DOWNLOAD: Self-Identification and Anthropometry of Shopping Center Consumers
What Sizes Consumers Look for in Stores
Fashion Consulting Group Study, 2025–2026. Nationwide survey of 1,000 women, income from RUB 40,000, all age groups.
Size Matters: The Size Range as a Brand Role Model
The size range is one of the most sensitive and commercially important elements of the fashion business. Failure to match the commercially relevant size range leads to purchasing errors and lost sales, while inaccuracies in garment size labeling result in returns and customer disappointment.
Fashion Consulting Group conducted a study of the phenomenon of Vanity sizing / size voluntarism. We examined the actual behavior of consumers: how they themselves «label» their size, what sizes they look for in stores, how their perception of their own body changes with age, and how size is influenced by lifestyle.
Vanity sizing / size voluntarism: why size «fluctuates»
One of the key phenomena of contemporary fashion is size uncertainty, or size voluntarism within the industry itself. It confuses both consumers and brands: the parties often fail to understand each other and «agree» on the appropriate size.
Russia is distinctive in that for a long time it had a unified GOST standard, and the numerical size was traditionally understood as half of the bust circumference. For example, size 44 corresponds to a bust circumference of approximately 88 cm, size 46 to approximately 92 cm, and size 48 to approximately 96 cm. In other systems, sizes more often function as conventional labels depending on the country, brand, product category, and fit. Russian size 44, Italian size 44, and French size 44 do not correspond to the same anthropometry.
The differences are even more pronounced in the letter-based XS, S, M, L system. It has no unified standard at all: each brand independently decides which body measurements correspond to S or M. As a result, consumers are disoriented when XS fits comfortably in one brand, S in another, while M is too tight in a third. If a customer does not understand which size she needs, she orders multiple sizes and returns the extras, abandons the purchase, or switches to a brand where her «size» is clearer and psychologically more comfortable.
However, size exists not only on the label but also in the consumer’s mind. All women live in a process of «self-labeling»—a subjective size they assign to themselves as part of their desired self-image. S-M-L often functions not as a technical measurement but as an internal «mark of quality»: a marker of slimness, health, and control over one’s body.
The FCG study demonstrates this gap very clearly. Women often label themselves as smaller than their actual anthropometry: based on estimates of the actual sizes of Russian women, the peak falls within sizes 46–50, whereas in consumers’ self-assessments it falls within sizes 44–46.
For business, this is fundamental: brands work not only with the consumer’s anthropometry but also with her emotions, aspirations, and ideal self-image. Therefore, the perception of a brand as offering «small sizing» may be acceptable for an 18–20-year-old consumer, but for a woman aged 35+ it often becomes a reason for poor sales performance.
The Size Curve as a Reflection of Brand Positioning
For retail, it is more appropriate to speak not simply about «up to what size the brand produces,» but about the size curve. It reflects not only the size range but also the purchasing structure: which sizes the brand produces in greater quantities and which in smaller quantities.
For Generation Z, the core of demand is concentrated around sizes 42–46. For Generation Y, it expands to 44–48. For Generation X, it shifts to the 46–50 range. The share of sizes 50+ grows from a small niche among younger consumers to a significant share of demand among the mature audience.
This leads to a direct business logic: the older and broader the brand’s target audience, the broader its size range should be. Democratic mass-market brands with large stores and offerings for the entire family typically have a broader size range. For such formats, offering sizes up to 52–54 is not image-driven inclusivity but an element of a standard commercial model. Russian examples of this approach include O’STIN, FUNDAY, and Zolla; Zarina, for example, offers sizes up to 56.
By contrast, designer and niche brands that sell self-expression, visual distinctiveness, and a «fashionable» silhouette are more often focused on their core audience and have a narrower size curve. For them, the size range is part of the brand’s aesthetics and DNA rather than solely a tool for maximizing audience reach.
The study also shows that the shape of the size curve depends on the brand’s style DNA and role model. Among career-oriented consumers who choose business attire, the profile is more «small-sized»: the core is size 44. Among admirers of a vital and sexy style, the curve is concentrated around sizes 44–46. For the romantic image, the profile is more even and shifts upward toward size 48. The broadest curve, shifted toward larger sizes, is found among admirers of a practical style: this group has the smallest share of those who associate themselves with a size below 46.
The size range is the commercial mirror of the business strategy. It shows whom the brand considers its consumer and connects anthropometry, psychology, and brand positioning.