Abstract

본 연구에서는 소비자들의 인구통계적 특징별로 패션선도력과 시장전문성 수준을 비교하고, 패션선도력과 시장전문성 수준에 따라 점포평가기준에 차이가 있는지를 알아보고자 하였다. 미국 전역의 소비자를 대상으로 우편설문조사를 실시하여 380부의 설문자료를 분석에 사용하였다. 결과에서 인구통계적 특성별로 패션선도력과 시장전문성 수준이 대체로 유사하게 나타났다. 여성 소비자들은 일반적으로 패션선도력과 시장전문성이 남성보다 더 강하며 교육수준이 낮을수록 시장전문성과 패션선도력이 높은 것으로 나타났다. 연령이 낮을수록 패션선도력은 더 강한 것으로 나타났으나 시장전문성에서는 연령별 차이가 발견되지 않았다. 패션선도력이 높고 시장전문성이 강할수록 더 많은 점포속성들을 더 중요한 평가기준으로 고려하는 것으로 확인되었다. 특히 시장전문성이 강한 소비자들은 그렇지 않은 소비자들에 비해 상품의 품질이 우수한지, 환불교환이 용이한지, 더 넓은 상품구색이 갖추어져 있는지를 더 중요하게 고려하였으며, 패션선도력이 강한 소비자들은 그렇지 않은 소비자들에 비해 환불용이성과 점포명성 등을 더 중요한 점포평가기준으로 고려하는 것으로 나타났다. This study compares fashion leaders and market mavens by examining the demographic characteristics of fashion leaders and market mavens and how they differ in their evaluation of store and shopping related attributes. Data originated from a national consumer mail survey in the United States. The survey included items measuring market mavenism, fashion leadership, store evaluative attributes, and personal information. Responses from 380 consumers were used for data analysis. Female consumers were found to be more active in word-of-mouth activities in general. Young consumers were more inclined to express fashion leadership while age was not related to market mavenism. A lower level of education increased tendencies for both market mavenism and fashion leadership. In terms of store evaluative criteria, the majority of items in the survey were more important as fashion leadership and market mavenism tendencies increased. Interestingly, the need for knowledgeable or helpful salespeople did not increase with fashion leadership tendencies. Also, fashion leaders were interested in easy return of merchandise and were likely to spend more time in the stores. This study sheds important light on how fashion leadership differ compared to market mavenism. By simultaneously examining fashion leadership and market mavenism using a strong sample base, this study provides sound evidence of how consumers interested in fashion may have differing needs for shopping.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.