As Black Friday, a day dedicated to sales and bargain shopping, commenced at midnight, the owner of fast fashion brand PrettyLittleThing (PLT) took to Twitter to announce that they would be running a sale like no other, with approximately 3000 items available for 99% off. This meant that clothes and accessories were available for as little as 3p, allowing consumers to purchase an entire outfit for under 50p. One shopper tweeted that she had ordered over £600 worth of clothes for just £6. This is an incredibly extreme case, but is just one example of the problems plaguing the fast fashion industry.

Such an extreme discount means it is unlikely that the company will profit directly from this.  Rather, they are likely employing the loss-leader pricing strategy, which involves a product being sold at a loss, in order to attract new customers. The likelihood is also that the brand has used the sale to effectively dispose of a deficit of clothing, while increasing their customer base. This speaks of deeper flaws in the industry’s business model, and a disregard for sustainable progress. Why are such influential brands not designing clothes that have an enduring quality? If people only want to buy them within a brief window of time, they will likely soon get rid of them too.

There is an argument to be made for sales such as Black Friday in theory, for such dramatic price slashing makes products more accessible for people unable to afford them at full price, many of which may be essential. This is particularly pertinent in the lead up to Christmas, after a year which has been especially financially challenging due to Coronavirus, which led to mass job losses and forced businesses to close. However, these sales unfortunately do not tend to work this way, rather they encourage overconsumption. One of the key methods of ensuring sustainable consumption is checking in with yourself before you make a purchase: is this something I really need and will it stand the test of time? But during flash sales like Black Friday, this falls by the wayside – consumers are tempted into making purchases that they would not otherwise, and the time limit leads to reckless, thoughtless spending. The phrases ‘HURRY! WHILE STOCKS LAST’ and ‘ONE TIME ONLY’ flash up in neon letters across online PrettyLittleThing’s homepage, creating a sense of panic. The same tactic is used across the board.

Sales such as this are an embodiment of the issues inherent to the fast fashion model, which have led to a devaluing of items in our culture. This manifests in part in the rapidity with which new clothing drops appear. Where there was once a fashion calendar that revolved around two ‘drops’ – Autumn/Winter and Spring/Summer – we now see at least 52 ‘micro-seasons’ per year. This near-constant influx of clothing, available at the click of a button, means that clothing has come to be seen as disposable. A dress can be purchased for £10, worn once, and then tossed aside, in the knowledge that it can be replaced by another newer, better, more stylish, one a week later.

Often, people express disbelief at how much others are willing to spend on pieces of clothing, demonstrating a total detachment from understanding the complex process that is behind each item, from design and growing materials, to manufacture and transport. In the case of PLT, a 99% reduction in price exacerbates this issue hugely, for each time a cheaper purchase is made, a new precedent is set and people’s willingness to spend more, and their ability to recognise what an item should cost, becomes evermore skewed. As fast fashion brands have risen in prominence in the last couple of decades, the mentality around shopping for clothes has shifted significantly, and people’s expectation of the amount clothes should cost has massively altered.

Oxfam have found that it would take a female garment worker in Bangladesh 4,000 years to earn what the average CEO of a fashion brand is paid in just a year. Indeed, the owner of PLT, Umar Kamani, is estimated to be worth $1 billion in his own right, not to mention that belongs to the family who own Boohoo.com. However, this unethical work practice, which essentially constitutes slave labour in some cases, is not just something that happens in the third world countries most associated with cheap garment production. PLT’s glossy pink marketing tactic conceals the fact that an investigation led by The Times in July this year discovered deeply harmful and illegal working conditions. An undercover reporter got a job at a Leicester factory that produces items for Boohoo.com and its fellow brands, despite the fact that the city had just been placed into a local lockdown due to a sharp rise in coronavirus cases. He was informed by a fellow worker that he could expect a wage of approximately £3.50 to £4 per hour, despite the fact that minimum wage in the UK for people aged 25 and over is £8.72. He described the conditions on the factory floor as ‘hot and cramped,’ and reported a total disregard for health and safety, sharing that very few people wore masks, and there were ‘no health warning signs, no hand sanitiser and no evidence of social distancing measures.’ This highlights the great disparity between the experiences of those employed by such companies, and those in charge. Aside from raising awareness and exposing such harmful practices, people must actively avoid purchasing from them, and use their purchasing power to support more ethically conscious brands.

The negative impact of these clothes is not just human: the planet suffers significantly too. Not only do production practices release toxic chemicals which harm the natural environment, the artificial composition of the clothes means that each time they are washed, microplastics are released into the water. These are too small to be captured at the vast majority of waste water plants, and therefore seep into oceans, where they wreak havoc on the ecological infrastructure, and destroy ecosystems. 

The practices employed by big fast fashion brands, such as PrettyLittleThing, are dangerous and unethical, and they continue to exploit people’s susceptibility to cheaper and cheaper goods for profit, none of which is seen by the workers behind their clothes. Sales such as Black Friday, while they may benefit some, ultimately serve only to encourage irresponsible spending and toxic overconsumption.

More on the environment from Comment:

Why Has Grouse Shooting Been Made Exempt From the New Rule of Six?

Is the Attack on Fast Fashion Representative of Environmental Classism?

Climate Change: Why the Little Things Matter