A recent thread discussed  and an article on it.  In reading through the site I found an enormous number of misstatements of fact, sloppy research and conclusions for which there was neither evidence or foundation (or the evidence led to other conclusions).  I can't begin to detail all the errors and misleading statements on the site - that would take weeks - but I thought I would choose a representative sample article to discuss.  So, from http://bellapetite.com/time-for-a-new-s … etail.html, let's go through it.

I'll start with the title:

PETITE FEMALE CONSUMERS REPRESENT 10 BILLION DOLLARS OF RETAIL BUYING POWER IN THE UNITED STATES.

The author does not define "retail buying power", but since her issue is clothing one might reasonably assume she means "apparel buying power".  Depending on the source and definition, the total value of apparel sales in the US is between $150 Billion and $350 Billion. (sources:     and  supplemented by industry sales trends since 2008)  If the “10 billion dollars of retail buying power” were true, that would be on the order of 2-7% of the market, hardly all that significant.  But it’s not true.

Now, for the text of the article:

Petite women are 70% of the U.S. Population.

[Note:  she defines "petite" as shorter than 5'5", which is different from the fashion industry definition.]

In fact, for women under age 50 – the people who buy most clothing - they are about 60% of the population.  Not surprisingly, older women are somewhat shorter than the average.  Still, the number does not get to 70% overall.  Source: http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/23 … on_by.html.

Women 5’9? or taller are only 3% of the market place and they are the standard in sizing.

It’s actually closer to 4% among younger women, not that it matters.  However, “they are the standard in sizing” is misleading.  They are the standard only for runway sample sizes, nothing else.  Other than that very narrow definition of “standard”, the statement is completely false and meaningless.

Retail is experiencing its worst economic downturn in the last ten years.

She doesn’t define her terms, so it’s not clear what is meant by “retail” (apparel retail, perhaps?) but except for a very minor downturn during the recession of 1994, there have been no downturns in apparel sales at all in the last 20 years.  More sloppy research.

A variety of factors have contributed to this precipitous fall, not the least of which is widespread discrimination and alienation of the majority of women in their marketplace.

There is absolutely no evidence for this claim.  In the middle of the greatest economic recession since the Depression of the 1930s, with unemployment hovering around 10%, she claims that “not least” of the reasons for reduced apparel sales is “widespread discrimination and alienation of the majority of women”?  Really?  One might think there would be some source cited for this remarkable claim, but of course there is not, and I can find no substantiation for it anywhere in the literature outside a few activists who are not part of the industry.

If retailers and designers want to get into the game of staying in business, they should try simply addressing their consumer market and they will win!

The clear assumption here is that somehow, despite all their years in business and hundreds of billions of dollars of annual sales, despite decades of market research and advice from the best advertising agencies in the world, retailers and designers have not been “addressing their consumer market.”  Again, really?  Aside from self-serving claims, is there any actual evidence that these retailers and designers are so stupid that they would never have considered “addressing their consumer market” and need to follow her advice?

Lane Bryant’s marketing strategy is brilliant and a perfect example of why they are succeeding in these tough economic times . . .

Again, statements which are counter to the evidence.  In fact, Charming Shoppes, the parent company of Lane Bryant, has experienced the same kind of sales decline as the rest of the apparel industry.  Their sales for the year ending in February, 2008 were $2.722 Billion; two years later their annual sales have declined to $2.064 Billion (a drop of 24%, almost identical to the apparel industry as a whole.  Source:  http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht … undIncomeA

You can't just make things up and hope they are true . . . you have to actually do research to see if they are true - at least if you want any credibility at all as a journalist.

The designers exclusively (and deliberately) use tall models when advertising petite clothing.  As a result, most petite women don’t even know which clothing designers and retailers carry petite clothing sizes.

This claimed confusion lacks foundation.  There is no connection between “uses tall models in advertising” and “knowing which designers and retailers carry petite clothing sizes.”  If women are carefully scrutinizing advertising pictures trying to determine if the model is “petite” (which, elsewhere, this author claims isn’t possible because petites look the same as taller models) instead of going to their retailers or clothing websites and seeing what is actually there, then there has been a great change in the ability of American women to find information.

However, . . .  “big five” of high end designers offering petite sizing, but most petite women don’t know this.  Why?  Because they ignore petite women by not using petite models in their fashion shows or advertising campaigns, nor do they even mention that dirty little word “petite” in their campaigns. If you’re lucky, it’s listed in the storefront window!

Ummmm . . . they don’t mention “tall” in their advertising campaigns either.  The ads are intended for women.  Not tall women, not short women, just women.  Pretty much nobody specifically targets the “short” market because there is no reason to.  By now most short women have figured out that they are short, and understand that they buy from the same designers as everyone else.

Here’s a recent example of blatant disregard exercised by a huge name retailer.  Ann Taylor, recently relaunched their “Loft Line,” a lesser expensive casual line which offers petites, in addition to their parent label. Yet they have no intention of advertising “petites”  in their mainstream campaigns.

As, in fact, hardly anybody else does either because there is no reason to.  Consumers understand that Ann Taylor, like other clothing lines, offers a variety of sizes.  If they didn't, the designers and retailers would tell them.

They recently approached Bella Petite to promote them and they did not want to do a campaign rollout utilizing actual petite models. They wanted us to promote them for “free” and, to add insult, featuring tall models! I wonder if retailers really believe that they are entitle to free advertising?   If they can’t pay to advertise how do they expect to stay in business?

In 2009 Ann Taylor spent approximately $60 million on marketing (source:   )  If they weren’t willing to pay bellapetite, it’s because, in their judgment, bellapetite isn’t worth paying for.