Clothing Ecommerce Market Research: What 2,411 Shoppers Buy

In this survey the shoppers with the least money to spend on clothing also had the fewest stores near them. Every household in our survey earning over $100k can reach a clothing store within 30 minutes, against about 85% of households earning under $50k. Our clothing ecommerce market research surveyed 2,411 American shoppers between February and April 2024 about how they buy clothing and accessories; income turned out to change the answer more than age or region did.

That gap runs through the whole dataset. Access shapes which channel a shopper uses, how satisfied they are with what is nearby, and what it takes to keep them. The sections below give you the numbers by generation, income, housing status and region, with what each one changes for a brand selling clothing online.

US Shoppers Consumer Research

What this survey found

Gen Z is the generation most likely to want a store. Gen Z prefers buying clothing in store at 30.77%, the highest of any generation. If your youngest customers are the ones you have moved entirely online, you’re working against their stated preference.
The Northeast buys online only more than any other region. Online-only purchasing peaks in the Northeast at 30.23%. A regional campaign that assumes a store visit will underperform there.
Access to a clothing store splits by income before anything else. All high-income households can reach clothing and accessories within 30 minutes, against 85.19% of households under $50k. Roughly one lower-income shopper in seven has no store to walk into. For that shopper your site isn’t a convenience; it’s the only option.
High earners refuse to pick a channel. Two-thirds of shoppers over $100k (66.67%) buy both online and in store. Treating them as an online audience and a store audience splits one customer into two records and two budgets.
Renters have better local access than homeowners. Renters report local clothing options at 96.55% against 87.30% for homeowners. Store-pickup and local-return offers land differently for the two groups.
Gen Z is also the most satisfied with what is nearby. Gen Z reports 76.47% satisfaction with local shopping options, the highest of any age group. A store near a young customer is competition for your site rather than background noise.
Most shoppers believe online carries more choice. About 72% say they have more options when shopping online. That belief already works in your favor; the page’s remaining job is proving quality.
Each channel’s own shoppers trust its quality. 77.08% of in-store shoppers say physical stores offer higher quality, while 53.85% of online shoppers say the internet does. The in-store conviction is far stronger, which is what a product page has to overcome.

How the survey ran

We surveyed 2,411 American shoppers nationally between February and April 2024, spread across Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X and Baby Boomers and distributed across US regions in line with recent census data. Everyone in the sample buys clothing and accessories online.

The margin of error is 6.26% at a 95% confidence level. Treat a wide gap between two groups as real and a narrow one as directional.

Introduction

This report asks which shoppers can reach clothing and accessories, which ones can’t, and what the second group does instead. Where a person buys turns out to depend on income, housing status and region at least as much as on age.

Higher-income shoppers have easy access and use it. They also buy online at high rates.

Shoppers at the lower end of the income range hit real barriers before they ever choose a channel, which changes what your site has to do for them. We take the same approach in our home decor shopping report, covering a different category.

Regional and generational patterns sit on top of the income picture. Baby Boomers and Millennials report the best local availability while Gen Z reports the worst, even though Gen Z is the generation most likely to prefer a store. A companion personal care and beauty report surfaces similar regional patterns in that category.

Clothing ecommerce market research usually stops at market size

Global fashion ecommerce revenue passed $920 billion in 2025 and roughly a quarter of worldwide fashion retail now happens online, according to Statista’s fashion ecommerce research. Most apparel market reports and most ecommerce fashion industry analysis stop at numbers like those. They tell you the category is growing and they tell you nothing about who is buying.

The wider US picture looks similar. US ecommerce sales reached about $1.234 trillion in 2025, up 5.4% over 2024, and online buying accounted for 23.1% of total retail sales, per Digital Commerce 360. So fashion runs slightly ahead of retail overall on how much of it moves online.

Read the same figure the other way and the reason for this report shows up. About three-quarters of fashion buying still happens in a physical store. So for three shoppers in four, whether a store is within reach still decides where the money goes.

That is the gap this fashion ecommerce consumer behavior report fills. Market-size reports measure how big the pool is; ours measures who can get to the water.

Every percentage below comes from our own survey of 2,411 shoppers. It mirrors how we approach ecommerce market research for a client engagement: size the market once, then spend the real effort on the segments inside it.

Two cautions before the data. Platform share moves faster than any other part of this dataset. Read the discovery-channel rankings as accurate for early 2024 and directional since.

The fieldwork is a snapshot of stated behavior, which is the right instrument for mapping who buys how and the wrong one for forecasting next quarter.

The growth figure sets a floor for what the apparel category expects of you. A market adding revenue every year carries more competitors and more discounting, which is the environment your own numbers get read against.

What a market size can’t tell you is which of your segments is growing. That is the question worth answering before planning next season’s assortment. The rest of this report is one way to answer it for clothing.

In-Store vs Online

Channel preference in this survey splits by generation, region and income, and the three don’t line up with each other. Gen Z leans toward stores while high earners use both channels and the Northeast leans online.

Access is the variable underneath all of it. Where a shopper can’t easily reach a store, channel preference stops being a preference. These splits carry direct consequences for retail ecommerce brands running both channels against one budget.

Channel preference splits by generation before it splits by anything else

Younger shoppers prefer the store. Gen Z prefers in-store purchases at 30.77%, the highest of any generation. Budget aimed at Gen Z that assumes a purely digital journey is aimed slightly off.
Online-only buying peaks in the Northeast. The Northeast has the highest rate of online-only purchasing at 30.23%. Regional creative and regional inventory both have room to differ here.
Wealthier shoppers rarely buy in store only. High-income shoppers over $100k have the lowest in-store-only preference at 8.33%. Almost nobody in your best-spending segment is store-exclusive.
Hybrid buying dominates among high earners. Shoppers above $100k buy both online and in store at 66.67%. They need one cart and one customer record across both channels or you will count them twice and serve them half as well.
The Midwest is the most hybrid region. Midwest shoppers engage in hybrid shopping at 63.27%. Buy-online-pickup-in-store and local returns earn their keep fastest there.

Income decides who can reach a store at all

The access gap is an income gap. 100% of households over $100k can reach clothing and accessories within 30 minutes, against 85.19% of households under $50k. For the roughly 15% with no store in range, shipping cost and return friction are the whole experience.
Gen X and Gen Z report the least local availability. Baby Boomers and Millennials report high local availability at 91.67% and 94.67%, against 87.34% for Gen X and 87.18% for Gen Z. The two generations with the least access are the two your store network was probably planned around least.
Renters have better access than homeowners. Renters report local options at 96.55% against 87.30% for homeowners. A local-return option reads as convenience to a renter and as a trip to a homeowner.
The Midwest is least sure it has options nearby. 10.20% of Midwest shoppers say they have no local availability, against 3.08% in the South. Midwest delivery promises carry more weight than Southern ones.
Gender barely moves access. Women report access at 91.35% and men at 89.38%. A gap that size sits inside the margin of error and isn’t worth building on.

If your revenue is soft and nobody on the team can say which segment is dragging, an outside read on your segments usually finds the answer faster than another round of testing.

Satisfaction with local options follows income more than age

Gen Z is the most satisfied generation. Gen Z reports 76.47% satisfaction with local options, well above every other age group. Your youngest customers are the happiest with the stores they can already walk into.
Low-income shoppers are the least satisfied. Only 34.78% of shoppers under $50k feel they have great options nearby, the lowest of any income segment. That is less than half the Gen Z rate and the clearest demand signal in the study.
Online buyers are the most dissatisfied with what is local. Online buyers report the highest dissatisfaction with local options at 18.18%. For a slice of your online customers you’re the alternative to nothing rather than the alternative to a store.
The West is satisfied and the South is not. Western shoppers report 72.22% satisfaction against 50.00% in the South. Assortment breadth is worth more in Southern markets than in Western ones.
Renters are more critical than homeowners. Renters report 46.43% satisfaction against 61.82% for homeowners, even though renters have better access. Having stores nearby and rating them well are two different things.

Shoppers credit online with more variety than stores

Most shoppers think online carries more choice. 72.41% overall say they have more options when shopping online for clothing and accessories. Variety is a claim you no longer have to make; spend the page on something else.
High earners believe it most. Shoppers over $100k say online offers more options at 79.17%. The segment with the most to spend is already sold on your catalog depth.
Renters see more choice in stores. 41.38% of renters perceive more options in physical stores, against 17.46% of homeowners. Renters live closer to more stores and it shows in what they expect from a website.
The Midwest is the least convinced region. 71.43% of Midwest shoppers say online offers more options, below the national reading. Midwest merchandising has to work harder to look deep.
Gen Z is less convinced than Millennials. Gen Z puts online variety at 69.23% against 77.33% for Millennials. The youngest shoppers are the least impressed by a big catalog.

Online wins on price with the groups least likely to need the discount

Younger generations expect better prices online. Gen Z puts better online pricing at 64.10% and Millennials at 69.33%. Both groups arrive expecting the site to beat the store, which makes a matched price read as a loss.
Women lean online for price more than men. 72.12% of female shoppers believe online offers better prices. In a category that skews female, that is a majority expectation rather than a segment quirk.
High earners are the most convinced of all. Shoppers over $100k put better online prices at 79.17%, the same rate at which they credit online with more variety. The segment least driven by price is the most certain you have the best one.
The Midwest splits closer to even. Midwest shoppers favor online on price at 63.27%, the lowest regional reading. Price-led messaging carries less there than availability does.
Renters more often see better prices in store. 37.93% of renters believe in-store prices are better, above homeowners. Shipping cost is part of the price a renter is comparing.

Quality perception splits by where the shopper already shops

In-store buyers are strongly convinced their channel is better. 77.08% of in-store buyers say physical stores offer higher quality. That is the single strongest conviction in this part of the study.
Online buyers are less sure about their own channel. 53.85% of online-preferring shoppers say the internet offers better quality, barely more than half. Even your online-first customers are only mildly persuaded on quality.
Gen Z leans in store on quality. 58.97% of Gen Z favor in-store quality. Fabric detail, fit notes and real photography are worth more to this group than another lifestyle image.
Homeowners trust stores more than renters do. Homeowners put in-store quality at 63.49% against 51.72% of renters. Renters are the easier group to convince that what arrives in the box will be good.
The West leans in store. Western shoppers favor in-store quality at 60.00%, the strongest regional reading. Material and fit detail on the product page have to work hardest in the West.
Millennials are split down the middle. Millennials rate in-store quality at 50.67% and online at 49.33%. This is the one group whose mind is genuinely open on the question.
High earners sit near the average. Shoppers over $100k favor in-store quality at 54.17%. Income doesn’t buy confidence in what arrives in a box.

Variety is already credited to you. Quality is the thing you still have to prove on the page.

What channel preference means for your storefront

Three regional readings point at three different builds. In the Northeast, where 30.23% buy online only, the site has to answer the questions a store clerk would answer, which means fit guidance and stock accuracy rather than a bigger hero image.

In the Midwest, where 63.27% buy both ways, the win is one connected experience: a shared cart and a single customer profile across both channels. That usually turns on the technology behind the experience more than on new creative.

For the 66.67% of high earners who buy both ways, the same logic applies at the customer level. Counting one hybrid shopper as two records will understate their value and overstate your acquisition cost.

What channel preference means for your marketing

Match the message to the way a segment already buys rather than to the way you’d prefer them to. In regions and generations leaning in store, promotions tied to a visit still move volume, and Gen Z’s 30.77% in-store preference is the clearest case for that.

For high earners, who prefer online at high rates and buy both ways, targeted advertising and personalized email carry further than a broad discount. They named convenience as their top reason at 87.50%. Speed and certainty read better to them than a price cut.

The Midwest’s 38.78% response to traditional advertising says a national media plan will underweight one large region. Geography changes the mix here more than most apparel plans allow for. An ecommerce marketing consultant can check your own sales for the same regional split.

Channel findings in one line

Region and income decide channel behavior more reliably than age does. A single national plan will underserve at least one large group. The Northeast wants a self-sufficient site, the Midwest wants the two channels joined up, and high earners want to move between them without being treated as two people.

Return Policies

Return terms decide whether a large share of shoppers buy at all. What counts as an acceptable term splits sharply by age. Gen X and renters weigh return policy most heavily, while Baby Boomers care most about the window itself and about who pays for shipping.

Returns are a category-wide cost rather than an edge case. Statista puts the 2025 online return rate for fashion goods at 19.1%, which is roughly one clothing order in five coming back whatever your policy says. The open question is which version of that policy loses you the fewest sales up front.

Return terms decide the purchase for two shoppers in five

Online buyers weigh return policy heavily. 23% of online buyers say return policies definitely influence their purchase decision, the highest of any shopper type. Policy is a conversion element that belongs above the fold on the product page.
Gen X is the most influenced generation. 39.24% of Gen X say return policy definitely influences the decision. If Gen X is your core customer, the policy is part of the offer rather than a footer link.
Renters weigh it more than homeowners. 41.38% of renters are definitely influenced against 28.57% of homeowners. Renters return more often from a smaller space and the policy is where they check for friction.
Lower-income shoppers watch the terms closely. 48.15% of shoppers under $50k say return policies somewhat influence their decision. Add the definitely-influenced group and return terms are touching roughly half of that segment’s decisions.
Gen Z almost always checks. Only 12.82% of Gen Z say they don’t check return policies before buying. Close to nine in ten look. Hiding the terms doesn’t stop the check; it just adds a step.

The return window shoppers expect splits by generation

Baby Boomers hold a hard line at 30 days. 82% of Baby Boomers won’t buy unless they can return within 30 days. Anything shorter than 30 days costs you most of that generation outright.
Gen Z wants longer. 29.17% of Gen Z want a window of at least 60 days. Roughly three Gen Z shoppers in ten treat 30 days as too short to commit to.
High earners want longer too. 33.33% of households over $100k prefer a 60-day minimum. Your best-spending segment and your youngest segment are asking for the same thing.
The Midwest accepts long windows comfortably. 26.92% of Midwest shoppers accept 90-day returns. A longer window costs less goodwill there than elsewhere.
Very long windows are a fringe expectation. Acceptance of 120-day returns runs at 5.13% in the West and 3.85% in the Northeast. Almost nobody needs you to go past 90 days.

Who pays return shipping is a dealbreaker for older shoppers

Free returns with company-paid shipping is the majority expectation. 83.33% of Baby Boomers require free returns with company-paid shipping before they’ll buy online. For that generation, paid return shipping is closer to a blocker than a fee.
Gen Z tolerates restocking fees. 14.29% of Gen Z accept a restocking fee when the company pays shipping. It is still a minority, which makes it room to experiment rather than permission.
High earners will pay their own return shipping. 62.50% of shoppers over $100k prefer free returns where they cover shipping. The segment most able to absorb the cost is the most willing to.
The Midwest is least tolerant of no-return items. Only 6.25% of Midwest shoppers accept no return policy at all. Final-sale merchandising needs a reason attached to it there.
Hybrid buyers are the most flexible. 10% of shoppers who buy both ways will pay return shipping and a restocking fee. They have a store as a fallback, which changes what they’ll accept online.

What return expectations mean for your policy

One window length can’t satisfy both ends of this data. 82% of Baby Boomers need 30 days guaranteed while about a third of Gen Z and of high earners want at least 60. A 60-day window with company-paid shipping covers both groups at a cost you can price in advance.

Regional tolerance gives you room to test rather than a rule to apply. The Midwest’s 26.92% acceptance of 90-day windows suggests a longer window there is cheap goodwill. The West’s 5.13% comfort with 120 days says there’s a ceiling.

Whatever you land on, price the policy against the 19.1% category return rate rather than against last year’s rate alone. Extending the window tends to move returns a little and move conversion more.

What return expectations mean for your product pages

Put the terms where the check already happens. Only 12.82% of Gen Z skip the return-policy check before buying. The policy is being read either on your page or on a competitor’s.

Say who pays for shipping in the same line as the window: 83.33% of Baby Boomers require company-paid returns. A page that gives the window but not the shipping cost pushes the bad news to checkout; that group abandons there instead.

Renters and lower-income shoppers are the two segments most influenced by return terms, at 41.38% and 48.15% respectively. Those are also the two most likely to abandon over a cost they discover late.

Return findings in one line

Return policy in this study works as a trust signal rather than a service detail. The expectation splits cleanly by age. Older shoppers want certainty at 30 days with shipping paid, younger and higher-income shoppers want time, and a 60-day company-paid window is the version that loses the fewest of either.

Discovery Channels

No single channel reaches this audience. Gen Z finds clothing on Instagram and TikTok, Baby Boomers find it on Amazon, and friends and family reach every group at roughly the same rate.

Read this section as a snapshot rather than a standing ranking. Platform share moves faster than any other behavior in the study. The shape of the split holds better than the individual percentages do.

Gen Z and Baby Boomers find clothing in completely different places

Gen Z discovers fashion on Instagram. 48.72% of Gen Z learn about new clothing through Instagram, far above older generations. Nearly half of the generation is reachable on one platform, which is rare in this dataset.
Baby Boomers discover it on Amazon. 50% of Baby Boomers find new clothing on Amazon. If you’re not listed there, half that generation never sees the product at all.
Friends and family reach everyone. About 42% of respondents across every segment cite friends and family. Referral and review programs are the only discovery lever in this data that works on all four generations.
TikTok is close behind Instagram for Gen Z. 46% of Gen Z discover new fashion on TikTok. Running one of the two platforms and skipping the other leaves a large share of the generation uncovered.
Browsing online stores is the broadest digital channel. Over 54% of all respondents browse online stores to learn about new fashion. Your category and new-arrival pages are discovery surfaces; merchandise them that way.
The South searches. 33.85% of Southern shoppers use Google results to find new clothing, the highest regional rate. Product-page search visibility earns more in the South than a regional ad buy would.
Millennials spread across platforms. Millennials report Instagram at 32%, YouTube at 24% and TikTok at 16%. Reaching them takes a mix, since no single platform gets even a third of the generation.
Advertising still works, especially in the Midwest. 38.78% of Midwest respondents name ads as a key source. Traditional advertising is a live channel in one region and a weak one in others.

What discovery patterns mean for where your budget goes

Budget follows the generation you actually sell to. This data says the wrong split is expensive.

Say your customers skew Baby Boomer and your spend sits in social. You are missing the 50% of that generation who discover clothing on Amazon.

The reverse costs just as much. Gen Z sits at 48.72% on Instagram and 46% on TikTok. A brand targeting them through marketplace listings alone is paying for placement where its audience isn’t looking.

Regional splits deserve their own line in the plan. The Midwest’s 38.78% response to advertising and the South’s 33.85% use of Google point at different tactics for the same product.

What discovery patterns mean for your content and platform mix

Make the content fit the channel each group already uses rather than reposting one asset everywhere. Instagram and TikTok carry Gen Z. Short-form product content earns its budget there.

For the South’s search behavior, the work is less glamorous and more durable: product and category pages that answer the query directly. The 33.85% of Southern shoppers arriving through Google will land on a page rather than a feed.

Friends and family at about 42% across every segment is the channel most brands underfund. Review collection, referral offers and post-purchase prompts are how you buy into it.

Discovery findings in one line

Discovery is the most fragmented behavior in this study. One launch has to be findable in five places at once. Instagram and TikTok cover Gen Z, Amazon covers Baby Boomers, Google covers the South, and friends and family cover everyone.

Loyalty Factors

What earns repeat business changes with income more than with any other variable. Price is the top loyalty factor for shoppers under $50k, while the highest earners name convenience and Millennials name the experience.

The same pattern shows up in other categories we’ve surveyed. Our electronics category report finds loyalty splitting along similar lines. Our discount and promotions research looks at what price incentives do to it.

How much choice feels helpful depends on who is shopping

Millennials feel choice overload the most. 57.33% of Millennials say stores can offer too many options, the highest of any generation. Curated edits and guided filters do more for this group than a bigger catalog.
Renters feel it the least. Only 31.03% of renters say there can be too many options, the lowest housing segment. They browse more and tire of it less.
The Midwest prefers fewer choices. 36.73% of Midwest shoppers say there can be too many options. Regional merchandising can run narrower there without a penalty.
High earners are comfortable with breadth. 41.67% of shoppers over $100k feel overwhelmed by too many options, well below the Millennial reading. Depth of assortment costs you little with your best spenders.
The South is the most tolerant region. 50.77% of Southern shoppers say there is no such thing as too many choices. Range is an asset in the South and a liability with Millennials.

The biggest spenders buy convenience and the youngest buy price

High earners shop online for convenience above all. 87.50% of shoppers over $100k name convenience, the strongest single reading in this part of the study. Discounting to this segment spends margin on a motive they didn’t name.
Millennials want speed. 69.23% of Millennials name speed as a reason to buy online. Checkout friction costs more with them than assortment gaps do.
Gen X is least moved by selection and research. Gen X names selection at 50.63% and research at 27.85%, below other groups. Straightforward restocking beats discovery merchandising for them.
The West is least price-driven. Western shoppers name price at 45.00% and selection at 41.67%, the lowest on both. Brand and habit carry more weight there.
Gen Z names price often. 53.85% of Gen Z name price as a reason to buy online, well above the rate at which they name selection. The youngest generation is price-sensitive even where it is fashion-led.
The Northeast buys time. 62.79% of Northeastern shoppers name saving time and convenience, the highest regional reading. Delivery speed is a regional lever here rather than a national one.
Online buyers respond to deals less than in-store buyers. Online buyers name deals at 40.38% against 60.42% for in-store buyers. Promotions do more to pull someone into a store than to close them on a site.
Women value a low-pressure environment more than men. 23.08% of female shoppers name the no-pressure setting of online shopping, above the male rate. Pushy upsell flows cost more in a category that skews female.
Renters value a no-pressure environment. 31.03% of renters name the no-pressure setting of online shopping, above homeowners. Aggressive upsell flows cost more with renters than with anyone else.

Convenience and selection trade off differently by age

High earners want it the same day. 62.50% of shoppers over $100k prefer same-day availability. Store pickup and fast local delivery are worth more to them than a promotion.
Gen Z shops for selection and Baby Boomers don’t. Gen Z names selection at 28.21% against 4.17% for Baby Boomers. The same assortment expansion reads as range to one generation and as clutter to the other.
The Midwest wants it today. 53.06% of Midwest shoppers prefer same-day availability, the highest regional rate. That is the same region most likely to buy both ways.
The Northeast supports local businesses most. 30.23% of Northeastern shoppers name supporting local businesses. Provenance and origin copy earn more attention there.
Lower-income shoppers buy in store on price. 40.74% of shoppers under $50k name price as a reason to shop in store. For this group the store is where they check the price, which your online price has to beat before they leave the house.
Women value grabbing something locally. 21.15% of women name local convenience against 15.93% of men. Store locators and pickup options matter more in a female-skewed category.
Renters want a local return option. 27.59% of renters name local returns against 22.22% of homeowners. A return desk inside a partner store buys real goodwill with renters.
Gen Z enjoys browsing a store less than Baby Boomers do. Gen Z names enjoying store browsing at 35.90% against 41.67% for Baby Boomers. Younger shoppers want the store for the product rather than for the visit.
Baby Boomers use store staff more than Millennials. Baby Boomers name help from store staff at 16.67% against 9.33% of Millennials. Live chat and fit help online replace something Boomers still get in person.
In-store buyers are often already out. 29.17% of in-store buyers name convenience or being out already. Much in-store apparel buying is unplanned, which is what a local inventory feed on your site can capture.

Price buys loyalty at the bottom of the income range and experience buys it higher up

Low-income shoppers are loyal to price. 74.07% of shoppers under $50k name price as a key loyalty factor, the highest reading in this section. A loyalty program built on discounts speaks to this segment and to few others.
Millennials are loyal to the experience. 67% of Millennials name the shopping experience as a top loyalty driver, the highest of any generation. Site speed, fit accuracy and returns handling are the retention program for them.
High earners barely care who owns the store. Only 4.17% of shoppers over $100k name locally owned businesses. Independent-brand positioning does almost nothing with your best spenders.
The Northeast is the most price-loyal region. 44% of Northeastern shoppers name price, more than any other region. A regional promotion earns more there than the same spend does elsewhere.
Gen Z rates customer service highly and Baby Boomers don’t. 33% of Gen Z name customer service against 20.83% of Baby Boomers. Support quality is a retention lever with the youngest segment.
In-store buyers care least about selection. Only 31.25% of in-store buyers name selection, the lowest of any purchase-type segment. Range is not what brings them in and a bigger catalog will not convert them online.
Price loyalty barely differs by gender. 65% of women and 57.52% of men call price crucial. This is one of the few splits in the study where gender is close to irrelevant.
Renters name convenience more than homeowners. Homeowners name convenience at 22.22% and renters come in above them. Delivery and return logistics are the loyalty lever for renters.

What loyalty drivers mean for your merchandising

Assortment breadth should follow the segment rather than the calendar. Millennials report choice overload at 57.33% while Southern shoppers report the opposite at 50.77%. The same expansion helps one group and hurts another.

Curation is the cheaper half of that answer. Guided filters, edited collections and clear category logic give a Millennial the smaller set they want without taking range away from anyone else.

For high earners, assortment matters less than availability. They named convenience at 87.50% and same-day availability at 62.50%, which is an inventory and fulfillment problem rather than a merchandising one.

What loyalty drivers mean for your retention program

Build the program around what each segment actually named. Price-led offers fit the under-$50k segment at 74.07%, experience investments fit Millennials at 67%, and service investments fit Gen Z at 33%.

Measure the change against the KPIs you already track rather than a new dashboard. Repeat rate and time between orders, cut by income band and generation, will show a segment-specific change that a blended number hides.

Expect the blended number to move slowly. A program aimed at one segment moves that segment first, which is the point of aiming it.

Loyalty findings in one line

Loyalty in this study is bought with different currencies at different income levels. One program can’t pay in all of them. Price holds the bottom of the range, experience holds Millennials, and convenience holds the top.

Run this self-check against your own store

Each line below names something this study found varies by group. Answer each one yes or no about your store as it runs today, then count the yes answers.

Does every customer see the same return window whatever they bought?
Does your marketing run the same creative in every region?
Are your return terms missing from the product page?
Would nobody on the team be able to say which generation your best customers belong to?
Does your discovery spend sit in one channel?
Is price the only loyalty reason you’ve worked on this year?

Zero or one yes means your plans already account for most of the differences in this report. Keep checking them as your customer mix changes.

Two or three means one or two groups are being served by an average. Start with the group carrying the most revenue.

Four or more means the store is treating a varied set of shoppers as one. Real money is sitting with the segments you’re serving by default. Each line you answered yes to names a place to begin.

If you’re working the list, order it by what costs least to change. Return terms on the product page and a second discovery channel are usually the two cheapest, since both are copy and budget decisions rather than systems work.

Regional creative and a single customer record across both channels take longer, because they touch media production and your data stack. Knowing which generation your best customers belong to is what makes the other five decisions easy. Run that query first.

If you counted four or more and can’t tell which line to fix first, a working session against your numbers will usually rank them in an afternoon.

Methodology

We surveyed 2,411 American participants nationally between February and April 2024. Everyone in the sample buys clothing and accessories through ecommerce, which is what makes the answers usable for a brand selling in the category.

The sample covers Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X and Baby Boomers. Participants were distributed across regions of the United States in line with recent census data. The gender split closely mirrors national demographics.

We used direct survey methods instead of predictive modeling. That choice let us ask a wide range of questions without deciding in advance which variables would matter. It suits a study built to map behavior, not forecast it.

The margin of error is 6.26% at a 95% confidence level. Read a large gap between two groups as a real difference and a narrow one as directional. The two-decimal figures in the tables record exactly what respondents reported; they don’t carry that level of measurement precision.

The questionnaire covered recent purchase history, the influence of return policies, and preferences between online and in-store buying. Every statement of fact in this report is a synthesis of what participants said. The findings describe stated attitudes; they don’t measure observed transactions.

It mirrors how we approach market research for a client engagement: ask the people who buy, then plan against what they tell you.

Fair Use

This content is offered for public use so the industry shares what it knows. You’re welcome to share and distribute it for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute it to us with a backlink to this original source page. The link gives your readers the full methodology and results alongside the figure you quoted.

Report Championed by Portless

This report was produced in collaboration with Portless, who supported the initiative to make the research freely available to the ecommerce community. Portless did not influence, review, or edit any of the report’s data or findings before publication. The research and its conclusions are independent and we’ve kept them that way on purpose.

About 2 Visions

2 Visions is an award-winning consulting and market research firm that helps direct-to-consumer ecommerce brands grow by building their in-house capability. Yates Jarvis founded the firm after work with TGW, Ancient Nutrition, Kay, DIFF Eyewear, Jeep and Spanx. We work side by side with client teams so they can run the work themselves afterwards.

This study joins our other market research reports, each focused on a different consumer category.

Our consulting work runs directly with senior leadership and the people doing the work, aimed at the few opportunities that carry the most growth. On the research side we run granular studies like this one, which clients use to sharpen personalization, targeting and customer journeys against what their own buyers actually say.

About Portless

Portless is a next-generation 3PL that helps ecommerce brands save time and money by fulfilling customer orders directly from China in six days while providing a total domestic experience.

Clothing Ecommerce Market Research: Where 2,411 US Shoppers Actually Buy