All insights Fashion 8 min read

Translated from the Vietnamese original

I work directly with several fashion labels, both advising and implementing. I love fashion, and I buy clothes more often than most. But lately I have noticed that I am buying differently: less, more slowly, and more carefully before each checkout. I asked myself whether this was just me, or a signal from the market.

YouNet ECI data for Q4 2025 records an important turning point: volume across the industry fell 8% year on year, while the average selling price (ASP) rose 33%. The answer to my question started to come into focus.

But we need to be honest about what is happening. The rise in ASP does not come entirely from brands upgrading their products. It is the result of a cost squeeze. As e-commerce platforms end the era of burning cash for market share, marketplace and advertising fees have risen sharply. Add the pressure on household businesses to formalize into companies under new tax rules, and small fashion businesses have nowhere left to retreat. They have to raise prices to protect a thin margin.

And this is the trap. If prices go up only to cover operating costs while product quality stays the same, these businesses are walking off a cliff. Customers will not pay 30% more to cover your tax bill or platform fees. This is why a shirt that used to make money at 199,000 dong now loses money at 250,000 dong. And it is why you have to move all the way up to the 400,000–700,000 dong range before there is room to build real quality.

This is where CPW (cost per wear) becomes the only survival test left, because it is the only way to justify the new price to customers. The product has to become worth more, because that is the only way customers will accept the new price without leaving.

When prices rise, consumers do not just buy less. They start to recalculate. Some are already buying differently: pausing longer before checkout, weighing more carefully what they get for the money, and favoring pieces they can wear many times.

The question for small fashion businesses is no longer “how do we get more orders?” It is: does your product give people a reason to wear it a second time?

The real cost of a shirt

CPW is becoming a survival test for both sellers and buyers, not only in e-commerce but across the whole market.

The arithmetic is simple. A 199,000-dong shirt worn once and then discarded because it faded or lost its shape has a CPW of 199,000 dong. A 799,000-dong shirt worn 100 times over two years has a CPW of about 8,000 dong. The shirt that is four times cheaper is 25 times more expensive in terms of actual use.

This is the moment when price stops being a reliable stand-in for value.

But this is not only the buyer’s problem. When platforms take 25–40% of revenue through marketplace fees, advertising and mandatory promotions, the margin on each cheap order is close to zero. Many shops think they are selling shirts. In reality they are using their profit to buy traffic from the platform. Once margins erode, the business is really buying customers, not selling products.

Small businesses no longer compete on price, but on the value they create in their customers’ real lives. If the value proposition is not strong enough for the product to be used again and again, customers will not come back.

Growth then depends entirely on acquiring new customers, a cash-burning spiral that small businesses cannot afford to sustain.

Two routes: function or feeling?

There are two ways to lower CPW, and the order matters.

1. 1. UtilityCustomers wear the piece again and again because it serves their real life. Durable fabric, versatile cut, fine for work, going out or staying in. Cash flow is steady and predictable because people need something to wear to work every day; they don’t need an emotional reason to buy again. The one risk to avoid: functional clothing without a story easily becomes a commodity. But this is not a cheap-price game. It is a game of controlling quality at small scale, from fabric and fit to a contemporary feel that makes customers want to wear it again, and not every seller can do that.
2. 2. LifestyleCustomers wear the piece again and again because it is part of their identity. They wear it to be someone, not just to be dressed. CPW falls because of the emotional value attached to the product. But building a brand identity takes time, costs more in marketing and carries a bigger margin of error. It should be a layer added once you have steady cash flow, not the starting point.

The two routes are not mutually exclusive, but the order matters. In a practical economy, customers pay for what they need more often than for what they only want for a moment. That is why most small businesses fail: they start with what customers want before they have what customers need.

Uniqlo: the right lesson and its limits

Uniqlo’s modular wardrobe thinking turns each product into part of a whole that can be combined freely, instead of a fixed outfit. When three tops and one pair of trousers make nine outfits, wear frequency rises, CPW falls, and customers have a reason to buy more to extend the system rather than to replace things.

But Uniqlo has a vertically integrated supply chain, production in the millions of units, and a global brand built over more than 40 years. It also keeps refreshing its products through designer collaborations, such as with Clare Waight Keller and Jonathan Anderson, bringing a contemporary edge to basics so they are not only durable but also feel right for how customers live now. That is what keeps them from becoming commodities. None of this is within reach of a small business ordering 500 to 1,000 pieces.

The lesson is not “sell basics like Uniqlo.” It is to design products around how often they will be worn, while making sure they feel right for how customers want to dress today, within your own production capacity and price range. What Uniqlo sells is not a shirt. It is the ability to be worn again and again.

A necessary counterpoint: CPW is not the only measure

If CPW were everything, occasion wear, áo dài and wedding clothes, all segments where customers wear a piece once or twice, would have died long ago.

The opposite is true. A 15-million-dong wedding áo dài worn exactly once has a CPW of 15 million, yet nobody calls it a waste, because its emotional value and the memories attached to it cannot be measured by division.

This does not invalidate CPW. It shows that CPW is not the only yardstick. It is a powerful filter for everyday wear, which is where most small Vietnamese fashion businesses compete. If you are in occasion wear or premium design, you are playing a completely different game.

Three tiers: where are you?

The money has not disappeared. It is moving between these three tiers.

Tier 1: Fast fashion

Many orders, little profit. Thin margins, fully dependent on platform algorithms. The most crowded tier, with the highest failure rate.

Tier 2: Utility and essentials

Fewer orders, steady profit. Low CPW drives natural repeat purchases and less reliance on advertising. This is where small businesses can build a lasting advantage, if they control product quality.

Tier 3: Premium design

Very few orders, high profit, strong brand. CPW is not the main measure; value lies in story, design and experience. It requires mature brand capability.

Most small businesses are crowded into tier 1, wondering why they don’t make money. Moving up to tier 2 does not take much capital. It takes a shift in thinking from “sell more orders” to “sell clothes customers wear many times.” And that shift does not come from repositioning the marketing. It comes from changing how the product is designed from the start.

A new consumer wave is forming globally: frugal chic, dressing well with intent. Not dressing cheaply, but spending selectively on versatile, durable pieces that can be worn many times. This is not a fashion trend. It is a change in how consumers make decisions. “Buy nice or buy twice” is no longer a saying for the wealthy; it is the logic of people who do the math. It is CPW in practice, without anyone calling it that.

In Vietnam, the signal has started to appear. Consumers are catching up with essential wardrobes and slow fashion, not because they suddenly care about the environment, but because they did the math and realized they were losing.

Conclusion

Back to my original question: is this change mine alone, or a signal from the whole market? After everything the data and the industry show, the answer is both. The market is changing, and people inside the industry feel it first, precisely because they live in it every day.

In your customer’s wardrobe, how many times a week does someone reach for your product? Or does it exist only as the memory of one sale, gone with the next order?

The winning brand is not the one that sells the most products, but the one that takes up the most wears in its customers’ lives.