The only trend brands can't capitalise on
Let's talk about the rise of consumer buying challenges and how they fit into our capitalist society
A quick note: this month’s newsletter is a little messy. It’s more of a stream of conscious than a fully formed idea - i’m asking myself these questions as I write them, I’m learning as I go, and sometimes i’m abandoning thoughts despite knowing there’s more to say, because I don’t have all the answers. Happy reading.
I recently filmed a YouTube video that mentioned my ‘No-Buy’ month for February.
Now, a ‘no-buy’ period can mean different things to different people; some don’t count secondhand purchases or items from small businesses, whilst others count clothing but not smaller items like jewellery. Some really hardcore individuals extend this past their wardrobe and into the rest of their lives - encompassing all ‘unnecessary’ items like streaming services and leisure activities, basically anything that isn’t food or bills - and hats off to them. Personally, a ‘no-buy’ period for me meant no clothes, shoes or accessories, secondhand or new, during the four-week period.
This wasn’t actually a deliberate decision. I’d already made it halfway through the month before I realised my shopping celibacy, and the idea of extending this to a whole month didn’t seem too daunting - after all, I was almost there without trying. I only became aware when another YouTuber released a video entitled “Everything I didn’t buy this month” about her own shopping hiatus. Although the title suggested there wouldn’t be any purchases to show off like in a typically-popular fashion video, and the message was quite different to what this influencer usually talks about, it has amassed fifty thousand views at the time of writing. Clearly, there’s an appetite for this kind of content.
I received confirmation of this in the comments of my own video. What seemed to be most common was people taking the general idea of low- or no- consumption and adapting it to fit their own needs. Whilst one subscriber was two months into a six-month no-buy period and “loving it!”, another commented they’re “low buy” instead, and “using up what I have”. Others said they were simply consuming “consciously” - no timeframe or restrictions, just the question ‘Do I actually need this?’ before each purchase.
At this point, there’s no shortage of challenges you can sign up for to tackle personal overconsumption. Options range from limiting all consumption (No-Buy months/ years, Rule of 5, or Remake’s 90 day #NoNewClothes), to limiting only specific fashion choices (Fashion Revolution Canada’s ‘No Polyester’ prohibits buying synthetic materials), to making the most of what you have (the Shop Your Wardrobe challenge, or the 10x10 pledge which is capsule wardrobe dressing to the extreme). There is literally something for everyone, and if none of them are right you can always do an abridged version - for example, my own Rule of 5 pledge does not include secondhand items. A whole corner of the internet is reducing or reevaluating their shopping habits - good news for the planet, bad news for the companies with something to sell.
It’s interesting how quickly these have taken off - what is it about a the temptation of a challenge that people rise to, when they would otherwise baulk at breaking their shopping addiction if simply suggested?
The idea of a status symbol comes to mind - in a world where overconsumption is the norm, there is a certain moral highground to gain by limiting yourself to one or two items a year. Not to mention the stigma that any sustainable fashion action is usually expensive - whilst not necessarily true, it may have merit here as those shopping less choose to buy better. As to the temptation of a moral high ground, although many of us share our resolutions and progress online when we pledge (I myself have made multiple videos for no-buy and Rule of 5), a bigger percentage is happy to complete their own challenge in relative silence. So that can’t be the only motivator.
Challenges lower the entry point to reducing consumption; after all, it’s only 90 days of no new clothes - but that’s also how long it takes to reset our brains, according to many rehab institutes. Although there are yet no scientific studies to back up my hypothesis, going off my own experiences and reported behaviour of people online it seems many people extend or retake their challenges, maybe because it becomes significantly easier over time. Like any addiction, the initial period is the hardest - the urge to consume is so ingrained in society - and it’s in this vulnerable state that challenges offer support, guidance and community.
Maybe the motivation is different for everyone - which would explain the rate at which new challenges have sprung up. Maybe the common denominator is fatigue - “the world is on fire, why am I buying shoes?” sort of mentality (Alex’s book is still sadly on my reading list) in which the answer is to put off buying the shoes for a month, or a year if you’ve already bought five other pairs since January.
How does this fit in with capitalism?
It will be interesting how brands approach this rising consumer trend (I say interesting, but in the same way as you would call a wildlife documentary interesting - no one wants the lion to eat the antelope, but you also accept it as the circle of life). It’s almost impossible to monetise a challenge which is distinctly anti-capitalist, but something tells me brands will find a way.
Sustainable womenswear label ‘wool&’ is one of the first to try, with their ‘100 day dress challenge’ shoppers can sign up for. The entry point to the challenge is buying one of their dresses (ranging from $128-$208), after which shoppers document wearing the dress for 100 days in order to win a $100 gift card. There are pros and cons in terms of sustainability; you’re getting a lot of wear out of one item, you’re reducing your environmental impact from less laundry, and you’re reconditioning your brain not to crave constant newness. On the flip side, the gift card prize is an immediate push to reward ourselves by consuming - surely undermining a good amount of any progress that was made.
I can hardly see H&M or other fast fashion giants implementing similar properties. Their entire business model is built off selling us something new and unnecessary, an uneven power dynamic where they convince us we have to have their product or we’ll be passé. What will they do when consumers start questioning this logic? I’d take bets on a 100% polyester dress falling apart after wearing it for four weeks straight, let alone 100 days - and their revenue streams collapsing if consumers were willing to try anyway.
Of course, this is not a burden for consumers. Speaking of, I recently attended a book launch for Clare Press’ ‘Wear Next: Refashioning the Future’, where the on-stage conversation questioned calling ourselves ‘consumers’ whilst trying to build a future where consumption is discouraged. Although I have completely forgotten the alternative term suggested by the hosts, I think the idea readily applies here. Challenges help stop us from labelling ourselves as ‘consumers’, mere statistics for brands to better understand advertising tactics, and give us back a certain autonomy. If nothing else, they teach us that brands need us - but not always do we need them.
Until next month!
Katie
Here’s what I did this month:
made lots of youtube videos:
Some much-needed good news first:
France's 5 euro fast fashion tax - A game changer for sustainable fashion?
Brands flock to next-gen materials, new report shows
Carbios: The Future of the World’s First PET Biorecycling Plant
Ganni Slouchy Boots are first product to use major new leather alternative
& What else I read this month:
EU States Block Supply Chain Due Diligence Law
Inditex Pushes Bargain Brand to Counter Shein
Renewcell Files for Bankruptcy
UK fashion execs keen to remove plastic packaging - report
note: this is not in the ‘positive’ news because the survey responses indicate brands plan to take half a decade to achieve this
Fashion is still neglecting its impact on water
Do Vintage Remakes On The Red Carpet Kind Of Defeat The Point?