The latter is more of a root cause than (also, of) the former, which is nonetheless a large contributor.
The latter - measuring growth/success of an economy by redundant items bought, is a direct consequence of applying the same principle for individuals. This phenomenon, at the micro level, could, with the appropriate disclaimers, be considered the root cause for the general maladies you point out.
Do you believe individuals could be trained/convinced/taught to not measure their success in those terms?
If yes, would they still get to measure their successes? If so, in terms of what? What would you consider a better universal metric for personal success?
I agree with your sentiment, but studying consumer behavior is interesting for other reasons.
Then again, the fact that anyone had to do a study to figure this out is indicative of a bigger disconnect between business people and their customers than I expected.
the fact that anyone had to do a study to figure this out is indicative of a bigger disconnect between business people and their customers than I expected.
I'd caution you against assuming that business people don't know this. This article is just a marketing post for Oliver Wyman (a management consulting firm).
Most stores seem to redesign their clothing ranges for both women and men annually, and then make a big deal of it.
There are a few exceptions, like branded jeans with stable styles, and no-brand generic staples like tees and polos.
But generally when you find an article you like, it disappears within a few months.
It's astounding that clothing retail has been around for centuries, but hardly anyone has considered that at least some customers might prefer a stable product range.
I just warned against assuming. That said, what people like is just one of the inputs in the decision, the goal being profit. I'd say the fact that there are exceptions shows that companies do know about it, and they are deliberately choosing to eschew it.
I'd think from a profitability point of view clothing retailers want to like it just enough to buy it -- and return to the shop -- but not enough that you want to keep wearing it rather than but a new one.
One way to do that is to change the fashion regularly in order to apply social pressure to not wearing older clothing.
Another way appears to be making clothes very thin so they wear out quicker.
Of something is good, but not great, you'll but from that brand again -- and I bet sooner.
I'd be down with a requirement that consumer behavior is researched in only de-identified settings. Economic frameworks like Berry-Levinsohn-Pakes are sufficient to make most decisions in things like product, placement, and so on. Micro-level data is nice, but macro-level is sufficient for what these customer journey analytics groups are pressing for.
This is probably how the typical executive thinks in those retailers. “Hmm.. I need to use big data and personalization to create a better customer experience, I know a genius idea that will do that! Swipe their smartphones!”
Sadly a lot of idiots would love it and completely disregard the privacy implications, until the precedent has been set and you won’t even be allowed into the store without tapping your smartphone and being tracked.
Probably they will make it like the shopper card programs, where all are free to come and shop in the store, but you suffer disadvantages like paying more unless you check in with your phone.
A lot of so-called "idiots" make the rational decision that prioritizes convenience at the expense of privacy. It may not be the decision many of us would make, but that doesn't mean it's not rational.
Myth: Consumers always want something new.
Fact: Very often, they are happy to rebuy the same or a similar item.
This is something I wish more retailers would get. Once I find a pair of shoes that fits me that I like... I really, really don't want to go though that same discovery process 1-2 years down the line. I just want to buy the very same make/model of shoes I've grown accustom to.
Please! I struggle to find shoes that fit me since I find that trying them on in the store has basically no bearing with how they'll perform on the street. Yet the shoes I end up with don't exist in a year or two when I want to replace them.
I won't say I do it on a regular basis but if I find a comfortable pair of shoes of the sort that I wear frequently, I've gone back to the store during the same season and bought an additional pair or two.
I remember the scene in "9½ Weeks" where Elizabeth McGraw discovers the dressing of John Gray. Why is this seen as pathological? It seems so rational to me.
Oh man, this. It makes me gravitate towards companies that keep selling the same product, year after year. Much as I don't like some things about LL Bean, I can go buy some duck boots or riverdriver shirts or flannel from them, and know what I'm getting, because they haven't changed the design in decades.
Otherwise, you've got to find something you like, and buy six of them to stockpile.
Clothing styles change so much that trying to maintain a consistent wardrobe is almost impossible. Just look at blue jeans. I used to buy some from Eddie Bauer, they were thick, durable and lasted forever. Now you try to find those, and the denim is notably thinner, the stitching less robust, etc. Same with their line of polo shirts; these are now much thinner than a decade ago.
Some stuff is pretty timeless. Especially with sneakers. Vans, Chucks, Air Max, Superstars - all remained in fashion (and sometimes on trend) for the last 20+ years.
Totally my opinion and anecdotally, but up and down. Certainly with Nike sometimes a win, sometimes you're like "really?" Vans and Chucks seem consistently similar - I wear through a pair in about 8 months, I buy a new pair. Same shoe, same colours, same size.
Just yesterday I was complaining about the decreased quality (and warranty policies) at REI. And I've found the same thing at Lands End. Increasingly it's all basically the same stuff made in China for lowest cost. There are exceptions but we're mostly conditioned to pay less and accept stuff that just doesn't last very well.
15 years ago I bought an Army-surplus jacket - Gore-Tex lining, vented, inside weatherproof pockets, wonderful. It finally wore out, and I went back and bought another one.
Its junk. The seam tape started shelling off the first day, its hanging in tatters. The pockets came unstuck and flap around inside the jacket. No more liners; its not even very water-resistant.
I was thinking about this the other day in a campground, noticing the frayed collar on a favorite REI hiking shirt I must have bought in about 2004. They have definitely made the fabric thinner in recent years as well as sometimes changing the style in unhelpful ways. But, these thinner fabrics do also perform quite well in hot sun. They just don't have the same durability.
I also thought of my down-filled mummy sleeping bag in the tent, which is c. 1985 and proudly made in China by the Swan company. It works great after all these years, only a little stained by iron oxide and having lost a drawstring from the hood. My father bought a matching pair as a set, and I inherited the other half from my brother, so my wife and I can zip them together and have a cozy sack for two. Modern bags may have a bit more loft and pack a little bit smaller, but not enough to want to replace these.
When breaking camp, I noticed my c. 2013 tent had sheared off an attachment point between the rain fly and the poles. I may try to fix it with some of that crazy tent-repair tape, as I did when it went for a tumble in high winds once. But, I think back to some old tents my family purchased around the same time as my sleeping bag, and am glad to have this amazingly light weight tent instead. Those old ones have probably lost their waterproofing to rot, but their fiberglass poles were so heavy I'd never want to drag it somewhere again.
Shoes on the other hand are a disappointment. I have watched the average life span of hiking shoes decrease rapidly.
Maybe you're not aware of the brands that do this, or maybe those brands don't suit you? Converse Chuck Taylors and Vans skate shoes haven't really changed much in decades. I go through a pair of Vans low-top slip-ons every six months and just re-up when the tread falls apart
Sadly Vans have stopped doing the style I liked wearing and had been being for years (often buying several pairs at once). I'm hoping that the Etnies I now wear wont go the same way.
The other issue I've had is when finding something I like and that fits, I often can't bulk buy because there's only one or two items actually in stock. Thankfully these days I can often buy the one item in the shop and get the remaining ones online.
My solution to this with shoes was to start buying really high-quality shoes. Bought some Red Wing Heritage chukka boots that look nice with jeans and business casual attire. I've been wearing them every day at work for over two years now, and they look like they're barely broken in. I expect them to last for a _very_ long time, especially since I can get them re-soled when the soles wear out (which they're nowhere close to).
Did a similar thing with Allen Edmonds dress shoes. Yes, they were expensive initially, but given how little I wear dress shoes, I wouldn't be surprised if they last me the rest of my life.
Now if only I could find a solution for clothing...
> Did a similar thing with Allen Edmonds dress shoes. Yes, they were expensive initially, but given how little I wear dress shoes, I wouldn't be surprised if they last me the rest of my life.
Allen Edmonds are my beater/non-fashion oxfords. I'm going on year five of near-daily wear with them.
Leather soles don't last forever, unless you only ever wear them indoors. If you live wear it rains or walk on sidewalks a lot, nice leather soles will last less than rubber soles. Also, you probably won't want to resole more than 1-3 times. I love my nice dress shoes but lets not pretend that they are worth it purely on longevity.
I bought a set of Red Wing Postmans after I started regularly walking home from work—the three-mile walk was tearing through shoes, and causing issues with my feet. After breaking in the Postmans, my foot pain went away, and the shoes are in excellent condition after a couple of years (haven't even resoled them yet!).
I've had less luck with my AE dress shoes, but I think I'm being too harsh on the leather soles.
There is a solution for clothing along the same path as the one you took when you bought your Allens. Tailor made clothes. There are even online shops where you send your measurements and they make bespoke shirts that always fit like a glove. Of course if you're into tshirts and the likes things are more complicated.
I got a pair of clarks desert boots a couple of years ago and they've lasted ages even though I'm tall and heavy. I thought the crepe soles might wear down quickly but they're still good. I usually have real trouble with soles as I walk almost everywhere and they wear down quickly on cheaper shoes.
Here in the UK, CDBs are £80 vs the £200 you're talking about (or $70 vs $170 that I can see on amazon.com).
Basically avoid really cheap, but you don't have to go to $200 though.
Also, we seem to be in a weird spot fashion wise right now. Hipster fashion doesn't seem to be fading. Reddit's MFA (male fashion advice) was recommending chukka boots and white trainers like 6 years ago and we're still there, same with skinny suits, etc.
Fashion, while apparently highly disposable for women, seems to have stabilized for men. MFA talk about "timeless" pieces, but in reality wearing chukkas, white trainers or slim suits in the 90s or early 2000s would have made you look like a plonker. When I was young Doc Martins were cool, then they weren't, now they kinda are again? I also remember Hush Puppies with a particular look were cool that really aren't today.
Same with dress shoes too, black, square fronted dress shoes were considered good, while pointy brown dress shoes were incredibly old fashioned. Now it's the other way around.
CDBs are the only shoes I've ever worn through the sole of. I wore them the great regularity for 2 years. Rest of the shoe is still fine. Clarks are definitely worth the extra cash.
That said, those crepe soles are like ice skates in the wet...
My wife and I have discussed this before and never come to a satisfying conclusion. Best brief answer I've got is that the phenomena is rooted in historical/cultural uses of clothes, involving practicality/conformity for men, and more ornamentation for women (not drawing a judgement here, just considering the last 100-200 years in Western culture).
I'm still of the opinion that skinny suits make anyone over the age of 30 look like a plonker. And I'm seeing double-breasted make a come back, paired with pleated trousers. Haven't seen pleats on pants in twenty years. Men's fashion moves really slowly.
I got a pair of their work boots (1412, specifically) five years ago. I've worn them pretty much every day since then, and they're still perfectly usable.
Also bought a pair of Redwings for everyday wear almost two years ago, but I went with Iron Rangers since they're easy to pass off as (really, really nice) women's granny boots (that can take a beating). They look great with skater skirts and knee high socks/leg warmers! Which is the core of my usual uniform. I adore them.
Except mine DEFINITELY look a little aged on account of all the daily romps in the woods I do, lots of mud and wet grass. Most other shoes would've been long destroyed by now, though (looking at you, Doc Martens "fashion" boots).
>Did a similar thing with Allen Edmonds dress shoes. Yes, they were expensive initially, but given how little I wear dress shoes, I wouldn't be surprised if they last me the rest of my life.
The average person is probably better off just buying a 30 dollar pair at Target and putting 470 bucks into the stock-market.
How many 30-dollar pairs would such a person have to buy compared to the person who invests in quality upfront? In addition to a quality shoe, it probably also helps to find a competent cobbler who can keep the shoes in good repair to extend their lifetime.
By my back of the envelop calculation, as long as its less than 25 shoes over 10 years, stock market is the winner.
Where Allen Edmond shoes are the real winner is compared to the shoes a level or two below them. Like Cole Haan. They last a lot longer but only cost twice as much.
Except not or similar. If you're not giving me the exact same thing that I ordered last night, I want to be informed in a timely manner before I'm charged/the item is shipped.
Oops - should have been "(QR code or similar)" - too late for me to edit.
Completely agree - I'd want the same thing, not a crappy version of the same product you sold 2 years ago for the same price - which I suspect rules out a lot of clothes retailers.
Mostly agreed, I tend to find clothing I know comforting. I know they fit so I buy them again. Why experiment?
I do that a lot in other sections in life too, I buy crappy solder because I know it works well for me even though people are telling me this solder is crap and my house will burn down and I'll get lead cancer...
I've been using the same type of all-purpose shoes for a good twelve years now, and while they're neither the cheapest nor the most durable, this is the reason I'll likely continue for the next ten; Having to buy a new pair every other year is 100% worth knowing that I'll always have comfortable footwear that's suitable for everything from meetings to mountain scrambling.
Personally, it's Lands' End's all weather mocs [1]. It should be noted I'm absolutely hopeless when it comes to fashion, I can only vouch for their functionality and comfort. Another commentor also mentioned Adidas Sambas as being a good standard [2].
For me it's been Adidas Samba basic white stripes on black model, with occasional forays into suede color related models. They've always held up well, wash well, feel good. I'll have a new pair on hand, an older one or two for exercise, and a junk pair I can discard at any time.
I've always been fascinated by a particular finger of land in the SF Bay just north of the San Mateo Bridge, west of the channel that goes under the bridge. It's quite some distance from the Foster City shore. I waded out to that finger on the day of lowest tide about ten years ago and walked to the northernmost point one day, with my junk Sambas ... it's probably the loneliest spot in the bay area without getting into the hills, except you can wave to the commuters on the bridge. I didn't bother to clean up that pair when done.
I keep buying Bloch split-sole dance sneakers every couple of years. I find the exact model I wear on ebay -- not even sure if they still make them, but they orthotics fit in them well.
I have something like 6 pairs of the same jeans, most of my underwear, a lot of my socks, always the same Amazon ASIN. When I run low on something, I check my purchase history and rebuy.
Same for my shoes- I have a pair I like, and when they got old I went back to the same store and got the same shoes again, identical.
It sure makes getting dressed far easier in the morning.
Over half of the clothes I own are the same 8 items on subscribe.
Black T Shirt (5 every 4 months), Raw Denim Jeans (1 every 9 months), gray tank top (4 every 4 months), athletic shorts (1 every 6 months), everyday underwear (3 every 4 months), athletic underwear (2 every 4 months), athletic socks (3 pairs every 6 months), dress socks (3 pairs every 6 months).
It's great for a lot of reasons. Less time picking clothes, less time shopping for clothes, and something is worn out or stained I can discard it without stress.
- I buy basic clothing from a famous sports store, and they change a large part of the articles essentially every year, even the underwear;
- I tried to buy a trousers with the same model of 3/4 years before, from a rather famous (in the country I live in) brand, and it was not available anymore;
- I tried to buy t-shirts with the same model of 3/4 years before, again from another rather famous brand, and it's not available anymore.
- My runners are a certain model from a very famous brand, which produces a new version every 1-2 years; I thought at least the size would be the same: nope.
Rainbow sandals gets this. I wear them daily, and buy a new pair every 2-3 years (they last a long time). Every time I shop for a new pair, I find the same design I know and love. I agree with you. More brands should be so stable.
>I really, really don't want to go though that same discovery process 1-2 years down the line.
The worst is when it has the same name and cosmetically looks the same, but you realize they've changed over to a lower quality manufacturer and it's nowhere near as well made.
This is called "Extracting the value from the brand". The implication that, once done, the brand is now valueless, is awkward but precisely as intended. :)
Yes, and more retailers would size consistently based on this fact. There was a pair of jeans that fit me perfectly in GAP, for instance. I wore through two pairs of them (and at £39 quid they weren't worth getting repaired). The third pair I bought online. Same colour, same size, same name. Didn't fit at all. Went to store, all the sizing had changed across the board. About 18 months later, it changed back. Very annoying.
Edit: I bought APC jeans last time and the cost (and how good they look once worn in) was worth getting them repaired. Next time I can afford to spend a bit more, I'll probably go for Nudie - mostly because of their free repairs for life policy, which I think is amazing: https://www.nudiejeans.com/page/free-repairs-for-life
Same thing happens to me, and I've noticed that the countries of manufacture will vary. I didn't realize that clothing companies could switch their whole operation from say, Bangladesh to Vietnam, in one year, but I guess if it is profitable based on varying wages and currencies, they get it done.
But like you said, it is very annoying because I like to just buy what I already know works, and it's not possible at many retailers any more.
And jeans! Why is it so hard to find fitting jeans? If I can just tell a seller "The last perfect pair of jeans I had were Lee Regular Fit Straight Leg in 2012", they should be able to look up the measurements and fabric and give me the closest matching pair they have available. Why do I have to go to a store (or buy online) and try on 20 pairs only to find out none of them fit?
Yes yes yes. For years I've been hoping for someone to launch a business to solve this. It exists for dress clothes but I'm not sure if anyone is doing for jeans. I want to be able to just send in a pair of my favorite jeans and have someone churn out any number of new pairs of the exact same dimensions in any fabric/color I want. No more wasting time in miserable shopping malls trying on tons of pairs while being subjected to terrible background music.
Just did some quick googling for "custom tailored jeans" and there seems to be a few things out there, but not sure how good the service is. Might be worth a try
Now when I find a pair I like, after a few months to ensure I like them, I buy 3 more pairs. Been doing this for about 5 years now.
Interestingly I have found it doesn't always work. Perhaps the materials age or there are differences in production batches, but I have the same exact shoe (from model number) from Lowe and some are comfortable and pliant, and others are not, and some are waterproof and others feel like they are made of a screen door.
Fact: Some consumers like reliable consistency, while others prefer following fashion trends. Many consumers do both at different stages of their lives, years, and days.
Ideally I would just buy 5 or 10 pieces of what fits me. The problem is that I am not Steve Jobs and everybody will think that I never change clothes.
So I buy a few of varying colors but this is the extra effort I would like to avoid.
I tried this with my first son when he was a few days old. One pajama (or whatever it is called) was great so I went back to the shop and bought 10 of them. Then went back to the shop to return them after my wife explained to me a few facts of life.
This article should have postfixed itself with '... in the United States.' I live in Saigon now, there is literally hundreds of thousands of clothing stores here. I can't go 20 meters without seeing something for sale. Why? Because most clothes you buy are actually made here. Which also has the added benefit of making them extremely cheap. I can get a big name brand shirt here for $4 that costs $50 in the states.
The Vietnamese govt. loves to tax things coming into and out of the country. Sending enough quantity out of the country to make a profit selling it, would require a lot of shipping contacts. Not impossible, I'm sure people do it, but it isn't easy to do without getting a lot of attention.
Also, legality of it all... name brand stuff here is usually some level of fake. For example, the labels, patterns and fabrics may be from the factory (likely removed without knowledge), but they were assembled by the same factory people, working out of a shop in their living room.
I bought a nice Pull&Bear t-shirt the other day for 100k vnd / $4.39.
Companies all over the world are shipping and selling these clothes all over the world, from boutique websites to huge department stores. An individual could try to compete, and might succeed, but this isn't an undiscovered niche.
>Shopping journeys concluding in online purchases have baskets that are 25% larger, on average. When someone first visits a physical store and then purchases online, the effect is even more pronounced: Baskets are 64% larger.
Something that's not addressed in the article, but I have noticed about myself is that I am more likely to order multiple sizes of a piece of clothing online, and return all but the piece that fits the best. That might contribute to larger purchase sizes. Sites like amazon make this particularly easy.
I do this a lot with shirts, especially if I'm going to a meeting and want a new white shirt that will look impressive in that meeting. I'll buy three white shirts, try them all, keep the one that fits best, and return the others. When traveling, I've sometimes been put in the position where I'm told suddenly that I should meet with a client at 10 AM tomorrow, and right now it is midnight. The trouble then is finding a clothing store that opens before 10 AM, so I can go shopping before the meeting.
I was surprised some of these myths were actually myths!
When it comes to online shopping, which makes up a majority of my clothing purchases now, these facts from the article are very important:
1. Spend is dramatically higher at brand stores and websites than in multibrand stores.
2. Very often, they are happy to rebuy the same or a similar item.
3. Most journeys are still overwhelmingly single-channel, though this is changing.
For me, finding clothes that fit right can be difficult. I'm tall enough that many shirts are too short but many tall sizes are too long. Most brick-and-mortar stores don't stock tall sizes, so I had to go online to even try them. Since it's enough of a pain, I've settled on two or three brands whose sizing I know can work for me.
If I were to shop somewhere like Macys or Macys.com, I'm dealing with several dozen brands, each with different sizing. If I stick with a brand, say Banana Republic or Gap, it's substantially easier and I'd tend to spend more money at one place rather than buying pieces here and there. On the other hand, I do not like online returns at all, so I try and stick with brands that have a physical presence I can utilize for returns.
Additionally, many stores offer really great discounts that can be hard to parse and take advantage of in stores. They may have a %-off coupon valid for certain things, in combination with BOGO discounts that you can stack for big savings. Toying with that in an online shopping cart is really easy but is much more of a hassle in a store.
In a store, however, a sales associate tries to guess a shopper’s tastes in real time.
Shout out to the people who can afford to shop at stores with a business model that supports "sales associates" that actually do something besides take your money (or help unlock a dressing room) I can't remember the last time I was helped personally while shopping for clothing.
I wonder if this "coldness" towards the customer is an artifact of environment?
Here in Romania, I feel it is only half of the time the case.I had plenty of helpful interaction with employees both being asked if I need help or directly going and asking for help. I also had plenty of unhelpful interaction with uninformed employees or uninterested employees.
At least in the westernized countries I believe the more Mediterranean a culture the more helpful store employees try to appear (even though they may not actually be).
My knee-jerk reaction is always to reject shop-assistant help, but recently I've had a couple of experience where the assistant instead offered advice about what I was looking at ("there are more of that style on such-and-such aisle", "this model has 2 hdmi inputs, if you need more I can recommend something", that kind of thing) which has made the assistant seem much more approachable and given them an air of knowledgeability that makes me feel they actually can help too.
Trouble is there are many people, me included, who would never just walk into a store and buy something. If I'm about to buy something (and there are no limits to how trivial that thing may be), chances are I've done some research online.
Often it seems I know more of what to look out for than the sales associate, making the help moot.
A few years ago (4, I think?), I was shopping for pants at JC Penney after losing a bunch of weight, and a sales associate there came and was extremely helpful in finding some that actually fit my (still somewhat odd) body shape.
I don't generally think of JC Penney as being a store high-end enough that most people would feel they can't afford to shop there...
The shoe stores where the shoes are on the wall instead of in isles with boxes underneath have very knowledgeable staff that are great. The price of shoes are usually the same as the stores that have shoes in isles with boxes underneath, with the exception that isle stores will have more discontinued models at a discount.
I think it's a personal preference. The isle model requires less labor but the wall model uses less real estate.
A couple of years ago I took my 16 yr old son to Moss Bros to get a suit for collage, he's had some from Next but I wanted him to have that extra attention of having a suit fitted.
No one came over, when I eventually went off and got someone they were do disinterested we gave up and left. I went to a small shop over the road where a slick haired, pot bellied, mahogany skinned but very suave Italian really looked after him and he got a got a lovely and perfectly fitted suit. It wasn't that expensive either, just over £200 I think.
It was really sad to see what a great institution like Moss Bros had become, there are still shops out there but we need to ensure they can stay in business if we want that service.
The two most frustrating parts about online shopping are 1) the Byzantine pricing model, and 2) the inability to keep anything in stock.
I don't need the silly vanity of thinking I got some amazing "deal" at 40% off when your prices are clearly just inflated by 40+% across the board to start with. It's a tremendous waste of my time to have to figure out which items qualify for which promotions, only to be disappointed at checkout by some technicality.
Even worse is finally picking a few hundred dollars worth of clothing to buy only to find out none of the normal sizes are in stock. I cannot believe how many retailers are still failing the absolute basics like inventory, yet insist on investing billions in tracking everything we do, everywhere we go to hijack our privacy and attention with ads.
> However, while omnichannel is growing in importance, our study suggests that 83% of shopping journeys still happen within a single channel — overwhelmingly in traditional stores, which account for almost 80% of apparel purchases today.
The problem with this is marketing. Today, there is no effective way of targeted marketing for those 80%. That's a shame and there are tools to solve it, one is coalition loyalty programs. It's like a store loyalty program but for a coalition of stores. An important European brand for such a program is payback.
I'm working on improving such a programs (and there aren't many, and this in spite of 80% store purchases) by making it location and customer-aware and suitable for even small businesses to enter the coalition. Currently it's a working server back end and I need another 2-4 months to come up with a good demo. I'm looking for potential clients and/or strategic investors to make it a real product if anyone is interested.
My wife is probably single-highhandedly causing retailers that she favors to fail. I feel for them.
She orders a ton of clothes online and then returns something around 75% of it. They give her free shipping and they take the returns in store at no cost. She prefers to order when there are sales.
What she is doing is completely logical and encouraged by their policies but I do not understand how they make any money?
Maybe the shipping costs plus the costs to manufacture the clothes she buys are less than what she pays for the clothes she keeps. Or maybe she's an outlier.
Someone returning 75% of the clothing they buy because of a generous return policy is better than nobody buying anything from that retailer at all.
That's the online equivalent of what I do in store. Every brand has slightly different sizing so I often have to try on edgy brand of short until I find one or two that have sleeves and shoulders that fit. Many brands also use different collar styles. Then I look at different patterns and colors. The end result is that I might try on 5 or 6 things and walk out with one or none.
Clothing, especially designer or specialty / technical clothing, can be marked up 1-10x. In other words, a jacket that costs $10 to produce might sell for $20 or $100.
Don't worry, they are still making money on your wife.
(This is just based on my experience working for a major outdoor clothing retailer, not any sort of real data)
The cost of shipping one item is almost the same as the cost of shipping a stack of items. As long as she's keeping a purchase, the additional cost of shipping+ partial return is small and baked into the pricing model.
It's interesting just how much I've come to fit the facts stated in the article. Previous to online shopping, I'd wear clothes until they were threadbare to avoid going to a retail store, often having clothes for 10+ years.
Recently, I found that I like LL Bean for the style, quality, and sizing for both business and casual. So I'm slowly revamping my wardrobe and intend to replace pieces more often.
Shoes, however, I am still going in-person to find. I have a pair of podiatrist-made inserts to deal with my collapsing arches. It's devilishly tough trying to account for them when purchasing online.
Somewhat related, my mom the consultant loves to talk about a study on how men vs women shop.
When shopping, women tend to go to many different stores comparing items and prices at each one and then at the end, they go back to the one they liked best and buy it. Men on the other hand already know exactly what they want and so they go straight to the store that has what they want, buy it, and leave.
It is especially fun when you tell that to a group of guys and girls. My dad, brothers and I were so for the 'get in and get out' strategy but the girls were all talking about how it is fun to look at all the different options and look for good deals.
Consider me (man) an outlier, then. I much prefer to comparison shop and maximize the quality/value ratio. Plus, I do tend to know what I want (in terms of style, at least), but it might take many visits to many shops to find it (both virtually and physically).
Women clothing has more variety - typically I don't find what I want in place where I found that last time (and often I don't find it, period). Most of time I am doing a sort of trade off. I would go to store that sells exactly what I want predictably, if it would exist.
Can confirm that I spend more time trying to get better deal then men I know who buy first regardless of price.
131 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 188 ms ] threadAnd can we stop measuring the growth/success of the economy by how many redundant items are bought?
We need people to mindlessly buy stuff they don't want want/need in order to grow our <strike>house of cards</strike> economy.
The latter - measuring growth/success of an economy by redundant items bought, is a direct consequence of applying the same principle for individuals. This phenomenon, at the micro level, could, with the appropriate disclaimers, be considered the root cause for the general maladies you point out.
Do you believe individuals could be trained/convinced/taught to not measure their success in those terms?
If yes, would they still get to measure their successes? If so, in terms of what? What would you consider a better universal metric for personal success?
Then again, the fact that anyone had to do a study to figure this out is indicative of a bigger disconnect between business people and their customers than I expected.
I'd caution you against assuming that business people don't know this. This article is just a marketing post for Oliver Wyman (a management consulting firm).
Most stores seem to redesign their clothing ranges for both women and men annually, and then make a big deal of it.
There are a few exceptions, like branded jeans with stable styles, and no-brand generic staples like tees and polos.
But generally when you find an article you like, it disappears within a few months.
It's astounding that clothing retail has been around for centuries, but hardly anyone has considered that at least some customers might prefer a stable product range.
One way to do that is to change the fashion regularly in order to apply social pressure to not wearing older clothing.
Another way appears to be making clothes very thin so they wear out quicker.
Of something is good, but not great, you'll but from that brand again -- and I bet sooner.
I would hate stores to implement half of the recommendations. Swiping my smartphone on entry?!
I'd prefer to shop at the distributor's warehouse.
This is something I wish more retailers would get. Once I find a pair of shoes that fits me that I like... I really, really don't want to go though that same discovery process 1-2 years down the line. I just want to buy the very same make/model of shoes I've grown accustom to.
If I know these shoes are "perfect" I will simply buy two pairs. If I'm unsure I'll go back a week later for a second pair.
It doesn't stop me from needing to buy new shoes, but it does postpone the process a little!
Otherwise, you've got to find something you like, and buy six of them to stockpile.
Its junk. The seam tape started shelling off the first day, its hanging in tatters. The pockets came unstuck and flap around inside the jacket. No more liners; its not even very water-resistant.
I also thought of my down-filled mummy sleeping bag in the tent, which is c. 1985 and proudly made in China by the Swan company. It works great after all these years, only a little stained by iron oxide and having lost a drawstring from the hood. My father bought a matching pair as a set, and I inherited the other half from my brother, so my wife and I can zip them together and have a cozy sack for two. Modern bags may have a bit more loft and pack a little bit smaller, but not enough to want to replace these.
When breaking camp, I noticed my c. 2013 tent had sheared off an attachment point between the rain fly and the poles. I may try to fix it with some of that crazy tent-repair tape, as I did when it went for a tumble in high winds once. But, I think back to some old tents my family purchased around the same time as my sleeping bag, and am glad to have this amazingly light weight tent instead. Those old ones have probably lost their waterproofing to rot, but their fiberglass poles were so heavy I'd never want to drag it somewhere again.
Shoes on the other hand are a disappointment. I have watched the average life span of hiking shoes decrease rapidly.
The other issue I've had is when finding something I like and that fits, I often can't bulk buy because there's only one or two items actually in stock. Thankfully these days I can often buy the one item in the shop and get the remaining ones online.
Did a similar thing with Allen Edmonds dress shoes. Yes, they were expensive initially, but given how little I wear dress shoes, I wouldn't be surprised if they last me the rest of my life.
Now if only I could find a solution for clothing...
Allen Edmonds are my beater/non-fashion oxfords. I'm going on year five of near-daily wear with them.
They'll last you forever.
I've had less luck with my AE dress shoes, but I think I'm being too harsh on the leather soles.
Here in the UK, CDBs are £80 vs the £200 you're talking about (or $70 vs $170 that I can see on amazon.com).
Basically avoid really cheap, but you don't have to go to $200 though.
Also, we seem to be in a weird spot fashion wise right now. Hipster fashion doesn't seem to be fading. Reddit's MFA (male fashion advice) was recommending chukka boots and white trainers like 6 years ago and we're still there, same with skinny suits, etc.
Fashion, while apparently highly disposable for women, seems to have stabilized for men. MFA talk about "timeless" pieces, but in reality wearing chukkas, white trainers or slim suits in the 90s or early 2000s would have made you look like a plonker. When I was young Doc Martins were cool, then they weren't, now they kinda are again? I also remember Hush Puppies with a particular look were cool that really aren't today.
Same with dress shoes too, black, square fronted dress shoes were considered good, while pointy brown dress shoes were incredibly old fashioned. Now it's the other way around.
That said, those crepe soles are like ice skates in the wet...
CBDs and white shoes are definitely on their way out, but it will take years for that to happen, whereas women's fashion changes very quickly.
Source: wife works in production for both men's and women's fashion.
I got a pair of their work boots (1412, specifically) five years ago. I've worn them pretty much every day since then, and they're still perfectly usable.
Except mine DEFINITELY look a little aged on account of all the daily romps in the woods I do, lots of mud and wet grass. Most other shoes would've been long destroyed by now, though (looking at you, Doc Martens "fashion" boots).
The average person is probably better off just buying a 30 dollar pair at Target and putting 470 bucks into the stock-market.
Where Allen Edmond shoes are the real winner is compared to the shoes a level or two below them. Like Cole Haan. They last a lot longer but only cost twice as much.
Not dealing with the hassle of shoe-shopping every 6 months? Totally worth the money.
And time is money too.
Also, get factory seconds and you'll pay WAY less than $500 for a good pair of shoes. I think it was $~200 for me.
So if something starts looking a wee bit tatty I should just be able to use an app to get a replacement next day.
Completely agree - I'd want the same thing, not a crappy version of the same product you sold 2 years ago for the same price - which I suspect rules out a lot of clothes retailers.
I do that a lot in other sections in life too, I buy crappy solder because I know it works well for me even though people are telling me this solder is crap and my house will burn down and I'll get lead cancer...
[1] https://www.landsend.com/products/mens-all-weather-moc-shoes... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17337829
I've always been fascinated by a particular finger of land in the SF Bay just north of the San Mateo Bridge, west of the channel that goes under the bridge. It's quite some distance from the Foster City shore. I waded out to that finger on the day of lowest tide about ten years ago and walked to the northernmost point one day, with my junk Sambas ... it's probably the loneliest spot in the bay area without getting into the hills, except you can wave to the commuters on the bridge. I didn't bother to clean up that pair when done.
Same for my shoes- I have a pair I like, and when they got old I went back to the same store and got the same shoes again, identical.
It sure makes getting dressed far easier in the morning.
Black T Shirt (5 every 4 months), Raw Denim Jeans (1 every 9 months), gray tank top (4 every 4 months), athletic shorts (1 every 6 months), everyday underwear (3 every 4 months), athletic underwear (2 every 4 months), athletic socks (3 pairs every 6 months), dress socks (3 pairs every 6 months).
It's great for a lot of reasons. Less time picking clothes, less time shopping for clothes, and something is worn out or stained I can discard it without stress.
- I buy basic clothing from a famous sports store, and they change a large part of the articles essentially every year, even the underwear; - I tried to buy a trousers with the same model of 3/4 years before, from a rather famous (in the country I live in) brand, and it was not available anymore; - I tried to buy t-shirts with the same model of 3/4 years before, again from another rather famous brand, and it's not available anymore. - My runners are a certain model from a very famous brand, which produces a new version every 1-2 years; I thought at least the size would be the same: nope.
The worst is when it has the same name and cosmetically looks the same, but you realize they've changed over to a lower quality manufacturer and it's nowhere near as well made.
Edit: I bought APC jeans last time and the cost (and how good they look once worn in) was worth getting them repaired. Next time I can afford to spend a bit more, I'll probably go for Nudie - mostly because of their free repairs for life policy, which I think is amazing: https://www.nudiejeans.com/page/free-repairs-for-life
But like you said, it is very annoying because I like to just buy what I already know works, and it's not possible at many retailers any more.
Just did some quick googling for "custom tailored jeans" and there seems to be a few things out there, but not sure how good the service is. Might be worth a try
Now when I find a pair I like, after a few months to ensure I like them, I buy 3 more pairs. Been doing this for about 5 years now.
Interestingly I have found it doesn't always work. Perhaps the materials age or there are differences in production batches, but I have the same exact shoe (from model number) from Lowe and some are comfortable and pliant, and others are not, and some are waterproof and others feel like they are made of a screen door.
Shame, that.
Fact: Some consumers like reliable consistency, while others prefer following fashion trends. Many consumers do both at different stages of their lives, years, and days.
They had me for life, then didn't.
So I buy a few of varying colors but this is the extra effort I would like to avoid.
I tried this with my first son when he was a few days old. One pajama (or whatever it is called) was great so I went back to the shop and bought 10 of them. Then went back to the shop to return them after my wife explained to me a few facts of life.
Also, legality of it all... name brand stuff here is usually some level of fake. For example, the labels, patterns and fabrics may be from the factory (likely removed without knowledge), but they were assembled by the same factory people, working out of a shop in their living room.
I bought a nice Pull&Bear t-shirt the other day for 100k vnd / $4.39.
Something that's not addressed in the article, but I have noticed about myself is that I am more likely to order multiple sizes of a piece of clothing online, and return all but the piece that fits the best. That might contribute to larger purchase sizes. Sites like amazon make this particularly easy.
When it comes to online shopping, which makes up a majority of my clothing purchases now, these facts from the article are very important:
1. Spend is dramatically higher at brand stores and websites than in multibrand stores.
2. Very often, they are happy to rebuy the same or a similar item.
3. Most journeys are still overwhelmingly single-channel, though this is changing.
For me, finding clothes that fit right can be difficult. I'm tall enough that many shirts are too short but many tall sizes are too long. Most brick-and-mortar stores don't stock tall sizes, so I had to go online to even try them. Since it's enough of a pain, I've settled on two or three brands whose sizing I know can work for me.
If I were to shop somewhere like Macys or Macys.com, I'm dealing with several dozen brands, each with different sizing. If I stick with a brand, say Banana Republic or Gap, it's substantially easier and I'd tend to spend more money at one place rather than buying pieces here and there. On the other hand, I do not like online returns at all, so I try and stick with brands that have a physical presence I can utilize for returns.
Additionally, many stores offer really great discounts that can be hard to parse and take advantage of in stores. They may have a %-off coupon valid for certain things, in combination with BOGO discounts that you can stack for big savings. Toying with that in an online shopping cart is really easy but is much more of a hassle in a store.
Shout out to the people who can afford to shop at stores with a business model that supports "sales associates" that actually do something besides take your money (or help unlock a dressing room) I can't remember the last time I was helped personally while shopping for clothing.
I always say no though - it feels awkward.
Here in Romania, I feel it is only half of the time the case.I had plenty of helpful interaction with employees both being asked if I need help or directly going and asking for help. I also had plenty of unhelpful interaction with uninformed employees or uninterested employees.
At least in the westernized countries I believe the more Mediterranean a culture the more helpful store employees try to appear (even though they may not actually be).
Often it seems I know more of what to look out for than the sales associate, making the help moot.
I don't generally think of JC Penney as being a store high-end enough that most people would feel they can't afford to shop there...
I think it's a personal preference. The isle model requires less labor but the wall model uses less real estate.
No one came over, when I eventually went off and got someone they were do disinterested we gave up and left. I went to a small shop over the road where a slick haired, pot bellied, mahogany skinned but very suave Italian really looked after him and he got a got a lovely and perfectly fitted suit. It wasn't that expensive either, just over £200 I think.
It was really sad to see what a great institution like Moss Bros had become, there are still shops out there but we need to ensure they can stay in business if we want that service.
I don't need the silly vanity of thinking I got some amazing "deal" at 40% off when your prices are clearly just inflated by 40+% across the board to start with. It's a tremendous waste of my time to have to figure out which items qualify for which promotions, only to be disappointed at checkout by some technicality.
Even worse is finally picking a few hundred dollars worth of clothing to buy only to find out none of the normal sizes are in stock. I cannot believe how many retailers are still failing the absolute basics like inventory, yet insist on investing billions in tracking everything we do, everywhere we go to hijack our privacy and attention with ads.
The problem with this is marketing. Today, there is no effective way of targeted marketing for those 80%. That's a shame and there are tools to solve it, one is coalition loyalty programs. It's like a store loyalty program but for a coalition of stores. An important European brand for such a program is payback.
I'm working on improving such a programs (and there aren't many, and this in spite of 80% store purchases) by making it location and customer-aware and suitable for even small businesses to enter the coalition. Currently it's a working server back end and I need another 2-4 months to come up with a good demo. I'm looking for potential clients and/or strategic investors to make it a real product if anyone is interested.
email in profile.
Nope. This is almost never true when someone writes it on HN.
She orders a ton of clothes online and then returns something around 75% of it. They give her free shipping and they take the returns in store at no cost. She prefers to order when there are sales.
What she is doing is completely logical and encouraged by their policies but I do not understand how they make any money?
Someone returning 75% of the clothing they buy because of a generous return policy is better than nobody buying anything from that retailer at all.
https://www.fastcompany.com/1614648/zappos-best-customers-ar...
Don't worry, they are still making money on your wife.
(This is just based on my experience working for a major outdoor clothing retailer, not any sort of real data)
Recently, I found that I like LL Bean for the style, quality, and sizing for both business and casual. So I'm slowly revamping my wardrobe and intend to replace pieces more often.
Shoes, however, I am still going in-person to find. I have a pair of podiatrist-made inserts to deal with my collapsing arches. It's devilishly tough trying to account for them when purchasing online.
When shopping, women tend to go to many different stores comparing items and prices at each one and then at the end, they go back to the one they liked best and buy it. Men on the other hand already know exactly what they want and so they go straight to the store that has what they want, buy it, and leave.
It is especially fun when you tell that to a group of guys and girls. My dad, brothers and I were so for the 'get in and get out' strategy but the girls were all talking about how it is fun to look at all the different options and look for good deals.
Can confirm that I spend more time trying to get better deal then men I know who buy first regardless of price.
You are obviously a facist or punk for wearing uncapitalistic everlasting boots.
"I mean, really, how often do you look at a man's shoes?"