“In the supermarket, for products such as milk – or even cosmetics – you always have price per unit listed on the shelf, so you can compare the pack sizes for which is more cost effective. Whether it’s price per 100ml, for example, or even measurements like price per five washes on detergent,” asserts Dr Lisa Eckmann, Assistant Professor in Marketing at the Bath Retail Lab. “Clothing also doesn’t typically last forever, because it experiences wear and tear. Cost per wear is essentially just unit pricing.”

Lisa’s recent research has focused on the idea of ‘cost per wear’ (CPW) as a way for consumers to determine the value for money offered by the garments they purchase. The metric is calculated by dividing the cost of the item by the number of times it can be worn before it needs repair or replacement: in general, the more durable the item, the lower the CPW – even if the upfront cost is higher.

This could also have major benefits in terms of sustainability if it could be used to nudge buyers towards one good-quality item instead of repeatedly replacing cheap fast-fashion items.

As a researcher studying consumer psychology, Lisa was intrigued by whether access to cost-per-wear information would inform purchasers’ decisions:

“Research has shown that consumers often do not think about how often they will wear a garment when shopping for clothes. Providing some kind of cue in this environment is helpful to remind people as they make their decision,” she explains.

“How would consumers react if they saw the cost per wear explained on a label or on a product webpage, just as an additional piece of information?”

To test this, Lisa and her co-author Professor Lucia Reisch from Cambridge Judge Business School carried out a series of online studies in which participants were asked to imagine they were shopping for a particular item of clothing. They were each presented with two options – similar in every regard, bar quality and price.

One group was shown the CPW data (such as the CPW itself and the number of wears this value was based on) alongside the items, while the control group was not.

The research demonstrated that this information did have an impact on consumer choices, with participants showing a stronger preference for the higher-quality items that were likely to last longer when they had been shown the CPW data. This effect was, however, less pronounced when CPW could not be compared across options, or when it came to items chosen for special occasions – where repeated wear is often less of a concern.

In practice, Lisa suggests that CPW could be measured using something similar to abrasion cycles – a measure currently used for upholstery fabrics, in which textiles are repeatedly rubbed by wire mesh to determine their resilience. She does, however, note that third-party testing and quality assurance marks would likely be required to build consumer trust.

“Some of the participants, when presented with the cost per wear, said, ‘Well, it’s just another marketing tactic’,” she notes. “We found that if CPW information is combined with independent third-party certification, this alleviates consumer skepticism and can even outperform general durability.

With fast fashion currently responsible for around 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions, it’s clear that something needs to change in how we fill our wardrobes. Could reframing pricing be the key?

“Many consumers are not interested in sustainability if it seems to come with a higher price tag,” Lisa concludes. “Cost per wear turns it around by saying, ‘Well, actually it’s an economical choice that you’re making. And, by the way, it’s also more sustainable!”