Converged.AI × BrandInsightAI
BrandInsightAI Insights
Retail · refreshed weekly

How AI wants fashion & clothing

Fashion & Clothing is decided on affinity: John Lewis indexes 121 there against Boohoo at 77, a 44-point spread. Attachment separates almost nobody (15 points across the whole category), so being described that way is table stakes here rather than an advantage. John Lewis holds the strongest overall profile at 115 — complete desire. Across these 7 brands, attraction tracks being named most closely (rank correlation 0.71).

7 brands · 60 AI answers · 88 dimension scores · measured, never estimated

Attraction Standing out in the answer: named first, described as superior, magnetic and influential.
Affinity Belonging in the answer: tied to identity, values and legitimacy, not just specifications.
Attachment Staying in the answer: recommended again, dependable, easy, part of the routine.
AttractionAffinityAttachment Each whorl lights one ring per index threshold cleared (90 / 96 / 102 / 108 / 115)
Retail

Fashion & Clothing

#Brand AttractionAffinityAttachment Desire shapeNamed in
1 John Lewis: Attraction 123, Affinity 121, Attachment 108John Lewis 123 121 108 Complete desire 15%
2 Marks Spencer: Attraction 111, Affinity 112, Attachment 101Marks & Spencer 111 112 101 Quietly trusted 27%
3 Next: Attraction 102, Affinity 98, Attachment 104Next 102 98 104 Habit, not love 28%
4 ASOS: Attraction 100, Affinity 98, Attachment 104ASOS 100 98 104 Habit, not love 10%
5 HM: Attraction 95, Affinity 98, Attachment 96H&M 95 98 96 Loved, not chosen 12%
6 Primark: Attraction 87, Affinity 98, Attachment 93Primark 87 98 93 Loved, not chosen 13%
7 Boohoo: Attraction 83, Affinity 77, Attachment 94Boohoo 83 77 94 Fading 3%

Indexed against the fashion & clothing average of 7 brands (100 = the category), measured across 60 AI answers in the latest weekly run.

Driver by driver

Where the category actually separates. A wide spread means assistants describe these brands very differently on that driver; a narrow one means it is table stakes.

Affinity

44-point spread · tracks being named 0.63
John Lewis121
Boohoo77

The widest field of the three: this is where the category separates.

Attraction

40-point spread · tracks being named 0.71
John Lewis123
Boohoo83

Real separation, but not the category’s defining contest.

Attachment

15-point spread · tracks being named 0.41
John Lewis108
Primark93

The tightest of the three: most brands land close together here.

The shapes AI leaves these brands in

Three indices make a profile, and profiles fall into recognisable shapes. A brand that is magnetic but unbought has a different problem from a habit nobody loves — and a different thing to build next.

John Lewis: Attraction 123, Affinity 121, Attachment 108
Complete desire
Wanted, belonged-to and repurchased — the rare full spiral.
John Lewis
Nothing obviously missing.
Next: Attraction 102, Affinity 98, Attachment 104
Habit, not love
Recommended for reliability and ease; nobody calls it exciting.
Next · ASOS
Build next: attraction
Marks Spencer: Attraction 111, Affinity 112, Attachment 101
Quietly trusted
Legitimacy carries it; it is rarely named first.
Marks & Spencer
Build next: attraction
HM: Attraction 95, Affinity 98, Attachment 96
Loved, not chosen
Identity and values without superiority or habit.
H&M · Primark
Build next: attachment
Boohoo: Attraction 83, Affinity 77, Attachment 94
Fading
Below the benchmark everywhere; the answer has moved on.
Boohoo
Build next: attraction

What assistants actually talk about

The sixteen dimensions underneath the drivers, scored 0–10 on how the answers describe each brand. Spread is the distance between the strongest and weakest brand: the widest are where a brand can still separate itself, the narrowest are the price of entry.

Where brands separate

DimensionDriverCategory avgStrongestSpread
Quality & Performance Attraction 6.8 John Lewis 9.0 4.0
Trust & Credibility Affinity 7.4 John Lewis 9.0 4.0
Differentiation vs Sameness Attraction 6.6 John Lewis 8.0 3.0
Reliability & Consistency Attachment 7.5 John Lewis 9.0 3.0
Boldness & Creativity Attraction 6.0 ASOS 7.0 2.0

Where everyone reads alike

DimensionDriverCategory avgStrongestSpread
Range & Availability Attachment 8.1 ASOS 9.0 1.3
Heritage & Authority Affinity 8.2 John Lewis 9.0 2.0
Value & Pricing Attachment 7.6 Primark 9.0 2.0
Style & Aesthetic Attraction 6.7 John Lewis 8.0 2.0
Customer Service & Support Attachment 6.8 John Lewis 8.0 2.0

Does desire track being recommended?

Rank correlation between a brand's driver index and the share of answers naming it, across the 7 indexed brands in this category. A relationship inside one run's answers — descriptive, never causal, and easily moved by a single brand at this sample size.

Attraction0.71
Affinity0.63
Attachment0.41

Method & limitations

Every week, each category runs a fixed set of unbranded consumer prompts against ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. A separate model reads the answers and scores every brand named in them across 16 perception dimensions, 0–10. Those dimensions are grouped into the three Drivers of Desire from the Havas Science of Desire framework, and each brand's driver score is indexed against the average of every scored brand in its category — 100 is the category, 115 is fifteen per cent above it.

This measures how AI assistants describe brands in their answers. It is not a survey of people, and it is not an endorsement: the scores are a reading of machine-generated text at the time of the run, and relationships between drivers and how often a brand is named are correlational. A brand needs at least six scored dimensions in a run to be indexed, and a category needs at least four such brands to get a board. See the full methodology.