
Surprise! Why Apparel Prices Are Actually Falling
A little over a month into President Donald Trump's new tariff regime, the verdict is in: Clothes are getting cheaper.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics on Wednesday reported that apparel prices fell 0.4 percent between April and May, and were down 0.9 percent from a year prior. Inflation overall was estimated at 2.4 percent, in line with expectations.
The data likely reflects pain delayed rather than avoided. Many retailers stocked up before Trump announced a 10 percent tariff on all imports, as well as an additional 30 percent levy on Chinese goods.
Inflation figures also don't account for hikes that were announced but have yet to kick in. E.l.f. Cosmetics, LVMH, Nike and many others have said they plan to raise prices this summer.
But the downward trend speaks to another truth about fashion's approach to pricing: The tariffs came at a time when brands were already working overtime to convince reluctant shoppers to keep spending.
Rather than pass along costs, many companies' instinct is to explore every other option first. Urban Outfitters, Gap and Abercrombie & Fitch fall in that camp, saying they'll hold off on increasing prices even as they warn of shrinking margins.
And for brands that engaged in years of post-pandemic price hikes, discounting even in the face of tariffs is still the best way to win back customers. Many luxury labels fall in this category, though plenty of mass-market brands are more expensive than they used to be, too.
'Retailers don't want to scare consumers or the market and suggest they're [raising] prices,' said Sonia Lapinsky, partner at retail consultancy Alix Partners. 'They're refraining as much as possible, they're not talking as much as possible.' Fashion's Falling Prices
Apparel prices fell month on month between April and May, and nearly 1 percent in May year on year. The rate of price increases began slowing in 2023, and then declining early this year.
This doesn't account for the full impact of tariffs on retailers' margins, which won't be realised until late summer or fall. That is when prices could get 'wildly volatile,' because of brands' individual approaches to pricing in the face of rising costs, said Michael Prendergast, managing director of Alvarez & Marsal Consumer and Retail Group. Some brands will look at this moment as a time to sacrifice margin to gain market share. With expanded margins, thanks to years of rising prices, many retailers are well positioned to absorb the impact.
For now brands are doing everything in their power to keep people shopping and drive traffic, said Lapinsky, including upping discounting throughout April and May.
Beyond categories like footwear that are highly susceptible to tariffs, brands will get specific about where they raise prices — fashion items may have elasticity, but shoppers would see a more obvious change in basic pieces, for example. Likely, after years of experimenting, brands have learned where their limits are.
Planning for the rest of the year is filled with extra risk. Raise prices too much, and kill demand; plan for lower demand and potentially end up with empty shelves. That conundrum will likely come to a head for retailers during back-to-school shopping season.
'We're likely going to have an inventory issue on one end or the other,' said Lapinsky. 'Either we've got inventory in the stores that had to be priced at a point that they can't clear, or retailers may have pulled back and just don't have what customers are looking for.' Mood-Swing Shopping
As they make inventory and pricing decisions for the rest of the year, retailers are watching consumer sentiment closely to try to determine whether they'll have the appetite to spend — and to what degree.
'You have to be cautious of exactly what inventory you're taking in, given consumer sentiment and how much they're shopping,' said Jessica Ramírez, co-founder of research firm The Consumer Collective. 'If you're just churning inventory that isn't a priority on your consumers' list, you're not going to do very well.'
After falling to its lowest point in years, consumer sentiment got a slight boost in May. Part of that may be thanks to a comparative settling of the news cycle from April, when Trump first announced, and then temporarily paused, levies.
But even just the feeling of rising prices and uncertainty can put a damper on shoppers' moods. Plus, more generally, price inflation in other categories will have an impact on consumer appetite to spend on apparel.
'Food and gas prices affect discretionary income,' said Prendergast. 'Gas prices are coming down, that's the good news. The not great news is food continues to rise — that pinches the wallet.' Trouble is Brewing Elsewhere
The picture of softened demand is clearer in China, the second biggest fashion market after the US.
Earlier this month, China reported consumer prices overall — not just apparel — fell for a fourth consecutive month in May, raising concerns that deflation is here to stay. Meanwhile, wage shrinkage and property value slumps continue.
It's already having an impact on fashion, reported Reuters: Amid raging price wars, stores are putting merchandise on steep discount — $30 for a Coach handbag at Super Zhuanzhuan, for example. US-based apparel companies operating in China will face more uncertainty in an already challenged market. Trouble abroad could even be felt back home.
'The more that's happening in the macro, the more concerned the consumer in America is going to be,' said Lapinsky. 'We don't see any end to that in the next few months.'
Though, starting in March, China began ramping up fiscal stimulus. And much remains to be seen about how the Chinese consumer will react, said Ramírez.
Fashion is still in a wait-and-see phase when it comes to price hikes and planning, but the moment of truth could be getting closer.
'Overall retailers are underplaying the effect of what tariffs and inflation are going to do to their sales and EBITDA,' said Prendergast. 'We're advising clients, take the next two years of your revenue and margin plans down, like, take them down and again, use this opportunity to cut costs internally.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?
Donald Trump and Elon Musk — two epic disrupters of U.S. politics and the automotive industry, respectively and vice versa. Over the past year, they united over the election and efforts to cut government spending. They parted ways amicably … and then started trashing each other. It escalated quickly with Musk suggesting that the president be impeached and that he is implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein child-prostitution scandal. Musk later reportedly called the president before posting that he regretted some of his words: 'They went too far.' It was a remarkable breakup — incredible drama between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man, who had been the closest of allies for hundreds of days of campaigning and governing. To the extent that it was a reality TV train wreck, I'd just as soon leave it be. But since the primary business in Musk's remarkable portfolio is nominally an automaker, it actually matters in this industry we cover. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. Love it or hate it, this disruptive era in which we live is providing us all with some real-life experiments in economics — the likes of which we probably thought we would never see. For decades, basically everyone who went to college was taught in an economics or history class that widespread tariffs would do more harm than good. Trump argues for a different approach, and he's pursuing it. Or he's pursuing it to negotiate for something else. In either case, we're now seeing how that works: So far, there's been a lot of paralysis, especially among suppliers and foreign automakers, but also a big investment announced recently by General Motors. His political strategy has been unorthodox, yet he's won two electoral colleges and one popular vote. He's only the 21st president to win two elections. So he's had success, whether some people like it or not. Same for Musk, of course: He approached the auto industry unlike anyone else — with an expensive electric car — had a couple of near-total collapses, and came out as the world's richest man and CEO of the world's most valuable automaker. That success helped propel his rocket business SpaceX and other ventures such as Starlink satellites and Twitter, which he bought and renamed X. But the disruptive move I'm watching was his decision to be an automaker CEO who got personally and financially involved in partisan politics. While new-vehicle sales skew to the affluent, when you sell something in the millions or tens of millions, a brand or model has to connect with a broad swath of people. And while there can be success with, say, a polarizing design, mass-market brands generally try to avoid alienating large chunks of their potential customer base. I've cited here before the story about Michael Jordan saying he didn't speak out on politics because 'Republicans buy sneakers, too.' In retrospect, he said it was just a funny line among friends. But the thing is that he wasn't wrong, and every business school graduate knows it. Musk, however, is not your typical MBA type. So out of his frustration with former President Joe Biden — who habitually sided with the UAW and its automakers against the U.S.-based global leader in EVs, even as he advocated for a carbon-neutral future — Musk threw an estimated quarter of a billion dollars behind the Trump campaign. That's an unbelievable sum of money to many of us, but when Trump won, it looked like the greatest bet ever. From late October to late December, Tesla stock more than doubled and its market cap approached $1.5 trillion. While Musk's political activism may have upset many of his loyal, environmentally motivated customers, there were a lot of reasons to be bullish on Tesla under Trump. It seemed likely that NHTSA and the SEC would take a more sympathetic view of the company's issues. Beyond that, Musk has refocused the company's future on artificial intelligence, humanoid robots and robotaxis. (Tesla said it plans to launch its service in Austin, Texas, on June 22.) A new administration with a deregulatory inclination toward self-driving cars was a significant tailwind. Now, those advantages for Tesla are gone or at least seemingly diminished. Structures that have legacy automakers paying to buy Tesla's credits for selling emission-free, fuel-efficient vehicles could be eliminated. (And let's not forget that Trump hinted at ending federal contracts with other Musk-affiliated companies.) Turning back to the auto business: The conventional wisdom is that Musk has now alienated all but the most apolitical consumers. Environmentally minded liberals might like EVs, but Musk's support of Trump (and the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany) has them seeking out other brands' offerings. There might have been an opportunity to become the preferred electric brand of the president's Make America Great Again movement — especially the tech-forward, high-income types and those motivated by the president's endorsement of the brand on the White House grounds. But after this month's blowup — with longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon arguing to deport Musk — that notion seemed ever more remote. No fans on the left, no fans on the right. Is Elon out in deep water in an electric boat surrounded by sharks with no friends to bail him out? Maybe not. There is significant animus against Musk on the EV-inclined left, especially in the wake of his DOGE team's deep and sometimes chaotic cuts to government entities and programs. Certainly, protests at auto retail outlets are rare. The damage to stores is not acceptable, but it shows the intensity of the situation. But I still have to wonder how far consumers will follow those kinds of feelings. Michiganders, for instance, often assume that Americans prefer to buy American cars made by American (union) workers. But I've been to America, and most of them don't care. They want the best car for their money, whether it's American, German, Japanese or Korean. Some are clamoring for cheap Chinese cars: If Xi Jinping wants to pay for half of their EV, they ask, why not let him? So maybe they won't care about Elon's politics. Tesla sales are down a little this year, but some of that might be attributable to production hiccups. If the Model Y — the bestselling model in the world last year — provides a great value, they'll probably buy it regardless of what they think of the CEO. And now we get to find out. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GM to invest US$4 billion to increase US output
General Motors (GM) announced it plans to invest around US$ 4 billion in the next two years to strengthen its US vehicle production operations, in response to the recent import tariff hikes by the Trump-led US government. This new investment plan, which will result in the transfer of some production from Mexico, is in addition to the recently-announced US$ 888 million investment in the company's Tonawanda engine plant in New York State. GM confirmed it plans to increase its annual production capacity in the US to over two million battery-powered and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. The plants that will benefit from the new investment include: Orion, Michigan, which will begin production of a ICE full-size SUVs and light duty pickup trucks in early 2027. The Detroit-Hamtramck plant will become the dedicated assembly location for the Chevrolet Silverado EV, GMC Sierra EV, Cadillac Escalade IQ, and GMC Hummer EV pickup and SUV. Fairfax, Kansas City, will produce ICE-powered Chevrolet Equinox from mid-2027 in response to strong demand for the recently redesigned model. The plant is also scheduled to produce the new Chevrolet Bolt EV by the end of 2025, with additional 'affordable' EV models set to follow later on. Spring Hill, Tennessee: GM plans to add the ICE-powered Chevrolet Blazer to the plant's line-up from 2027, to be produced alongside the Cadillac Lyriq and Visiq EVs and the Cadillac XT5. GM's CEO, Mary Barra, said in a statement: 'We believe the future of transportation will be driven by American innovation and manufacturing expertise. Today's announcement demonstrates our ongoing commitment to build vehicles in the US and to support American jobs. We're focused on giving customers choice and offering a broad range of vehicles they love.' The company pointed out that it currently has around fifty vehicle and parts manufacturing plants in 19 US states, including eleven vehicle assembly plants, employing a COMBINED one million people directly and indirectly, including at parts suppliers and dealers. GM's capital spending guidance remained unchanged at between US$ 10 billion and US$ 11 billion for 2025, rising slightly to between US$ 10 billion and US$ 12 billion in 2026 and 2027 to 'reflect increased investment in the US, the prioritization of key programs, and efficiency offsets.' "GM to invest US$4 billion to increase US output" was originally created and published by Just Auto, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs resolutions killing California's zero-emissions rules
This story was originally published on Trucking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Trucking Dive newsletter. President Donald Trump moved to sever California's EPA waivers by signing a series of joint resolutions Thursday, rolling back the Golden State's strict truck and auto emissions policies. The president's signing of joint resolutions under the Congressional Review Act reverses the Biden administration's approval of California's Advanced Clean Trucks rule. That earlier rule called for requiring 75% of Class 8 trucks sold in the state to be zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. Another resolution also prevents the state's low-nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions rule for heavy-duty trucks from being implemented, per a statement by the president. The NOx rule intended to regulate emissions from manufacturers by cutting heavy-duty NOx emissions by 90% and overhaul engine testing procedures. The Trump administration has described his predecessor's environmental policies as overreach and unjustified mandates. Trump said the congressional moves he signed further restrict California from implementing a similar policy in the future. "Under the Congressional Review Act, the EPA cannot approve any future waivers that are 'substantially the same' as those disapproved in the joint resolutions," Trump said in a statement. "Accordingly, the joint resolutions prohibit the EPA from approving future waivers for California that would impose California's policy goals across the entire country and violate fundamental constitutional principles of federalism, ending the electric vehicle mandate for good," the statement said. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared the federal measures illegal and moved to sue the federal government, seeking to pursue the state's zero-emission vehicle policy. Newsom signed an executive order on Thursday for the state to continue regulation requiring that 100% of sales of new vehicles be zero emission by 2035 for cars, pickup trucks and drayage trucks and by 2045 for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Trucking leaders applauded Trump for the measures. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said the news was a big win for both men and women behind the wheel. 'Our 150,000 small-business members have been saying it all along—electric trucks just aren't a realistic option right now. They're too expensive, the charging infrastructure isn't there,' OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in an emailed press release to Trucking Dive. Industry advocates, including the American Trucking Associations and the Washington Trucking Associations, also warned that electric truck technology and charging infrastructure were not caught up to accommodate California's ambitious EV policies. 'We've done our part to reduce carbon emissions while keeping America's economy moving,' ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said in a press release. 'But what we need is federal leadership to set realistic and achievable national emissions standards. And today brings us one step closer toward that goal,' he added. Werner Enterprises truck driver Gina Jones shared a similar sentiment, speaking as part of the signing ceremony at the White House. 'We cannot allow one state's regulations to disrupt our entire nation's supply chain,' Jones said. 'Allowing California to do so would have [negatively] impacted the hundreds of thousands of truck drivers who deliver critical goods across the country each and every day.' Recommended Reading Congress revokes Advanced Clean Trucks waiver, creating ambiguity for refuse fleets Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio