P. 1


|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by vajoansa

More info:

Published by: vajoansa on Jul 18, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.



A profile of Koreans: who purchases fashion goods online?
Heewon Sung
Department of Clothing and Textile, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju City, South Korea, and

A profile of Koreans

Received July 2007 Revised January 2008 Accepted May 2008

Yangjin Jeon
Department of Fashion Design, Myongji University, Yongin City, South Korea
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to classify internet users by fashion lifestyles, to profile the demographic and internet usage characteristics of each segment, and to examine evaluation for fashion e-retailers’ attributes. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 1,211 internet users who have visited an online fashion mall at least once participated in a web survey. Lifestyles were analyzed by factor analysis, generating five factors. Five segments were obtained by k-mean cluster analysis. Descriptive analysis, ANOVA, chi-square tests, and radar charts were employed. Findings – Internet users were classified into Economical Shopper, Recreational Shopper, Fashion/brand Shopper, Fashion Follower, and Individualistic Shopper. Each segment presented different characteristics in demographics and internet usages. In addition, segments evaluated e-retailers’ attributes differently. Fashion/brand Shopper presented the highest levels of overall satisfaction and intention to purchase fashion goods online, while Fashion Follower showed the opposite. Research limitations/implications – A profile of each segment explained who they are and why they buy or shop for fashion goods online. Evaluation for e-retailers’ attributes indicated how online marketers responded to potential buyers’ needs and values. Originality/value – The paper offers valuable recommendations to apparel e-retailers based on characteristics of each segment. Keywords Market segmentation, Lifestyles, Internet shopping, Electronic commerce, Fashion, South Korea Paper type Research paper

Introduction Now internet is ubiquitous and has become a major marketing channel to expand business opportunities. Online market has shown its rapid growth all over the world. In the US online market, 132 million people spent more than $130.3 billion in 2006 and annual spending per buyer had increased from $457 in 2001 to $784 in 2006 (Machrotech, 2007). Korean e-retailing sales volume in 2006 was more than 13.4 trillion won (approximately $14 billion), increased by 26.1 percent from the previous year, and clothing/fashion related products took the largest part of merchandise (Korean National Statistical Office, 2007). The number of e-retailers selling clothing/fashion related products was increased to 49.8 percent of those in 2005. E-commerce market size of People’s Republic of China reached 1.1 trillion yuan in 2006 (approximately 15.2

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management Vol. 13 No. 1, 2009 pp. 79-97 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1361-2026 DOI 10.1108/13612020910939897

2007). while demographic variables focus on who buy products. 51. 2001). which was almost 48. we identified differences among segments in terms of online shopping mall attributes. as well as demographic variables” (Blackwell et al. Literature review Lifestyles Lifestyles are defined as “patterns in which people live and spend time and money. Psychographic variables help to construe why they buy.1 80 billion). and opinions. and Korea (33million) were ranked in order. marketers are trying to identify relatively homogeneous groups with similar product desires or interests. The internet users generally possess high propensity to become the first-time buyer at online shopping mall. whereas the internet usage rate of Korea (68. 8. Hence. The purpose of this study was to identify a lifestyle typology relevant for predicting individual differences in evaluation for online fashion mall attributes.35 percent) was highest (Japan. marketers have relied on psychological variables of consumers rather than physical attributes of products. communication message. 2002). the internet usage rate of Korea reached 75. reflecting a person’s activities.44 percent. Psychographic variables such as lifestyle provide more underlying reason of consumer behavior while demographics provide physical attributes of consumers that are easily observable to identify homogeneous groups. interests..JFMM 13. China. we classified online users based on fashion lifestyles. Understanding consumers’ lifestyles would help marketers to communicate properly with their target audience and develop marketing strategies effectively. India (60million). . it would be appropriate to examine Korean consumers as a representative e-retailing market in Asia. Investigating fashion lifestyles of Koreans will provide information about shopping orientation of Asians who are very refined in fashion tastes.5 percent in 2007. 2007). China (111 million). Customers in one market – online market – may be too heterogeneous in their needs and values. Finally. and then profiled different fashion lifestyle segments with regard to demographics and internet usage trends. lifestyle has been suggested as one of the most fundamental factors (Vyncke. The findings of this study would offer guidelines for fashion e-retailers to improve market segmentations and corresponding strategies. or promotion strategy. 2001. India 5. Within a number of segmentation variables. p. so marketers must keep track contemporary lifestyle trends of targets and reflect in product development. Lifestyles change more rapidly than value (Blackwell et al. Koreans are fastidious and sensitive in styles and fashions. Japan (66milllion).44 percent) (National Internet Development of Agency of Korea. 219). This study examined Korean online users to provide e-market segments for fashion products by fashion lifestyles. In comparing the number of internet users in Asia countries in 2005. In order to accomplish this goal. 2008). According to the same source.6 percent increased in 2005 (National Internet Development of Agency of Korea. first.54 percent.. As Korea is considered as a testing market for new products from a global marketing perspective (Park. Since physical product attributes have become more comparable due to technology development while consumers are much more complicated than before. As Korea is one of the leading countries with well-developed infrastructure of the internet use and about three-quarters of population have used the internet.

. 2005. Performance of online shopping mall services is especially important to transform first-time buyers into loyal customers.. fashion lifestyle would be a useful factor for market segmentation to understand changes in consumers’ values and to interpret consumers’ buying behaviors. 2001). 1980. The first section included 21 items modified from previous studies (Park et al. product assortment. Consumers choose a specific product when consumer characteristics and store characteristics correspond in specific purchase situation (Blackwell et al.. 2005. order tracking. Fashion lifestyles consist of fashion orientation (fashion consciousness. Park et al. an individual’s interests or shopping activities regarding fashion-related items would lead to different buying process. customer support. 2003. Consumers’ response to the internet shopping mall would vary according to product categories. Park and Kang. and on-time delivery service (Cao et al. including 45 items.. Literatures indicated that lifestyle segments differed in evaluation or selection on retail attributes. easy of ordering. he or she visits more often to the shopping mall and buys more products. utilitarian/hedonic orientation. web site layout and image. 2004).. Gutman and Mills (1982) profiled consumers by employing fashion lifestyle scales. shipping and handling. Shim and Kotsiopulos. Although demographic characteristics are identical. 2005). Online store’s attributes generally consist of product information/description. 2005). and impulsive/planned orientation) (Kim and Lee. 2005).. 2002. In the second section. Then. 1993). They used four fashion lifestyle factors and classified consumers into seven segments. speed of loading. Methodology Instrument and data collection The instrument consisted of three sections. Shim and Kotsiopulos. consumers’ different characteristics and past experiences would lead to different evaluation of store attributes. 2004. Shopping orientations or shopping specific lifestyles were also useful for market segmentation (Bellenger and Korgaonkar. and opinions about specific products (Ahn et al.. Consumers who have positive attitudes toward online service attributes are more likely to present high level of customer satisfaction. Park et al.Lifestyle is subdivided into product-related lifestyle which is a person’s activities. so we measured fashion lifestyles to focus on fashion products online. An individual selects the best products which meet his or her needs based on personal characteristics such as lifestyles. 1993). 13 items were adapted from A profile of Koreans 81 . fashion leadership) and clothing shopping orientation (brand/retailer loyalty. 2005). Online shopping mall attributes Whether to succeed or fail to e-shopping mall depends on online service quality in addition to merchandise assortment and prices. Moy and Kincade. Jiang and Rosenbloom (2005) reported that ‘at checkout customer satisfaction’ and ‘after delivery customer satisfaction’ increased the level of customer intention to return to e-shopping malls. Thus. Jiang and Rosenbloom. interests. If the first-time buyer satisfies his/her purchase experience. A number of studies employed fashion lifestyles as market segmentation for Korean consumers and compared differences in store selection criteria or intention to purchase fashion products on e-shopping mall (Park et al. 2004. Online retailers include store attributes as like brick-and-mortar retailers do. leading to high purchase intentions (Jiang and Rosenbloom.

under wear. Results Results on fashion lifestyle factors Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to identify the underlying dimensions of fashion lifestyle scale. and purchase intention indicated customer’s likelihood of buying from e-retailers. The average number of items purchased during six months was 7. which was a tendency to enjoy shopping itself regardless of any plan to buy.211 useful data were obtained. one item for general satisfaction and one for intention to purchase at online fashion malls were included in this section. and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were listed in Table I. and shoes. 2006. All of respondents had visited the online fashion mall at least one time. Five factors were generated. Web survey was conducted by the internet research institute during two weeks of January. Overall satisfaction was defined as customer’s overall evaluation of general online service quality.71. which was the inclination to consider values for the money. 43. Factor 3. 2005. cosmetics/perfumes.JFMM 13. Factor 4. About 34.7 percent were between 25-34 years. Factor 1 was the inclination to be aware of latest fashion trends. The factor loadings. and annual income per household). The data were collected from the internet users through the web survey. sports wear. That was. and approximately 70 percent of them had experienced to buy fashion items. occupation. respondents were asked to write the number of items in each category of casual wear. Factor 2 was labeled as “shopping enjoyment”. gender. and 21. accessories (ornaments). . bags/purses. followed by cosmetics/perfume. means (SD). and purchasing experience of fashion e-retailers.5 percent of the total variance. Respondents used the internet about 3 hours per day. Final sample The total of 1. labeled as “brand consciousness” represented the confidence and quality in connection with well-known brands. The sample was directed to a web site by clicking on the URL to the survey. 2005). the number of visiting fashion e-retailers per month).000-49. respondents in general seemed to emphasize personal tastes and economical aspects of fashion products. Over 52 percent of the samples were female. Also. Factor 5 was named as “economical orientation”. total number of connecting internet per day. shoes. labeled as “personality pursuit” was a tendency to value personal tastes above anything else. The last section included demographic information (age. The mean of “personality pursuit” factor items or “economical orientation” factor items was generally higher than the mean of the other three factors. Also. About 53 percent reported that total annual household incomes were in the $20. internet usages (total hours to use the internet a day.999. explaining 59. Park and Kang.8 percent were between the ages of 15-24 years.1 82 evaluation measurement scale for online fashion mall attributes (Jiang and Rosenbloom. and other accessories where they purchased during six months.6percent were between 35-39 years. labeled as “fashion consciousness”. formal wear. Each item was measured using five-point Likert-type scales ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). The most frequently purchased items were casual wears.

91 0.98 Personality pursuit (0.714 0.61 3.53 3.820 0.83 0.73 3.89 0.784 0.79) Shopping enjoyment (0.36 3.765 0.87 0.392 16.390 0.36 3.658 2.09 3.808 0.86 Eigen value % of variance Fashion consciousness (0.850 2.74 2.237 10.710 0.05 3.65 0.90 0.62) Economical orientation (0.464 11.590 0.605 2.89 0.73) Brand consciousness (0.517 0.68) Many people regard me as being a fashion leader I am the first to try new fashion I am confident in my ability to recognize fashion trends I consume a time to coordinate color or style of my garments I buy styles which I see on TV or the internet I like to shop for fashion products even though I have no intention to buy I am pleased to shop It is my pleasure to buy fashion products I make my shopping trip fast I often go shopping even though I do not need anything I usually shop with others I can trust in well-known brands A well-known brand means good quality I purchase well-known brand products although they are expensive Clothes are one of the most important ways to express my individuality It is important to be well-dressed I buy clothes I like.79 0.81 0.23 3.119 10.89 0.466 0.25 3.92 3.20 3.73 0.90 0.75 2.87 0.628 0.67 2.69 3.499 0.79 0.81 A profile of Koreans 83 Table I. regardless of current fashion I try to choose clothes that are new and unique I buy clothes when they are in sales I buy clothes by comparing prices in different stores I consider value for money 0.99 0.720 0.615 2 0.99 2.15 2.275 10.89 0.884 0.690 0.80 0.17 3.70 Items Factor loading Mean SD 0.77 0.559 0.91 0.59 3. Factor analysis and mean scores of fashion lifestyles .99 2.707 0.80) 0.41 3.90 0.83 2.17 2.Factor title (Cronbach’s a) 0.

3 percent for Fashion Follower. Significant differences between clusters are noted.999 (30 percent) was higher than the total proportion (24. More than 50 percent were male. In addition. but lowest in personality and economical orientation. naming as “Fashion Follower”. so it was called “Economical Shopper”. Classification analysis of the 1. the mean of visiting fashion e-retailers was lowest. but cared about personality and well-dressed appearance.000-2.. The last group (N ¼ 224) displayed the highest level of personality and brand consciousness. named as “Recreational Shopper”. Each segment was labeled based on fashion lifestyle factors which best described its characteristics. The classification results indicated 98 percent of original cases were correctly classified. Government related occupation showed higher proportion than the total counts. with the highest proportion (27 percent) in age between 30 and 34 years old. but did not care about practicality or fashion. naming as “Individualistic Shopper”. Economical shopper. and do not enjoy shopping at all. so called as “Fashion/Brand Shoppers”. The proportion of annual household income between $ 2.JFMM 13. This group enjoyed shopping for fashion products. but did not care about fashion or brand names.8 percent for Fashion/brand Shopper to 99. Chi-square analyses and ANOVA tests with Duncan tests were used to identify differences among five segments. considered values for money. brand consciousness and shopping enjoyment.7 percent). household annual income level. and about 74 percent were ranged in age from 25 to 39 years. five segments were significantly different in purchase experience in online fashion malls and in the number of items purchased on e-retailers. This cluster had neither desire for fashion leadership nor any interest in fashion. Significant differences were found in gender. but also considered well-known brands. occupation. Although this group spent much time to use the internet. About 75 percent of this group had experience to buy fashion items on e-retailers.1 84 Results on profiling market segments Factor scores from the five lifestyle factors were used to conduct cluster analysis to identify market segments. and total number of visiting fashion e-retailers. A classification matrix for five-group discriminant analysis was reported in Table III. Five clusters were obtained by the SPSS k-means clustering method. The first cluster (N ¼ 237) showed the second highest level of personality and economical perspectives. 2006). . Cluster 3 (N ¼ 249) showed the highest level of fashion and brand consciousness. Cluster 2 (N ¼ 215) showed the highest levels of shopping enjoyment and economical orientation. total hours to use the internet. but less cared about shopping enjoyment or economical orientation. Profile of demographic and internet usages characteristics Tables IV and V presented respondents’ demographics and internet usage characteristics. The results demonstrated that the discriminant functions were fairly accurate in predicting group membership.211 cases showed correct classification ranging from 96. which was appropriate for large data sets (Allred et al. Cluster 4 (N ¼ 286) showed the second highest levels of fashion. age. Table II showed differences between lifestyle clusters by analysis of variance with Duncan tests.

766 C A B C A 0. B.872 2 0.395 A C A B C 0.166 0.320 0.213 1. E ¼ significant mean differences by Duncan tests.894 0. Cluster means and differences by fashion lifestyle factors .052 0.001 A profile of Koreans 85 Table II.622 0.030 2 0.324 2 0.248 0. D.254 2 0.208 2 0.414 2 0.702 * * * 257.133 2 0.553 D D C B B 2 0.917 2 0.897 * * * 160. C.226 0.845 * * * 217.982 2 0.711 2 0.862 0. * * * p .709 * * * Fashion consciousness Shopping enjoyment Brand consciousness Personality pursuit Economical orientation Notes: A.357 * * * 148.707 0.Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Economical shopper Recreational shopper Fashion/brand shopper Fashion follower Individualistic shopper Fashion lifestyle factors n ¼ 237 n ¼ 215 n ¼ 249 n ¼ 286 n ¼ 225 2 0. 0.929 B B B D E 2 0.572 E B A A D F 202.

0 0 3 5 284 4 0.3 0.5 0.4 96.4 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.0 97. Classification matrix for five group discriminant analysis Number of cases Economical shopper n % Recreational shopper n % Predicted group membership Fashion/brand Fashion shopper follower n % n % 0.0 0.3 1.8 0.3 0.1 Actual group 237 215 249 286 224 233 1 0 1 1 98.0 0.8 0.8 .4 0.4 1 210 1 0 0 0.0 99.0 1 1 241 1 0 Economical shopper Shopping maven Fashion/brand shopper Fashion follower Individualistic shopper Table III.86 JFMM 13.4 2.0 1.4 97.8 Individualistic shopper n % 2 0 2 0 219 0.0 0.

8 31.4 6.9 38 56 73 69 50 13.3 117 66 68 26 4 5 141 145 398 299 345 106 30 33 844 367 69.0 27.4 11. technicians Enterprisers Professional and manager Housewives Others Annual income Less than $20.6 18.05.7 22.5 4.98 * * * Notes: Numbers indicate frequencies (percentage) or means.5 24.5 31.0 21.2 38.1 28.6 25.9 8.2 41 61 44 37 32 19.9 170 45 79.000 $20.6 2.4 12.3 136 101 57.6 175 111 61.7 30.1 18.1 7.8 21.7 89.1 21.9 201 48 74 58 54 16 5 8 34.6 30.4 27.3 5.2 9.000-29.9 8.0 21. Demographic and internet use characteristics by fashion lifestyle segments .7 19.7 83) 18 45 23 9 10 24 12 71 49 72 18 8 6 154 70 13.6 3.7 22.8 1.5 17.0 4.3 19.2 150. 0.5 8.6 4.0 25.5%) M % 578 633 157 264 263 266 261 423 108 253 101 61 65 151 49 8.7 40.5 22.999 $70.9 24 49 55 54 67 9.5 2.5 75.7 75 71 65 16 4 6 34.-related job Prof.1 10.999 More than $90.8 12.9 32.8 48.7 19.7 2.4 20.3 47.0 5.6 18 44 56 64 55 7.999 $30.9 23.1 24.0 26.6%) M % Cluster 5 Individualistic shopper (18.8 116 108 51.1 20.1 8.5 10.5 12.0 23.000-69.0 21.6 23 192 10.2 5.Total count (% within cluster) M % Tests Chi square (x2) Cluster 1 Economical shopper (19.0 8.2 14.4 42.2 8.0 70 19 63 21 13 9 29 13 95 11 40 10 1 10 42 6 44.9 24.7 26.4 37.9 5.1 1.4 2./Org.5 2.8 1.1 6.1 8.2 5.7 49.8 9.13 * * * 72.3 7. 0. * p .1 23.5 36 54 35 42 57 24.7 5.5 4.7 61 55 86 30 9 8 24.688 * Demographics Gender Male Female Age 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Occupation Students Service-related job Gov.7 68.3 128 121 51.4 31.63 * * * 47.0 3.2 99 40 52 29 18 15 28 5 34.1 34.6 23.6 19.8 76 20 53 18 20 21 28 13 30.001 A profile of Koreans 87 Table IV.6%) M % Cluster 4 Fashion follower (23.0 3. * * *.3 178 59 32.3 50.000-89.000-49.9 20.6 14.6 27.000 Internet usages Fashion e-mall experience Yes No 82.5 3.5 8.7 21.1 17.3 4.4 48.163 * * * 34.0 18.3 3.8 2.2 10.7 0.6 18.1 15.6 8.7 52. p .999 $50.4 1.2 80.8 25.7 28.3 5.7%) M % Cluster 3 Fashion/brand shopper (20.6%) M % Cluster 2 Recreational shopper (17.0 20.2 5.

05.79 10. B.001 Table V.15 * * 3.65 C 6.1 Internet usages Fashion e-mail experience Total hours per day 2. C ¼ significant mean differences by Duncan tests.07 A 6.03 A 6.20 AB 2.55 B 5.95 1.19 BC 6.10 AB 9.28 3. * *.34 C 15.30 Numbers of items purchased online 7.18 8.41 Numbers of connecting internet per day 6.79 BC 6.80 10.18 A 9.48 17. * p . 0.88 JFMM 13.71 11. 0.18 A 6.31 * .03 A Notes.22 Number of visiting fashion e-retailers per month 11.79 BC 8.29 8.30 C 3.23 3. A.16 * * 1. Demographic and internet use characteristics by fashion lifestyle segments Total M SD Cluster 1 Economical shopper Cluster 2 Recreational shopper Cluster 3 Fashion/brand shopper Cluster 4 Fashion follower Cluster 5 Individualistic shopper Tests ANOVA F 3. p .548 5.39 A 5.80 13.

This group had a relatively higher representation of $ 30. These characteristics were also consistent with the highest number of items purchased on e-retailers (M ¼ 9:39).5 percent respectively) within the group as well as between groups. About 31. Individualistic shopper. The lowest household incomes (less than $20. As Recreational Shopper enjoyed shopping and spent time for shopping most. Almost 50 percent was age ranged from 25 to 34 years old. A little over half of this segment did not purchase any fashion items on e-retailers. The third factor was named as “after service attributes”. contrary to Economical Shopper. this group showed the highest numbers of visiting fashion e-retailers.000-49. and price perceived to the internet users.Recreational shopper. Respondents who did not buy any fashion goods would reflect A profile of Koreans 89 . Students and housewives took highest proportions (44. and three age groups (15-19.2 percent. A little over half of this segment was male.000) showed highest representation than expected within this segment. including product information and visual presentation of fashion goods. The household income distribution was almost similar to Economical Shoppers. 20-24. Respondents who had bought fashion items online would respond their online shopping experience. and 35-39 years) showed higher representation compared with the overall sample distribution. which was the largest proportion of inexperienced consumers for e-retailers between groups.999 than the overall sample. Almost 81 percent of this segment had purchased fashion items on e-retailers which was the highest proportion among five clusters. with the higher observation number in 15-19 years and 20-24 years of age. Respondents between 35 and 39 years presented the highest proportion (26.9 percent) within group as well as across groups. The majority was female (89. professional/manager occupations were a slightly higher than the overall sample. which included charging service. Although this group used the internet as similar to other three groups. Nearly 80 percent had bought fashion items on e-retailers. This included the services received after checkout fashion goods. Fashion/brand shopper. Enterpriser. using the principal component method (Table VI). Results on differences of clusters in evaluation of e-retailers’ attributes In total 13 online fashion mall attributes were reduced into three factors by factor analysis. These two age groups showed higher proportions compared with the overall distribution of respondents. speed of ordering.3 percent of this group did not buy any product on fashion e-retailers. which was closed to the overall sample distribution.3 percent). High representation in students and professional technician jobs might be related to age distributions. The first factor was labeled as “product presentation attributes”. this group did not visit fashion e-retailers neither purchase fashion items as similar as Fashion Follower did. This segment presented a relatively higher proportion of high income levels than did the other four groups. Service-related and professional technician jobs were more highly represented in this segment than the overall sample. About 52 percent was male. 19. The second factor was labeled as “checkout attributes” of online. More than 61 percent of this group was male. which represented a heavier proportion of male consumers than the overall sample distribution. Fashion follower. This group showed the second highest numbers of visiting e-fashion mall (M ¼ 13:1) and fashion items purchased (M ¼ 9:20). order tracking.

6%) Cluster 4 Fashion follower (23.22 2.58 3.37 2.91 2.77 0.73 3.607 * 43.12 3.10 2.27 B B B BC B A 0.79 0.50 2.94 2.400 * 15.80 0. * p .96 2.68 3. B.95 2.91 2.55 3.48 2.55 3.01 3.71 A A A A A Checkout attributes (a ¼ 0:80) Price perception Speed of ordering Easy of charging Order tracking After service attributes (a ¼ 0:79) Customer support On-time delivery Exchange/return policy Product met expectations Overall satisfaction Intention to purchase Notes: A.81 0.06 3.68 3.41 2.27 3.64 3.473 * 43.37 3.78 0.74 0.02 2.03 3.76 2.04 3.03 3.42 3.78 2.21 3.1 E-retailer’s attributes Product presentation attributes (a ¼ 0:78) Site design Speed of product search Product description Product info.79 3.36 3.425 * 11.001 Table VI.49 3.94 2.90 D D B C C B C C C B B A B C C 3.50 3. C.67 0.96 3.09 3.384 * 38. Fashion e-retailer’s service attributes by fashion lifestyle segments Total M SD Cluster 1 Economical shopper (19.147 * 38.04 2.95 2.67 B B B B AB 3.6%) Cluster 2 Recreational shopper (17.38 A A A A A A A A A A 0.77 3.56 A AB AB AB 3.650 * 12.77 3.96 0.69 3.638 * 8.81 3. updates Variety of products 3.23 3.63 3.83 0.86 3. 0.81 3.50 3.06 3.794 * 24.61 3.250 * 12.80 3.97 2.15 0.14 3.09 3.13 3.747 * . D ¼ significant mean differences by Duncan tests.98 2.42 A AB B B 3.03 3.95 2.56 CD C B BC B 3.93 2.90 JFMM 13.05 3.99 3.25 3.93 2.13 C C C C BC B 2.21 3.96 2.6%) Cluster 5 Individualistic shopper (18.84 0.28 3.51 3.63 3.93 3.5%) F 2.82 0.22 3.414 * 16.50 3.25 3.74 0.57 2.76 3.785 * 18.7%) Cluster 3 Fashion/brand shopper (20.14 3.12 3.64 3.71 3.68 2.12 BC B B B AB A B B B BC B BC BC B B 21.90 3.451 * 9.078 * 18.78 2.

Table VI showed that all of e-retailer’s attributes were differently evaluated. Fashion/brand Shoppers showed highest evaluation as well. Economical Shopper and Individualistic Shopper presented a similar tendency. and Individualistic Shoppers showed the lowest evaluation. Chronbach’s alpha was ranged from 0.80. and Fashion Follower. respondents displayed relatively higher scores than mid points of overall satisfaction (3. Figures 1-5 were drawn based on factor scores in Table II. similar to Recreational Shopper. In order to provide the differences between clusters graphically. respondents presented positive evaluation toward product presentation attributes and checkout attributes.15).74 to 0. Fashion/brand Shopper showed the highest levels of overall satisfaction and intention to buy.their expectation or indirect experience. at the middle level. We provided distinctive characteristics of each segment. followed by Recreational Shopper. Individualistic Shopper. presented relatively high mean of each item compared to the other two attribute factors. Internet users belonged to one of five fashion lifestyle segments. influenced by their social community.12) and intention to purchase fashion items online (3. ANOVA with Duncan tests were used to examine differences among five lifestyle segments in evaluation of online fashion mall attributes. In general. The means of after service attribute items were lower than the mid score. Discussion We profiled market segments of potential consumers who would buy fashion items on e-retailers. Checkout attributes. Economical Shopper. Nevertheless. Fashion Follower exhibited the second highest positive evaluation. Fashion/brand Shopper showed the highest evaluation and Fashion Follower showed the lowest evaluation in product presentation and checkout attributes in general. Fashion/brand shopper . A profile of Koreans 91 Figure 1. reflecting the benefits of online shopping. In terms of after service attributes. indicating that respondents were less satisfied with delivery service or exchange policy online than other attributes. However. When compared with overall satisfaction and intention to purchase online among five segments.

this segment is heavily conscious about latest fashion trends and well-known fashion brands. Recreational shopper Figure 3. this group .JFMM 13. Thus it is said that this group is somewhat lack of fashion leader predisposition. professional/manager jobs indicates that these occupations lead to exhibit high interests in fashion resulting in high number of visiting to fashion e-shopping malls. The proportion of enterpriser. With the high number of connecting e-fashion mall as well as the highest evaluation of e-shopping mall attributes. since fashion leaders tend to enjoy shopping. and they are less concerned about the price. Interestingly.1 92 Figure 2. they do not enjoy shopping. and are not conscious of the cost or practicality (Gutman and Mills. Economical shopper Fashion/brand shoppers (20. overall satisfaction and intention to purchase on e-retailers.6 percent) As demonstrated in Figure 1. although they care about fashion leadership and newest fashion trends. 1982). This group is likely to buy well-known brand products.

Occupations seem to highly correlate with gender and age. The majority is female. the same researchers mentioned that recreational shoppers regarded high-quality. This segment is comparable with the previous studies. and visual aspects of retailer as important. Individualistic shopper Figure 5. young students or housewives.7 percent) Consumers in this segment heavily enjoy shopping and highlight values for the money. Finding is comparable with the Fashion/brand Shopper of Park et al.A profile of Koreans 93 Figure 4. Recreational shopper (17. Fashion follower would be the first major target for e-retailers. were active information seekers and bargain hunters than economical shoppers did. Also.’s study (2005). This segment perhaps visits fashion e-retailers not only shopping but . variety of merchandise. Bellenger and Korgaonkar (1980) presented that recreational or hedonic shoppers spent more time for shopping even after making a purchase. and moderately consider brand names (Figure 2).

the mid level of purchase intention indicates that they would keep going to shop at e-retailers since this type of retail format is corresponding with their fashion lifestyles. 94 . the Negatives are conscious of the cost or practicality to some extent. 1982). Nevertheless. shopping or brands. they show low level of fashion e-retailer visits. The lowest evaluation of checkout attributes would support it. while Economical Shopper shows mid to low levels of evaluation for e-retailers’ attributes. It appears that either they are afraid of or not accustomed to checkout through the internet. and shopping enjoyment (Figure 5). The largest proportion of inexperienced consumers for fashion e-retailers or the lowest number of purchased items compared with the number visiting fashion e-malls are notable. Economical Shopper presents somewhat opposite features from recreational shopper. economical orientation is lowest.5 percent) As demonstrated in Figure 4. Compared with internet usage. active e-shoppers.1 also collecting information about fashion products since they are practical and recreational shoppers.6 percent) Approximately one fifth displays the tendency of Economical Shopper. personality rather than fashion trends and moderately enjoying shopping. they presumably visit e-shops to get information about fashion products and/or still prefer off-line stores. so it is necessary to develop appropriate marketing strategy to transform this segment into potential. However. although the proportion of the lowest household incomes is highest among five segments. The high proportion of male and older age groups in addition to conservative occupations (government related jobs) would support these characteristics. Especially members of this segment seem to be dissatisfied with after service attributes. They might consider that well-known brands stood for well-dressed. Recreational Shopper who values shopping enjoyment presents positive attitudes toward e-retailers. However. Fashion follower (23. consumers in this segment are concerned about well-dressed. Economical shopper (19.JFMM 13. brand orientation. These characteristics are similar to those of “Negatives” in Gutman and Mills’ (1982) study. Among five segments. while Individualistic Shoppers are not concerned about the economical aspects but about well-known brand names. but are no interests in fashion. Economical shopper is comparable to utilitarian shopper who is likely to minimize searching process or social interaction and to consider convenience and controlling their shopping (Lee and Littrell.6 percent) This segment takes largest proportion of the total sample. The highest number of visiting fashion e-malls or buying fashion items with high level of purchase intention indicates that this segment is another important target for e-business. As fashion followers are not concerned about price or practical aspects of fashion products (Gutman and Mills. members in this cluster display the second highest levels of economical orientation and personality pursuits. As presented in Figure 3. Individualistic shopper (18. but a lower scores on fashion interests. Both segments value economical aspects. Otherwise. The members of this group display similar predisposition to fashion leaders. 2005). this group presents the middle levels of evaluations of fashion e-retailer attributes as well as overall satisfaction and intention to purchase.

Individual Shopper is similar to Fashion/brand Shopper in terms of brand or personality pursuits but different in fashion consciousness. To enhance the purchase of fashion goods online for this segment. Luxury brand or flagship store marketers in addition to multi shop retailers who collect exclusive fashion items from various well-known brands are suitable to target Fashion/brands Shoppers. well-known brand items are appropriate. Economical Shopper. They seem to evaluate the web site performances based on indirect experiences from other product categories. About 30 percents who do not buy any fashion item online are potential consumers to become first-time buyers since they have visited fashion e-retailers at least once. e-retailers require reinforcing after service attributes and price-related promotions. Limitations and future research Respondents in this study visit online fashion shopping malls at least once. Almost 70 percent of 1. and Fashion Followers. representative age groups of heavy internet users. so it would be difficult to satisfy them. We focus on age ranged from 15 to 39 years. Thus Individual Shopper could be the second target market for exclusive fashion brands. practical online users. there is possibility to increase online shopping usages by stimulating these inclinations. since this segment is interested in fashion. Accordingly the lowest level of overall dissatisfaction or purchase intention is presented despite to relatively high level of evaluation for after service attributes. Thus. the instrument for the present study is A profile of Koreans 95 . Characteristics of McFashion brands would satisfy this segment of both economical and brand orientations.211 internet users have bought fashion items on e-retailers. it is necessary to inform positive aspects of online shopping so that this segment is comfortable with e-retailers. Individualistic Shopper. Demographic characteristics of respondents. The first two segments are the most potential and important target market for e-business. it is necessary to highlight the benefit of using or shopping online to create positive attitudes toward fashion e-retailers’ attributes. such as silver groups is also worthwhile. brands. Fashion e-retailers such as fast fashion brands are proper for Recreational group because this segment needs for a high-quality. who are potential to become loyal consumers. Conclusion and recommendations This study aims to classify internet users by fashion lifestyles. Five lifestyle segments are Fashion/brand Shopper. Economical Shopper is typical. Involvement with fashion leads consumers to specific buying behaviors. Besides. proper product assortments that are compatible with consumers’ tastes and current fashion trends are necessary. and shopping. Fashion Follower segment exhibits relatively negative attitudes toward fashion e-malls. However. However. investigating a newly emerging group of internet users. so caution is necessary in interpreting findings. such as occupations or income levels were widely distributed. wide variety of merchandise at valued prices.Evaluation for product presentation attributes indicates that the advantages of the speed to search or variety of products do not appeal to them. and about 30 percent evaluates e-retailers’ attributes without their purchasing experiences. Since consumers in this segment have needs for high-quality products with premium brands. In addition. Recreational Shopper. so basic items at valued prices rather than trendy.

N. Jiang. Vol. 34 Nos 4/5. Machrotech (2007) Vol. However. pp. available at: www. pp. OH. E. and Lee. Smith.M. shopping orientation. 28 Nos 3/4. and Rosenbloom. Gutman. Gruca. International Journal of Retailing & Distribution Management. attribute-level performance. Consumer Behavior. M. 2007). M. Hwang. C.. and Swinyard. E-business marketers can create online store environments and marketing mix strategies by supplementing negative perspectives of online fashion mall attributes in accordance with each segment’s characteristics. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. L. 3.F. “Internet pricing. “Customer intention to return online: price perception. pp. and store patronage: an integrative analysis”. pp. 150-74.W. (2001). “Fashion life style. com/services/ecommerce-marketsize-statistics. Korea National Statistical Office (2007). “Influence of usage situations and consumer shopping orientations on the importance of retail store environment”.K. B.go. all elements of fashion lifestyles associated with apparel purchasing behaviors may not have been captured. price satisfaction. 31-50. S. (2002). C. Mason. and Kincade. International Review of Retail. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles. Cao. Vol. 59-79. Findings of this study cannot be generalized to all internet users in Asian market. Vol. Distribution and Consumer Research. (1982). pp. 308-33. J. 77-92. (1980).1 96 modified based on previous studies. nso. probably caused by different stage of internet infrastructure or different involvement in fashion. 2. Vol.kr (accessed February 13.D. 56 No. 1. Blackwell. 13. 2. (2005). W. and Klemz. and Littrell.N. (2005). European Journal of Marketing. D. If findings are different. (2004).JFMM 13. “Profiling the recreational shopper”. P. available at: www.. and Engel. 2006 Annual Statistical Report of Cyber Shopping Mall. 12 No. S. and Chung. K.asp (accessed February 13. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Soo Hak Sa. Journal of Retailing.R.K. Lee. and Mills. “A documentary study to determine the concept of clothing shopping orientation”. 8 No. Seoul. 58 No. “E-shopping lovers and fearful conservatives: a market segmentation analysis”. and customer satisfaction”. the nature of segment orientation can be highlighted over geographic segmentation in the global market..R. That is. Y. If findings are comparable with this study it is assumed that increasing global impact of mass media and information power of consumers generates similar lifestyle segments. we can learn about the propensity to shop online and fashion lifestyles of consumers in various Asian countries. and satisfaction unfolding over time”. D. Kim. Vol. 472-82. (2003). self-concept. pp. References Ahn. (2005).S. S. Miniard.H. Vol. Vol. 133-47. 2007). (2006). Fashion Marketing. 64-86.. and Korgaonkar. E-commerce Market Size and Trends. 39 Nos 1/2. pp. 33 No. Journal of Retailing. “Global e-tailing: US consumers’ intention to shop for cultural products on the internet”. S. The primary goal of the present study is to reveal and profile fashion lifestyle segments for online fashion mall users. Vol. Allred. R. 9th ed. B. J.machrotech. 2.R. Moye. Research design would be replicable to consumers in different nations. . South-Western. pp. P.. T. P. Bellenger.

available at: http://weekly. The Number of Internet Users of Each Nation. “Lifestyle segmentation: from interests.or. available at: http://isis.or. E. 13 No. 29 No. Shim.J.. Y. pp. “Effect of shopping mall attributes and shopping values on online purchase intentions”. “A typology of apparel shopping orientation segments among female consumers”.J. Vol. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles. E. Vol. Shin.M.kr (accessed January 24. Vol. H. and Kang. “College students’ apparel shopping orientations and store selection for purchasing jeans”. Park.. Vol. aesthetic styles.M. 445-63. pp. 28 No. P. E.kr (accessed January 24. 2008). 1475-84.J. Korea Is a Global Test Market. 4. H. and Ha. Vol. 564-75. pp. and opinions. (2007). and Kotsiopulos. to values. Corresponding author Heewon Sung can be contacted at: hsung@gnu. life visions and media preferences”. 17 No. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture.chosun. European Journal of Communication. pp. E. M. 11.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. 4.emeraldinsight. 2008). 5. Vyncke. (2002). (1993). 73-85. (2004). Park.nida.kr A profile of Koreans 97 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. (2005).nida. 12 No. and Chung. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. S. The Internet Industry Report of People’s Republic of China in 2006. 1. Park. Kang. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles. 2008). 547-58.html (accessed January 24. “A study on internet fashion shopping mall environments and purchase intention by shopping orientation”. National Internet Development of Agency of Korea (2008). pp. A.com/reprints . E. (2005). available at: http://isis.National Internet Development of Agency of Korea (2007). Park.com/site/data/ html_dir/2007/11/16/2007111600863.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->