Affiliation:
1. Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, United States
Abstract
Fast fashion clothing typically has a lower price with a shorter lifecycle, resulting in more frequent purchases than traditional fashion. Consequently, consumption of fast fashion has negative consequences for the environment and society. Consistent with the lower price for fast fashion apparel, it is often lower quality and thus has lower physical durability. However, distinct from physical durability, we introduce the concept of style durability, which refers to the timelessness of the design. We propose style durability can increase clothing lifecycle as timeless clothing can be worn for extended periods without being perceived as “out of style”. In this commentary, we identify several factors that may influence a consumer’s preference for clothing with more style durability, or more classic clothing. Specifically, product-level factors such as hedonic versus utilitarian focus and experiential versus material goods may impact preference for greater style durable clothing. Additionally, consumer characteristics including self-concept clarity, self-concept continuity, and consideration of future consequences may impact the extent to which consumers choose more classic clothing. We offer future research questions that can be studied better understand how to increase consumption of style durable clothing and extend clothing lifecycles.
Reference134 articles.
1. Allchin, J. (2013). Case Study: Patagonia’s ‘Don’t Buy This Jacket’ Campaign. Marketing Week. Retrieved from https://www.marketingweek.com/case-study-patagonias-dont-buy-this-jacket-campaign/ (accessed 2023-12-19)
2. Arnold, M. J. & K. E. R. (2003). Hedonic Shopping Motivations. Journal of retailing 79(2), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00007-1
3. [CrossRef], [Google Scholar].
4. Babin, B. J., Darden, R. W. & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research 20(4), 644–656. https://doi.org/10.1086/209376
5. [CrossRef], [Google Scholar].