You Bought a Better Search Engine.
Your Data Is Still the Problem
Most fashion retailers are solving the wrong problem. Here’s how to check if yours is too.
Fashion retailers have been spending seriously on search for the past three years. Better engines. Semantic models. AI-powered ranking. The budgets are real and the vendors are credible.
And yet: zero-result searches are still running at 60% across the industry. Shoppers are still abandoning. Conversion from search is still underperforming.
Here is the uncomfortable truth that most search vendors will not tell you:
The search engine is not the problem. It never was.
The problem is what you are feeding it.
A sophisticated AI model pointed at weak product data will return sophisticated-sounding irrelevant results. The engine amplifies what it receives. If what it receives is incomplete, inconsistent, and context-free — the results will be too, regardless of how much you paid for the technology on top.
The Misdiagnosis That Is Costing Fashion Retailers Revenue
When search fails, the reflex is to blame the search layer. Tune the ranking algorithm. Adjust the synonym dictionary. Add more filters. The merchandising team spends another quarter manually compensating for a system that was supposed to automate their work.
None of that fixes the actual problem.
After working across hundreds of fashion catalogs, we kept seeing the same pattern: retailers treating search as a technology problem when it is fundamentally a data problem. The gap is not between what their search engine can do and what they need it to do. The gap is between how their catalogs describe products and how their shoppers think about them.
A shopper searching for an “old money style blazer” is not using keywords that appear anywhere in a standard product record.
The product exists. The intent is real. The data connecting them does not.
What Fashion Data Is Actually Missing
Most fashion catalogs are built around vendor-supplied attributes: category, color, material, size. This data is accurate in a narrow sense — it describes what the product physically is. But it says almost nothing about what the product means to a shopper.
The context that drives modern fashion search is almost entirely absent from standard catalog data:fashion search systems still rely on:
- Ocassion Signals – workwear, date night, vacation, wedding guest. Shoppers search by context, not by category.
- Trend language – quiet luxury, cottagecore, Y2K, clean girl. These are not marketing tags. They are the actual vocabulary shoppers use.
- Mood and aesthetic – minimal, romantic, edgy, effortless. Vague-sounding, but they carry precise intent.
- Silhouette and fit nuance – not just ‘oversized’ as a size descriptor, but oversized as a deliberate style statement.
- Relational attributes – what this product works with, what occasion it fits, what aesthetic family it belongs to.
Generic AI cannot fill these gaps reliably because it was not trained on fashion catalogs. It was trained on internet images. It knows what a dress looks like. It does not know that the same dress reads as ‘resort wear’ in one context and ‘garden party’ in another — and that both terms are searchable by shoppers right now.
Why the Cleaning-and-Fixing Approach Does Not Scale
Some retailers know their data is weak and try to fix it manually — through merchandising teams, offshore annotation vendors, or ad hoc tagging projects. This approach has a ceiling.
Fashion catalogs are not static. New SKUs arrive constantly. Trends shift. Seasonal palettes replace each other. The language shoppers use to describe a product evolves faster than any manual team can track it.
You cannot manually maintain the intelligence your catalog needs. The volume is too high, the pace is too fast, and the nuance is too specific to survive a spreadsheet.
The retailers who solve this at scale are not the ones with bigger tagging teams. They are the ones who have built intelligence infrastructure — systems that understand fashion context, maintain it automatically, and flag uncertainty rather than guessing through it.
The Confidence Problem Nobody Talks About
Here is something the vendor landscape rarely discusses: AI gets things wrong, and the damage from silent errors in a fashion catalog is significant.
A tag applied with low confidence — but shipped without review — corrupts search results quietly. Shoppers get irrelevant results. Filters stop working. The merchandising team tunes rules to compensate, never knowing the root cause is a product record that was incorrectly tagged six months ago.
The systems that actually work at enterprise scale do not just classify. They express confidence. High-certainty outputs ship automatically. Uncertain outputs route to human review before they reach the catalog. The difference between a system that hides uncertainty and one that surfaces it is the difference between a catalog you can trust and one you have to clean constantly.
What This Means for Leaders Making Search Investments
If you are evaluating search technology, or wondering why your current investment is underdelivering, the diagnostic question is not ‘is our search engine good enough?’ It is: ‘does our product data reflect how our shoppers think?’
Run this test on your own catalog. Take ten products. Search for them the way a shopper would — using occasion, aesthetic, trend language, mood. Count how many of those queries return the right result. That gap is your real problem.
A better search engine will not close it.
The investment that will actually move your metrics is upstream: structured, fashion-native product intelligence that gives your search engine something it can actually work with.
The Bottom Line
Your shoppers are not searching differently because they changed. They are searching this way because it is how humans think about fashion.
The question is whether your catalog is built to meet them there.
AI-powered catalog enrichment with expert oversight—delivering shopper-ready data that feeds search and SEO.
Product
Trust
Company
© 2026 Perspiq. All rights reserved.