Kari I always appreciate when you choose to post, and I feel your frustration. As far as I am concerned, I hope you will continue to bring up these issues as you see fit. (I understand the business model point, but frankly it doesn't make sense to me since it does not reflect the actual buying public. Especially when it goes against the brand's self stated goals. Granted I am no expert and do not have the statistics at hand.) I will continue to try to support diversity in many forms at least in the small way of following lots of different people on social media. If I shopped retail, I would start with Universal Standard. I really like their mission of normalizing a wide range of sizes. Other than that, what sort of calling out would you have someone like me do? (Meant sincerely, as a non-activist personality.)

Kari-I appreciate you bring this to our attention. I had no idea Nordstrom had reduced their plus size offerings. I will be more conscious of this and try to be part of the solution.

Kari- your efforts to bring data and discussion to this crucial issue are valuable. It is most discouraging to hear both the numbers and the lack of response from Nordstrom. Like many important conversations, there can be challenges; that only validates the importance of them for me. Thanks for helping me view circumstances more fully and generating much thought. Considering ways to address this going forward. Over the years, I also had several cherished Classiques Entiers pieces and miss the brand.

Those are pretty crazy numbers. I have to admit I’m not sure if Nordstrom or any other retailer, except Ross, has a feasible survival strategy. I don’t know if that’s too blunt or something... but I’m just not seeing it on the ground. Everyone is pulling back and Ross is the only chain I’ve seen open stores in the last year. Yeah, I know it’s not what style dreams are made of ... but the economy being what is, we’re talking stone soup and it’s like there’s not even a stone in the pot...

Taylor, I understand that shopping can be challenging for people on the ends of the size spectrum. But I would like to point out that the prevailing fashion industry image is built upon people who look like you. Pick up a fashion magazine or look at an online catalog -- with few notable exceptions (ie, Universal Standard), your body type is the prevailing image. I'm not saying that to diminish the challenge you face in finding available sizes, but to point out that the inherent bias in the clothing/fashion industry does not favor larger sized women.

Kari, you always make me think. Thank you for posting. I tend not to be a vocal advocate because I lack firsthand experience (although I sympathize, and I empathize with some of the challenges, as I noted years ago that many designer lines do not support even the smallest double-digit sizes). I will try to do better in using my privilege to work on behalf of those who do not have it.

Not to belabor the point, but an example to illustrate what I'm talking about...

These pics are not Nordstrom, but from the Anthro website, which on the surface seems to have a decent number of "plus size" options in dresses. However, look at the photos that accompany the items. And these are just the first few that I found. There was one "plus size" dress that had a "plus size" model, and I'd guess she was maybe a size 12. If I -- at a size 8-10 -- feel put off and marginalized by this kind of representation, imagine how dispiriting it must be for someone who wears a larger size.

Thank you Janet for explaining this so eloquently.

To me, this thread is not about fitting challenges, especially when those challenges are considered attributes. Being a size 00 is an attribute. For example, I can only wear Tall sizes on bottoms. However, I don’t get to complain about NAS not including enough tall sizes, on a thread written by someone whose body is marginalized day in and day out, especially when being tall is considered an attribute. I also don’t get to bring the number of tall items available at NAS, as a counterpoint.

Let’s think about it, until very recently, only tall, thin bodies were given a pass to grace the runways. Bringing these arguments just muffles the real issue, so let’s talk about that.

What this is really about, is the blatant marginalization and stigma faced by those living in larger bodies and the lack of available clothing choices. Kari is graciously and courageously putting this content here, asking for advocacy and recognition of the issue. I think we can all be better at advocacy and most importantly, at empathy.

This whataboutism can go on different threads, just not on this one.

Kari, I couldn't agree more. Nordstrom used to have a great "Encore" section in my local stores and sold a lot of great plus size brands online, including high-end ones and some of their own labels, most of which don't exist anymore.

Now they've apparently decided to desert that market and I don't understand why, as it is a significant and underserved segment of the market. I read an article about Ascena's bankruptcy today where an analyst suggested that they might have been better served by focusing on Catherine's, Lane Bryant, and the plus-size options at Loft (and Dress Barn's plus options too, I'm now recalling, RIP), rather than trying to keep Ann Taylor and Justice alive.

I think the NAS this year looks pretty sad and shriveled, which I can understand under the circumstances, but the larger size options are even more sad and shriveled than one might expect.

I really don’t understand their logic - demand is obviously there, so many retailers are struggling and failing for bankruptcy but they are still stubbornly ignoring plus size market - why is that? It should be in their own interest too.

Thank your Kari. I haven't read all the responses but I also appreciate what Zapotee said.

Janet, in terms of what we can do - when I see something egregious such as size 12 models modelling plus size items, I might mention it to the brand on their instagram (hopefully in response to a relevant post). These days that is where I think they pay people to interact with the public and curate their image, so possibly more effective than emails to customer service etc. Also they have to put some thought into their public response and may be aware that the polite brush off doesn't necessarily cut it anymore. I try to frame it as a "I'm your customer and you are not targeting me" rather than being all outraged and woke (nothing wrong with that either). Just a thought.

Slightly relevant aside, I hadn't realized Justice was an Ann Taylor brand effected by their bankruptcy. They actually carried plus and slim sizes for kids and items like soft elastic waist "denim" that allowed kids with sensory issues to dress like their peers. Sizes up to 18 in tween/early teen styles allowing parents to avoid adult clothing taxes on 12 year old bodies (H&M and Zaara kids clothes max out at a skimpy size 14 too small for many eg. 10 year olds). And other things like longer tee shirts when everywhere else was cutting super skimpy leaving my larger kid with too much exposure when they sat on the floor at school. Sad to lose the resource.

I guess what's most disappointing (well, I mean apart from the unavailability of the clothing itself) is the disjunct between what retailers pretend to be doing/ offering and what they actually offer/ do. In the past, larger bodies were completely invisible in fashion. Now they are a bit more visible, so people imagine they are being served -- yet they are being less served, not more.

What's interesting is that marketers see a reason to try to appeal to this group -- and then the actual offerings don't carry it through. I like Jules's suggestion (not that I'm on Insta). But I think if it's about false images we have to talk to the image-makers. It might also be really useful and interesting for teachers to bring this up in schools, to make it a research project for kids.

Jules, I hear you on the kids' clothing issue. What a shame. Why do all the retailers who are genuinely trying seem to be the ones who go under? (I know that's not entirely true but it sometimes feels that way...)

I have to challenge the idea that this is a result of Nordies "going where the money is". As someone who actually worked on their size scales for their merchants, the key here is "you are what you eat". In other words, if they don't buy those sizes, their customers won't have them to buy. So how will they know what the size of that market is? I can tell you, the process was NOT as scientific as you might think. Of course, if the brand they are buying doesn't offer that size, then that is a limitation. But there is nothing stopping those merchants from seeking out brands with wider size options. Of course, that does take more work that just going back to the same well. Not to mention, they have NPG at their disposal, which will produce whatever they want.

Just anecdotally, I would expect the larger size market to be bigger than the 00 market. Especially in the south and midwest where Nordies is quite popular.

There is a lower margin, likely, since it requires more fabric. But that seems like a negligible point since other brands seem to be navigating this market segment successfully. I think the original idea of getting rid of Sejour and other "plus" NPG brands was to fold those sizes in to the "regular" (UGH) size scales. My guess is a combination of lack of know-how and what was "always done" on the part of the merchants, and gaps in technology with their tools, subverted that shift, along with the simple lack of brands around that carry this broader range and also have a the right quality/volume and a style that appeals. This latter issue seems to me to be more a lack of interest by merchants, though. And that I think is something that straight sized folks can make a fuss about to Nordies. I, too, have become less thrilled with what's on offer lately and now this...I am quickly looking towards sustainable and inclusive brands that represent my values...and I am not seeing those brands carried at Nordstrom. Very sad.

I, too, would be VERY interested to hear what a Nordies buyer had to say - particularly of NPG lines that Nordies itself controls.

I'm chiming in again to tag onto what Jenava and Suz said, which takes me back to data and retail's misuse of it.

The most BOUGHT sizes in the US are not the same as the most popular sizes of US women. The most bought sizes are smaller - US6 to 10 when the average size of the US woman is around US16 to 18. In other words, sales are much higher in straight sizes than in plus sizes. That is the economic premise for "going after the money".

That's NOT accurate data, and it needs a big shake up.

Sales are higher in straight sizes because of the ample supply of them, which the NAS demonstrates in the numbers that Kari pulled together. Larger sizes can't buy something that isn't there!!! I have been shouting that from the rooftops forever!

You can't show high sales in plus sizes when there isn't the assortment to support the potential buying pattern. Fair is fair, and the assortments are skewed toward straight sizes. The availability of fab stuff in larger sizes is in extreme short supply, and it's spiraling downwards because the mis-represented data is being followed. Unless there is CHANGE in the merchandise size scales to reflect a more accurate representation of the female size demographic in the US, sales numbers will continue to support straight sizes.

I have been an advocate for size inclusivity for a very long time - way before YLF. I started a plus size department at a retailer abroad back in the '90s because I saw an under supplied retail segment (I was a specialist retail buyer at the time). The need was so dire, that the items flew out of stores and I could not keep the department adequately stocked!

When we visited Karen Kane 9 years ago in CA, I asked Karen Kane herself to service larger sizes more deeply because the retail segment is in hectic need of a more fabulous assortment of items in that size range. I went into their sample room and said THIS and THIS and THIS up to 4XL. PLEASE! They actually took my conversation to heart and tapped the market, making more and more gorgeous plus sized samples. They now supply a lot of plus sized merchandise.

And last, Kari, I wrote this about Nordstrom on YLF last year. It laments our beloved and very size inclusive house brands that were discontinued. It circulated Nordstrom head office. I don't know if I had an impact, but I did put some wheels in motion:

https://youlookfab.com/2019/09.....our-roots/

Kari, I don't speak up much but just want to say thank you for consistently bringing this issue to our attention.

Yes . This is all very true . But now that retailer is dealing with merchandise that may never have left China before shipping stopped , or was going to be delayed leaving China and thus cancelled by the retailer. Then there is the retailer dealing with unforeseen and untenable loss of sales , and unable/unwilling to assume that sales for the July sale ( in Nordstrom’s case) would be there to support the initial buy . If I were a merchandise planner/buyer , I’d not be willing to bet on anything other than guaranteed sales right now . Not the time to be sticking to promises to expand size ranges or support untapped markets . It’s the unpleasant reality of buying right now .

But the thing is, Nordstrom isn’t sticking to anything. They are claiming to already be way more size inclusive when for the past few years, way before COVID, that’s simply not true. It was the same scenario in 2019, only not quite as bad because their sale overall had more pieces offered.
It’s also the case for many plus size brands that refuse to expand their offerings above a 24 or 26W, and instead decide to target customers who are sizes 10-12. Later, I’ll see if I can find some links, but this conversation is really exhausting.

Kari, I also thank you for bringing this conversation. I am informed about this topic, thanks to you, and would also like to stand with you as an advocate for change. I would be happy to copy and paste your data in my own email to Nordstrom’s customer service, if you would be ok with me using your research for that purpose.

As someone who straddles a XL/16/XXL/14W/16W depending on the item, Kari, thank you for bringing this to the forefront. I really have to shop hard for things that fit, and fit well. I'm not looking for a tent-like fit, thank-you-very-much.

I still have some Sejour and Classiques Entier items in my closet; they're in fantastic shape and have withstood regular wear, several years of trends, and survived many closet edits.

I tend to think that businesses, and particularly retailers in harder economic times, are disinclined to do anything they view as financially risky. Change is a risk. Some businesses have been making changes in the face of the BLM protests. Perhaps it’s cynical, but I don’t think businesses are suddenly waking up and realizing it’s time to be decent. I think they are worried about either their revenues or their stock prices.

I think the focus of Karie’s original post is around how to convince Nordstrom,
as a retailer, to be decent. However, to achieve lasting change, they have to see it as good for business.

How can non-straight sized women do this, when there is so little opportunity to vote with their resources, so hard to find and patronize the merchants that cater to their needs?

One way really requires research and big data: developing a report that shows what is the money left on the table, or spent on other things, by women who can’t find what they like in most stores?

A less data intensive thing could be forming a coalition of women of all sizes to have one day to buy from a designated merchant(s) that have demonstrated a commitment to size-inclusiveness ... and tracking what that kind of shopping looks like. And perhaps committing to not buy from uninclusive merchants in the same week.

A final idea that’s Nordstrom-focused. They seem to like getting fashion bloggers to do small collections. Perhaps they could be pressed to do a high quality, well done micro collection with a blogger or celebrity who isn’t straight sized, and if supporters ensure it sells out, that could be a lesson in being more supportive of customers of all sizes.

Size limitation in retail is NOT a supply and demand thing. As has been stated before, one cannot sell what one does not have or even seek to carry. And then for Nordstrom to praise themselves for being size-inclusive when they are exactly the opposite is disingenuous and a slap in the face to ALL customers. Size bias is very real, not only in fashion, but in everyday life, and as Zapotee mentioned, the struggle being small or tall or whatever else is NOT the same; it doesn't even compare. When someone brings a very real and hurtful issue, the proper response is not, "But look! I have a problem, too!"

I have not always responded in an empathetic way to Kari's posts. I didn't have the proper information to do so, but I've informed myself and I know better. It takes a tremendous amount of courage and fortitude to bring these issues before an audience of primarily straight-sized peers, and I have so much respect for Kari for continuing to do so. I will be contacting Nordstrom.

Kari, I am also very disappointed in this year’s offering. And even more than the limited number of items, I am frustrated by the blandness of it all. There are 13 pairs of plus pants in the sale. Half of them are black, and even more have a black option. You know what every single plus size retailer makes for plus size women? Black pants. I was frankly disappointed by the offerings from the brand Angie recently shared, because their catalog was also full of the same few basics I can find everywhere. Ditto another newish brand, Ryllace.

I see the same pattern in dresses and tops at NAS. I’m sure this year is pared back because so many of us are more casual these days. But how can fashion brighten our days and tempt our wallets when nothing new is offered?

I also was shocked to see how few items there were to choose from.

OTOH I find the quality has really dropped the last few years, so I rarely find clothing I like at Nordstrom anymore. There are usually some better items that are considerably more expensive than I can afford and do not fit my life.

In the last several years my store expanded, added a restaurant, eliminated my department, and then replaced the good quality items with dreck.

When I find better quality at Talbots Outlet something is wrong.

Thanks for raising this issue ! As an Australian , I don’t shop at Nordies but the situation is just as dire here, if not more so. It’s completely baffling to me that at the very moment when retail is struggling , shops are also not servicing the majority of women .
It is even more irritating when some are claiming to be more inclusive and yet they are not !

I don’t understand why Nordstrom is ignoring an entire section of the population. There’s money to be made there. My son’s GF is young, hip, and plus size. It’s definitely hard to find gifts for her. How many scarves does a young woman need?

This is disappointing. Everyone is so eloquent and I feel embarrassed to admit I was under the impression we were making progress. I follow Wardrobe Oxygen and The Mom Edit, which has a plus-sized member who recently gave her NAS picks, too, but perhaps as you say, Kari, I am too privileged to recognize the actual dearth of plus-sized options at NAS and elsewhere.

I do think calling out stores strategically on social media makes more of an impact than writing a letter, based on personal experience.

I really don't need much, but yeah their plus size offerings the last few years have been crap.
I remember way back in 2000-2001, they got Emme's plus size line.
She was the first plus size superodel
https://www.emmestyle.com/
Apparently she has some clothes now, but not like before.
Anyways I got this awesome zebra coat with hot pink lining from Nordstrom. I got rid of it when I was skinny, and now am regretting it.
I remember when Good American came to Nordstrom, Khloe Kardashian pushed to have alllll the sizes in the same section. Yes the Kardashians are problematic, but I have to applaud her development of the line. But by last year that section in the downtown Flagship store in Seattle shrunk and shrunk.
Before the pandemic, Nordstorm I believe had the retail power to make brands expand their sizing. But I never really saw it.
Probably over 80% of the clothes on second floor which is designer and SPACE, emerging designers, are not above a size 12, let alone a 14. Lafayette is very nice, but also very classic.
Absolutely anything really interesting in the sale, isn't anywhere near my current size.
For example I like this top, but the XL is equal to a 12.

I understand the frustration. I may wear straight sizes, but my mother and sister don’t - and their struggle to be stylish is real.

https://www.instyle.com/fashio.....nny-bodies

Great article Carla. Ive seen a few different takes on that pic, but that author did good

I certainly remember the Emme line! In my early twenties, I had a pair of pants, a skirt and a top that I spent to what to me was a fortune at the time on, and wore those pieces to death. I was a student and couldn’t really afford it, but it was so worth it. Those were great clothes - beautiful and stylish, and I remember feeling so pretty in the dressing room compared to just wishing and hoping any xl/16 bottoms would fit me at the GAP, which didn’t.

That article is so on point, Carla. It’s so true, and I’ve become more and more aware of how much BS it is lately. I have seen outfits praised as “chic” on slender women that would be panned on someone heavier.