brand/product preferences Youngjin Bahng International Merchandising, Apparel Product Design and Merchandising Program, Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA Doris H. Kincade Apparel PD and Merchandising, Department of Apparel, Housing, and Resource Management, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, and Jung-ha (Jennifer) Yang Fashion Merchandising Program, Brown School of Business and Leadership, Stevenson University, Owings Mills, Maryland, USA Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide detailed information about the shopping behaviors and brand/product preferences of college students. To accomplish this purpose the following objectives were proposed: to identify college student segments underlying clothing shopping orientations; to profile these consumers by demographics and brand/product preferences; and to use apparel expenditures to further characterize the market segments. Design/methodology/approach A survey of college students at a major university was conducted. After adopting the listwise deletion method, 185 useable questionnaires were available for analysis. For data analysis, descriptive statistics, K-means cluster analysis, Chi-square, ANOVA, and Dunnett T3 tests were employed. Results showed that three segments were identified (i.e. apathetic price-forward shoppers, hedonic fashion-forward shoppers, involved price-forward shoppers), and the three hypotheses were supported. Findings The paper shows that the three segments can be characterized by distinct profiles of demographics and brand/product preferences. Marketing and merchandising strategies for retailers are provided. Originality/value Few studies have examined college students specific brand/product preferences even though information about these consumer preferences can be directly and practically utilized by apparel retailers for their merchandise planning. There is also a lack of studies that examined college students clothing behavior based on their major. With the increasing importance of brand as a marketing tool, this information is important to academic researchers and retailers. Keywords Segmentation, Apparel, Shopping, Brands, Product, Preferences Paper type Research paper Introduction Market segmentation is defined as dividing a market into smaller segments of buyers with distinct needs, characteristics, or behaviors that might require separate marketing strategies or mixes (Kotler and Armstrong, 2011, p. 190). This technique of consumer segmentation is essential to the practitioners and academics in the marketing field because segments offer a better understanding of consumer behavior, target customer profiles, and brand/store positioning. For retailers, this information can lead to efficient development of relevant and effective marketing strategies (Dibb and Simkin, 1996; Westbrook and Black, 1985; Chetthamrongchai and Davis, 2000). To reach the desired The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm Received 10 July 2012 Revised 29 March 2013 Accepted 1 April 2013 Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management Vol. 17 No. 3, 2013 pp. 367-384 rEmerald Group Publishing Limited 1361-2026 DOI 10.1108/JFMM-07-2012-0036 367 College students apparel shopping market segment with the right products can be the key to profitability for retailers. For academics this technique can become the basis for theory development and hypothesis testing in predicting future behavior. To be viable, market segments should be identifiable, and consumers within the segment should have an interest in purchasing products and have enough wealth to generate sales. College students are easily identifiable by their typical age of under 25, their membership in the millennial generation, and their college affiliation (Davis and Bauman, 2011; Pew Research Center, 2010). An examination of college students demographics shows that these consumers meet other marketing segmentation criteria as well. In the Consumer Expenditure Survey done by Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011), consumers under 25 years generated 53.9 percent less income compared to the average annual income of older consumers. In contrast, this college-age bracket of consumers spent a significantly higher proportion of their income for apparel products and services than did the older consumers. This statistic is confirmed in another study where annual clothing expenditure of millennial women were a third more than non-millennial women, and millennial men spent twice as much as non-millennial men (Boston Consulting Group, 2012). That study also reported that 47 percent of millennial women vs 36 percent of non-millennial women and 38 percent of millennial men vs 10 percent non-millennial men shopped more than twice a month. Although college students clearly have the access to income and exhibit the interest in apparel to consider them a viable market segment, this group of young adult consumers has often been neglected in market studies, viewed en mass, or as one style fits all college students. By ignoring this market, while students are in college and without their own income, retailers lose the exact moment for developing these customers into future loyal customers when they will have the potential to earn high incomes after college (Arnett, 2000). In addition to being ignored by retailers, many aspects of college students shopping behavior have been ignored by academics. In the apparel studies where college students are used, researchers have examined primarily their motivations and the benefits sought (Cardoso and Pinto, 2010; Jung and Sung, 2008; Lee and Kim, 2008; Park and Sullivan, 2009; Seock and Bailey, 2008). Although some researchers investigated purchase intentions for US apparel brands among college students in other countries (e.g. India and Mexico; Son et al. (2013); Lee et al., 2008), few studies reported US college students specific brand preferences. In addition, the college student is basically ignored in shopping orientation studies because most shopping orientation studies involve a general range of consumers and not college students. Although few studies have examined college students brand/product preferences and their shopping orientation, this information can be directly and practically utilized by apparel retailers for their merchandise planning. With the increasing importance of brand as a marketing tool, this information is important to academic researchers and retailers. To address this vacancy in the literature and to up-date this literature for the growing importance of brand marketing, this study specifically explored college students their shopping orientations and their preferences of certain US apparel brands. In addition to the orientation and the specificity of brands, examination of college students clothing preferences based on their college major adds uniqueness to this study and a new potential for target marketing and more focussed studies. College majors can be used by researchers as proxies for additional information about the college consumer ( Jain et al., 2011). The purpose of this study is to provide 368 JFMM 17,3 additional detailed information about the shopping behaviors and brand/product preferences of US college students within the context of their majors. To accomplish this purpose the following objectives are proposed: . to identify college student segments underlying clothing shopping orientations and fashion attribute factors; . to profile these consumers in terms of two constructs, demographics, including college major, and students brand and product preferences; and . to use apparel expenditures to further characterize the market segments. Review of literature/theory Market segmentation and benefits sought in relationship to shopping orientation Market segmentation, useful in understanding and targeting the consumer, may be generated on many bases such as demographics, psychographics, benefits sought, and socioculture (Peter and Olson, 2005). Among the multitude of segmentation bases, segmentation based on benefits sought requires a marketer to identify what fulfillment consumers seek when shopping for and purchasing a product (Kotler and Armstrong, 2011; Schiffman and Kanuk, 1983). One or more benefits that a consumer consciously or unconsciously seeks in a shopping situation can be the explanation or key to a consumers shopping orientation. Through benefits sought, shopping orientations can be used to categorize shoppers and to provide insight into the opinions they have about shopping (Moye and Kincade, 2002, 2003; Shim and Kotsiopoulos, 1992); therefore, clustering consumers on this variable is a potential marketing segmentation tool and academic study focus. Although shopping orientation theory has been validated in research about older consumers, only a limited number of studies were found using this variable for college consumers. Shopping orientation and related variables Earlier shopping orientation researchers in general consumer research, such as Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) and Babin et al. (1994), identified the two orientations of hedonic shopping and utilitarian shopping. Hedonic shopping describes a consumers fun, pleasurable, experiential shopping experience. In contrast, utilitarian shopping designates a more rational and process-oriented approach to shopping. Scarpi (2006) added further elaboration on the characteristics of the two shopper orientations. Hedonic shoppers take pleasure in shopping and spending time in the store. Utilitarian shoppers are goal oriented, and for them, shopping is a task to be completed accurately and efficiently. Many subsequent studies have used these two categories as the base of their own categorization of shopping orientation (see Table I); however, few examined the college student as the consumer sample. The shopping orientation literature is rather extensive and can provide a foundation of shopper orientations with relationships to other shopper variables. Some studies were primarily designed to identify dimensions of the shopping orientations (Cardoso and Pinto, 2010). Similar studies sought to expand the information about shopping orientations and provided demographics or other descriptors of consumers identified by their shopping orientations (Kim and Lee, 2000; Shim and Kotsiopoulos, 1992). An overview of the studies indicates that, although hedonic and utilitarian orientations are noted, other variations of these terms and other orientations are presented in the literature. 369 College students apparel shopping A u t h o r ( s ) S a m p l e d e m o g r a p h i c s H e d o n i c U t i l i t a r i a n O t h e r n / a H i r s c h m a n a n d H o l b r o o k ( 1 9 8 2 ) C o n c e p t u a l p a p e r - n o s a m p l e H U n / a S h i m a n d K o t s i o p o u l o s ( 1 9 9 2 ) C r o s s - s e c t i o n o f f e m a l e a p p a r e l c o n s u m e r s C o n f i d e n t s h o p p e r A p p e a r a n c e m a n a g e r F a s h i o n c o n s c i o u s E c o n o m i c s h o p p e r C o n v e n i e n c e / t i m e c o n s c i o u s C r e d i t u s e r S t o r e f o r m a t o r i e n t a t i o n s : l o c a l s t o r e s h o p p e r , c a t a l o g u e s h o p p e r , m a l l s h o p p e r B r a n d - c o n s c i o u s A p a t h e t i c t o w a r d M a d e i n U S A S h i m a n d K o t s i o p o u l o s ( 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 9 3 ) C r o s s - s e c t i o n o f f e m a l e a p p a r e l c o n s u m e r s H i g h l y i n v o l v e d a p p a r e l s h o p p e r C o n v e n i e n c e - o r i e n t e d c a t a l o g s h o p p e r A p a t h e t i c a p p a r e l s h o p p e r B a b i n e t a l . ( 1 9 9 4 ) A d u l t r e s i d e n t s o f a l a r g e M i d w e s t e r n c o m m u n i t y H U n / a K i m a n d L e e , 2 0 0 0 C a t a l o g s h o p p e r s w h o h e l d p r o f e s s i o n a l j o b s H U H o n g a n d K o h ( 2 0 0 2 ) K o r e a n f e m a l e a p p a r e l c o n s u m e r s F a s h i o n - o r i e n t e d g r o u p B u d g e t - o r i e n t e d g r o u p B r a n d - o r i e n t e d g r o u p M o y e a n d K i n c a d e ( 2 0 0 2 ) C r o s s - s e c t i o n o f f e m a l e a p p a r e l c o n s u m e r s A p p e a r a n c e - c o n s c i o u s a p p a r e l s h o p p e r s B a r g a i n a p p a r e l s h o p p e r s D e c i s i v e s h o p p e r s C o n f i d e n t a p p a r e l s h o p p e r s M o y e a n d K i n c a d e ( 2 0 0 3 ) C r o s s - s e c t i o n o f f e m a l e a p p a r e l c o n s u m e r s E x t r e m e l y i n v o l v e d a p p e a r a n c e - c o n s c i o u s s h o p p i n g s e g m e n t H i g h l y i n v o l v e d b a r g a i n s h o p p i n g s e g m e n t D e c i s i v e s h o p p i n g s e g m e n t C o n f i d e n t s h o p p i n g s e g m e n t S c a r p i ( 2 0 0 6 ) C o n s u m e r s p u r c h a s i n g p r o d u c t s i n f a s h i o n s t o r e s H U n / a K o a n d K i n c a d e ( 2 0 0 7 ) C r o s s - s e c t i o n o f f e m a l e a p p a r e l c o n s u m e r s F a s h i o n o r i e n t a t i o n E c o n o m i c o r i e n t a t i o n T i m e o r i e n t a t i o n n / a Table I. Terms for shopping orientation of adult female consumers 370 JFMM 17,3 In addition to identifying orientations and profiling shoppers by demographics (e.g. gender, home country, age), general apparel shopping studies also used shopping orientations in relation to various aspects of the shopping experience, such as differences in purchasing by frequency (Scarpi, 2006); perceptions of store attributes (Hong and Koh, 2002); rating of various store environments (i.e. sensory/layout, music/ aesthetics; Moye and Kincade, 2002); reactions to specific products, store characteristics, and channels of distribution (Moye and Kincade, 2003; Shim and Kotsiopoulos, 1993). Extending the research on consumer shopping orientations in the multichannel environment, Ko and Kincade (2007) related orientations to satisfaction when retailers were using advanced technologies to provide stock assortments, and Lee and Kim (2008) compared shopping orientations and level of satisfaction with information search via multi-channels. Although extensive in scope and coverage, the primary sample for these studies was adult female shoppers, not college students. Shopping orientations of college students Although narrow in the definition of shopping orientation (i.e. utilitarian, hedonic, composite both utilitarian and hedonic), three studies were identified that examined the apparel shopping orientations of college students. In a study of apparel shopping, Carpenter and Fairhurst (2005) found that the utilitarian benefit (e.g. finding exactly what a consumer wanted in a shopping trip) and hedonic benefit (e.g. feeling excitement from purchase experience) both have positive relationships with consumer satisfaction, store loyalty, and willingness to spread word-of-mouth. Regarding the online apparel shopping environment, Seock and Bailey (2008) identified the following seven shopping orientation constructs for college students: shopping enjoyment, brand/fashion consciousness, price consciousness, shopping confidence, convenience/ time-consciousness, in-home shopping tendency, and brand/store loyalty. In the third college student study, Park and Sullivan (2009) examined shopping orientation and repatronage behavior (i.e. brand loyalty) of college students. They identified the following three clusters based on shopping orientation: utilitarian benefit group, hedonic benefit group, and composite benefit group. The hedonic benefit group considered aesthetic attributes (e.g. design, style, pattern, color) more important than the utilitarian benefit group and the composite benefit group. In addition, the hedonic group had a higher brand repurchase intention than the other two groups. With limited demographic information and a focus primarily on shopping orientation segmentation, these studies did examine brand loyalty of college students; however, these three studies did not examine the specific products or brands selected and purchased and were conducted with limited sample variation. In future research comments, these researchers indicated the need for more studies and the use of expanded samples and inclusion of more variables. Brand preferences of college students For many consumers, brand preference can be a critical factor that explains certain consumer behavior, such as selection of apparel, because perception of a certain brand may have to be congruent with the self-image of the person using the apparel product (Choi et al., 2010). Of the numerous studies using college students as the sample, only six studies were identified that examined external factors affecting or contributing to brand preferences of apparel. Three of these studies were country specific (i.e. Australia, Mulyanegara and Tsarenko, 2009; Korea, Choi et al., 2010; Jung and Sung, 2008; Mexico, Lee et al., 2008). 371 College students apparel shopping In addition to the fragmentation from country specific samples, the studies involved specific aspects of brand preferences and were not comprehensive in profiling the college student market. For example, Mulyanegara and Tsarenko (2009) investigated the relationship among brand personality, consumer values, and brand preferences and found that consumer values (i.e. internal values, interpersonal values) were related to brand preferences, mediated by prestige sensitivity. Phau and Leng (2008) examined the attitudes toward luxury brand apparel and status seeking. Choi et al. (2010) examined brand extensions for the fast fashion brand Zara. Lee and Rhee (2008) and Jung and Sung (2008) examined certain brands such as Gap, Polo, and Levis and found significance with consumer attributes such as brand loyalty and quality perceptions. Girard et al. (2003) tested relationships among demographics, shopping orientations and purchase preferences, and indicated that convenience and recreational shopping orientations and gender demographics had significant relationships with clothing and perfume purchase preferences in online shopping. Based on the above-mentioned previous studies, significance was found between specific brand and product preferences (e.g. luxury goods) and numerous consumer attributes; however, none of these studies combined a broad view of brand and product preferences, shopping orientations for college students, and multiple demographic characteristics including college majors. Conceptual framework for relationship of variables Adapting the conceptual framework proposed and tested by Kincade et al. (2010), the variables of shopping orientation, brand and product preferences, and consumer demographics were combined in this study (see Figure 1). These variables are examined because they provide variables that retailers can use for market segmentation and sales promotions. Using generational market segments, Kincade et al. examined older and younger apparel shoppers according to their type of shopping Brand/Product Preferences Purchase Need/Want Perception Consumer Demographic Variables Shopping Selection Activities Figure 1. Predicted influences within the consumer shopping behavior process 372 JFMM 17,3 orientation and their interest in catalog or other alternative retail formats. Their findings indicated that shopping orientation was a significant predictor of shopping activities within the context of product-specific situations and added validity to the framework. This relationship was viewed as a precursor to purchase selection within the consumer shopping behavior process. Based on the framework the following hypotheses are proposed: (1) college students shopping behaviors can be clustered based on shopping orientations and fashion attribute factors; (2) shopping clusters can be characterized by demographics, including college major, and brand and product preferences; and (3) apparel expenditures can also be used to differentiate the clusters. Methods The researchers conducted a survey of 250 full-time undergraduate students at a major university using a paper and pencil questionnaire. Permission with Institutional Review Board and instructor approval was granted to ask for student participation. Classes across the university were selected to provide a stratified sample to provide a representation of majors and class levels. Students were advised of their rights and were given no compensation for participation, and 185 useable questionnaires (74 percent of the total completed) were available for analysis after adopting the listwise deletion method. The questionnaire had four sections: 31 items of shopping orientations, seven items of demographics/psychographics, ten items of brand/product preferences, and one item of shopping expense per semester. The first section, shopping orientation, used a five-point Likerttype scale linked to statements about shopping (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree). The second and third sections concerned students characteristics and employed nominal or ordinal measures of demographics/ psychographics (e.g. 1 male, 2 female) and brand/product preferences (e.g. 1 relaxed fit, 2 slightly fitted, 3 fitted). Lastly, one item about students shopping expense was asked to examine a difference in spending for clothing shopping between clusters of segmented shoppers. All items in the questionnaire were adopted and modified from several previous research studies (e.g. shopping orientation items from Seock and Chen-Yu, 2007 and Cowart and Goldsmith, 2007; demographics/ psychographic items from Ko and Kincade, 2007 and Cowart and Goldsmith, 2007; brand/product preferences and shopping expense items from Cowart and Goldsmith, 2007). Limited wording modification was performed to fit each question into the context of this study. For factor analysis and reliability analysis, M-Plus was used combined with SPSS. For data analysis, descriptive statistics, K-means cluster analysis, w 2 , ANOVA, and Dunnett T3 tests were employed. Findings Demographic information Of the respondents, all class levels of college students were included and nine majors were represented. Table II shows the sample distribution by gender, age, years of study, and major. The percentage of female respondents (77.8 percent) in the study was more than that of male respondents (22.2 percent; see Table II). The distribution of age categories and year of study categories were more evenly dispersed. The nine majors 373 College students apparel shopping were re-coded to generate valid w 2 values, and the following four major groups were created: Agriculture and Life Sciences, Engineering, and Natural Resources (ALS, EGN, NR); Architecture and Urban Sciences, Business, and University Studies (AUS, BS, US); Arts and Sciences (AS); and Education and Human Sciences (EDU, HS). As Song (2010) suggested, if the percentage of cells with an expectation value 5 or below is 420 percent, the values of the item were re-coded until the portion of small cells is o20 percent. Therefore, the item for major was re-coded to collapse the small cells. These new categories also fit with the structure or divisions seen in universities, such as liberal arts separated from the more technical majors of agriculture and engineering and education paired with the more applied human sciences. A total of 41.0 percent of the respondents in this study had a major in Human Sciences or Education, which was the largest major bracket. Human Sciences included 29 fashion majors, which accounted for 38.2 percent of this bracket or only 15.6 percent of the total sample. The items of clothing worn by most students were jeans (73 percent) and T-shirt (62.9 percent). Brand preferences ranged from luxury or designer brands (e.g. Gucci or Kenneth Cole; 9.7 percent) to classic American workwear brands (e.g. Carhartt, Dickies, or Wrangler: 1.5 percent). The most popular brands among the students were modern casual or semi-casual brands (e.g. A&F, Banana Republic, or J.Crew: 28.1 percent). Expenditures on clothing ranged from below $100 to $600 or above with the category of $100-$299 (35.4 percent) being the one selected by most respondents. Category Frequency % Gender Male 41 22.2 Female 144 77.8 Total 185 100.0 Age (years) 18-19 44 23.8 20-21 96 51.9 22-23 40 21.6 Other 5 2.7 Total 185 100.0 Year of study Freshmen 24 13.0 Sophomore 51 27.6 Junior 47 25.4 Senior 63 34.0 Total 185 100.0 Major ALS, EGN, NR 27 14.6 AUS, BS, US 41 22.2 AS 41 22.2 EDU, HS 76 41.0 Total 185 100.0 Notes: ALS, EGN, NR, Agriculture and Life Sciences, Engineering, Natural Resources; AUS, BS, US, Architecture and Urban Sciences, Business, University Studies; AS, Arts and Sciences, EDU, HS, Education, Human Sciences Table II. Demographic information 374 JFMM 17,3 Shopping clusters (H1 and H2) The shopping orientation and fashion attribute factors were determined by major components of factor analysis with varimax rotation and then grouped by K-means cluster analysis. The clusters were characterized using w 2 and ANOVA. As Song (2010) suggested, items with rotated factor loadings 40.4 were extracted and eight shopping orientation constructs were identified with an Eigen value 41.0 (CFI 0.968; TLI 0.938; RMSEA0.039). Among 31 items, 25 items were retained, excluding one-item factors. The Chronbachs a values of selected factors ranged from 0.601 to 0.917. The eight shopping orientation and fashion attribute constructs and related data are shown in Table III. To create clusters from these orientations, K-means cluster analysis was chosen for this research rather than hierarchical cluster analysis that groups respondents by using the Agglomerative Hierarchical Method. Although K-means cluster analysis is known to be somewhat subjective (Song, 2010), this method has been more commonly employed for developing market segmentations. Three student segments were identified using the means for the shopping orientation factors, and H1 was supported (see Table IV). Characterization of clusters by shopping orientations, demographics and other variables Three demographic factors (i.e. age, year of school, geographical background) and the primary product preference for bottoms (i.e. jeans; 73 percent) and tops (i.e. T-shirt; 62.7 percent) did not show significant differences between the clusters. Jeans and T-shirts are almost a uniform for many college students as their preferred dress to class. However, class is only part of the day for college students and part of their lives. And, within the category of jeans many style and fit differences were found. The denim market is no longer a homogeneous market ( Jegethesan et al., 2012). Multiple other demographic, including college major, and product/brand variables, including specific brands or labels, did differentiate among the clusters. For this reason, H2 was supported. Apathetic price-forward shoppers. Of the three clusters, Cluster 1 had the highest mean scores for apathetic shopping and price consciousness, based on within and between clusters, and it had the lowest scores for appearance/subjective norm and pursuing fashion trends. Cluster 1 was named apathetic price-forward shoppers (see Table IV). These students could be characterized as respondents who were unlikely to enjoy shopping and not so interested in appearance, fashion trends, and apparel brands. In this cluster, 54 percent of respondents were male, and Agriculture and Life Sciences, Engineering, or Natural Resources majors accounted for 36 percent and the largest portion of this group (see Table V). A majority of the students said that they paid for apparel items by themselves. Although all clusters chose jeans as their top pick for bottoms, this cluster differed in style of jeans. The apathetic price-forward shopper picked relaxed jeans as their most preferred style (47.9 percent). In addition, this shopper chose khakis as their second favorite bottom product (see Table VI). For fit of clothing, utilitarian price-forward shoppers most preferred relaxed fit (60.4 percent), which is reflected in the choice of a sweatshirt as their second favorite top. Brand was not noted as important to this shopper. Fashion-forward hedonic shoppers. Cluster 2 had the highest mean scores for enjoyable shopping, pursuing fashion trends, and impression and reputation when compared within and between clusters; thus, Cluster 2 was named fashion-forward 375 College students apparel shopping Shopping orientation and fashion attribute factors Item Factor loading Eigen value Variance explained (%) Cronbach a Total 63.912 Shopping enjoyment I can enjoy shopping just for fun 0.820 8.519 21.427 0.917 Shopping is enjoyable 0.810 I love to shop for clothes 0.770 0.876 I stop to look at clothes even when Im not planning to buy 0.693 Shopping is a recreation 0.634 Shopping apathy Shopping wastes my time a 0.819 0.787 Shopping is not pleasant a 0.758 Pursuing fashion trend I try to keep my wardrobe up-to- date with fashion trend 0.427 0.733 I keep my wardrobe up-to-date 0.421 Brand/store value and loyalty I have favorite brands that I buy over and over 0.752 2.509 10.376 0.737 0.716 Well-known brands are best for me 0.643 I like a particular store and I buy my clothes there from habit 0.612 I choose expensive brands Aesthetic appearance and subjective norm It is important that people notice and/or comment on new clothing 0.726 1.815 9.750 0.724 I like to plan my outfit for the next day 0.716 It is important to me that people like my clothing 0.685 Visual displays have an effect on the clothing that I purchase 0.580 Shopping and fashion for school It does not matter to me what I wear to class a 0.730 1.566 8.202 0.667 It is important for me to look fashionable while at school 0.712 I like to buy and wear new clothing to school 0.509 Impression and reputation When going out, I like to impress others with how I look 0.695 1.152 7.779 0.609 A persons reputation is affected by how he/she dresses 0.652 Dressing well is an important part of my life. 0.436 Price consciousness Price is an important factor when I purchase new clothing 0.748 1.056 6.379 0.601 When I find what I like I usually buy it without hesitation a 0.545 Note: a Reverse-coded item Table III. Clothing shopping orientation and fashion attribute constructs 376 JFMM 17,3 hedonic shoppers (see Table IV). This cluster had the lowest scores for apathetic shopping and price consciousness within and between cluster comparisons. In contrast, they love and enjoy shopping and spend time pursuing up-to-date fashion trends. How they looked and how they dressed were important aspects of their lives and thought to affect their reputation. Of the respondents in this group, 93 percent were female and 60 percent had majors in the Human Sciences or Education areas, which included the fashion majors. Means Shopping orientation and fashion attribute factors Cluster 1 Apathetic price- forward shoppers (n 48) Cluster 2 Hedonic fashion- forward shoppers (n 62) Cluster 3 Involved price- forward shoppers (n 75) Enjoyable shopping 2.55 4.61 3.89 Pursuing fashion trend 2.31 4.11 3.33 Brand/store value and loyalty 2.59 3.76 3.27 Appearance and subjective norm 2.16 3.24 2.69 Apathetic shopping 3.38 1.29 2.22 Shopping/fashion for school 2.76 3.48 3.25 Impression and reputation 2.85 4.00 3.35 Price consciousness 3.26 2.83 3.43 Table IV. Shopping orientation and fashion attribute clusters Shopping information Cluster 1 Apathetic price-forward shoppers (n 48) Cluster 2 Hedonic fashion-forward shoppers (n 62) Cluster 3 Involved price-forward shoppers (n 75) Gender Male (54%) Male (7%) Male (18%) Female (46%) Female (93%) Female (82%) Major ALS, EGN, NR (36%) EDU, HS (60%) EDU, HS (40%) AUS, BS, US (20%) AUS, BS, US (21%) AS (25%) AS (26%) AS (15%) AUS, BS, US (25%) EDU, HS (18%) ALS, EGN, NR (4%) ALS, EGN, NR (10%) Year of study Senior (41%) Senior (35%) Senior (35%) Sophomore (26%) Sophomore (34%) Junior (30%) Junior (18%) Junior (19%) Sophomore (23%) Freshman (15%) Freshman (12%) Freshman (12%) Shopping per semester Below $ 299 (84%) Below $299 (21%) Below $299 (53%) $ 300 B449 (8%) $300B449 (35%) $300B449 (28%) Over $ 500 (8%) Over $500 (44%) Over $500 (19%) One who pays for clothing Self (53%) Self (37%) Self (49%) Parents (39%) Parents (63%) Parents (47%) Others (8%) Others (0%) Others (4%) Notes: ALS, EGN, NR, Agriculture and Life Sciences, Engineering, Natural Resources; AUS, BS, US, Architecture and Urban Sciences, Business, University Studies; AS, Arts and Sciences; EDU, HS, Education, Human Sciences Table V. Characterization of clusters 377 College students apparel shopping In addition, 63 percent said that their parents paid for their apparel purchases (see Table V). The high interest in fashion is reflected in the hedonic fashion-forward shoppers selection of the boot cut/flare as their favorite style of jeans (93.5 percent). In addition, the search for fashion trends is reflected in this shoppers choice of fitted apparel (56.5 percent). A more formal look was also chosen for the second choice of tops for the hedonic fashion-forward shoppers with a dress shirt; however, sweats were the second choice of bottoms for this shopper (see Table VI). The hedonic fashion-forward shoppers picked modern casual or semi-casual brands (e.g. J.Crew, A&F, or Banana Republic) as their favorite brands. Involved price-forward shoppers. Cluster 3 had the highest mean scores for enjoyable shopping within the group comparisons, but when comparing between groups, it had the highest mean scores for price consciousness. The rest of the factors showed mid-level scores based on between and within clusters. Cluster 3 was named involved price-forward shoppers (see Table VI). Although involved in shopping activities, most of these students consider price when purchasing apparel items. These respondents were moderately concerned about impression and reputation, appearance, fashion trends, and brand/store value and loyalty. In this cluster, 82 percent were female, and the Human Science and Education major was again the largest major group but the majors in the Arts and Sciences, Architecture and Urban Sciences, Business, and University Studies areas were the second and third most represented areas. Almost one-half of these respondents paid for Shopping information Cluster 1 Apathetic price-forward shoppers (n 48) Cluster 2 Hedonic fashion-forward shoppers (n 62) Cluster 3 Involved price-forward shoppers (n 75) Favorite bottoms Jeans (50%) Jeans (80.6%) Jeans (81.3%) Khakis (39.6%) Sweats (9.7%) Sweats (12%) Sweats (6.2%) Khakis (6.5%) Khakis (5.3%) Overalls (4.2%) Overalls (3.2%) Overalls (1.4%) Style of Jeans Relaxed (47.9%) Boot cut/flare (93.5%) Boot cut/flare (81.3%) Boot cut/flare (37.5%) Classic fit/tapered leg (6.5%) Relaxed (10.7%) Classic fit/tapered leg (10.4%) Straight leg (0%) Classic fit/tapered leg (5.3%) Straight leg (6.2%) Relaxed (0%) Straight leg (2.7%) Favorite top item T-shirt (62.5%) T-shirt (53.2%) T-shirt (70.7%). Sweatshirt (14.6%) Dress shirt (25.8%) Polo shirt (13.3%) Polo shirt (12.5%) Sweatshirt (12.9%) Sweatshirt (9.3%) Dress shirt (10.4%) Polo shirt (8.1%) Dress shirt (6.7%) Fit for clothing Relaxed fit (60.4%) Fitted (56.5%) Slightly fitted (53.3%) Slightly fitted (29.2%) Slightly fitted (32.3%) Relaxed fit (26.7%) Fitted (10.4%) Relaxed fit (11.2%) Fitted (20%) Brand preference No brand important or Other (56.4%) J.Crew/Banana Republic (33.9%) No brand important or Other (38.6%) J.Crew/Banana Republic (20.8%) A&F/Structure (33.9%) J.Crew/Banana Republic (29.4%) A&F/Structure (18.6%) Gucci/Kenneth Cole (19.4%) A&F/Structure (24%) Gucci/Kenneth Cole (4.2%) No brand important or Other (12.8%) Gucci/Kenneth Cole (8%) Table VI. Brand and product preferences by clusters 378 JFMM 17,3 their own apparel items (see Table V). The choices for bottoms by the involved price- forward shoppers reflected the choices of the hedonic fashion shopper with the selection of boot cut/flare as their favorite style of jeans (81.3 percent), and sweats were the second choice for bottoms (see Table VI). The second choice for tops for the involved price-forward shoppers was the polo-style shirt and the choice of fit for apparel was slightly fitted (53.3 percent). In keeping with the practical aspect of their shopping orientation, price not brand was more important to this shopper. Shopping expenditures (H3) The differences in shopping expenses among clusters were examined using ANOVA to find which group spends most in clothing shopping. The result showed that at least one mean difference in shopping expense existed among the three groups (Cluster 1: M177.8, Cluster 2: M505.9, Cluster 3: M321.5; F (2,180) 21.8, po0.001; see Table VII). Because the Levens test revealed a significant difference among the variances of the three clusters (po0.05), the post hoc Dunnett T3 test was chosen to compare the shopping expense of each cluster. The Dunnett T3 test revealed that the mean differences of the three clusters were statistically significant (Cluster 1oCluster 2, po0.001; Cluster 1oCluster 3, po0.05; Cluster 3oCluster 2, po 0.001). These results showed that the hedonic fashion-forward shoppers spent the most ($505) per semester and apathetic price-forward shoppers spend the least in clothing shopping ($177). Summary, discussion and retail implications Segmentation of student consumers In this study, three segments were identified (i.e. apathetic price-forward shoppers, hedonic fashion-forward shoppers, involved price-forward shoppers). This segmentation is similar to Park and Sullivans (2009) findings (i.e. utilitarian benefit group, hedonic benefit group, composite benefit group); however, Park and Sullivan examined benefits sought but did not examine demographic and brand preferences that can provide practical use information for retailers when planning merchandise assortments. In addition, the findings add validity to the suggestion that the shopping behavior of college students could be identified into shopping orientation and fashion attribute clusters. Distinct profiles of demographics and brand/product preferences were attributed to these clusters, which support the importance and practicality of segmentation of college students and the concept that college students are not a homogeneous market. College students are not a one-size-fits-all market, even in their purchase of jeans. The college student market consists of diverse groups of consumers identified, as unique target markets for retailers, by their demographics (e.g. gender, major, Dependence variable Cluster Mean SD F/P Post hoc (Dunnett T3) Shopping expense 1 177,78 202.64 Cluster 1***Cluster 2 2 505.88 278.93 21.765/0.000 Cluster 2***Cluster 3 3 321.52 246.99 Cluster 1*Cluster 3 Cluster 1oCluster 3oCluster 2 Notes: *po0.05; ***po0.001 Table VII. Difference of shopping expense between shopping orientation and fashion attribute clusters 379 College students apparel shopping expenditure on clothing, financial support from parents) and psychographics (e.g. shopping orientation). This result suggests that clothing retailers should create product and pricing policies to reflect the differences among segments based on gender, majors, and expenditures on clothing. For example, clothing retailers may use promotional and markdown techniques to reach the involved price-forward shoppers who demand fashionable but low-priced womens products. More details pertinent to merchandising strategies are discussed in the following sections. Marketing and merchandising strategies for retailers In previous literature, college students are often considered to be a one-dimensional market segment. That single segment is usually characterized as having limited income because college students are in school full-time, and rarely are full-time employees with money to spend. However, the findings of this study show that college students do have money to spend (either their own or parental), are varied in their apparel expenditures, and exhibit specific shopping orientations and brand/product preferences with style and fit variances. Student clusters brand and product preferences can be directly utilized by clothing retailers for their marketing and merchandising strategies. In addition to retailers, the results may help manufacturers develop new products targeting specific college student groups. This study may also provide governments (e.g. financial aid offices), town councils and/or local chambers of commerce with valuable information, such as college students expenditure types in shopping by their demographics (e.g. age, gender, major). Although differentiated marketing and merchandising strategies for each segment are suggested by these findings, some common aspects of the market can be utilized by retailers in their overall merchandise plans for college consumers. For example, the favorite bottom for most respondents was jeans and the favorite top item was T-shirt. Retailers may wish to allot more of their assortment budget for purchasing these two main categories than any other product categories, while maintaining small amounts of the second choice products to appeal to each market segment and encourage additional purchases. The marketing and merchandising strategies suggested in this section may benefit retailers initial inventory selections because the initial merchandise buying process is always difficult (Regni and Anderson, 2009). However, retailers must be aware that even within this product category college students exhibited differences in style and fit preferences that could impact brand sales such as those for premium or fashion forward jeans. Specific strategies for college student clusters The apathetic price-forward shoppers are mostly male students who do not enjoy shopping and consider price over fashion trend, brand, appearance, and impression of look. They spent the least on apparel shopping per semester. For this consumer group, retailers may need to carry equal levels of inventory between khakis and jeans. In addition, a relaxed style and an overall relaxed fit of jeans were chosen by this consumer group. Because this segment considers price carefully, when retailers develop merchandise plans and conduct actual buying, they may need to set the price point for these products lower than the price of products selected and merchandised for the hedonic fashion-forward customers. In addition, using both permanent and promotional markdowns may be more effective to boost sales because this segment would be attracted to discounts or markdowns. This cluster had the lowest score of brand/store value and loyalty among the three clusters, indicating they may switch 380 JFMM 17,3 brands to get the right price. Hence, when retailers purchase merchandise for this segment, they need to focus more on practical assortment decision factors (i.e. retail price, product categories, desired fit) than brand name or fashion trend. The hedonic fashion-forward shoppers were primarily female students who enjoyed shopping, pursued fashion trends, and highly valued brand, store, and appearance. This market segment was less concerned about product price than about fashion attribute factors. They spent the most on clothing shopping per semester more than twice the amount spent by students in the apathetic price-forward cluster. Retailers may need to purchase bottoms, which are trendy such as jeans with boot cut/flare style. Although the favorite top item was a T-shirt, retailers may want to carry a certain amount of dress shirts because the dress shirt is the second favorite top item and more fashion looks may be developed with dress shirts. In addition, students in this cluster selected sweats as their second choice. Sweats such as those sold with colors, trim, and graphics may appeal to these students. The product of sweats does not always mean sloppy and basic (Style.com, 2012). Overall this cluster preferred fitted apparel and should respond to well-known brand products or apparel products that reflect current fashion trends and/or clear design concepts. The hedonic fashion-forward students spent the most on clothing shopping among the three clusters and should respond to new styles even when the prices are a little higher. When retailers are involved in product development or purchase merchandise for this customer, they may want to focus more on fashion trend and design than cost and retail price. The Involved Price-forward shoppers are primarily female students who enjoy shopping and value brand, but not to the level that hedonic fashion-forward students do. Although these shoppers think fashion is important, this market segment considered price more than the other shoppers. Retailers might plan assortments for this market segment similar to those for the hedonic fashion-forward students with the exception of the fit preference and the price. A majority of these consumers prefer slightly fitted apparel instead of fitted apparel, and price will be more important than fashion. Looking for the fashion item at a bargain might appeal to this consumer. When retailers purchase merchandise for this segment, they may need to select products those can meet these consumers expectation in price as well as fashion trend and design. Conclusions and limitations This study contributed to two areas of research in the context of college student consumer behavior. First, this study identified three consumer clusters clearly characterized by demographics, including major, and brand/product preferences, including specific labels, style, and fit. These segments were consistent with the findings from existing literature but added new information. Second, additional demographic characteristics and brand preferences for these market segments beyond the information in previous literature were identified. This information was further developed into marketing and merchandising strategies for retailers based on these newly identified market segments. By focussing on the students at one university, some limitations and restrictions on generalizability are posed. The sample distribution may also cause sampling bias with skewed distribution of gender within the sample. This sample does not represent the general US college student population (e.g. female 56 percent; Shin, 2005). Although the findings of this study cannot be generalized to all US college student consumers, 381 College students apparel shopping the clusters and the significant variables form a foundation for additional research and validate some previous studies. Future studies could examine students at a variety of university and college settings and provide a wider scope of majors, incomes and other demographics (e.g. part-time employment, retail preferences) to provide consistent evidence for generalization. Using additional variables (e.g. online shopping experiences) for profiling the students is another suggestion for expanding the study and adding to the conceptual framework. To support and validate the results of this study, college students is not a homogeneous consumer segment, differences among demographic variables (e.g. age, gender, year of study, major) may need to be investigated in future studies. References Arnett, J. (2000), Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 469-480. Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656. Boston Consulting Group (2012), Millennials pose challenge and opportunity to restaurants, apparel retailers, malls, available at: www.bcg.com/media/pressreleasedetails.aspx?id tcm:12-120977 (accessed March 14, 2013). Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011), Consumer expenditure survey, available at: www.bls.gov/ cex/2011/Standard/age.pdf (accessed March 4, 2013). Cardoso, P.R. and Pinto, S.C. (2010), Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations among Portuguese young adult consumers, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 538-558. Carpenter, J.M. and Fairhurst, A. (2005), Consumer shopping value, satisfaction, and loyalty for retail apparel brands, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 256-269. Chetthamrongchai, P. and Davis, G. (2000), Segmenting the market for food shoppers using attitudes to shopping and to time, British Food Journal, Vol. 102 No. 2, pp. 81-101. Choi, T., Liu, M., Liu, S., Mak, J. and To, Y. (2010), Fast fashion brand extensions: an empirical study of consumer preferences, Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 472-487. Cowart, K. and Goldsmith, R. (2007), The influence of consumer decision-making styles on online apparel consumption by college students, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 637-647. Davis, J.W. and Bauman, K. (2011), School enrollment in the United States: 2008, available at: www.census.gov.edgekey.net/prod/2011pubs/p20-564.pdf (accessed March 29, 2013). Dibb, S. and Simkin, L. (1996), The Market Segmentation Workbook, International Thomson Press, London. Girard, T., Korgaonkar, P. and Silverblatt, R. (2003), Relationship of type of product, shopping orientation, and demographics, with preference for shopping on the Internet, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 101-120. Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods, and propositions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-101. Hong, H. and Koh, A. (2002), Benefit segmentation of the Korean female apparel market: importance of store attributes, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 205-214. Jain, R., Singh, R. and Rankawat, K. (2011), General values and clothing behavior of college- going students, Studies of Home and Community Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 13-20. 382 JFMM 17,3 Jegethesan, K., Sneddon, J.N. and Soutar, G.N. (2012), Young Australian consumers preferences for fashion apparel attributes, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 275-289. Jung, J. and Sung, E. (2008), Consumer-based brand equity: comparisons among Americans and South Koreans in the USA and South Koreans in Korea, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 24-35. Kim, Y. and Lee, J. (2000), Benefit segmentation of catalog shoppers among professionals, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 111-120. Kincade, D.H., Kim, J. and Gibson, F.Y. (2010), Generational consumer segments and shopping process characteristics: baby boomers and echo boomers with apparel product selection activities, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 19-20. Ko, E. and Kincade, D.H. (2007), Do quick response technology-based attributes make a difference in consumer satisfaction with apparel retail stores?, Journal of the Textile Institute, Vol. 98 No. 6, pp. 491-499. Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2011), Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Lee, E. and Rhee, E. (2008), Conceptual framework of within-category brand personality based on consumers perception (WCBP-CP): the case of mens apparel category in South Korea, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 465-489. Lee, H. and Kim, J. (2008), The effects of shopping orientations on consumers satisfaction with product search and purchases in a multi-channel environment, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 193-216. Lee, M., Kim, Y., Pelton, L., Knight, D. and Forney, J. (2008), Factors affecting Mexican college students purchase intention toward a US apparel brand, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 294-307. Moye, L.N. and Kincade, D.H. (2002), Influence of usage situations and consumer shopping orientations on the importance of the retail store environment, International Review of Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 59-79. Moye, L.N. and Kincade, D.H. (2003), Shopping orientation segments: exploring differences in store patronage and attitudes toward retail store environments among female apparel consumers, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 58-71. Mulyanegara, R.C. and Tsarenko, Y. (2009), Predicting brand preferences: an examination of the predictive power of consumer personality and values in the Australian fashion market, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 358-371. Park, H. and Sullivan, P. (2009), Market segmentation with respect to university students clothing benefits sought, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 182-201. Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (2005), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Pew Research Center (2010), The millenials: connected. Confident. Open to change, available at: www.pewresearch.org/millennials/ (accessed March 29, 2013). Phau, I. and Leng, Y.S. (2008), Attitudes toward domestic and foreign luxury brand apparel: comparison between status and non status seeking teenagers, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 68-89. Regni, R.J. and Anderson, J.G. (2009), Entrepreneurship in Action: A Retail Store Simulation, Fairchild Books, New York, NY. Scarpi, D. (2006), Fashion stores between fun and usefulness, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 7-25. 383 College students apparel shopping Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (1983), Consumer Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Seock, Y. and Bailey, L.R. (2008), The influence of college students shopping orientations and gender differences on online information searches and purchase behaviours, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 113-121. Seock, Y. and Chen-Yu, J.H. (2007), Website evaluation criteria among US college student consumers with different shopping orientations and internet channel usage, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 204-212. Shim, S. and Kotsiopoulos, A. (1992), Patronage behavior of apparel shopping: part I. Shopping orientations, store attributes, information sources and personal characteristics, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 58-65. Shim, S. and Kotsiopoulos, A. (1993), A typology of apparel shopping orientation segments among female consumers, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 75-85. Shin, H.B. (2005), School enrollment-social and economic characteristics of student in October 2003 in US Census Bureau, 20-533, available at: www. Census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20- 554.pdf (accessed May 15, 2005). Son, J., Jin, B. and George, B. (2013), Consumers purchase intention toward foreign brand goods, Management Decisions, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 434-450. Song, J. (2010), Statistical Analysis for Research by Using SPSS/AMOS, 21century book, Seoul. Style.com (2012), Chic sweats are on the fast fashion track, available at: www.style.com/ stylefile/2012/05/chic-sweats-are-on-the-fashion-fast-track/ (accessed March 29, 2013). Westbrook, A. and Black, C. (1985), A motivation-based shopper typology, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 78-103. Further reading Hill, J. and Lee, H. (2012), Young generation Y consumers perceptions of sustainability in the apparel industry, Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 477-491. Corresponding author Youngjin Bahng can be contacted at: yb7@hawaii.edu To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints 384 JFMM 17,3