[bonoboTP]

Option A) the companies are misogynist and prefer to inconvenience women. Option B) they're ambivalent and don't care about market opportunities and making more money. Option C) their market analysis shows that women don't buy them, despite what some women say online about what they'd want.

[Nursie]

Option D - it hasn’t been tried so nobody knows. Option E - so long as nobody provides great pockets, the jeans still sell.

[luckylion]

D is close to "That can't possibly be a $20 bill on the street; if it was, somebody would have picked it up", isn't it?

It's often talked and complained about, I don't think "nobody tried so nobody knows" is plausible.

E isn't convincing either. Why would "Big Jeans" conspire to keep large pockets from women? Are they trying to save a few cents by reducing the amount of raw materials? What powerful force is there to keep everyone in check so no manufacturer just gives women what they so desperately want and eats the other companies' market?

[Nursie]

> It's often talked and complained about, I don't think "nobody tried so nobody knows" is plausible.

Can you find evidence it's been tried? By a major brand? I'm not sure anyone's making the claim that pocket size would be the number 1 determinant in jeans purchase, fit and style are still going to be important, as are perceptions of quality.

This in particular gives me pause about all the perfect-free-market responses here - women are complaining they don't get pockets. Not saying "I don't buy jeans because they have inadequate pockets". I'm not even sure they're saying "I would switch brand because of larger pockets". Just "Why no decent pockets for us?"

> What powerful force is there to keep everyone in check

Inertia?

[luckylion]

> Can you find evidence it's been tried? By a major brand?

That's quite the goal post though. Even if a major brand tried it, it might not be the right cut, color, price, marketing campaign or season.

> Just "Why no decent pockets for us?"

Probably cecause they don't care about decent pockets enough to switch brands or buy a non-major-brand product or start a company to create jeans that have decent products. But I'm sure some have started those companies. And likely found that, despite all those comments, it's not important to the buying decision for most women, and it's much easier to make a living by writing articles about The Jeans Cartel's strategies to oppress women by not allowing larger pockets.

[Nursie]

> That's quite the goal post though. Even if a major brand tried it, it might not be the right cut, color, price, marketing campaign or season.

Which is precisely the point I was making, you're arguing that the market will fix this, when there are a variety of confounding factors at play.

> And likely found that, despite all those comments

Which ones? I'm not seeing claims it's the single most important buying factor, just that it's a problem.

I find these posts that somehow the market will fix it, and clearly if it hasn't then it's a non-issue, to be facile.

[luckylion]

> I find these posts that somehow the market will fix it, and clearly if it hasn't then it's a non-issue, to be facile.

You're part of the market, if you don't believe it's a non-issue, fix it. If you're right, you'll get rich in the process.

Saying "the market won't listen to the customers" is an easy out and very unlikely, because those companies want to make money and if there was "that one simple trick" to sell more and make more money, chances are extremely high that they'd use it.

[wayneftw]

Option F - Bigger pockets cause unsightly outlines and bulges in the tighter fitting pants that many women prefer.

[mfost]

That's basically option C really.