Distinction between Bespoke, Made-to-Measure, Ready-to-Wear

When it comes to men's suits; there are three primary types of production and it is very important to understand the differences as pointed out by this article, The Difference Between Ready to Wear, Made to Measure, and Bespoke.

Those three types of men's suits are: 

• ready-to-wear (RTW) or off-the-rack,
• made-to-measure (MTM), and 
• bespoke tailoring or custom tailoring.

"Bespoke" means to speak of something.  But that word evolved to describe a category of men's clothing and evolved to describe something as "unique" or "custom" such as custom tailoring as contrast to "ready-to-wear" or "off-the-rack" and "made-to-measure".

But there are important subtleties and nuances that must become conscious to properly distinguish between the three categories above.  Ready-to-wear does not necessarily mean low quality and bespoke does not guarantee high quality.  Many factors come into play including your size relative to the common size of others, the quality of materials used, and the distribution channel used.

The general expectation is that the fit of a made-to-measure garment is expected to be superior to that of a ready-to-wear garment because made-to-measure garments are constructed to fit each customer individually based on a few body measurements to then customize some pre-existing pattern. Made-to-measure garments always involve some form of standardization in the pattern and manufacturing, whereas bespoke tailoring may be, or may not be, entirely made from scratch based on a customer's specifications with far more attention to minute fit details and using multiple fittings during the garment's construction process.

A "grey area" has existed between the extremes of bespoke and ready-to-wear since the end of the 19th century in which a tailor measures the customer, but the garment is then made to the closest standard size, sometimes in a factory. 

Adding a fourth category makes the differences clearer.  The distinction made here is between bespoke created without use of a pre-existing pattern, and made-to measure, which alters a standard-sized pattern to fit the specific customer.  Sometimes, bespoke may make use of standard made-to-measure patterns to make the customization process easier.  And so, the categories become:

1. ready-to-wear, off-the-rack, completely standard without adjustment
2. made-to-measure, off-the-rack standard pattern, adjusted for a specific customer, but adjustments are minor and few
3. bespoke tailoring based on off-the-rack standard patterns, adjusted for a specific customer, more adjustments are made and there is more attention to detail
4. bespoke completely custom tailoring, specifically designed for a specific customer, many fittings are made and total attention to detail

This distinction between ready-to-wear, made-to-measure, bespoke based on standard pattern, and bespoke which is completely custom can be applied to understanding the disclosures of a financial report.

Completely standard, or "ready-to-wear" or "one-size-fits-all" disclosures, is not the way US GAAP and IFRS financial reporting works.  But at the same time, "bespoke completely custom tailoring" is not necessary either.

My sensemaking of financial reports has revealed the following.

• About 80% (or say between 75% and 90%) of a financial report tends to be based on obvious best practices.
• About 18% (or say between 10% and 25%) of a financial report tends to be based on a little less obvious, meaning a little complicated but completely understandable to a skilled, experienced accounting professional.
• About 1.8% (or say between 1% and 5%) of a financial report tends to be based on "emergent practices" or on the complex side where there is some new twist on an existing disclosure or some completely new type of disclosure, but a properly skilled and experienced professional accountant can work out the details; BUT it can be the case that different professionals reach different conclusions
• About .2% (or say between .1% and 1%) of a financial report tends to be based on completely novel practices and a highly skilled and experienced professional accountant is necessary to figure out the details appropriately.

But the financial reporting industry has problems.  Today, it is common practice to build a financial report similar to how rifles and cars were created before the invention of interchangeable parts.  

Traditional "old School" approaches to creating financial reports are inefficient.  The "last mile" of financial report creation is extremely inefficient.  The global consultancy Gartner points out, "...average Fortune 1000 company used more than 800 spreadsheets to prepare its financial statements".  

Audit is broken.  A POGO study found that when the PCAOB inspected Big 4 audits it found: Deloitte botched 20%; PWC botched 23.6%; EY botched 27.3%; KPMG botched 50%.

Business model and products based on hourly billing are obsolete.  There is also a lack of motivation to fix problems because the Big 4 consulting firms bill by the hour; therefore they are unmotivated to improved efficiency.

But change will come.  And this will be the biggest change in 500 years. Many different things are converging.

Additional Information:

• Unifying Generative AI, Machine Learning, and Rules-based Systems
• Global Standards based Accounting and Reporting Oracle Machine Prototype
• Digital Twin for Financial Status and Performance of Economic Entity
• Special Purpose Logical Spreadsheet for Accountants