It's almost like trying to compete on low prices for shiatty, unremarkable comoditized products in a global economy is thoroughly unsustainable because there's always someone willing and able to go cheaper... if only there was some way for them to figure this out in advance.

Seriously, Shein and the raft of knockoffs have completely eaten their lunch. Why would you pay $20 for a poorly-made trendy-but-generic sweater when you can get the exact same thing for $10 elsewhere? And now that Vietnam is asserting itself on the world stage, you'll be able to get that same sweater for $5. Eventually, Ethiopia and Congo will get there and you'll be able to get out for $2. Because competing on price in a commodity space is stupid.

DrWhy: Lusiphur: competing on price in a commodity space is stupid.

Nobody competes in that space anymore.  It's too crowded.

I'm not saying no one does it - you can even make some good profits there, temporarily. But it's a transitory market and you need to have a solid transition plan in place for when you need to make that pivot. And none of these companies do - it basically destroyed Forever 21, it's kicking Zara's ass (Ortega's net worth had been dropping steadily for the last several years, not that he cares what with being a billionaire,) and now it's battering H&M. Shein is next.

dericwater: Lusiphur: Because competing on price in a commodity space is stupid.

Maybe you mean something else, but "commodity goods" is literally goods that are competed solely on price. So what you said isn't actually stupid, it's tautological.

What I actually said was "comoditized." They aren't quite commodities, in that each piece is not interchangeable, but like a commodity they have little differentiation. Because reducing "commodity" to just "goods that compete solely on price" is one of those things that's technically true but makes for shiatty communication because it completely removes nuance.

Suffice it to say, what any reasonable reader (not hell-bent on showing off that they didn't completely sleep through freshman econ) would have taken away was "fast fashion retailers have turned a good that is typically not seen as a commodity into one that closely resembles the behavior of commodities by choosing a strategy that chases sales solely on price, leading to an unsustainable market."

That said, I believe what you want to say is that things that once were considered (almost) luxury goods are now becoming commodities, and thus can only compete on price. It used to be that getting a nice merino wool sweater was a luxury, an item that was difficult to get, so the buyer is literally willing to pay a huge amount because, otherwise, they can't get it. Now, with global shipping and e-commerce, an actual merino wool sweater (and well-made, too, probably) can be had at bargain basement prices because there is so much competition out there.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. First, because none of the braves involved have ever tried to position themselves as even "almost" luxury, so there's no reason to bring that segment of the market into it. Two, real quality merino wool products are still what most people would consider fairly pricey (I'm wearing one right now - a cheap one I picked up for about $100. Any cheaper than that and you're either shopping at end of year sales or you're buying something mostly made of sunrise that may have been in the same room as a sheep product at one point.) Three, this point has nothing to do with what I'm saying, which is that choosing to pursue a strategy of comoditizing your products (selling on price as your only differentiator) leads to an unsustainable business because there is alwayssomeone willing to do something cheaper right until the point where margins have completely eroded and everyone is fighting for pennies of profits.

Brands that give the market a reason to choose them beyond "price" build a moat that makes it harder for competitors to steal market share, because it's much harder to compete on, for example, brand equity, or quality, or good ESG practices. Those things require real investment to overcome. Price just required finding someone willing to be paid less.

H&M is trying to compete with Zara and others for the low-end of fast fashion. There's a desire for the "fast" but that desire isn't a deal breaker when the choices among prices can go down quite a bit. Should I buy this wonderful merino wool sweater NOW at $50 or order the same thing and have it delivered in a week for $20 (which includes the shipping)? I can live with waiting a week. The value in the immediacy isn't worth the $30 extra. That's what is catching H&M, and probably Zara soon.

This part of your post makes it difficult for me to take you seriously because of how absolutely and colossally you've misunderstood what the "fast" in "fast fashion" means. It has absolutely nothing to do with immediacy of purchase and everything to do with the design, manufacturing, and release schedule of the product. It's not that you get your sweater "fast" by walking into an H&M store; it's that H&M brings a sweater from design to store shelves in a matter of weeks to capitalize on small changes in trends. This is in contrast to traditional fashion houses that release two collections per year (Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter) with maybe a smattering of limited drops in between.

It's also redundant to say "the low-end of fast fashion," since ALL of fast fashion is the low-end. It's intentionally trendy and disposable, leading to an of it inevitably being cheap and low-end. Some upper-tier (and mid-tier) brands have adopted some of the motions of fast fashion, but fundamentally fast-fashion is not that and it's not even mid tier.