This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A proﬁle of Koreans: who purchases fashion goods online?
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
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
Psychographic variables help to construe why they buy. Since physical product attributes have become more comparable due to technology development while consumers are much more complicated than before. India 5. 2007).6 percent increased in 2005 (National Internet Development of Agency of Korea. or promotion strategy. 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. Understanding consumers’ lifestyles would help marketers to communicate properly with their target audience and develop marketing strategies effectively.5 percent in 2007.1 80 billion). and Korea (33million) were ranked in order. 2007). In comparing the number of internet users in Asia countries in 2005. communication message. The ﬁndings of this study would offer guidelines for fashion e-retailers to improve market segmentations and corresponding strategies. and then proﬁled different fashion lifestyle segments with regard to demographics and internet usage trends. as well as demographic variables” (Blackwell et al. 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. India (60million). marketers have relied on psychological variables of consumers rather than physical attributes of products. 51. China. p.44 percent) (National Internet Development of Agency of Korea. 8.44 percent.54 percent. China (111 million). we identiﬁed differences among segments in terms of online shopping mall attributes.JFMM 13. so marketers must keep track contemporary lifestyle trends of targets and reﬂect in product development. Literature review Lifestyles Lifestyles are deﬁned as “patterns in which people live and spend time and money. which was almost 48. and opinions. Customers in one market – online market – may be too heterogeneous in their needs and values. Finally. As Korea is considered as a testing market for new products from a global marketing perspective (Park. 2001). 2001. whereas the internet usage rate of Korea (68. Hence. Within a number of segmentation variables. ﬁrst. reﬂecting a person’s activities. Lifestyles change more rapidly than value (Blackwell et al. The purpose of this study was to identify a lifestyle typology relevant for predicting individual differences in evaluation for online fashion mall attributes. Japan (66milllion). This study examined Korean online users to provide e-market segments for fashion products by fashion lifestyles. 219). 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. interests. 2002). Investigating fashion lifestyles of Koreans will provide information about shopping orientation of Asians who are very reﬁned in fashion tastes. while demographic variables focus on who buy products.35 percent) was highest (Japan. 2008). the internet usage rate of Korea reached 75. lifestyle has been suggested as one of the most fundamental factors (Vyncke. . In order to accomplish this goal. we classiﬁed online users based on fashion lifestyles. According to the same source. Koreans are fastidious and sensitive in styles and fashions. it would be appropriate to examine Korean consumers as a representative e-retailing market in Asia..
Performance of online shopping mall services is especially important to transform ﬁrst-time buyers into loyal customers. Park et al.. Park et al. 2005). so we measured fashion lifestyles to focus on fashion products online. 2004. Shim and Kotsiopulos. 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. Online store’s attributes generally consist of product information/description. 1993). and impulsive/planned orientation) (Kim and Lee. 2005. Moy and Kincade. consumers’ different characteristics and past experiences would lead to different evaluation of store attributes. customer support.Lifestyle is subdivided into product-related lifestyle which is a person’s activities. 2002. 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. Park and Kang. Methodology Instrument and data collection The instrument consisted of three sections. fashion leadership) and clothing shopping orientation (brand/retailer loyalty. An individual selects the best products which meet his or her needs based on personal characteristics such as lifestyles. Thus.. interests. If the ﬁrst-time buyer satisﬁes his/her purchase experience. They used four fashion lifestyle factors and classiﬁed consumers into seven segments. product assortment.. 1993). Consumers’ response to the internet shopping mall would vary according to product categories. Consumers who have positive attitudes toward online service attributes are more likely to present high level of customer satisfaction. Jiang and Rosenbloom. 2003. and opinions about speciﬁc products (Ahn et al. leading to high purchase intentions (Jiang and Rosenbloom. 2005). In the second section. 1980. 2005). an individual’s interests or shopping activities regarding fashion-related items would lead to different buying process... including 45 items. 2005. Online retailers include store attributes as like brick-and-mortar retailers do. utilitarian/hedonic orientation. Literatures indicated that lifestyle segments differed in evaluation or selection on retail attributes. fashion lifestyle would be a useful factor for market segmentation to understand changes in consumers’ values and to interpret consumers’ buying behaviors. Consumers choose a speciﬁc product when consumer characteristics and store characteristics correspond in speciﬁc purchase situation (Blackwell et al. 2004. The ﬁrst section included 21 items modiﬁed from previous studies (Park et al. Although demographic characteristics are identical. web site layout and image. 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. 13 items were adapted from A proﬁle of Koreans 81 . order tracking. Then. 2005). 2004).. and on-time delivery service (Cao et al. Gutman and Mills (1982) proﬁled consumers by employing fashion lifestyle scales. speed of loading. Shim and Kotsiopulos.. easy of ordering. Shopping orientations or shopping speciﬁc lifestyles were also useful for market segmentation (Bellenger and Korgaonkar. Fashion lifestyles consist of fashion orientation (fashion consciousness. 2001). shipping and handling. he or she visits more often to the shopping mall and buys more products.
1 82 evaluation measurement scale for online fashion mall attributes (Jiang and Rosenbloom. That was. All of respondents had visited the online fashion mall at least one time. 2006.6percent were between 35-39 years.000-49. which was a tendency to enjoy shopping itself regardless of any plan to buy. 2005. occupation. 2005). shoes. and shoes. internet usages (total hours to use the internet a day.7 percent were between 25-34 years. The average number of items purchased during six months was 7. gender.71. and purchasing experience of fashion e-retailers. Factor 5 was named as “economical orientation”.211 useful data were obtained. The sample was directed to a web site by clicking on the URL to the survey.JFMM 13. and other accessories where they purchased during six months. Each item was measured using ﬁve-point Likert-type scales ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Five factors were generated. formal 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. The data were collected from the internet users through the web survey. 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. Factor 4. About 34. Web survey was conducted by the internet research institute during two weeks of January. About 53 percent reported that total annual household incomes were in the $20. Respondents used the internet about 3 hours per day. Park and Kang. and purchase intention indicated customer’s likelihood of buying from e-retailers. cosmetics/perfumes. 43. The last section included demographic information (age. respondents in general seemed to emphasize personal tastes and economical aspects of fashion products. Overall satisfaction was deﬁned as customer’s overall evaluation of general online service quality. followed by cosmetics/perfume. .8 percent were between the ages of 15-24 years. Factor 2 was labeled as “shopping enjoyment”. Factor 1 was the inclination to be aware of latest fashion trends. labeled as “personality pursuit” was a tendency to value personal tastes above anything else. sports wear. labeled as “brand consciousness” represented the conﬁdence and quality in connection with well-known brands. Also. The mean of “personality pursuit” factor items or “economical orientation” factor items was generally higher than the mean of the other three factors. The factor loadings. means (SD). explaining 59. under wear. The most frequently purchased items were casual wears. which was the inclination to consider values for the money. Also. Factor 3. accessories (ornaments). respondents were asked to write the number of items in each category of casual wear. labeled as “fashion consciousness”.5 percent of the total variance. and annual income per household). the number of visiting fashion e-retailers per month).999. and approximately 70 percent of them had experienced to buy fashion items. Final sample The total of 1. Over 52 percent of the samples were female. and 21. total number of connecting internet per day. bags/purses.
90 0.87 0.17 2.87 0.77 0.05 3.80 0.79 0.80) 0.79 0.99 2.466 0.499 0.275 10.99 2.73 3.90 0.79) Shopping enjoyment (0.86 Eigen value % of variance Fashion consciousness (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.390 0.41 3.392 16.690 0.09 3.92 3.615 2 0.714 0.89 0. 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 0.119 10.850 2.89 0.75 2.820 0.628 0.15 2.808 0.73 0.25 3.59 3.89 0.559 0.81 A proﬁle of Koreans 83 Table I.67 2.91 0.70 Items Factor loading Mean SD 0.464 11.517 0.36 3.884 0.765 0. Factor analysis and mean scores of fashion lifestyles .73) Brand consciousness (0.98 Personality pursuit (0.69 3.707 0.784 0.36 3.83 0.83 2.99 0.62) Economical orientation (0.90 0.17 3.605 2.237 10.91 0.81 0.61 3.710 0.65 0.89 0.Factor title (Cronbach’s a) 0.23 3.720 0.658 2.53 3.20 3.590 0.74 2.
999 (30 percent) was higher than the total proportion (24. Cluster 2 (N ¼ 215) showed the highest levels of shopping enjoyment and economical orientation.8 percent for Fashion/brand Shopper to 99.000-2.211 cases showed correct classiﬁcation ranging from 96. but did not care about practicality or fashion. Economical shopper. but lowest in personality and economical orientation. 2006). so it was called “Economical Shopper”. Signiﬁcant differences between clusters are noted. Table II showed differences between lifestyle clusters by analysis of variance with Duncan tests. A classiﬁcation matrix for ﬁve-group discriminant analysis was reported in Table III. . The last group (N ¼ 224) displayed the highest level of personality and brand consciousness. This cluster had neither desire for fashion leadership nor any interest in fashion.. About 75 percent of this group had experience to buy fashion items on e-retailers.7 percent). The classiﬁcation results indicated 98 percent of original cases were correctly classiﬁed. Five clusters were obtained by the SPSS k-means clustering method. This group enjoyed shopping for fashion products. naming as “Individualistic Shopper”. Cluster 4 (N ¼ 286) showed the second highest levels of fashion. with the highest proportion (27 percent) in age between 30 and 34 years old.JFMM 13. but less cared about shopping enjoyment or economical orientation. but cared about personality and well-dressed appearance. The ﬁrst cluster (N ¼ 237) showed the second highest level of personality and economical perspectives. The proportion of annual household income between $ 2. Although this group spent much time to use the internet. named as “Recreational Shopper”. occupation. household annual income level. and do not enjoy shopping at all. but did not care about fashion or brand names. Cluster 3 (N ¼ 249) showed the highest level of fashion and brand consciousness. and total number of visiting fashion e-retailers. The results demonstrated that the discriminant functions were fairly accurate in predicting group membership. considered values for money. Government related occupation showed higher proportion than the total counts.1 84 Results on proﬁling market segments Factor scores from the ﬁve lifestyle factors were used to conduct cluster analysis to identify market segments. but also considered well-known brands. Chi-square analyses and ANOVA tests with Duncan tests were used to identify differences among ﬁve segments. and about 74 percent were ranged in age from 25 to 39 years. More than 50 percent were male. total hours to use the internet. so called as “Fashion/Brand Shoppers”. Classiﬁcation analysis of the 1.3 percent for Fashion Follower. the mean of visiting fashion e-retailers was lowest. Proﬁle of demographic and internet usages characteristics Tables IV and V presented respondents’ demographics and internet usage characteristics. naming as “Fashion Follower”. Each segment was labeled based on fashion lifestyle factors which best described its characteristics. ﬁve segments were signiﬁcantly different in purchase experience in online fashion malls and in the number of items purchased on e-retailers. brand consciousness and shopping enjoyment. age. which was appropriate for large data sets (Allred et al. In addition. Signiﬁcant differences were found in gender.
254 2 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 0.324 2 0.553 D D C B B 2 0.917 2 0.572 E B A A D F 202.001 A proﬁle of Koreans 85 Table II.166 0.982 2 0.709 * * * Fashion consciousness Shopping enjoyment Brand consciousness Personality pursuit Economical orientation Notes: A.052 0.320 0. B.414 2 0. Cluster means and differences by fashion lifestyle factors .133 2 0.707 0. * * * p .030 2 0.702 * * * 257.622 0.248 0.845 * * * 217.213 1.208 2 0.862 0.894 0.766 C A B C A 0. E ¼ significant mean differences by Duncan tests.929 B B B D E 2 0.395 A C A B C 0.711 2 0.357 * * * 148. 0.897 * * * 160. C.872 2 0. D.226 0.
0 0.0 1 1 241 1 0 Economical shopper Shopping maven Fashion/brand shopper Fashion follower Individualistic shopper Table III.8 0.0 0.1 Actual group 237 215 249 286 224 233 1 0 1 1 98.86 JFMM 13.0 99.0 0 3 5 284 4 0.0 97.4 1 210 1 0 0 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.0 1.8 Individualistic shopper n % 2 0 2 0 219 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.8 .4 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 % 0.4 0.0 0.4 96.3 1.3 0.4 2.
000 Internet usages Fashion e-mall experience Yes No 82.9 38 56 73 69 50 13.5 12.4 12.7 28.1 24.1 8.Total count (% within cluster) M % Tests Chi square (x2) Cluster 1 Economical shopper (19.2 5.7 40.6 175 111 61.6 18.0 20.5 22.3 128 121 51.5%) M % 578 633 157 264 263 266 261 423 108 253 101 61 65 151 49 8.163 * * * 34.3 136 101 57.3 7.2 14.4 11.999 $50.7 26.8 48.9 5.1 20.5 2.6%) M % Cluster 2 Recreational shopper (17.0 27.2 5.8 116 108 51.2 41 61 44 37 32 19.3 5.4 27.1 17.4 31.5 17. 0.6 19.001 A proﬁle of Koreans 87 Table IV.98 * * * Notes: Numbers indicate frequencies (percentage) or means. * p .6 2.1 15.8 9.5 8.7 5.8 25.3 117 66 68 26 4 5 141 145 398 299 345 106 30 33 844 367 69.6 4.7 19.000-49.2 10.4 1.1 7.7 21.7 75 71 65 16 4 6 34. 0.1 28.7 2.8 76 20 53 18 20 21 28 13 30.7%) M % Cluster 3 Fashion/brand shopper (20.0 25.3 178 59 32.9 201 48 74 58 54 16 5 8 34.0 21.5 31.8 1.9 20.1 6.0 21.5 24.-related job Prof.7 68.05.7 49.6%) M % Cluster 5 Individualistic shopper (18. * * *.5 8.6 25.1 21.6%) M % Cluster 4 Fashion follower (23.1 18.9 23.5 2.7 52.6 27.7 0.6 30.8 1.5 75.0 23.4 42.9 32.2 99 40 52 29 18 15 28 5 34.6 18.9 8.0 5.7 30.0 8.6 3.999 $30.5 36 54 35 42 57 24.999 $70.0 4.1 34. Demographic and internet use characteristics by fashion lifestyle segments .0 70 19 63 21 13 9 29 13 95 11 40 10 1 10 42 6 44. p .0 21.6 18 44 56 64 55 7.4 20.6 8.999 More than $90.4 6.000-89.7 61 55 86 30 9 8 24.9 24 49 55 54 67 9.5 4./Org.7 22.6 23 192 10.5 10. technicians Enterprisers Professional and manager Housewives Others Annual income Less than $20.8 21.8 2.2 150.000 $20.000-29.8 31.0 26.2 8.2 9.9 170 45 79.3 47.2 80.3 4.6 23.63 * * * 47.0 3.7 83) 18 45 23 9 10 24 12 71 49 72 18 8 6 154 70 13.5 4.2 5.1 8.3 19.9 24.2 38.3 3.4 48.688 * Demographics Gender Male Female Age 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Occupation Students Service-related job Gov.6 14.13 * * * 72.7 22.0 3.4 2.9 8.1 10.000-69.3 50.7 89.7 19.4 37.5 3.8 12.1 23.1 1.3 5.0 18.
95 1.16 * * 1.28 3. C ¼ significant mean differences by Duncan tests.15 * * 3.03 A 6.80 10. p .18 A 9. * p . 0.23 3.34 C 15.41 Numbers of connecting internet per day 6.79 BC 8.1 Internet usages Fashion e-mail experience Total hours per day 2.18 A 6.79 BC 6.39 A 5.05.03 A Notes.79 10.10 AB 9.30 Numbers of items purchased online 7. 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 3.001 Table V.22 Number of visiting fashion e-retailers per month 11.80 13. * *.55 B 5.19 BC 6. A.20 AB 2. 0. B.548 5.30 C 3.48 17.88 JFMM 13.31 * .29 8.18 8.07 A 6.65 C 6.71 11.
which included charging service. 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.Recreational shopper. using the principal component method (Table VI).2 percent. The second factor was labeled as “checkout attributes” of online. The third factor was named as “after service attributes”. which was closed to the overall sample distribution.000) showed highest representation than expected within this segment. and three age groups (15-19. Fashion follower. 19. Individualistic shopper. The lowest household incomes (less than $20. Service-related and professional technician jobs were more highly represented in this segment than the overall sample. About 31. Nearly 80 percent had bought fashion items on e-retailers. contrary to Economical Shopper. which was the largest proportion of inexperienced consumers for e-retailers between groups. and price perceived to the internet users. Respondents between 35 and 39 years presented the highest proportion (26. Enterpriser. Respondents who had bought fashion items online would respond their online shopping experience. More than 61 percent of this group was male. This group showed the second highest numbers of visiting e-fashion mall (M ¼ 13:1) and fashion items purchased (M ¼ 9:20). this group showed the highest numbers of visiting fashion e-retailers. Almost 50 percent was age ranged from 25 to 34 years old. These two age groups showed higher proportions compared with the overall distribution of respondents. The ﬁrst factor was labeled as “product presentation attributes”. A little over half of this segment did not purchase any fashion items on e-retailers. Almost 81 percent of this segment had purchased fashion items on e-retailers which was the highest proportion among ﬁve clusters. The household income distribution was almost similar to Economical Shoppers. This group had a relatively higher representation of $ 30. which represented a heavier proportion of male consumers than the overall sample distribution. About 52 percent was male. This segment presented a relatively higher proportion of high income levels than did the other four groups.000-49.3 percent).3 percent of this group did not buy any product on fashion e-retailers. These characteristics were also consistent with the highest number of items purchased on e-retailers (M ¼ 9:39). including product information and visual presentation of fashion goods. order tracking. Respondents who did not buy any fashion goods would reﬂect A proﬁle of Koreans 89 . professional/manager occupations were a slightly higher than the overall sample. A little over half of this segment was male.999 than the overall sample.9 percent) within group as well as across groups. with the higher observation number in 15-19 years and 20-24 years of age. and 35-39 years) showed higher representation compared with the overall sample distribution.5 percent respectively) within the group as well as between groups. Students and housewives took highest proportions (44. As Recreational Shopper enjoyed shopping and spent time for shopping most. This included the services received after checkout fashion goods. this group did not visit fashion e-retailers neither purchase fashion items as similar as Fashion Follower did. 20-24. Although this group used the internet as similar to other three groups. Fashion/brand shopper. High representation in students and professional technician jobs might be related to age distributions. The majority was female (89. speed of ordering.
77 3.25 3.90 JFMM 13.77 0.414 * 16.09 3.57 2.425 * 11.785 * 18. Fashion e-retailer’s service attributes by fashion lifestyle segments Total M SD Cluster 1 Economical shopper (19.82 0.55 3.78 2.56 A AB AB AB 3.23 3.93 2.747 * . * p .98 2.81 3.03 3.451 * 9.473 * 43.83 0.64 3.50 2. 0.41 2.42 3.81 0.21 3.50 3. C.67 B B B B AB 3.76 3.001 Table VI.50 3.1 E-retailer’s attributes Product presentation attributes (a ¼ 0:78) Site design Speed of product search Product description Product info.55 3.14 3.147 * 38. B.64 3.68 3.86 3.13 C C C C BC B 2.12 3.78 2.36 3.22 3.71 3.96 2.22 2.81 3.90 D D B C C B C C C B B A B C C 3.73 3.400 * 15.794 * 24.61 3.63 3.96 2.03 3.7%) Cluster 3 Fashion/brand shopper (20.68 2.06 3.37 3. D ¼ significant mean differences by Duncan tests.078 * 18.38 A A A A A A A A A A 0.04 3.05 3.5%) F 2.96 0.14 3.50 3.21 3.78 0.99 3.96 3.76 2.6%) Cluster 2 Recreational shopper (17.74 0.48 2.74 0.37 2.95 2.90 3.56 CD C B BC B 3.12 3.28 3.607 * 43.80 0.91 2.13 3.6%) Cluster 5 Individualistic shopper (18. updates Variety of products 3.06 3.95 2.94 2.27 3.80 3.384 * 38.02 2.77 3.27 B B B BC B A 0.84 0.250 * 12.58 3.91 2.97 2.01 3.42 A AB B B 3.95 2.15 0.03 3.10 2.68 3.93 3.79 0.93 2.638 * 8.12 BC B B B AB A B B B BC B BC BC B B 21.69 3.25 3.51 3.94 2.09 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.04 2.67 0.79 3.6%) Cluster 4 Fashion follower (23.650 * 12.49 3.63 3.
similar to Recreational Shopper. Table VI showed that all of e-retailer’s attributes were differently evaluated. ANOVA with Duncan tests were used to examine differences among ﬁve lifestyle segments in evaluation of online fashion mall attributes. However.80. In general. inﬂuenced by their social community. In order to provide the differences between clusters graphically. We provided distinctive characteristics of each segment. at the middle level. Economical Shopper and Individualistic Shopper presented a similar tendency. Nevertheless. Discussion We proﬁled market segments of potential consumers who would buy fashion items on e-retailers. Chronbach’s alpha was ranged from 0. Fashion/brand Shoppers showed highest evaluation as well. followed by Recreational Shopper. A proﬁle of Koreans 91 Figure 1. Economical Shopper.15). presented relatively high mean of each item compared to the other two attribute factors. Figures 1-5 were drawn based on factor scores in Table II. respondents displayed relatively higher scores than mid points of overall satisfaction (3. Fashion Follower exhibited the second highest positive evaluation. indicating that respondents were less satisﬁed with delivery service or exchange policy online than other attributes.their expectation or indirect experience. Internet users belonged to one of ﬁve fashion lifestyle segments.74 to 0.12) and intention to purchase fashion items online (3. The means of after service attribute items were lower than the mid score. When compared with overall satisfaction and intention to purchase online among ﬁve segments. Fashion/brand Shopper showed the highest evaluation and Fashion Follower showed the lowest evaluation in product presentation and checkout attributes in general. and Individualistic Shoppers showed the lowest evaluation. Checkout attributes. reﬂecting the beneﬁts of online shopping. and Fashion Follower. In terms of after service attributes. Individualistic Shopper. Fashion/brand Shopper showed the highest levels of overall satisfaction and intention to buy. Fashion/brand shopper . respondents presented positive evaluation toward product presentation attributes and checkout attributes.
This group is likely to buy well-known brand products. and are not conscious of the cost or practicality (Gutman and Mills. Recreational shopper Figure 3. although they care about fashion leadership and newest fashion trends. this segment is heavily conscious about latest fashion trends and well-known fashion brands. With the high number of connecting e-fashion mall as well as the highest evaluation of e-shopping mall attributes. overall satisfaction and intention to purchase on e-retailers. Thus it is said that this group is somewhat lack of fashion leader predisposition. The proportion of enterpriser. this group . and they are less concerned about the price.6 percent) As demonstrated in Figure 1.1 92 Figure 2. 1982). since fashion leaders tend to enjoy shopping. Interestingly.JFMM 13. 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. Economical shopper Fashion/brand shoppers (20. they do not enjoy shopping.
and moderately consider brand names (Figure 2). the same researchers mentioned that recreational shoppers regarded high-quality. This segment is comparable with the previous studies. Fashion follower would be the ﬁrst major target for e-retailers. and visual aspects of retailer as important. variety of merchandise. Finding is comparable with the Fashion/brand Shopper of Park et al. This segment perhaps visits fashion e-retailers not only shopping but . Recreational shopper (17. Also. Bellenger and Korgaonkar (1980) presented that recreational or hedonic shoppers spent more time for shopping even after making a purchase. Individualistic shopper Figure 5. Occupations seem to highly correlate with gender and age.7 percent) Consumers in this segment heavily enjoy shopping and highlight values for the money. The majority is female.’s study (2005).A proﬁle of Koreans 93 Figure 4. were active information seekers and bargain hunters than economical shoppers did. young students or housewives.
personality rather than fashion trends and moderately enjoying shopping. shopping or brands. These characteristics are similar to those of “Negatives” in Gutman and Mills’ (1982) study. consumers in this segment are concerned about well-dressed. active e-shoppers.5 percent) As demonstrated in Figure 4. 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. 2005). the Negatives are conscious of the cost or practicality to some extent. The high proportion of male and older age groups in addition to conservative occupations (government related jobs) would support these characteristics. Both segments value economical aspects. they presumably visit e-shops to get information about fashion products and/or still prefer off-line stores.1 also collecting information about fashion products since they are practical and recreational shoppers. 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. Among ﬁve segments. Especially members of this segment seem to be dissatisﬁed with after service attributes. As fashion followers are not concerned about price or practical aspects of fashion products (Gutman and Mills. Compared with internet usage. The members of this group display similar predisposition to fashion leaders. brand orientation. The lowest evaluation of checkout attributes would support it.6 percent) This segment takes largest proportion of the total sample. so it is necessary to develop appropriate marketing strategy to transform this segment into potential. economical orientation is lowest. Individualistic shopper (18. 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. but a lower scores on fashion interests. Economical Shopper presents somewhat opposite features from recreational shopper. while Individualistic Shoppers are not concerned about the economical aspects but about well-known brand names. Economical shopper (19. Nevertheless. and shopping enjoyment (Figure 5). they show low level of fashion e-retailer visits. 1982). However. while Economical Shopper shows mid to low levels of evaluation for e-retailers’ attributes. this group presents the middle levels of evaluations of fashion e-retailer attributes as well as overall satisfaction and intention to purchase.JFMM 13. members in this cluster display the second highest levels of economical orientation and personality pursuits. Otherwise. Fashion follower (23. They might consider that well-known brands stood for well-dressed. It appears that either they are afraid of or not accustomed to checkout through the internet. 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. Recreational Shopper who values shopping enjoyment presents positive attitudes toward e-retailers. although the proportion of the lowest household incomes is highest among ﬁve segments. but are no interests in fashion. However. As presented in Figure 3.6 percent) Approximately one ﬁfth displays the tendency of Economical Shopper. 94 .
investigating a newly emerging group of internet users. and shopping. well-known brand items are appropriate. Almost 70 percent of 1. In addition. the instrument for the present study is A proﬁle of Koreans 95 . so basic items at valued prices rather than trendy. The ﬁrst two segments are the most potential and important target market for e-business. Accordingly the lowest level of overall dissatisfaction or purchase intention is presented despite to relatively high level of evaluation for after service attributes. Recreational Shopper. Involvement with fashion leads consumers to speciﬁc buying behaviors. Since consumers in this segment have needs for high-quality products with premium brands. practical online users. representative age groups of heavy internet users. Demographic characteristics of respondents. so caution is necessary in interpreting ﬁndings. Economical Shopper. brands. since this segment is interested in fashion. who are potential to become loyal consumers. Individual Shopper is similar to Fashion/brand Shopper in terms of brand or personality pursuits but different in fashion consciousness. We focus on age ranged from 15 to 39 years. Fashion e-retailers such as fast fashion brands are proper for Recreational group because this segment needs for a high-quality.211 internet users have bought fashion items on e-retailers.Evaluation for product presentation attributes indicates that the advantages of the speed to search or variety of products do not appeal to them. Thus Individual Shopper could be the second target market for exclusive fashion brands. wide variety of merchandise at valued prices. proper product assortments that are compatible with consumers’ tastes and current fashion trends are necessary. Individualistic Shopper. Characteristics of McFashion brands would satisfy this segment of both economical and brand orientations. 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. Economical Shopper is typical. Besides. Limitations and future research Respondents in this study visit online fashion shopping malls at least once. e-retailers require reinforcing after service attributes and price-related promotions. To enhance the purchase of fashion goods online for this segment. such as occupations or income levels were widely distributed. and Fashion Followers. However. Conclusion and recommendations This study aims to classify internet users by fashion lifestyles. Five lifestyle segments are Fashion/brand Shopper. However. They seem to evaluate the web site performances based on indirect experiences from other product categories. there is possibility to increase online shopping usages by stimulating these inclinations. Fashion Follower segment exhibits relatively negative attitudes toward fashion e-malls. 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. it is necessary to inform positive aspects of online shopping so that this segment is comfortable with e-retailers. so it would be difﬁcult to satisfy them. 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. Thus. and about 30 percent evaluates e-retailers’ attributes without their purchasing experiences.
31-50. References Ahn. J. 2007). Lee. S.go. 8 No. 64-86. Soo Hak Sa. R.1 96 modiﬁed based on previous studies. (2001). and Swinyard. South-Western. all elements of fashion lifestyles associated with apparel purchasing behaviors may not have been captured. E. D. Distribution and Consumer Research. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. D. Hwang.D. 59-79. pp. 2. available at: www. 2006 Annual Statistical Report of Cyber Shopping Mall. However. and Lee. European Journal of Marketing. 2. 3. Y. pp. Cao. Vol. C. Bellenger.. pp. 56 No. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles. Fashion Marketing. W. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. E-commerce Market Size and Trends. International Review of Retail. B. B. P. attribute-level performance.R. 9th ed. and Klemz. and store patronage: an integrative analysis”. 150-74. probably caused by different stage of internet infrastructure or different involvement in fashion. 77-92.. (2004). 34 Nos 4/5. (1982). and Kincade. S. M. “Proﬁling the recreational shopper”. Consumer Behavior. 39 Nos 1/2. . Vol. Vol. shopping orientation. com/services/ecommerce-marketsize-statistics. (2005). “A documentary study to determine the concept of clothing shopping orientation”. the nature of segment orientation can be highlighted over geographic segmentation in the global market. Vol. (2005).S. and Rosenbloom. 28 Nos 3/4. Vol. Machrotech (2007) Vol. 33 No.W. (2005). 133-47.. S. and customer satisfaction”. Smith.N. Journal of Retailing.R.K. “Fashion life style.JFMM 13. Miniard. Jiang.H. pp. Moye. Allred. available at: www.machrotech.K. P. Vol. pp. 1. International Journal of Retailing & Distribution Management.F. 13. and Chung. The primary goal of the present study is to reveal and proﬁle fashion lifestyle segments for online fashion mall users. pp. “Customer intention to return online: price perception. and Engel. pp. If ﬁndings are different. Findings of this study cannot be generalized to all internet users in Asian market. and satisfaction unfolding over time”. Blackwell. 308-33. Journal of Retailing. “Internet pricing. 472-82. Mason. T. we can learn about the propensity to shop online and fashion lifestyles of consumers in various Asian countries.kr (accessed February 13. J. C.M. L. Gutman. price satisfaction. Gruca. Korea National Statistical Ofﬁce (2007). (2002). “E-shopping lovers and fearful conservatives: a market segmentation analysis”.R. That is. M. and Korgaonkar. 12 No.. nso. pp. and Littrell. Vol. P. Vol. Seoul. and Mills. 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. “Inﬂuence of usage situations and consumer shopping orientations on the importance of retail store environment”. 2007). “Global e-tailing: US consumers’ intention to shop for cultural products on the internet”.asp (accessed February 13. (2006). (2003). S. K.. (1980). 2. Research design would be replicable to consumers in different nations. OH. 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. 58 No.N. Kim. self-concept.
E. pp. Vol.kr (accessed January 24. Shim. Park.html (accessed January 24.J. 29 No. E. Shin. “A typology of apparel shopping orientation segments among female consumers”. M. Vol. 4. 2008). 4. Vol. Park.. 445-63. Vyncke. and Kang. National Internet Development of Agency of Korea (2008).com/site/data/ html_dir/2007/11/16/2007111600863. 12 No. (2004). (2002).. H. pp. S. (2005). and Kotsiopulos. life visions and media preferences”. aesthetic styles. 28 No. 1475-84. “College students’ apparel shopping orientations and store selection for purchasing jeans”. 564-75.nida. (2007). and opinions. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal.com/reprints . P.M. and Ha. pp. “Effect of shopping mall attributes and shopping values on online purchase intentions”.J. Y. Park. The Number of Internet Users of Each Nation.M.kr (accessed January 24. E. Korea Is a Global Test Market. H. 547-58.National Internet Development of Agency of Korea (2007). The Internet Industry Report of People’s Republic of China in 2006. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles. E. Vol. to values. (1993). pp. and Chung.chosun. Corresponding author Heewon Sung can be contacted at: hsung@gnu. (2005). 2008).kr A proﬁle of Koreans 97 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. pp. E. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture.or. Vol.J. “A study on internet fashion shopping mall environments and purchase intention by shopping orientation”.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. 1. Kang. 5. 73-85. 17 No. 2008). 11.nida. A.or. available at: http://isis. Park. “Lifestyle segmentation: from interests.emeraldinsight. available at: http://weekly. European Journal of Communication. available at: http://isis. 13 No.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.