Counting the cost of fast fashion

This fascinating article touches on fashion psychology and was originally published in The Conversation

By Alice Payne, Queensland University of Technology

There’s a polyester mullet skirt gracing a derrière near you. It’s short at the front, long at the back, and it’s also known as the hi-lo skirt.  Like fads that preceded it, the mullet skirt has a short fashion life, and although it will remain potentially wearable for years, it’s likely to soon be heading to the charity shop or to landfill.

The mullet skirt may not last more than a couple of months as a fad, but the fast-fashion trend has shown considerably more longevity.  With Spanish brand Zara compressing lead times to as little as 13 days, and the UK’s Topshop releasing 300 new styles a week, fashion trends are being captured and sold far quicker than ever before.

Catwalk styles can become high street fashion within weeks. AAP

In Australia, although Zara and Topshop only arrived in 2011, many local retailers have been following an accelerated fashion cycle since the early 2000s. Valleygirl releases 65 new styles per week, Supre has daily deliveries, and the mid-market Witchery boasts 400 new styles per month.

Fast fashion has enabled a democratic engagement with the luxury of constant novelty, once only the domain of the very wealthy. Now high fashion trends are instantly accessible online, and the physical garments are for sale at prices which have never been lower.

However, the garment’s price tag does not acknowledge the environmental and social cost of overconsumption.

In the UK, some 30 kilograms of textile products, per person, per year go to landfill. What isn’t sent to landfill goes to charity. A single Smith Family sorting centre in New South Wales sorts 10000 tonnes of donated clothing each year. Much of this will be sent to developing countries, a trade that can be disruptive to local textile industries.

Cotton requires a large amount of water to grow – but often ends in landfill. AAP

The two most popular fibres for fashion apparel – cotton and polyester – each have considerable ecological impacts in production. Conventional cotton alone accounts for one quarter of global pesticide use, linked to poisonings and air and groundwater contamination. In addition, cotton requires a global average of 11,000 litres of water per kilogram, to produce.

With a world population of seven billion, and a projected nine billion by 2050, food security and water security will become increasingly pressing policy concerns. The volatility of cotton prices in 2010/11 is possibly a foretaste of this, with cotton prices rising to their highest level in the history of the New York Stock Exchange.

The launch of Spanish retailer Zara in Australia has seen lead times compressed to a mere 13 days. AAP

Australian fast-fashion retailers face additional short-term challenges. In 2011, bricks-and-mortar retail was at its lowest ebb in Australia since 1962, and across the fast fashion market, clothing was reduced up to 70%. Local labels are affected by the rising fibre prices (not only cotton but polyester of cotton quality) and rising Chinese manufacturing costs. The forthcoming carbon price may also lead to rises in the cost of freight and raw materials. In addition, a greater number of consumers are choosing to buy clothing online from cheaper overseas e-tailers.

Australian designers and retailers can adapt to these challenges through examining the garment life cycle to identify points of intervention. For example, more efficient use of resources would see disposable faddish items such as the mullet skirt collected at end-of-life for closed-loop recycling, in which its polyester can become feedstock for new textiles. (See Kate Fletcher and Matchilda Tham’s Lifetimes project, or Patagonia’s Common Threads program.)

Crucially, fast fashion is not merely fast material throughput of garments, but a sophisticated global image and information system which, to some degree, is weightless. As fashion is intangible, it is not necessarily tethered to the purchase of new clothing. An example is The Uniform Project, in which blogger Sheena Matheiken wore the same dress for a year, styled in 365 different ways.  With this perspective, a fast-fashion company’s role may evolve into that of a service provider, not simply a retailer. These services may include styling advice, alterations, clothing libraries or collection of the garment at end-of-life.




In Australia, Supre and Sportsgirl have followed the lead of Topshop and American Apparel in offering a small selection of vintage clothing alongside their new stock.

There is no contradiction in fast-fashion retailers selling second-hand clothing, as the speed of trends mean that styles come in and out of fashion so frequently that some version of “vintage” style is always in style. Within the context of fast fashion as ‘post-brand’, second-hand styles simply become additional grist for the mill, as consumers will mix and remix the product (of whatever provenance) in their personal, restless search for novelty and individuality.

Fast-fashion principles also drive the success of online marketplaces such as eBay, in which second-hand clothing can be circulated again and again, revalourised by individual consumers. Similarly, the Salvos charity stores in Australia and Oxfam in the UK, now sell second-hand fashion online, grouped into ‘lookbooks’, complete with fashion shoots.

While the Rococo excess of a new frock a week may be unsustainable, a different fast fashion – one that relies less on overconsumption of new garments and more on the inventive reuse of existing materials – can emerge.
Alice Payne does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
This article was originally published at The Conversation.
          Read the original article.
       

On touching and being touched

“Just hold it,” I heard the man in the Apple shop say to the young executive who had been gazing longingly at the new iPad.

"Don’t touch it"  I wanted to say, "unless you really want to take it home with you."

Touching an object increases our desire for it.

Luckily I can hold back in these situations. I could get banned from so many shops otherwise. I wanted to warn the guy against touching because research shows that when we touch an object we’re more likely to buy it. 

In fact, once we’ve touched it we’ll pay more for it. 

If it feels nice that is. And, let’s face it, Apple products feel nice. Someone once described them to me as ‘lickable’. But going around licking stuff in shops would get us banned, so maybe holding them is the next best pleasure.

Touching increases sense of ownership

You see we’re used to touching stuff that we own. So, when we touch something in a shop, our sense of ownership is increased. And since we prefer the stuff that we own to other stuff, we’re prepared to pay more for it. No wonder so much impulse buying goes on.

An eminent media coach once told me to get my audience to pass a copy of my book to the person at the far back of the room. “Then everyone who’s touched it will want it,” he said. I've never tested that one out (just in case it got passed right back to me).

Touching changes the brain’s responses

Our sense of touch is so fundamental that we like to have it stimulated when we’re feeling a bit low. When young mammals are sick or lost, the brain tries to replenish them by making them more sensitive to touch. Then they enjoy a hug more and can re-bond quickly. It’s the same with consumers. Not that they are injured or have lost their mums, but if they feel a bit depressed their responsivity to the tactile aspects of goods is increased. So if you shop when you feel depressed, and touch a lot of stuff, don’t be surprised if your credit card feels the pain.

The brain changes in response to touch

Strangers: Hands off

We may like touching stuff in shops but we sure don’t want to rub shoulders with other customers. Research shows that even being brushed by a fellow shopper makes consumers more likely to head for the exit. Dr Brett Martin actually did an experiment to test this, half the consumers were brushed against while looking at a product, half weren’t (I know, us psychologists have all the fun). The  touched-ones left the store quicker and reported more negative feelings towards the brand afterwards, than those left ‘untouched’. So a store with narrow aisles crammed with goods is not making it easy for their customers to buy.

Touched babies say No to drugs

OK you might find the stuff about shopping and touching a bit trivial. But did you know that babies who get more cuddles are more able to resist drugs as adults?

Cuddle me cuddle my brain

This was first shown in studies with rats. Mother rats who were more nurturing and attentive produced specific changes in the immune responses in the brains of their pups, leaving them more able to resist the temptation of a dose of morphine later in life. So not only does a mother’s touch actually change brain functioning, scientists now think it’s also protective against later drug abuse.  

THE BEST THINGS COME TO THOSE WHO ANTICIPATE

Here's a quote I came across recently by the managing director of Harrods, Michael Ward, who apparently said:

“What luxury is about is having the most beautiful experience,

 that’s what people love.”

Is luxury just a beautiful experience - or more than that?

Do you agree? I think he’s only partly right. Because experiences, however beautiful, are also often fleeting, transient, gone in an instant.

Real luxury, I would argue, is about anticipating the most beautiful experience.

That’s because brain research now tells us that pleasure isn’t just experiential. It’s anticipatory. We know our brains have pleasure detectors. When we acquire an object of desire, or see a lover’s smile or taste a wonderful champagne, a rush of happy chemicals go sloshing through the brain.

But those happy chemicals also get released when we anticipate something we love. In fact we get a bigger rush from anticipating than we do from experiencing.

Scientists from the University Medical Centre in Hamburg recently conducted tests that measure brain activity and found that our brains experience more pleasure when we are working towards something than when we actually achieve it.
(So that's why makers of designer handbags create waiting lists)

That’s why luxury in the form of real quality brings lasting satisfaction, it’s why craftsmanship persists and why bling will only ever bring transient satisfaction, to the producer and to the consumer.

Science has proved that it’s anticipation that makes us happy, that long-termism always trumps short-termism and that a delayed reward brings more pleasure than an instant reward.

Interestingly the scientists found also discovered that regular hints about the upcoming reward can boost our feelings of pleasure, when people in the lab were reminded of something that was worth waiting for the pleasure centres in their brains lit up.

So if you have a special bottle of GH Mumm champagne tucked away for a special occasion, having a quick peek at it on regular occasions will be sure to boost your happiness levels.

Dreaming about future pleasures can bring more happiness than experiencing them. 

Think about holidays too. We’re all supposed to love holidays.  Do you like planning a holiday, looking at images of tropical beaches, beautiful sunsets, sumptuous hotels, imagining a place where the sun always shines and you’ve left all your worries behind in Heathrow’s departure lounge? 

Well researchers in the Netherlands recently showed that we get a larger boost in happiness from planning a holiday than we do from the holiday itself. They studied the happiness levels of over 1000 Dutch adults and found that happiness levels were highest when people were planning their holiday.

In fact they argue that if you really want holidays to make you happier you shouldn’t just have one long one, you should have lots of shorter ones so you maximise the time spent in anticipation.

Intuitively we all know this and evolutionary psychology accounts for why we’re drawn to products that embody this waiting process, that stand for timelessless and are characterised by tradition and craftsmanship.

Ironically though nowadays we are rarely encouraged to wait. We live in an immediate gratification society, instant messaging, fast food, ready credit and computer games where you can kill your enemies at the touch of a button.

Are we all going to lose the ability to delay our pleasures? During boom times that is always a risk but during a recession different types of processes operate. That’s when delayed gratification comes to the fore.

  

Because psychological research shows being able to delay gratification is a sign of higher cognitive ability, one that’s more recently evolved. A sign of maturity that’s even linked to quality of life.

Resisting temptation is hard if you like immediate gratification. 

You may have heard of the famous marshmallow test that an American psychologist called Walter Mischel carried out on children in the 1960’s. Mischel offered young children, around 3 and 4 years of age, a marshmallow. He put it in front of them and said they could eat it now OR if they could wait while he stepped out for a few minutes when he came back they could have two marshmallows.

Most children couldn’t wait. They either ate it as soon as he was out of the room or sat and squirmed for a while and then caved in and ate it. Some covered their eyes with their hands or turned their back on the marshmallow so that they can’t see it.

One girl stroked the marshmallow lovingly; another boy looked carefully around the room to make sure that nobody could see him then picked it up sucked it and put it back!

Some children managed to wait 15 minutes.

But about 30% of the children wrestled with temptation but stuck it out for a full fifteen minutes. They were ones who could delay gratification in return for a second marshmallow. Years later the experimenters followed up the children to adulthood.

The ones who could wait did better at school, were more successful in their careers and in their relationships.

The instant gratifiers, the ones who couldn’t wait, on the other hand were more likely to have behavioural problems at school, or problems at home.

The moral of this story is that waiting is a higher-cognitive skill, a sign of maturity and those who can delay gratification have a better quality of life.

Delayed and immediate gratification originate in different parts of the human brain.

More recently brain researchers have found the key to the link between delayed gratification and intelligence. Different parts of the brain get activated by immediate and delayed rewards.

The need for immediate reward is driven by the more primitive part of the brain – the part that might impel the purchaser towards quick fixes, impulse buys, bling and disposable luxury.

But when people choose longer term options they use the frontal-parietal part of the brain, that is situated in the more recently evolved pre-frontal cortex - the part that differentiates us from animals and from our ancestors – it gives us the ability to reason, to plan ahead and exercise self-control.

So delayed gratification and the ethic of the craftsman overlap and reinforce each other in that both require a certain construction of the future, a certain ideal of stability and longevity.

That’s why brands that are associated with longevity, with craftsmanship and tradition, will continue to have lasting appeal whatever the economic climate but especially when people want every penny they spend to have value.

So Michael Ward was only partly right when he said that luxury is having a beautiful experience, it’s more than that.

The best things come to those who anticipate….

 This is the talk I gave to the G.H. Mumm Perrier-Jouet Champagne Assembly on 27th January.

PS When researching this article I discovered there's even a magazine called Delayed Gratification. I thought it might be found right on the top shelf of the newsagents, or only published every other year, but it seems it's out quarterly and rather sensibly measures news in months not minutes. Like all good things in life it says it is beautiful, collectable and designed to be treasured.http://www.dgquarterly.com/

10 design tricks to turn us all into shopping zombies

This morning, after apparently being quoted in the Daily Mail talking about women's love of shopping, I popped out to the local shop where I'm staying in Dunvegan on the Isle of Skye.
It looks like this (below).

Skye's answer to Westfield? Not a digital waterfall in sight.

I know, they couldn't make it less appealing if they tried.  But there's a certain authenticity to this type of shop;  a corrugated-tin reminder that shopping is just about getting the stuff we need, not a leisure activity.

 Shopping is just something we do in order to live better lives, it shouldn't be the way we live our life.

I wasn’t the first to compare shoppers to zombies (see earlier post and a dazzling analysis by Mimi Spencer in Saturday’s Times) and I’m sure I won’t be the last, but recent news about a million shoppers invading Westfield in its first week of opening got me thinking again about the draw of the mall. And all the psychological tricks that are pulled to make sure the mindless keep searching those seven miles of shop fronts, perhaps in the vain hope they’ll find their lost soul.

Are you being served? Or manipulated?

Westfield’s marketing team are on a mission to make sure the shopper stays for at least two hours. Because the average person won't be able to go for more than two hours without parting with a hefty proportion of their paypacket, and feeling the need to top it off with a cappuchino and a visit to one of its 50 cafes.

Here's how the designers-cum-brainwashers plan the mall to persuade you to suspend your critical faculties and surrender to the goddess of eternal consumption:

·     No clocks for fear you might notice the time (and your life) slipping away and feel compelled to rush empty-handed towards the exit.

·       The soul-less exterior of the mall, anonymous and blank enhances the contrast effect as you enter the sparkling glassy jingly interior.

·       Deliberately disorientating layouts so you get lost and retrace your steps or go off on an aimless purse-splurge.

·       Reflective echoing floors that make the carpeted interior of the shops more alluring.

·       Ditto the harsh lighting in the malls contrasting with the seductive and glitzy lighting of the shops’ interiors.

·       Mirrors on the walls between shops. People slow down when they pass mirrors (vanity) and how can they sell to you if youre rushing around?

·       Slowing your pace down slows your heart rate and even your blink rate, rendering you more mesmerised and gullible. Piped birdsong and a digital waterfall help the coma-induction process.

·       Shopping stretches of a maximum length of 300 metres, about the distance for which buying interest can be held at a peak before waning.

·       Expanses of stores above and around that are visible through glass balustrades and open plan escalators, giving uninterrupted views of tempting targets,

·       Scrupulously clean floors so your attention is exclusively fixed on shop fronts and not distracted by having to step over or around street detritus.

So next time you realise you spent more time in the shopping centre than you'd intended and more cash than you could afford, you'll know how it happened.

Hard Wired For Luxury

What does this new ‘age of austerity’ spell for luxury purchases like champagne?

Will people stop buying it and switch to a cheaper tipple? The government and economists would have us think so, but they’re forgetting one thing.

The human brain is hard-wired for luxury.

Yes, pleasure seeking is a key motivator when it comes to human behaviour. And hedonism doesn’t give a toss about the state of the economy.

This was the topic of a talk I gave today at a wonderful Champagne Assembly organised by G.H. Mumm and Perrier Jouet. The reason we’ll always love a bit of luxury lies deep in the emotional part of our brain. Neuoscience has revealed the subconscious roots of consumer behaviour. It shows us that luxury brands excite the emotional, feeling part of the brain that ordinary brands simply leave cold.

Recently in Germany a couple of neuroscientists (Schaefer & Rotte, 2007) scanned people’s brains as they studied logos of brands of cars. When looking at everyday brands, there was activity in the thinking part of the brain – (the dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex) – but when they saw luxury brands there was frantic activity in the feeling part of the brain (the ventral striatum).

The researchers say this brain area is where our ‘hot buttons’ are located. It’s where we feel pleasure, desire, passion and happiness. There may be an evoluntionary imperative for this, since people who feel happy are more likely to find a mate. And happier people even live longer, according to Dutch psychologist Veenhoven.

So our thinking brain may be telling us to cut back. But, because we’re hard wired for luxury, those top brands will continue to press our hot buttons every time.

Save hundreds of pounds a year by switching brands?

Martin Isark has an enviable job. 

He’s a professional food and drink taster. He also runs a website called SupermarketOwnBrandGuide.co.uk where you can compare the cost of 2,000 of own-brand products from the main supermarkets with their branded rivals.

The Times featured Martin’s website today and it also appeared in an online article from the Mail recently from which I quote:

“Aldi's chocolate digestives, for instance, which cost 49p a pack, score ten out of ten and are as good as McVities, which cost about £1.30. 
Likewise, Marks and Spencer's Organic 24 Whole Grain Wheat Bisks cost £1.69 and are as good as Organic Weetabix, which costs around £2.27.

And not just with food  -  washing powders, dishwasher tablets and toiletries are worth trying, too. You could save literally hundreds of pounds a year with some simple changes.”

If you’ve the time you could try a blind tasting. Martin swears that most people can’t tell any difference in taste and quality between the top brand of sugar, chocolate biscuits and cornflakes and their supermarket counterparts. He even says that Lidl’s chocolate is better than Green and Blacks. And half the price.

Are we being conned?

I bought some beautifully wrapped 'artisan' Taleggio cheese from Waitrose last week and paid nearly a fiver for a piece barely fit for the mouse trap. 
Blindfolded I swear it tasted uncannily like a Dairy Lea cheese triangle (price 92p for 8).