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
p. Japan (66milllion). which was almost 48. 2001. so marketers must keep track contemporary lifestyle trends of targets and reﬂect in product development. China (111 million). Hence. China. In order to accomplish this goal. 51. the internet usage rate of Korea reached 75. as well as demographic variables” (Blackwell et al. 2007). The purpose of this study was to identify a lifestyle typology relevant for predicting individual differences in evaluation for online fashion mall attributes. 2007). India (60million). 219).44 percent) (National Internet Development of Agency of Korea. marketers are trying to identify relatively homogeneous groups with similar product desires or interests. As Korea is considered as a testing market for new products from a global marketing perspective (Park.. Psychographic variables help to construe why they buy. and then proﬁled different fashion lifestyle segments with regard to demographics and internet usage trends. Lifestyles change more rapidly than value (Blackwell et al. .5 percent in 2007. 2008). 2002).1 80 billion). Since physical product attributes have become more comparable due to technology development while consumers are much more complicated than before. According to the same source. The ﬁndings of this study would offer guidelines for fashion e-retailers to improve market segmentations and corresponding strategies. marketers have relied on psychological variables of consumers rather than physical attributes of products. In comparing the number of internet users in Asia countries in 2005. or promotion strategy.44 percent.35 percent) was highest (Japan. Understanding consumers’ lifestyles would help marketers to communicate properly with their target audience and develop marketing strategies effectively. The internet users generally possess high propensity to become the ﬁrst-time buyer at online shopping mall. whereas the internet usage rate of Korea (68.6 percent increased in 2005 (National Internet Development of Agency of Korea. Koreans are fastidious and sensitive in styles and fashions. interests. Investigating fashion lifestyles of Koreans will provide information about shopping orientation of Asians who are very reﬁned in fashion tastes. Finally. we classiﬁed online users based on fashion lifestyles. it would be appropriate to examine Korean consumers as a representative e-retailing market in Asia. 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. 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. This study examined Korean online users to provide e-market segments for fashion products by fashion lifestyles. Literature review Lifestyles Lifestyles are deﬁned as “patterns in which people live and spend time and money. and opinions. reﬂecting a person’s activities.. communication message. 2001). and Korea (33million) were ranked in order. 8. while demographic variables focus on who buy products. we identiﬁed differences among segments in terms of online shopping mall attributes. Within a number of segmentation variables. ﬁrst. lifestyle has been suggested as one of the most fundamental factors (Vyncke.JFMM 13. India 5. Customers in one market – online market – may be too heterogeneous in their needs and values.54 percent.
Moy and Kincade. 13 items were adapted from A proﬁle of Koreans 81 . 2004. 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. 2004. Thus. Consumers’ response to the internet shopping mall would vary according to product categories. including 45 items. 2005. Shopping orientations or shopping speciﬁc lifestyles were also useful for market segmentation (Bellenger and Korgaonkar. Online store’s attributes generally consist of product information/description. They used four fashion lifestyle factors and classiﬁed consumers into seven segments.. 2004).. The ﬁrst section included 21 items modiﬁed from previous studies (Park et al. Performance of online shopping mall services is especially important to transform ﬁrst-time buyers into loyal customers.. Park et al. 1980. he or she visits more often to the shopping mall and buys more products. order tracking.. Online retailers include store attributes as like brick-and-mortar retailers do. Consumers who have positive attitudes toward online service attributes are more likely to present high level of customer satisfaction. Shim and Kotsiopulos. Shim and Kotsiopulos. and impulsive/planned orientation) (Kim and Lee. 2005). An individual selects the best products which meet his or her needs based on personal characteristics such as lifestyles. 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. 2005). and opinions about speciﬁc products (Ahn et al. leading to high purchase intentions (Jiang and Rosenbloom. Jiang and Rosenbloom. interests. an individual’s interests or shopping activities regarding fashion-related items would lead to different buying process. speed of loading. customer support. Methodology Instrument and data collection The instrument consisted of three sections. Consumers choose a speciﬁc product when consumer characteristics and store characteristics correspond in speciﬁc purchase situation (Blackwell et al. 1993). 2002..Lifestyle is subdivided into product-related lifestyle which is a person’s activities. Park and Kang. If the ﬁrst-time buyer satisﬁes his/her purchase experience. product assortment. 1993). easy of ordering. Gutman and Mills (1982) proﬁled consumers by employing fashion lifestyle scales.. utilitarian/hedonic orientation. 2005). 2001). Fashion lifestyles consist of fashion orientation (fashion consciousness. Literatures indicated that lifestyle segments differed in evaluation or selection on retail attributes. Then. fashion lifestyle would be a useful factor for market segmentation to understand changes in consumers’ values and to interpret consumers’ buying behaviors. 2005). shipping and handling. Park et al. 2005. and on-time delivery service (Cao et al. web site layout and image. consumers’ different characteristics and past experiences would lead to different evaluation of store attributes. 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. so we measured fashion lifestyles to focus on fashion products online.. In the second section. Although demographic characteristics are identical. 2003. fashion leadership) and clothing shopping orientation (brand/retailer loyalty.
211 useful data were obtained. and purchase intention indicated customer’s likelihood of buying from e-retailers. accessories (ornaments).7 percent were between 25-34 years. Also. 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. and other accessories where they purchased during six months. which was a tendency to enjoy shopping itself regardless of any plan to buy. The last section included demographic information (age.71. Overall satisfaction was deﬁned as customer’s overall evaluation of general online service quality. Respondents used the internet about 3 hours per day.5 percent of the total variance. means (SD). Each item was measured using ﬁve-point Likert-type scales ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).1 82 evaluation measurement scale for online fashion mall attributes (Jiang and Rosenbloom. and 21.8 percent were between the ages of 15-24 years. The sample was directed to a web site by clicking on the URL to the survey. Web survey was conducted by the internet research institute during two weeks of January. 43. About 53 percent reported that total annual household incomes were in the $20. The average number of items purchased during six months was 7. That was. Factor 3. The factor loadings. Factor 5 was named as “economical orientation”. Park and Kang. Final sample The total of 1.JFMM 13. cosmetics/perfumes. and annual income per household). bags/purses. internet usages (total hours to use the internet a day. explaining 59. Factor 4. the number of visiting fashion e-retailers per month). The data were collected from the internet users through the web survey. gender. under wear. and purchasing experience of fashion e-retailers. and approximately 70 percent of them had experienced to buy fashion items. Over 52 percent of the samples were female. respondents were asked to write the number of items in each category of casual wear. Factor 1 was the inclination to be aware of latest fashion trends. 2005). followed by cosmetics/perfume. which was the inclination to consider values for the money. labeled as “personality pursuit” was a tendency to value personal tastes above anything else.000-49. respondents in general seemed to emphasize personal tastes and economical aspects of fashion products. total number of connecting internet per day. and Cronbach’s alpha coefﬁcients were listed in Table I.999. sports wear. 2006. and shoes. The most frequently purchased items were casual wears. Five factors were generated. All of respondents had visited the online fashion mall at least one time. . occupation. 2005. The mean of “personality pursuit” factor items or “economical orientation” factor items was generally higher than the mean of the other three factors. About 34. Also. one item for general satisfaction and one for intention to purchase at online fashion malls were included in this section. labeled as “fashion consciousness”.6percent were between 35-39 years. Factor 2 was labeled as “shopping enjoyment”. shoes. labeled as “brand consciousness” represented the conﬁdence and quality in connection with well-known brands.
119 10.17 2.390 0.605 2.499 0.87 0.99 2.784 0.86 Eigen value % of variance Fashion consciousness (0.89 0.237 10.36 3.25 3.41 3.09 3.77 0.70 Items Factor loading Mean SD 0.820 0.808 0.884 0. Factor analysis and mean scores of fashion lifestyles .65 0.517 0.17 3.36 3.559 0.714 0.73 3.79 0.05 3.89 0.81 A proﬁle of Koreans 83 Table I.464 11.628 0.90 0.20 3.62) Economical orientation (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.392 16.80 0.92 3.87 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 0.590 0.658 2.91 0.275 10.720 0.59 3.707 0.690 0.15 2.53 3.615 2 0.23 3.67 2.90 0.850 2.73) Brand consciousness (0.81 0.80) 0.99 0.89 0.91 0.69 3.466 0.83 0.74 2.765 0.75 2.710 0.99 2.Factor title (Cronbach’s a) 0.79 0.73 0.98 Personality pursuit (0.61 3.83 2.90 0.89 0.79) Shopping enjoyment (0.
The results demonstrated that the discriminant functions were fairly accurate in predicting group membership.999 (30 percent) was higher than the total proportion (24. Chi-square analyses and ANOVA tests with Duncan tests were used to identify differences among ﬁve segments. Proﬁle of demographic and internet usages characteristics Tables IV and V presented respondents’ demographics and internet usage characteristics. Table II showed differences between lifestyle clusters by analysis of variance with Duncan tests. occupation. A classiﬁcation matrix for ﬁve-group discriminant analysis was reported in Table III. More than 50 percent were male. the mean of visiting fashion e-retailers was lowest. considered values for money. Although this group spent much time to use the internet. Five clusters were obtained by the SPSS k-means clustering method. naming as “Individualistic Shopper”. Cluster 2 (N ¼ 215) showed the highest levels of shopping enjoyment and economical orientation. naming as “Fashion Follower”. named as “Recreational Shopper”. In addition.3 percent for Fashion Follower. with the highest proportion (27 percent) in age between 30 and 34 years old.7 percent). age. Government related occupation showed higher proportion than the total counts. brand consciousness and shopping enjoyment. and do not enjoy shopping at all.1 84 Results on proﬁling market segments Factor scores from the ﬁve lifestyle factors were used to conduct cluster analysis to identify market segments. 2006).JFMM 13. but also considered well-known brands. but cared about personality and well-dressed appearance. Classiﬁcation analysis of the 1. Each segment was labeled based on fashion lifestyle factors which best described its characteristics. but did not care about fashion or brand names. About 75 percent of this group had experience to buy fashion items on e-retailers. The last group (N ¼ 224) displayed the highest level of personality and brand consciousness. but less cared about shopping enjoyment or economical orientation. The proportion of annual household income between $ 2. . The ﬁrst cluster (N ¼ 237) showed the second highest level of personality and economical perspectives. This cluster had neither desire for fashion leadership nor any interest in fashion. Signiﬁcant differences were found in gender. Economical shopper. ﬁve segments were signiﬁcantly different in purchase experience in online fashion malls and in the number of items purchased on e-retailers. and about 74 percent were ranged in age from 25 to 39 years. household annual income level. The classiﬁcation results indicated 98 percent of original cases were correctly classiﬁed. total hours to use the internet. Cluster 3 (N ¼ 249) showed the highest level of fashion and brand consciousness.8 percent for Fashion/brand Shopper to 99. Cluster 4 (N ¼ 286) showed the second highest levels of fashion. which was appropriate for large data sets (Allred et al. This group enjoyed shopping for fashion products. but did not care about practicality or fashion.000-2.211 cases showed correct classiﬁcation ranging from 96.. so called as “Fashion/Brand Shoppers”. so it was called “Economical Shopper”. Signiﬁcant differences between clusters are noted. and total number of visiting fashion e-retailers. but lowest in personality and economical orientation.
E ¼ significant mean differences by Duncan tests.320 0. 0.572 E B A A D F 202.845 * * * 217.357 * * * 148. D.982 2 0.226 0.872 2 0.917 2 0.395 A C A B C 0. B.248 0.133 2 0.414 2 0.030 2 0.208 2 0.166 0.711 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 0.622 0.766 C A B C A 0.707 0.553 D D C B B 2 0. * * * p .929 B B B D E 2 0.709 * * * Fashion consciousness Shopping enjoyment Brand consciousness Personality pursuit Economical orientation Notes: A.052 0.702 * * * 257.897 * * * 160. Cluster means and differences by fashion lifestyle factors .862 0. C.213 1.001 A proﬁle of Koreans 85 Table II.254 2 0.894 0.324 2 0.
4 2.0 1 1 241 1 0 Economical shopper Shopping maven Fashion/brand shopper Fashion follower Individualistic shopper Table III.8 0.1 Actual group 237 215 249 286 224 233 1 0 1 1 98.3 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 .0 0 3 5 284 4 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 97.7 0.4 96.86 JFMM 13.4 0. 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 % 0.8 Individualistic shopper n % 2 0 2 0 219 0.0 99.3 0.4 97.4 1 210 1 0 0 0.
6 18.7 0.5 2.7 21.4 1.4 6.999 $70.4 31.3 50.3 47.7 68.2 5.6 175 111 61.7 30.5%) M % 578 633 157 264 263 266 261 423 108 253 101 61 65 151 49 8.5 3.6 18.001 A proﬁle of Koreans 87 Table IV.2 80.5 8.3 5.4 27.1 6.688 * Demographics Gender Male Female Age 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Occupation Students Service-related job Gov.8 9.5 31.0 4.8 25.9 24.0 5.5 75. Demographic and internet use characteristics by fashion lifestyle segments .8 116 108 51.5 12./Org.-related job Prof.000-29.63 * * * 47.1 8.1 18.4 37.3 128 121 51.0 3.2 5. 0. p .000-49.4 48.1 7.6 23 192 10.000 Internet usages Fashion e-mall experience Yes No 82.8 48.4 42.5 24.6 14.0 23.9 5.8 12.1 17.1 34.7 19.000 $20.0 21.4 12. * p .3 136 101 57.6 27.3 178 59 32.0 3.7 40.9 32.7 52.3 3.999 $50.8 1.5 22.999 More than $90.163 * * * 34.7 89.2 38.9 20.1 15. * * *.5 10.0 21.8 1.7 28.9 170 45 79.3 19.3 5.5 2.0 70 19 63 21 13 9 29 13 95 11 40 10 1 10 42 6 44.13 * * * 72.2 8.0 8.9 8.1 24.6 3.7 19.5 4.9 38 56 73 69 50 13.0 18.6 8.0 26.2 10.6 18 44 56 64 55 7.7 49.7 2.8 21.3 117 66 68 26 4 5 141 145 398 299 345 106 30 33 844 367 69.8 31.7 75 71 65 16 4 6 34.000-89.9 8.2 14.2 150.8 2.6 2.999 $30.9 201 48 74 58 54 16 5 8 34.5 36 54 35 42 57 24.5 4.0 27.7 22.0 25.6 4.7 22.3 7.5 17.9 24 49 55 54 67 9.6%) M % Cluster 4 Fashion follower (23.1 23.1 21.6 30.6 25.7%) M % Cluster 3 Fashion/brand shopper (20.6%) M % Cluster 5 Individualistic shopper (18.3 4.000-69.6 19.1 8.4 11.2 5.0 21. 0.7 83) 18 45 23 9 10 24 12 71 49 72 18 8 6 154 70 13.8 76 20 53 18 20 21 28 13 30.98 * * * Notes: Numbers indicate frequencies (percentage) or means.9 23.7 61 55 86 30 9 8 24.4 20.7 5.6 23.1 20.4 2.6%) M % Cluster 2 Recreational shopper (17.0 20.2 99 40 52 29 18 15 28 5 34.2 41 61 44 37 32 19.5 8.1 1.1 28. technicians Enterprisers Professional and manager Housewives Others Annual income Less than $20.1 10.Total count (% within cluster) M % Tests Chi square (x2) Cluster 1 Economical shopper (19.05.2 9.7 26.
15 * * 3.18 A 9.19 BC 6.20 AB 2.65 C 6.48 17.39 A 5.95 1.80 10.30 Numbers of items purchased online 7. * p .71 11.28 3.34 C 15.07 A 6.1 Internet usages Fashion e-mail experience Total hours per day 2.55 B 5.80 13.05. 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 3.18 A 6.88 JFMM 13. B.30 C 3.03 A Notes.31 * .03 A 6. C ¼ significant mean differences by Duncan tests.79 BC 8. A.29 8.41 Numbers of connecting internet per day 6.23 3. * *. p .001 Table V.79 BC 6.16 * * 1.18 8.79 10.548 5.22 Number of visiting fashion e-retailers per month 11. 0.10 AB 9. 0.
The lowest household incomes (less than $20. The household income distribution was almost similar to Economical Shoppers. this group did not visit fashion e-retailers neither purchase fashion items as similar as Fashion Follower did. Almost 81 percent of this segment had purchased fashion items on e-retailers which was the highest proportion among ﬁve clusters.5 percent respectively) within the group as well as between groups. 20-24. Students and housewives took highest proportions (44. Fashion follower. A little over half of this segment did not purchase any fashion items on e-retailers.9 percent) within group as well as across groups.000) showed highest representation than expected within this segment. which included charging service. Respondents who had bought fashion items online would respond their online shopping experience. professional/manager occupations were a slightly higher than the overall sample. This group showed the second highest numbers of visiting e-fashion mall (M ¼ 13:1) and fashion items purchased (M ¼ 9:20). Fashion/brand shopper.Recreational shopper. order tracking.3 percent). The ﬁrst factor was labeled as “product presentation attributes”. Respondents who did not buy any fashion goods would reﬂect A proﬁle of Koreans 89 . which was the largest proportion of inexperienced consumers for e-retailers between groups. which represented a heavier proportion of male consumers than the overall sample distribution. Although this group used the internet as similar to other three groups. speed of ordering. Almost 50 percent was age ranged from 25 to 34 years old.999 than the overall sample. Nearly 80 percent had bought fashion items on e-retailers.3 percent of this group did not buy any product on fashion e-retailers. with the higher observation number in 15-19 years and 20-24 years of age. The third factor was named as “after service attributes”. These characteristics were also consistent with the highest number of items purchased on e-retailers (M ¼ 9:39). This segment presented a relatively higher proportion of high income levels than did the other four groups. These two age groups showed higher proportions compared with the overall distribution of respondents. The second factor was labeled as “checkout attributes” of online. Service-related and professional technician jobs were more highly represented in this segment than the overall sample. 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. High representation in students and professional technician jobs might be related to age distributions. About 31. As Recreational Shopper enjoyed shopping and spent time for shopping most. 19. Enterpriser. More than 61 percent of this group was male. This group had a relatively higher representation of $ 30. this group showed the highest numbers of visiting fashion e-retailers.2 percent. contrary to Economical Shopper. and 35-39 years) showed higher representation compared with the overall sample distribution. including product information and visual presentation of fashion goods. A little over half of this segment was male. About 52 percent was male. which was closed to the overall sample distribution. and price perceived to the internet users. using the principal component method (Table VI). Individualistic shopper.000-49. and three age groups (15-19. The majority was female (89. This included the services received after checkout fashion goods. Respondents between 35 and 39 years presented the highest proportion (26.
42 3. D ¼ significant mean differences by Duncan tests.77 3.15 0.50 3.28 3.63 3.76 3.67 B B B B AB 3.57 2.58 3.01 3.80 3.48 2.93 2.13 3.49 3.74 0.650 * 12.96 0.425 * 11.56 CD C B BC B 3.50 3.94 2.147 * 38.50 3.98 2.69 3.27 3.38 A A A A A A A A A A 0.79 0.37 3.68 3.41 2.99 3.96 2.078 * 18.5%) F 2.73 3.21 3.12 3.001 Table VI.06 3.10 2.03 3.61 3.785 * 18.96 3.90 D D B C C B C C C B B A B C C 3. updates Variety of products 3.638 * 8.37 2.27 B B B BC B A 0.747 * .93 2.21 3.451 * 9.77 0.04 3.79 3.607 * 43.12 BC B B B AB A B B B BC B BC BC B B 21.81 3.63 3.78 0.94 2.91 2.6%) Cluster 5 Individualistic shopper (18.71 3.91 2.55 3.81 3.78 2.64 3.250 * 12.05 3.400 * 15.95 2.68 3.12 3.76 2.82 0.50 2.1 E-retailer’s attributes Product presentation attributes (a ¼ 0:78) Site design Speed of product search Product description Product info.03 3.23 3.42 A AB B B 3.77 3.22 2.95 2.473 * 43.56 A AB AB AB 3.414 * 16.84 0.71 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.6%) Cluster 2 Recreational shopper (17.14 3.83 0.78 2.09 3.67 0. B.7%) Cluster 3 Fashion/brand shopper (20.64 3.384 * 38.96 2.25 3. Fashion e-retailer’s service attributes by fashion lifestyle segments Total M SD Cluster 1 Economical shopper (19.68 2.97 2.95 2.14 3.74 0.51 3.80 0. C.09 3. * p .81 0.6%) Cluster 4 Fashion follower (23.04 2.22 3.03 3.02 2.794 * 24.25 3.90 3. 0.86 3.06 3.13 C C C C BC B 2.93 3.55 3.90 JFMM 13.36 3.
In order to provide the differences between clusters graphically. followed by Recreational Shopper.15). respondents displayed relatively higher scores than mid points of overall satisfaction (3. Table VI showed that all of e-retailer’s attributes were differently evaluated. Fashion/brand Shoppers showed highest evaluation as well.74 to 0.80. Figures 1-5 were drawn based on factor scores in Table II. A proﬁle of Koreans 91 Figure 1. Checkout attributes. Fashion/brand Shopper showed the highest levels of overall satisfaction and intention to buy. inﬂuenced by their social community. Discussion We proﬁled market segments of potential consumers who would buy fashion items on e-retailers. Individualistic Shopper. 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. When compared with overall satisfaction and intention to purchase online among ﬁve segments. Chronbach’s alpha was ranged from 0. Economical Shopper. However. We provided distinctive characteristics of each segment.12) and intention to purchase fashion items online (3.their expectation or indirect experience. reﬂecting the beneﬁts of online shopping. Internet users belonged to one of ﬁve fashion lifestyle segments. and Fashion Follower. Fashion/brand shopper . Nevertheless. and Individualistic Shoppers showed the lowest evaluation. The means of after service attribute items were lower than the mid score. In general. ANOVA with Duncan tests were used to examine differences among ﬁve lifestyle segments in evaluation of online fashion mall attributes. In terms of after service attributes. respondents presented positive evaluation toward product presentation attributes and checkout attributes. Economical Shopper and Individualistic Shopper presented a similar tendency. at the middle level. similar to Recreational Shopper. presented relatively high mean of each item compared to the other two attribute factors. indicating that respondents were less satisﬁed with delivery service or exchange policy online than other attributes.
This group is likely to buy well-known brand products.6 percent) As demonstrated in Figure 1. although they care about fashion leadership and newest fashion trends. since fashion leaders tend to enjoy shopping. With the high number of connecting e-fashion mall as well as the highest evaluation of e-shopping mall attributes. Interestingly. overall satisfaction and intention to purchase on e-retailers. this segment is heavily conscious about latest fashion trends and well-known fashion brands. The proportion of enterpriser. this group . they do not enjoy shopping. and are not conscious of the cost or practicality (Gutman and Mills. Economical shopper Fashion/brand shoppers (20. 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.JFMM 13. 1982). and they are less concerned about the price. Recreational shopper Figure 3.1 92 Figure 2.
Bellenger and Korgaonkar (1980) presented that recreational or hedonic shoppers spent more time for shopping even after making a purchase.’s study (2005). Also. Individualistic shopper Figure 5. Finding is comparable with the Fashion/brand Shopper of Park et al. Recreational shopper (17. The majority is female. Occupations seem to highly correlate with gender and age. young students or housewives. variety of merchandise.7 percent) Consumers in this segment heavily enjoy shopping and highlight values for the money. and visual aspects of retailer as important. This segment perhaps visits fashion e-retailers not only shopping but . Fashion follower would be the ﬁrst major target for e-retailers. This segment is comparable with the previous studies.A proﬁle of Koreans 93 Figure 4. and moderately consider brand names (Figure 2). the same researchers mentioned that recreational shoppers regarded high-quality. were active information seekers and bargain hunters than economical shoppers did.
However. However. economical orientation is lowest. although the proportion of the lowest household incomes is highest among ﬁve segments. but are no interests in fashion. shopping or brands. Nevertheless. consumers in this segment are concerned about well-dressed. the Negatives are conscious of the cost or practicality to some extent. The members of this group display similar predisposition to fashion leaders. so it is necessary to develop appropriate marketing strategy to transform this segment into potential. while Economical Shopper shows mid to low levels of evaluation for e-retailers’ attributes. 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. 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. 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 presented in Figure 3. and shopping enjoyment (Figure 5). They might consider that well-known brands stood for well-dressed. The high proportion of male and older age groups in addition to conservative occupations (government related jobs) would support these characteristics. Among ﬁve segments.6 percent) This segment takes largest proportion of the total sample. As fashion followers are not concerned about price or practical aspects of fashion products (Gutman and Mills. Recreational Shopper who values shopping enjoyment presents positive attitudes toward e-retailers. 2005). 1982). Otherwise. These characteristics are similar to those of “Negatives” in Gutman and Mills’ (1982) study. Both segments value economical aspects. The lowest evaluation of checkout attributes would support it. they show low level of fashion e-retailer visits. personality rather than fashion trends and moderately enjoying shopping. brand orientation. this group presents the middle levels of evaluations of fashion e-retailer attributes as well as overall satisfaction and intention to purchase. 94 . Fashion follower (23.JFMM 13. while Individualistic Shoppers are not concerned about the economical aspects but about well-known brand names. members in this cluster display the second highest levels of economical orientation and personality pursuits.5 percent) As demonstrated in Figure 4. Economical shopper (19. Economical Shopper presents somewhat opposite features from recreational shopper. It appears that either they are afraid of or not accustomed to checkout through the internet.1 also collecting information about fashion products since they are practical and recreational shoppers. they presumably visit e-shops to get information about fashion products and/or still prefer off-line stores. Especially members of this segment seem to be dissatisﬁed with after service attributes. 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. Compared with internet usage.6 percent) Approximately one ﬁfth displays the tendency of Economical Shopper. active e-shoppers.
Demographic characteristics of respondents. representative age groups of heavy internet users. Accordingly the lowest level of overall dissatisfaction or purchase intention is presented despite to relatively high level of evaluation for after service attributes. The ﬁrst two segments are the most potential and important target market for e-business. investigating a newly emerging group of internet users. practical online users. such as occupations or income levels were widely distributed. Fashion e-retailers such as fast fashion brands are proper for Recreational group because this segment needs for a high-quality. so caution is necessary in interpreting ﬁndings. Economical Shopper is typical. However. Fashion Follower segment exhibits relatively negative attitudes toward fashion e-malls. In addition. wide variety of merchandise at valued prices. Besides. who are potential to become loyal consumers. Thus Individual Shopper could be the second target market for exclusive fashion brands. 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. since this segment is interested in fashion. Economical Shopper. Individualistic Shopper. so basic items at valued prices rather than trendy. it is necessary to inform positive aspects of online shopping so that this segment is comfortable with e-retailers.211 internet users have bought fashion items on e-retailers. e-retailers require reinforcing after service attributes and price-related promotions. proper product assortments that are compatible with consumers’ tastes and current fashion trends are necessary. well-known brand items are appropriate. Five lifestyle segments are Fashion/brand Shopper. so it would be difﬁcult to satisfy them. brands. Almost 70 percent of 1. However. We focus on age ranged from 15 to 39 years. Involvement with fashion leads consumers to speciﬁc buying behaviors. such as silver groups is also worthwhile. it is necessary to highlight the beneﬁt of using or shopping online to create positive attitudes toward fashion e-retailers’ attributes. there is possibility to increase online shopping usages by stimulating these inclinations. Since consumers in this segment have needs for high-quality products with premium brands. and about 30 percent evaluates e-retailers’ attributes without their purchasing experiences. 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. They seem to evaluate the web site performances based on indirect experiences from other product categories. and Fashion Followers. Characteristics of McFashion brands would satisfy this segment of both economical and brand orientations.Evaluation for product presentation attributes indicates that the advantages of the speed to search or variety of products do not appeal to them. Recreational Shopper. To enhance the purchase of fashion goods online for this segment. Thus. Conclusion and recommendations This study aims to classify internet users by fashion lifestyles. the instrument for the present study is A proﬁle of Koreans 95 . Limitations and future research Respondents in this study visit online fashion shopping malls at least once. and shopping. Individual Shopper is similar to Fashion/brand Shopper in terms of brand or personality pursuits but different in fashion consciousness.
D.R. Vol. probably caused by different stage of internet infrastructure or different involvement in fashion. L. pp. and customer satisfaction”. 13. C. and Mills. 31-50. Vol. self-concept. P. and Lee. T. 77-92. pp. Mason. 2006 Annual Statistical Report of Cyber Shopping Mall. K. 2. 39 Nos 1/2. South-Western.K. available at: www. Findings of this study cannot be generalized to all internet users in Asian market. “Internet pricing. pp.. Vol. (2003).M. Blackwell.W.S. Y. Gruca. Lee. B. “A documentary study to determine the concept of clothing shopping orientation”. “Inﬂuence of usage situations and consumer shopping orientations on the importance of retail store environment”. Vol.asp (accessed February 13.N. 2007). and store patronage: an integrative analysis”. (1980). Vol. 28 Nos 3/4. pp. and Swinyard. D. Smith. Cao.H. 1. (2005). Bellenger.. 3. and Engel. 8 No. (2005). European Journal of Marketing. 2. pp. B. 2007). (2005). and Korgaonkar. 133-47.machrotech. 59-79.R. Research design would be replicable to consumers in different nations. J. and Littrell. The primary goal of the present study is to reveal and proﬁle fashion lifestyle segments for online fashion mall users. Moye. M. and Chung. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Fashion Marketing. and satisfaction unfolding over time”. and Rosenbloom. 12 No. 9th ed. If ﬁndings are different. Allred. However. pp. Consumer Behavior. (2002). R. E-commerce Market Size and Trends. Gutman.F. 34 Nos 4/5. 64-86.JFMM 13. available at: www. nso. That is. shopping orientation. pp. Hwang. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. References Ahn. (1982). com/services/ecommerce-marketsize-statistics. Korea National Statistical Ofﬁce (2007). OH. P. “Global e-tailing: US consumers’ intention to shop for cultural products on the internet”. P. S. the nature of segment orientation can be highlighted over geographic segmentation in the global market. 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.. we can learn about the propensity to shop online and fashion lifestyles of consumers in various Asian countries. 308-33. Journal of Retailing. pp. 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. “E-shopping lovers and fearful conservatives: a market segmentation analysis”.K. Machrotech (2007) Vol. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles. 2..kr (accessed February 13. and Klemz.D. Distribution and Consumer Research. Vol. J. Miniard. Journal of Retailing. Kim. 150-74. price satisfaction.go. W. 56 No. “Customer intention to return online: price perception. M. attribute-level performance. (2006). “Proﬁling the recreational shopper”. Vol. “Fashion life style. 472-82. all elements of fashion lifestyles associated with apparel purchasing behaviors may not have been captured. (2001). International Journal of Retailing & Distribution Management. Vol. C. International Review of Retail. E.. .R. (2004). Jiang.N.1 96 modiﬁed based on previous studies. Soo Hak Sa. Seoul. and Kincade. 58 No. S. S. 33 No. S.
and Kotsiopulos. life visions and media preferences”. H. H. Shim. 12 No.kr A proﬁle of Koreans 97 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. 73-85. E. The Number of Internet Users of Each Nation. “A typology of apparel shopping orientation segments among female consumers”. (2005). 5. Vol. pp.J. A. 28 No. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles. Park. Park. 4.or. Kang. Vol. Korea Is a Global Test Market.com/reprints . 445-63. “College students’ apparel shopping orientations and store selection for purchasing jeans”.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. 11.nida. 13 No. “A study on internet fashion shopping mall environments and purchase intention by shopping orientation”. pp.com/site/data/ html_dir/2007/11/16/2007111600863. 17 No. National Internet Development of Agency of Korea (2008). Vol.. E. 29 No. pp. “Lifestyle segmentation: from interests.html (accessed January 24. (2005). 4. “Effect of shopping mall attributes and shopping values on online purchase intentions”. M. E. pp. Corresponding author Heewon Sung can be contacted at: hsung@gnu. Vol. and Kang. to values. European Journal of Communication. (2002). available at: http://isis. Vol. 564-75.. (1993). E.emeraldinsight. available at: http://weekly. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture.J. Shin.J. pp. (2007). S. (2004). P.M. 547-58. 2008).nida. 1.National Internet Development of Agency of Korea (2007). Y. The Internet Industry Report of People’s Republic of China in 2006. aesthetic styles. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles. 1475-84. Vyncke. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. Park. Park. and Ha. 2008). 2008). E.kr (accessed January 24. and opinions.kr (accessed January 24.chosun. available at: http://isis.or.M. and Chung.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?