-hand market is still expanding rapidly. A recent ThredUp article suggests it could reach US$393 billion by 2030 and represent about 10 per cent of total apparel spend. So resale is growing, but so is the need for better commercial models that enable it, and which keep products in circulation for longer.  The growth of resale, or ‘re-commerce’, is both values-led and economic. A 2024 study cited by the Australian Fashion Council found 45 per cent of Australians surveyed had increased their purchase of pre-loved fashion over the prior two years, driven mainly by the desire to save money, find unique pieces, and express personal style. Separate national reuse data shows Australians saved $2 billion through reuse in the latest year measured.  In other words, resale is no longer simply an ESG or waste-reduction story. In a cost-of-living market, it is a value story, a style story, and, increasingly, a channel strategy story.  The key question for brands is not whether consumers will buy second-hand items. They already are. The more commercial question is: to what extent do brands want a role in the ‘second life’ of their own products? Or are they happy to leave resale revenue, data and brand presentation to the likes of Ebay, Depop, Vestiaire, consignment players, opportunistic resellers, op-shops such as Vinnies, and their ilk? So which categories are most suited to brand-controlled resale? Broadly, categories that hold their value in consumers’ minds: pieces that are durable, recognisable, relatively easy to authenticate, and still desirable beyond the first owner. BCG and Vestiaire Collective note that leather goods, clothing and shoes account for roughly 80 per cent of the resale fashion and luxury market, while handbags are especially prominent in resale wardrobes. This indicates a fairly clear resale shortlist: premium denim, outerwear, handbags, quality footwear, ‘occasion’ wear, and higher-end fashion or performance pieces with residual value.  Here are some examples. Levi’s trade-in program is tightly focused on denim bottoms, shorts and jackets, with pricing varying by age, condition and original retail price. Patagonia’s Worn Wear program leans into outerwear, fleece, bags and other gear categories where durability is already part of the brand promise; it estimates most trade-ins sell at about 20 per cent of original RRP. The Iconic’s earlier AirRobe partnership highlighted dresses, handbags and shoes as the kinds of items customers may consciously buy with future resale in mind. These are all categories where ‘quality holds up well’ is part of the product story.  So what’s less likely to work for resale? Low-ticket basics, hygiene-sensitive items, fragile fashion pieces and highly trend-driven products can all be difficult to make pay. Patagonia excludes categories such as underwear, bras, socks and many activewear basics from trade-in; Levi’s excludes accessories and kids’ wear from its current trade-in program. If the resale value is too low, or the costs of cleaning, grading, photography, repair and fulfilment are too high relative to that value, the unit economics quickly become ugly. For some fast-fashion brands such as H&M, or brands whose equity rests on novelty rather than longevity, it may be smarter to support resale indirectly rather than run it themselves. It goes without saying that low-quality items found on some marketplaces (hello, Temu and Shein) would never last long enough to make it to resale. The upside for brands and products that do fit the resale model is significant. First, there is control – over authenticity, condition standards, merchandising, customer experience, and pricing architecture. Second, there is data: which products hold value, which colours and categories recirculate best, and which customers behave like future traders rather than one-and-done buyers. Third, there is acquisition and customer recruitment. BCG found that for 66 per cent of surveyed second-hand shoppers, resale enabled them to discover or buy a brand for the first time. That makes resale not just a retention play, but an acquisition channel.  There is also a brand-equity benefit when resale is done properly. Trove argues that the strongest programs do not position re-commerce as a ‘dusty side room’ of the business, but as a seamless extension of the brand. Its partners found that 30 per cent to 50 per cent of resale storefront traffic originated from promotion on the mainline site. AirRobe, which works with a broad network of Australian and international brands, positions its offer similarly: not simply as sustainability, but as a way to lift average basket, repeat purchase and loyalty. If resale is invisible, it will stay marginal. For those for whom resale fits, it needs to be promoted actively. Channel choice thus becomes critical. BCG says more than half of second-hand purchases in its survey still happen on online multibrand resale platforms. That suggests most brands should not start with an expensive, fully owned ecosystem. A smarter approach might be phasing in a system. Phase one could be a marketplace or technology partnership that lets the brand learn fast with limited operational risk. In Australia, that could look like a post-purchase plug-in model such as AirRobe, or a curated retailer-hosted proposition such as The Iconic’s Re-Iconic, which combines pre-loved, repaired and rescued items within its broader shopping environment.  Only once the supply, sell-through and margin pictures are clear should brands consider pulling resale deeper into their owned channels. That might mean trade-in through stores, a branded pre-owned tab on the e-commerce site, or pre-owned options shown alongside new product on product pages. Trove states that some partner programs can be launched in as little as four to eight weeks, but launching is not the same as proving a model. In practice, brands should treat the first few months as an operational pilot and allow at least one full season to judge supply flow, customer uptake, trade-in rates, resale velocity and whether the program is driving incremental demand or merely shifting existing shoppers to lower-priced inventory.  Pricing requires just as much discipline. It’s a mistake to think of branded resale as permanent markdown. A structured value ladder works better. Trade-in credits should reflect product age, condition, original RRP and desirability, rather than a flat percentage, although Patagonia’s rough 20 per cent-of-RRP estimate and Levi’s age-and-condition-based bands provide some benchmarks. The second layer is resale ticket pricing, which should protect the mainstream business while still giving the shopper a meaningful value exchange. One practical role for pre-owned products is to fill stock gaps, offer lower price points for aspirational customers, or surface discontinued and one-off pieces that add discovery without cannibalising core full-price lines.  The pitfalls, however, are real. Reverse logistics are messy. Authentication is labour-intensive. Cleaning and repairs can swallow margin, and resale profitability is far from automatic. ThredUp improved materially in 2025 but still reported a full-year loss from continuing operations of US$20.2 million. In contrast, Vinted reported a 2024 net profit of €76.7 million. It is not necessarily that one model is right and the other is wrong. It is that scale, operating model and logistics discipline are crucial. Brand-run resale is not free money sitting on the floor.  There is also a strategic credibility trap. Resale should not become a convenient sustainability headline while the rest of the model remains fundamentally linear. The Seamless clothing stewardship scheme has been explicit that Australia still needs systemic change, not just isolated initiatives. Depop’s research is encouraging in that 93 per cent of Australian purchases surveyed on its platform displaced a brand-new purchase elsewhere, but that is only part of the picture. The stronger brand response is a joined-up one: design for durability, enable repair, make resale simple, and improve product data. BCG argues digital product passports could become especially important here by giving future buyers and sellers better information on authenticity, condition, repairs and ownership history.  The best way to think about direct resale or re-commerce is probably not as a sustainability bolt-on, nor as a side hustle in search of a margin line. It is a portfolio decision about where a brand wants to play across a product’s life cycle. For the right categories and the right brands, there is a case to own more of that journey. For others, the smarter move may be to partner, learn and stay selective. Either way, resale has moved beyond trend status. It is becoming part of how fashion value is created, protected and recaptured. The brands that win will be the ones that treat it accordingly.