Key takeaways
- Chain stores converge because fast fashion rewards copying what already sells, prime locations favor large chains, and the same supply system serves most of them.
- Seeing the same look everywhere makes it feel both popular and familiar, which is the bandwagon and mere exposure effects working together.
- Buy against your own gaps, not the windows. One piece that goes with what you own outlasts a season of pieces that only go with each other.
The short version
- Before the season starts, list the real gaps in what you already wear.
- Walk past three stores and note what all of them are selling.
- Treat whatever is in every window as the season's look, not as one of your gaps.
- Buy one piece that fills a real gap and goes with three things you own.
- Skip the rest of the season, then count how often you wore that piece.
Walk down the main shopping street of almost any city, or through almost any mall, and the view repeats. The same chain names over the doors. Inside, the same handful of colors, the same cut of trousers, the same jacket that was everywhere last month. In Britain the shopping street is called the high street, and the complaint that every high street looks alike has been around for years. Americans see the same thing on Main Street and in the mall.
It is not your imagination, and it is not an accident. This page explains the forces behind the sameness, what it does to the way you shop, and a simple plan for buying one good piece a season instead of the season itself.
Why chain stores converge
Fast fashion rewards safe bets
The business model at the center of the modern high street is fast fashion. In their overview of it, the operations researchers Felipe Caro and Victor Martínez-de-Albéniz describe it as offering fashionable clothes, or the perception of them, at affordable prices, through a highly responsive supply chain and an assortment that changes all the time. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimated in 2017 that clothing production had roughly doubled in the previous 15 years, and in wealthy countries it tied much of the rise to fast fashion: quicker turnaround of new styles, more collections a year and, often, lower prices.
When a chain must fill its stores with new lines every few weeks, the cheapest way to avoid unsold stock is to make what is already selling. A store that copies a proven look takes less risk than one that tries something new. When every chain follows the same logic, they arrive at the same racks.
Everyone reads the same signals
Trend cycles move together because the inputs are shared. Buyers watch the same runway seasons, the same sales data and the same social feeds. A look that is selling in one chain is visible to all the others within days, and the responsive supply chains that define fast fashion let them all react at once.
Rent picks the tenants
The busiest streets and the biggest malls charge the highest rents, and not every business can carry them. In a study of shopping mall leases, the economists Peter Pashigian and Eric Gould found that developers give well-known anchor stores large rent discounts because they draw shoppers in, and charge the smaller stores that benefit from that traffic a premium. Large chains with national budgets and predictable sales are the tenants landlords court. Independent shops are priced toward the side streets.
In 2005 the New Economics Foundation, a British think tank, surveyed 103 towns and classed 41 percent of them as “clone towns,” high streets so dominated by chains that they had lost their local identity. Clone towns also had fewer kinds of shops, and they tended to be dominated by a few categories, clothing among them.
One supply system serves most of them
Clothing today is often designed in one country, made in another and sold worldwide. Many chains draw on the same manufacturing regions, the same fabric types and the same trend information. Different labels, similar inputs, similar results.
What the sameness does to shoppers
When every window shows the same thing, two effects stack up.
The first is the bandwagon effect. The economist Harvey Leibenstein described it in 1950 as demand that rises simply because other people are buying. A look that fills every window seems to be what everyone is wearing, whether or not anyone you know is wearing it. Online, where sales counts and “trending” labels are visible, it can compound: in an experiment by Matthew Salganik and colleagues, showing people what others had chosen made popular items more popular and success harder to predict.
The second is the mere exposure effect. Robert Zajonc showed that people come to like things they have simply seen many times. Walk past the same color in five windows and it starts to look right. A month later, the clothes you already own, in last season’s colors, start to look slightly wrong. That is the Diderot effect at the scale of a whole wardrobe: the new standard is set by the street, not by any single purchase.
The result is a wardrobe that turns over faster than it wears out. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimated that the number of times a garment is worn before it stops being used fell by 36 percent in 15 years. Stores, for their part, are designed to keep you inside once you have stepped in, which is the Gruen effect.
How to buy one good piece instead of the season
- List your gaps before the season starts. Look at what you actually wear. A gap is something you have wanted to wear several times in the last month and could not, because you do not own it or yours is worn out. Decision rule: if you cannot name the occasions you would wear it on, it is not a gap.
- Do the three-window test. Walk past three different stores, or open three different sites, and note what all of them are selling. That is the season. Decision rule: anything in all three windows is a trend until proven otherwise. Ask whether you would have wanted it two years ago.
- Choose one piece for one gap. Look at fabric, seams and fit, not the display around it. Decision rule: it must go with at least three things you already own. A personal uniform makes this check quick.
- Leave the styling behind. The piece will be shown with matching trousers, shoes and a bag. Buy the piece. The complete-the-look trap explains how those outfits are built to grow your basket.
- Count its wears at the end of the season. If it was worn often, you chose well. Cost per wear shows how to judge it.
Variations
- Secondhand and vintage. Buying used takes you out of the season entirely. Use the same gap list.
- Independent shops. Often pricier, often worth it for a piece you will wear for years. Same three-thing rule.
- On a tight budget. The chain may be the only option, and that is fine. Choose the plainest version of the piece you need, which will look right for longer than the trend version.
What goes wrong, and the fix
- Buying the trend in basics. Five T-shirts in this season’s color are still the season. Fix: basics in colors you have worn for years.
- The end-of-season sale. Half price on something you passed over at full price is still something you passed over. Fix: the gap list applies at sale time too.
- “Timeless” as a label. Stores use it for this season’s take on a classic. Fix: the two-years-ago question.
Questions readers ask
Is fast fashion always poor value?
Not always. A cheap piece you wear every week for years is good value. The problem is the model's pace. New lines arrive so often that many pieces are bought for a moment and worn a handful of times. Judge each piece by how often you will wear it, not by its price tag.
Why do independent shops usually cost more?
They buy in smaller quantities, so each piece costs them more to make or source, and they often pay higher rent per square foot than the big names that landlords court. Some of what you pay is that cost. Some of it buys designs that are not in every other window, which is worth something if you wear them for years.
Does shopping online avoid the sameness?
Less than it seems. Online stores draw on the same trends and suppliers, and their feeds show you more of what is already selling. Searching for a specific piece you have already decided on helps. Scrolling a new-arrivals page is the online version of walking the high street.
Sources
- Caro and Martínez-de-Albéniz (2015), Fast fashion: Business model overview and research opportunities, in Retail Supply Chain Management (Springer) Describes fast fashion as fashionable clothes at affordable prices delivered by a highly responsive supply chain and an assortment that changes often.
- A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning fashion's future, summary of findings (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017) Clothing production roughly doubled in the 15 years to 2015, with fast fashion's quicker style turnover, more collections and lower prices behind much of the rise in wealthy countries, while wears per garment fell by 36 percent.
- Niinimäki and colleagues (2020), The environmental price of fast fashion, Nature Reviews Earth and Environment 1(4) A review finding that brands now produce almost twice as much clothing as before 2000, on a model of cheap manufacturing, frequent buying and short garment lives.
- Pashigian and Gould (1998), Internalizing externalities: The pricing of space in shopping malls, Journal of Law and Economics 41(1) Mall developers give well-known anchor stores large rent discounts because they draw shoppers, and charge other tenants a premium.
- Chains are taking over Britain, survey finds (Institute for Local Self-Reliance, June 8, 2005) A summary of the New Economics Foundation's Clone Town Britain survey, which classed 41 percent of 103 towns as clone towns dominated by chains.
- Leibenstein (1950), Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers' demand, Quarterly Journal of Economics 64(2) The paper that named the bandwagon effect, demand that rises because others are buying.
- Zajonc (1968), Attitudinal effects of mere exposure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9(2, Part 2) Repeated exposure to something tends to make people like it more.
- Salganik, Dodds and Watts (2006), Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market, Science 311(5762) Showing people what others chose made popular items more popular and success less predictable.
Page history: first published .