bought this year and I have the same problem with all of them. Can you find me a pair of goggles that will fit my giant jew nose." *Note: this guy is Jewish*
It took some dedication, but we eventually found him a pair of goggles that fit.

There are different shapes and sizes of noses, bridges of noses, eye spacing, facial shape...Its great if we can address good fit for everyone.
Heck, I struggled with my own goggle fit for the past year.
 
Thread Starter
TS
crgildart

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,325
Location
The Bull City
If I have to pick just one thing, just one, that will predict if a person will pick up the hobby or not, it's stoke.
I'd say it's "stoke potential"... For the plus sized person of average income, access to suitable gear is a huge part of stoke potential. Here that is very low...
 
Thread Starter
TS
crgildart

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
16,325
Location
The Bull City
I think we've all seen how fast the stoke can go from 60 to 0 if someone's struggling with gear.
Especially in a new gear shop or resort rental shop when they're told they're umm umm too big to fit in the gear that is available.. But, we can special order custom made that you can pay 3X the price for and maybe get in a month... But for boots, it's probably only Daleboots or Apex as possible options.
 

Wilhelmson

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
4,328
I can see how frustrating this must be. I am “regular” size and just finding jeans i my size that don’t feel tight with a phone and keys in the pocket is annoying - thank you Eddie Bauer. I actually have a bad day if my clothes feel tight fitting, even a t shirt. Back in the baggy days it wasn’t a problem. I know zilch about fashion and garment design but blame some of this on the current euro-style and fear that production changes will force more of us to settle for good enough fit and performance.


Rich Ease may be crude, but is probably correct. It’s not like there is an underserved market just waiting to be monetized with mass produced high end performance winter gear. Maybe all around ski/hunting/snowmobile gear, there would be trade offs.
 
Last edited:

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Dwight
    Practitioner of skiing, solid and liquid
Top