Pants
why can't I buy a cheap pair my size?

W   
hen will I be able to buy a cheap pair of pants at WalMart or K-Mart or Target that has an inseam of 31 inches? Why is this impossible? Why are all pants made in two inch increments ... 30", 32", 34", 36"? Am I genetically different from the majority? Who decided on even number increments?

As best I can tell, there is an economic rationale involved here. Too many sizes take up too much space on shelves and require much more inventory hassle. After all, we are talking cheap pants here ... not the better quality stuff which comes in 1" increments.

At present then, I have two choices. I can go around looking like a hillbilly kid who has outgrown his pants and can't afford another ... or ... I can have them dragging on the ground and look like one of those "butt-crack, hip-hop" clowns with their pants pinned to their boxer shorts.

There is a huge market hole here ...

Should the Chinese pick up on it, there is a marketing opportunity for an observant cheap pants manufacturer.

We note that in every department store, the pants are apportioned by their makers, i.e. Calvin Klein here and Levi Strauss there, etc. They never put two different manufacturers on the same pile. That's the deal they make with the outlet. They show it all in one display.

Each display is laid out by waist size and inseam length. Sooooooo ... it wouldn't matter if any given manufacturer used even-numbered inseams or odd-numbered inseams. There's no conflict with the other manufacturers because they are the competition. Get it?

It shouldn't matter if one makes even or odd increments since the same inventory, cost and display rules would be the same. So, if one company put out 31", 33", 35" ... it would be no different than another company putting out 30", 32", 34" ... See?

So here's the marketing deal ...

It must be true ... by Gaussian probability ... that exactly one half of the consumers of 32,34,36s are

DISSATISFIED CUSTOMERS

Hence, if one company out of dozens decides to go the 31,33,35s route ... he necessarily will garner an immediate 50% market share (all other things being equal). So ... why doesn't anybody do just that? What's the holdup?

Other pants news ...

I want an inside pants pocket. I mean one on the inside of the thigh. Why? For electronic gizmos like cell phone, Ipod, radios, mini-TVs, cameras ... generally small, expensive "toys" that one would like to protect from bumps on hard objects. Between the legs is the safest place on the human body (excluding anal deposit). After all, we keep the family jewels there don't we?

This might also be a good place for bills since a pick-pocket would have to hunch over somewhat to get to it ... and ... you'd "feel" something going on down there much more readily.

I am also waiting patiently for a "comb pocket" on the butt. I mean a thin pocket where your comb doesn't fall over sideways into the bottom of the pocket. This can be uncomfortable when lying down with pants on. Why is this sooooooooooo freakin' difficult to think of? And why is there no eyeglasses pocket in my shirt? How many decades does this take? Sheeeeeeesh!!



Ebtx Home Page