The office wardrobe has already changed. Sure, there are still many companies which require people to wear suits, but many more have gone the route of “business casual” (or, as I first learned back when I was 11 or 12, “smart casual”). You are seeing more polo shirts or twin sets and khakis or even denim. There are still rules, and in many cases, one can wear just about anything unless it’s athleisure, sleepwear or has anything offensive. It’s a different world. However, many businesses have not changed. I’m not talking about stores like J.Crew or Zara. I’m talking about places like Brooks Brothers.

Now, I LOVE Brooks. And they DO have a more casual line, Red Fleece. In fact, I have a few Red Fleece pieces in my closet. I also have items from their regular line. However, I’ve more or less been living on t-shirts and leggings (see Instagram pic above). Unless, of course, I have a pre-production meeting or a shoot. Then what I wear will fall into the business/smart casual category. I’ve also found that lately, what I wear is more likely to be from small(er) businesses, especially Canadian ones, than large, global corporations. And Brooks is neither a small business nor Canadian.

But that’s not the point of this piece. The issue is this: many businesses just don’t care that things have changed. In the case of Brooks Brothers, the issue is they’re still trying to cater to a more formal business person when they REALLY should be focusing on their Red Fleece line. That’s what more people are wearing to the office these days. And some people (not me) feel brands only cater to them if models LOOK like them. I don’t see too many East Asian models in Brooks ads, but it doesn’t mean I won’t wear their clothes or that Brooks isn’t for me/speaks to me (I never understood that – why does a brand have to have people who LOOK like you to SPEAK to you/make it okay for you to shop there? It isn’t skincare/colour cosmetics, it’s clothing). Size matters more.

For years, I’ve learned to deal with the fact that I’ll never see models my height, so to determine if something works for me, I just have to try (or buy petite). I’ve complained about it before, and even kept a blog (it’s been inactive for years, but you can still read old posts), but I’ve kind of moved on, after trying for years. It was and still IS like preaching to the choir. However, I DO perk up when I see that a model is under 5’5″. Especially one who is 5’3″ or shorter. She doesn’t even have to be slim. A small, Toronto-based sustainable fashion brand recently started featuring a model who is 5’3″ tall. She’s not slim like me – in fact, I think she’s probably around a 10 or 12 – but featuring HER helps me determine length on non-petite specific clothing. I get a better idea of whether a midi dress REALLY IS a midi dress (or something closer than a maxi). But many larger brands, brands who can very well afford to pay for different sized models, aren’t doing that. Why? Because they want to keep things the way they were and just don’t feel like innovating. They’re not looking at what people want so they could improve. It’s an ego thing. Victoria’s Secret, who filed for bankruptcy protection, didn’t really bother to feature (too many) models of differing sizes and abilities in their shows. That’s not what customers want. To stay alive, you need to reflect that. It doesn’t take a genius to know that.

And it’s not just big businesses. A couple of months ago, a small-ish, well-known Canadian women’s brand had posted on social about needing help to stay alive. However, their main focus still seems to be suits. I wanted to support them, to purchase one or two outfits, even, but there was just nothing I could wear for a lockdown, work-from-home lifestyle. Suits just don’t work for me, not even for formal video conferencing meetings. They ended up getting the funding they needed to continue operating, but the truth is, if they don’t start changing their products, they’re not going to remain competitive. If they don’t remain competitive, then, well, they’re not going to survive. It sounds harsh, but it’s simple. It’s business Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Those who aren’t marching along with the consumer just aren’t fit.

We all need to be supporting small businesses, but only those who care about a consumer’s needs. I’d much rather support slow fashion, especially slow fashion brands who use diverse sizing AND features a size diverse range of models than the standard 5’10”, size 2, twenty-something. That’s not me. That wasn’t me when I was 25, either.

It’s not just regular, everyday workwear. Formalwear (yes, we still need it) needs to better represent sizing as well. Brides who are larger, for example, may have more difficulty finding gowns. I’m tiny, and though I had much more choice when I was looking over 10 years ago, I have to admit that the majority of gowns were too overwhelming on my short, petite frame. I didn’t have much to pick from either. And yes, since brides come in all shapes and sizes (just like non-brides), we need to see a more diverse size range of models (and other types of formalwear as well. We can’t forget that weddings have guests, even these days, where the guest list is in the double digits rather than 100+). And I don’t want to hear from designers that they want to focus on their “muse” as I did from a well-known Canadian brand a few years ago. Yes, that comment hurt – way worse than a sales associate giving me attitude because I wasn’t a Mandarin-speaking “Crazy Rich Asian.”

But many companies continue to ignore what people want. And they’re suffering the consequences. And unlike some people, I’m not mourning their loss. Staff can find other jobs, perhaps even in different industries – there are so many new and exciting things popping up and they can be trained if they don’t already have the skills. If the company itself doesn’t evolve, they’ll just be stuck, and, are, frankly, a waste of space. Nostalgia can exist in photos, video and in our hearts and closets. Think about typewriters. Are we still using them? Do we, in 2020, expect someone applying for an executive assistant job to know how? Doubt it. I was surprised when a supervisor wanted me to fill in a form using a typewriter in 2008 (and wondered why I wasn’t able to do it on my desktop. I THINK fillable PDFs existed by them (PDFs definitely did), but I don’t remember). Same goes for the fashion business. And I haven’t even had the chance to go into e-commerce and social media. But that’s not really an issue with fashion but restaurants which cater to some cultures. I’ll get into that another time, though.

I know I sound harsh, but we have to be harsh. We have to ensure our society can move ahead. This is like Survivor (goodness, is that STILL ON?). Only those who manage get to stay on the island. Otherwise, you’re gone.

The post Want to Survive? Fashion’s Gotta Follow the Consumer appeared first on Cynthia C. Mintz.

Our society is now SO CASUAL – especially when it comes to clothing – that we believe that “anything goes” is the only right way.  Sorry, but that’s not always the case.  Not everyone works at Google or Facebook (where being casual reigns), or even the fashion industry, where being creative with your style is not only accepted, but pretty much required.  Wearing a full suit would probably look very odd in the social media world just as wearing heels at a construction site would.  Of course, it would be very dangerous to do so for the latter.  It saddens me that some men (including ones who aren’t all that young) can’t even tie a tie properly, simply because they never had to wear one.  *I* know how to tie a tie, thanks to years at uniformed school!  And I’m FEMALE!  Because the general view (i.e. not necessarily me) is that we HAVE to be casual, we criticize any kind of dress code that isn’t for safety reasons (except, perhaps yoga studios that do not allow shoes) and if it targets women/girls for any reason, it’s considered “slut shaming.”  It’s not.  It’s just that women’s clothing can appear too casual (e.g. sleeveless dresses – even suit dresses, when not worn with a cardigan or jacket).  Can you name ONE professional menswear outfit that is sleeveless (vests don’t count)?  I certainly can’t!  Guys’ professional outfits are what I outlined in the first paragraph.  A notch more casual would be a polo shirt, which probably wouldn’t be considered acceptable wear, save for a casual day.

Of course, sometimes dress codes don’t make much sense.  Traditional clubs often have a colour limit for racquet sports.  Many ban large logos and limit colour to 10% of one’s entire ensemble (hey, at least it isn’t like Diner en Blanc, where even your SHOES have to be white (at least the couple of times I’ve been.  You know how hard it is to find white shoes?)).  I follow these rules at the clubs I play at, of course, why would wearing, say, blue or green reflect badly on the club itself? It isn’t like working in finance or an old line law firm, where there is one traditional “look” – suits, suits and nothing but suits.  But even then, various colours are allowed.  If one can wear a blue, black or grey suit, why can’t one wear a green shirt for tennis?  Limiting colour isn’t the same as limiting an entire kind of look.  Besides, these clubs don’t have actual UNIFORMS (where colour limits, of course, make sense).

We, as a society, really need to stop and think.  Is it “slut shaming” EVERY TIME a woman/girl is criticized about what she’s wearing?  Well, it IS in many situations.  However, we must remember that it isn’t ALWAYS the case.  Is it “slut-shaming” if someone is asked to wear a shawl around her shoulders and arms in a conservative church?  I don’t think so.  What about criticizing someone (male or female) for wearing a bathing suit at the mall (actually, I’m not sure if malls will even allow that unless you’re trying something on are part of a fashion show)  There are appropriate times for certain outfits.  And I can’t help but wonder what would happen if a guy turned up wearing something sleeveless.

Image credit: Africa Studio/ShutterStock

The post Our Casual Society Hates Dress Codes appeared first on Cynthia C. Mintz.