Seasonal Buying: Why EMA Brands Need to Change with the Times

September 28, 2026

For many years, fashion has run on a calendar of seasons. Spring/Summer. Autumn/Winter. Drop. Repeat. It’s a rhythm that’s traditionally given brands a solid framework to plan ahead for, shaping everything from design briefs and buying cycles to warehouse planning and markdown schedules.

That model’s not disappearing per se – product and seasonal freshness will always be a key part of buying, planning and the customer shopping experience – but it is changing in line with the latest consumer behaviour.

According to the BoF-McKinsey State of Fashion 2026 report, fashion customers are becoming less responsive to the short-lived trend cycle and microtrends are losing their grip. The report also suggests that heightened macroeconomic volatility is driving more value-conscious behaviour, particularly in the US, where consumers are becoming more selective about where they spend discretionary income.

For EMEA fashion brands entering the US, who are already grappling with sizable regional differences, these changes in consumer behaviour make it even harder to predict which products will command demand when planning inventory, which for many is still done some 6–9 months in advance.

The problem with planning too far ahead

One of the biggest mistakes we see EMEA brands make when attempting to crack America is assuming that what works at home will translate directly to the US. This mentality causes issues across the board, but particularly so when it comes to planning. For example, different

US retail stores and channels are more fashion-forward than others. Often, EMEA brands are early to trends and US customers might adopt a season or two later.

It’s important to stress, though, that this does not mean abandoning seasonal buying. Brands need to be mindful of the seasonality of the US customer, balancing the ‘buy now, wear now’ mentality with an understanding of US fashion retail calendars. But they must also be more deliberate about what they commit to upfront and what they leave room to learn. If not, issues with unsold stock at the end of a season and tying up working capital are only inevitable. Brands in this position may then have to discount stock, move it between channels or accept a return, while simultaneously missing opportunities to invest more heavily in the products customers are actually buying.

Start wide, then let the data decide

The good news here is that brands don’t have to get everything right from day one. In fact, I would argue that expecting a new US operation to perfectly predict demand in its first season is the wrong objective. The objective instead should be to learn quickly and make the next decision with better information – and this is where good data comes in.

With this in mind, brands should be mindful of sell-through benchmarks and react early to immediate selling or to slow-selling merchandise. Many retailers are open to product swaps or returns to vendors to get back into more successful merchandise, and often a minor price reduction or promotion can also stimulate slower-selling merchandise.

Brands should also look to establish ‘core’ or ‘evergreen’ programmes around known best sellers, as these can stimulate full-price sales and deliver more predictable sales curves.

One approach we regularly recommend is starting with a wide and shallow assortment. That might mean 50–100 product options, but with relatively little quantity behind them. The point is not to make a small bet on one product, but to give the market enough choice to reveal what it wants without committing too much capital before that evidence exists. Then, we let the data drive subsequent orders. Quickly, the customer will reveal their preferences by size, colour, classification, category, price point, fabrication and more. Secondary orders can then be deeper into strong sellers and shallower into weaker categories. If managed correctly, and with an operational partner that can also move quickly, this is a great way to minimise risk for brands.

This is a very different way of thinking about the seasonal buy. The season still matters. The initial assortment still matters. But the first order does not have to carry the entire burden of predicting demand.

Balance core with fashion

The other change I would encourage brands to make is thinking carefully about the balance between core and fashion.

Strong, successful businesses in womenswear and footwear often have 30–40% of a core assortment in best-selling bodies or styles, and then inject fashion and newness into that assortment. That balance gives brands a foundation of products with a proven sales history while still giving customers the freshness they expect from fashion.

Getting these ratios right can take a season or two. If brands aren’t perfect in their first season, they should not get discouraged. It can sometimes take time for brands to find their footing and resonate in new markets. The important thing is to make sure each season gives you better information for the next one.

For EMEA brands entering the US, that means understanding the differences in how and when customers shop, protecting working capital with a more balanced assortment and having the data and operational flexibility to respond once real demand becomes visible.

The brands that do this well will still plan for the season, but will simply be much better prepared to change the plan when the customer tells them to.