\n<\/p>\n
The Shein-Everlane deal is one part of a growing trend toward platform competition, where fashion companies are increasingly competing as ecosystems and infrastructure operators rather than simply brands. Companies like Shein, Amazon, Quince, and Inditex have centralized their data systems and are using ownership over things like sourcing, fulfilment, pricing, and creator ecosystems to both shape demand and respond to it. In the same way Shein may be doing, Inditex has also traded up in recent years, moving further upmarket, shedding some of the fast fashion stigma, and skirting some of the price pressure of low-cost clothing. The fact that it has total command over its logistics is what made the shift possible. \u201cBrands must be different or fast, that\u2019s the choice,\u201d Thorbeck says. \u201cFew can balance the capabilities and culture of both.\u201d<\/p>\n
This change, he notes, is as significant as when postponement shifted electronics manufacturing in the \u201980s and \u201990s. Companies tried to respond to shortening demand cycles by making production decisions later, so they could respond to actual demand rather than forecasts \u2014 something many in fashion are still trying to navigate. H&M is already trialing a version of this<\/a>, allocating product volumes to suppliers upfront, while making specific decisions about style and materials nearer the time. Shein, Thorbeck says, \u201cis postponement on steroids\u201d, and that\u2019s what brands will have to grapple with if they want to adopt a similar model.<\/p>\n The Shein-Everlane pairing is evidence of different capabilities entering the same system, says Christine Goulay, founder of Sustainabelle Advisory Services. Sure, Everlane will have to navigate what an association with Shein may mean for its perception among consumers as a sustainability-first brand, but it could land in an unexpectedly positive position. What Goulay is thinking about is: \u201cCan positive spillovers be created on both sides, where sustainability and operational performance become part of the same value-creation story? That will be something to watch.\u201d<\/p>\n Only producing what you can sell may be good for minimizing waste, but it doesn\u2019t cancel out all of the other ways products can be \u201cproblematic\u201d, says Guarino. \u201cI\u2019m interested in seeing whether this truly is an example of a business converting its strength in technology and supply chain into higher quality, longer lasting product that won\u2019t go to landfill so quickly. There are still doubts over whether Shein can operate the same model with higher priced materials \u2014\u00a0namely, less polyester<\/a> \u2014\u00a0and higher worker wages<\/a>. \u201cIf they can do that, that\u2019s super interesting, because that begins to prove that low cost, low quality isn\u2019t necessarily the best business model. And that, if you get rid of all these indirect costs, then you start to get some real movement in changing the harmful impact of what we\u2019ve seen.\u201d<\/p>\n Regardless of exactly how it shakes out, Thorbeck says as Shein prepares for its IPO, it\u2019s out to make sure investors know its model isn\u2019t limited to the low end of the market. Whether intentionally or not, it may also prove that the brands with deeper control over sourcing, manufacturing, logistics, and pricing are the ones that will come out on top.<\/p>\n \u201cEverlane is a proof point and a launch into how Shein applies a system to higher priced brands,\u201d he says. What we\u2019re witnessing, Thorbeck adds, is a \u201csignificant change in the industry\u201d, where business models that prioritize responsiveness will be increasingly valued. \u201cThe idea that fashion is a fixed system of large retailers served by volume suppliers is falling apart.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\nRight-size production isn\u2019t everything<\/strong><\/h2>\n