The Death of the Trend Cycle

Trends used to move in seasons. Then they moved in weeks. Now they move in hours, and most people have quietly stopped keeping up.

This is not a cultural accident. It is the predictable output of systems designed to maximise purchase frequency. Shein and Temu built algorithm-optimised business models that treat engagement and transaction as the same thing. Apple moved to two iPhone launch announcements per year since 2020. Social media decentralised taste-making and then commodified it, turning subcultures into content and content into product drops.

The result is trend accelerationism: a state where novelty is produced faster than it can be absorbed, and where the pressure to keep up is more anxiety-inducing than aspirational.

Around 80 billion new clothing pieces are consumed globally each year, 400% more than two decades ago. BackMarket’s 2025 Back to School study found that 88% of children pressure their parents to buy the latest tech. A quarter of back-to-school shopping lists include new iPhones, laptops or iPads.

When Speed Becomes the Problem

The logic of trend accelerationism assumes that faster cycles drive more revenue. For a period, that was true. But it has created two problems that now undermine the model.

The first is product fatigue. Highsnobiety put it plainly in their 2025 Guide to Good Product Storytelling: “Many brands and designers have found a tremendous amount of success over the last few years without making good clothes. We are bored of the luxury hype cycle, and craving good clothes.” The same dynamic applies beyond fashion. Consumers are increasingly suspicious of products that exist primarily to signal currency rather than deliver lasting value.

The second is design sameification. When every brand is optimising for the same algorithmic engagement, differentiation collapses. Products begin to look, feel and communicate identically. The consumer who once found novelty in the new release finds instead a familiar disappointment.

The Counter-Signal

The response is already visible in consumer behaviour, even if it is not yet mainstream.

Sales of basic or “dumb” phones are up 13% year-on-year in the UK, with the retro Nokia 2660 and Nokia 105 up 50% and 49% respectively. Rob Maule, consumer expert at Currys, attributes this to a desire for devices that feel purposeful rather than all-encompassing. People are buying Y2K cameras, vintage audio equipment, and analogue devices that offer tactility and character rather than seamless integration.

As The Future Laboratory’s Ella Murray noted in Tangible Tech, 2025: “We’re seeing a growing rejection to the seamlessness of modern do-it-all devices. This is evoking a renewed desire for technologies that feel nostalgic, playful, and functional.”

The Nothing Phone has built a following by making its components visible, turning transparency into a design statement. It signals a shift toward tech as something you choose for how it feels, not how often it updates.

This is not nostalgia for its own sake. It is a rejection of the implicit deal that rapid upgrade cycles require: constant outlay, constant obsolescence, constant pressure to own the current version.

The European Environment Agency estimated in 2024 that 35 million tonnes of waste are produced in the EU each year from premature disposal of consumer goods, including tech products. That is the material cost of a culture built on frequency.

What Brands Should Take From This

The trend cycle will not disappear. But its grip is loosening, and the brands that bet everything on frequency are increasingly exposed.

The more durable opportunity is in products that reward ownership over time. Things that get better with use, that develop character, that hold meaning beyond their release window. Products that sit in what Highsnobiety describes as “sets, outfits, racks and shelves that feel intentional and complete.”

Speed was never the point. It was a business model dressed up as culture. The brands that understood this earliest are the ones now building the most loyal audiences. The evidence behind that shift is laid out in the Fellow Futures report ‘What Happens When People Buy Less?’.

—

Next: The New Consumer Economy maps the four macro forces reshaping what people expect from the brands they choose.