Apparel ranks ninth in our 2025 Brand Intimacy Study, with an average quotient score of 24.7. That places the category slightly below the 25.1 cross-industry average, yet still within the top ten. Apparel’s performance underscores both the emotional power clothing continues to hold over consumers and the fault lines that threaten the category’s future. What people wear remains one of the most visible forms of self-expression, even as technology and other accessories capitalize on that sense of self. However, the growing tension between fast fashion and responsible fashion may be damaging consumer relationships.
Identity Keeps Apparel Performing
Identity is the dominant Brand Intimacy archetype in apparel, and the category ranks second in identity across all industries in our study, with luxury as the only exception leading in that metric. Clothing is the most immediate way people signal who they are, or who they aspire to be. Apparel also performs well in each of the three stages of intimacy. It ranks third among all industries in the percentage of users in fusing, the final and most intense stage of intimacy, where the consumer is inexorably linked to and co-identifies with the brand. These results reveal that for many consumers, apparel is not just functional but deeply ingrained in daily life and emotional self-definition.
Nike leads the category this year, overtaking Abercrombie’s previous top spot. Uniqlo and Zara round out the top three. This ranking demonstrates that Nike’s dominance goes beyond product performance to leverage the emotional impact of the ecosystems it builds. Initiatives such as the brand’s Run Clubs, apps, and athlete communities reinforce a sense of belonging that transcends a consumer’s single purchase. At its best, apparel delivers more than utility: it leverages the intimacy archetype of identity to create community and reinforces the archetype of ritual to create emotional reliance.
Sports brands span the entire spectrum of performance. Nike is number one in the apparel industry, whereas New Balance holds the tenth spot. Adidas ranks thirteenth, Reebok fourteenth, Puma twentieth, Lululemon twenty-first, and Under Armour twenty-fifth. This range illustrates the uneven playing field in a space where scale and marketing alone do not guarantee intimacy. Some brands, such as Lululemon, cultivate smaller but deeply loyal communities through experiential retail and lifestyle integration. Others, such as Under Armour, struggle to maintain emotional resonance despite high visibility.1
Apparel responds strongly to cultural tastemaking and sociopolitical currents. Features such as expanded sizing, gender-fluid collections, and authentic representation have become more established in how brands position product lines and market themselves. Victoria’s Secret, once synonymous with exclusionary ideals, was forced to rewrite its brand narrative after years of declining sales. The company reintroduced diverse body types and voices to repair intimacy that had perhaps been eroded by a singular, unattainable image. However, the new CEO recently announced plans to return to its “unapologetically sexy” branding, signaling a move away from its short-lived repositioning.2 The tension further reinforces how today’s consumers expect apparel brands not only to adorn them but also to reflect their personas.
Fast fashion players continue to push speed as their defining edge. Zara exemplifies this shift, blending rapid production and delivery cycles with AI-driven insights that predict—not merely respond to—consumer preferences by identifying areas and aspects that are gaining popularity.3 This operational agility allows Zara to maintain a presence across microtrends and create a continuous attention cycle that reinforces the Brand Intimacy archetypes of identity and ritual.
Sustainability, Labor, and Cultural Missteps Erode Consumer Trust
For all its appeal, the apparel industry’s Brand Intimacy performance is fragile. Backlash over labor practices, sustainability, and quality is intensifying, fueling the rise of “conscious consumption” movements. Although consumers still buy fast fashion in large volumes, they seem increasingly to do so with guilt or ambivalence.4 This emotional contradiction is dangerous for intimacy: when brands undermine trust, resonance diminishes.
Labor practices remain the category’s most persistent shadow. Reports of poor working conditions, unfair wages, and lack of oversight continue to tarnish reputations. Even global leaders such as Nike and Zara face ongoing scrutiny, proving that scale amplifies responsibility as much as visibility.5,6
Apparel is also one of the world’s most polluting industries, generating mountains of unsold inventory and textile waste. The fashion industry was estimated to contribute 8–10% of global CO2 emissions in 2018, a figure projected to increase 50% by 2030 if the rate of production continues.7 The notorious practice of burning or destroying unsold goods to preserve exclusivity has sparked outrage.8 This wastefulness feels out of step with a cultural moment increasingly defined by climate anxiety and calls for corporate accountability.
Meanwhile, ultrafast fashion thrives on instant gratification and affordability but risks short-term gain for long-term collapse. Brands such as Shein and Temu flood the market with inexpensive, disposable clothing while also serving as poster children for environmental damage, labor controversies, and regulatory attention. Constant churn can erode perceived value and undermine emotional connections, even though brands try to offset this with novelty. Cultural missteps compound the category’s challenges. Tokenistic diversity campaigns or poorly judged collaborations can spark immediate backlash in a hyperconnected media landscape. American Eagle’s “Good Jeans” campaign quickly sparked vehement engagement and politicking. In a parallel example, Adidas faced criticisms when it released apparel inspired by Indigenous patterns without proper credit or collaboration, leading to accusations of cultural appropriation and prompting a public apology.9
Resale and Responsibility, Scale and Success
Apparel brands are investing in reinvention, with circular models such as resale and rentals becoming mainstream. Levi’s SecondHand initiative and Lululemon’s Like New resale program are examples of brands moving in this direction. The appeal is both emotional and practical: consumers feel good about extending product life, and brands create another connection with buyers beyond the moment of purchase.
These models may signal that intimacy in apparel is no longer guaranteed for brands with singular strengths such as style or affordability. Rather, brands seeking to create strong emotional bonds may need to consider multiple factors. These include novelty balanced by sustainability, the ability to tread carefully and with conviction through a polarized cultural terrain, and the creation of intimate personal experiences as a counterpoint to the conveniences of scale.
The apparel industry remains a top ten performer in our 2025 rankings, proving that clothing continues to play a profound role in identity and emotional connection. Yet this seemingly indispensable industry faces many headwinds. The winners will be those brands that are able to create and sustain deep emotional bonds with consumers that transcend preference or loyalty. Success for apparel will rely on brands reinforcing the characteristics people believe, how they feel about what they wear, and connecting emotionally with them in ways that align with their values across the many moments of their lives.
Get an overview of Brand Intimacy here.
Read our detailed methodology here. Our Amazon best-selling book is available at all your favorite booksellers. To learn more about how we help clients enhance their consumer bonds, visit mblm.com/services.
Sources
1 Kapner, S. (2024, November 8). Under Armour continues to struggle as it makes another turnaround attempt. Yahoo Finance. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/under-armour-continues-struggle-makes
2 Daily Mail Reporter. (2024, October 21). Victoria’s Secret ditches ‘woke’ rebrand and brings back sexy with Hillary Super at the helm. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15117623/victorias-secret-ditches-woke-rebrand-sexy-hillary-super.html
3 Michigan Journal of Economics. (2025, April 4). AI-powered fashion: How tech is reshaping the future of Zara’s fashion empire. University of Michigan. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2025/04/04/ai-powered-fashion-how-tech-is-reshaping-the-future-of-zaras-fashion-empire/king-less-alcohol/
4 Mintel. (2024, September 5). Is fast fashion fast enough to keep up with consumers? Mintel Insights. https://www.mintel.com/insights/consumer-research/is-fast-fashion-fast-enough-to-keep-up-with-consumers/
5 ProPublica. (2025, May 1). Workers have been fainting for years in Cambodia’s garment factories where Nike goods are made. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/nike-factory-cambodia-fainting
6 Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (2024, December 11). Bangladesh: Inditex supply chain workers report exploitative conditions linked to increase in air shipping, including poverty wages, wage theft and physical and verbal abuse. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/bangladesh-inditexs-reliance-on-air-freight-part-of-super-fast-fashion-model-fuelling-worker-abuses-including-poverty-wages-wage-theft-and-physical-and-verbal-abuse/
7 Not Just a Label. (2025, February 12). Conscious consumption: How fashion is redefining responsibility. Not Just a Label Industry. https://notjustalabel.com/editorial/conscious-consumption?srsltid=AfmBOorS1qBENqkGELseMMJz78wkkMQeEyl4wKBstULlxUPT4YAaH41c
8 Kawamura, Y., & Lee, S. (2024). Fashion’s circular economy: Barriers and opportunities for sustainable apparel. Journal of Cleaner Production, 456, 141239. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1366554524003508
8 Kawamura, Y., & Lee, S. (2024). Fashion’s circular economy: Barriers and opportunities for sustainable apparel. Journal of Cleaner Production, 456, 141239. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1366554524003508
9 AINvest. (2025, January 22). Brand sustainability and cultural sensitivity: Adidas missteps reveal risks for global investors. AINvest News. https://www.ainvest.com/news/brand-sustainability-cultural-sensitivity-adidas-missteps-reveal-risks-global-investors-2508/