A new study demonstrates the effectiveness of the Cost per Wear (CPW) concept in steering consumers away from low-priced items from fast fashion and ultra-fast fashion.
For about five years, environmental advocates and fashion professionals have watched with dismay at the queues generated by the opening of each Shein pop-up store. Campaigns and actions to inform about the environmental damage caused by the fast fashion giant do not seem to tarnish the success of this player, which primarily attracts customers with low prices. The monetary argument appears stronger than the ecological cause. It may be time to change strategy and adopt a similar logic. A potential solution exists and can be summarised in three words: Cost per Wear (CPW).
A study published in early October by Lisa Eckmann and Lucia A. Reisch in the scientific journal Psychology & Marketing supports the following idea: to encourage consumers to buy so-called ‘sustainable’ clothing, it is better to talk to them about personal (monetary) benefits rather than opting for explicit appeals to sustainability. This is where Cost per Wear (CPW) comes into play.
What is cost per wear?
Cost per Wear is an indicator that informs on the value of a garment based on the number of times it will be worn. The calculation is simple: the total price of the garment is divided by the number of times it will be worn. This gives a hypothetical price paid by the consumer for each time they wear the garment. The amount of this price decreases with the frequency of use.
Imagine Alice wants to buy a new shirt for work and plans to wear it once a week for at least five years. Her online search leads her to two options: a shirt from a fast fashion brand for 20 euros and another from a more expensive brand for 50 euros. To calculate the cost per wear, one must imagine that Alice will wear the shirt about 50 times a year (once a week). It is assumed the cheaper shirt will last about one year before needing replacement, while the more expensive shirt will last at least four years. After calculations, the 50 euro shirt has a lower CPW (0.25 euros) than the 20 euro one (0.40 euros).
As for how the brand calculates the garment’s longevity on which the CPW is based, this can be determined through material durability tests. In fact, some clothing brands already indicate these tests on their website (this is the case, for example, with the French brand Loom).
Is CPW more effective than environmental claims?
According to the studies conducted by Lisa Eckmann and Lucia A. Reisch, the CPW concept as a communication strategy can be effective in shifting consumer preference from low-priced, lower-quality clothing to more expensive, more durable (i.e., higher-quality) options.
They assert that this communication can be more convincing than general sustainability claims. Consumers are increasingly wary of such claims due to widespread greenwashing.
Why is CPW convincing? It answers a question we often ask ourselves when buying a garment: How many times will I wear this? Is it worth the cost? In other words, we question the number of times we will use it and attempt a cost-benefit analysis of the product ourselves.
Unfortunately, the usual shopping context, whether online or in-store, does not provide cues to consider a product’s lifespan or frequency of use. Ultimately, these aspects are easily overlooked. This often leads to spending money on several cheaper, lower-quality garments instead of a single more expensive, higher-quality piece, thus prioritising a low purchase price per item.
If brands, distributors, or e-commerce sites indicated the CPW, the purchasing decision would be very different. Communicating the CPW helps consumers assess the long-term economic value of a high-quality product. Since it will be worn more often, it will allow the buyer to save money. This is why the researchers conclude that CPW strengthens the buyer’s preference for the high-quality option, especially when the CPW is accompanied by a third-party certification.
These findings should capture the interest of marketing specialists and policymakers who wish to promote the purchase of high-quality clothing and curb fast fashion consumption.
Limitations of CPW
Nevertheless, stating on an item that the CPW is 0.30 euros will not influence the consumer if they cannot compare it with the CPW of another item. The sine qua non condition is therefore to make this figure meaningful by providing the buyer with a way to compare it with that of another item.
Another significant limitation of CPW is that ultra-fast fashion purchases, particularly those made on the Shein website, are often for single-occasion wear. In this case, the buyer does not particularly intend to wear it multiple times and is indifferent to the fact that the cost per wear will be high.
In their study, Lisa Eckmann and Lucia A. Reisch confirm this observation: “(…) communicating CPW is less effective in increasing preference for quality options when consumers are buying clothes for a special occasion. In these cases, the perceived economic value of a more expensive, higher-quality option is diminished, and the preference for that option remains unchanged, indicating that economic value is not a relevant decision criterion when the intended frequency of use is low.”
For several years, the second-hand fashion platform Vestiaire Collective has integrated CPW into its general communications to demonstrate that the cost per wear of a pre-loved luxury item is lower than that of a fast fashion piece. The company concludes in a study conducted by an independent firm that “buying pre-loved items is 33 percent more affordable in the long term than buying new fast fashion clothing”.
However, this data remains linked to a communication campaign, meaning it is not integrated into the retail strategy. The CPW does not appear on the product pages for each item, likely because it would then be necessary to provide a basis for comparison. As previously mentioned, simply stating the CPW of a single piece is not meaningful enough for the consumer.
In any case, second-hand fashion platforms do not seem to need the CPW argument to convince consumers. It is no secret that the market for pre-loved clothing and accessories has exploded. According to a recent Ipsos study, a majority of French people now claim to buy second-hand fashion.
Shein’s CPW
According to the 2023 Sustainability and Social Impact Report published by Shein, the “majority [of] customers surveyed stated that they generally wear Shein items more than 10 times”. From a sustainability perspective, this figure seems far too low. Unfortunately, it seems almost normal in a context where mindsets have been shaped for decades by fast fashion and its disposable culture.
Nevertheless, and although purchases on the Chinese platform often involve pieces worn for a single occasion, the quality of an item is now becoming an increasingly important purchasing criterion. Shein itself has understood this well.
The platform stated in one of its reports that it was “adopting rigorous objectives for the continuous improvement of the quality of its clothing, relying on standardised tests and customer feedback to guide our efforts”.
Despite its ‘efforts’, the platform is now perceived negatively by nearly half of the French population (48 percent) regarding the brand and the quality of its products (49 percent), according to Ipsos data from October 2025. The controversy surrounding its incursion into BHV Marais in Paris is unlikely to improve matters.
