FASHION & LOYALTY: AN ANALYSIS

OF CONSUMER LOYALTY IN THE

CLOTHING INDUSTRY

BA (Hons) Business and Management

A dissertation submitted to Cardiff School of Management,
Cardiff Metropolitan University

Marcus Francis Tansey

April 2017

vii
 Signed Statement
This dissertation is submitted in fulfilment with part of the requirements for the BA (Hons) Business
and Management with Marketing at Cardiff Metropolitan University. I declare that this dissertation
has not already been accepted in substance for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in
candidature for any degree. Where not otherwise stated through the use of referencing, this data is
the result of my own independent research.

Signed: Marcus Tansey…………………………………. Date: April 2017

i
Abstract

Competition amongst firms is intense within the fashion industry, with more options for the
consumer than ever before. Firms are altering their brand strategies to adopt and manage
this increase in competition with an apparent increase in effort to form a connection
between brand and consumer. Cultivating a brand loyalty is more important than ever for
fashion firms, to ensure that their brand has a stable sales basis and a positive image. There
is a suggestion however that loyalty may be dissipating. With the emergence of fast-fashion
brands who offer similar styles to more expensive brands but at a more affordable prices, it
can be deemed that it is no longer enough to offer just a high quality product but to offer
intangible benefits to the consumer such as an identification with the brands personality.
This dissertation attempts to understand the reasons for brand loyalty or lack of brand
loyalty amongst millennial consumers in this sector. Millennials are frequent consumers of
clothing products, therefore attempting to understand their consumption activities is of real
benefit to fashion firms. The first objective of this research is to identify the key brand
characteristics which can spark brand loyalty. The second is to assess the effect a
downgrading strategy can have on a fashion brands image and loyalty. Thirdly this
dissertation aims to assess the view that loyalty is difficult to cultivate for brands operating
in a fast-fashion system. An online survey was utilised to collect both quantitative and
qualitative data from 43 respondents in the millennial age bracket in a mixed method
approach. The research indicated that product quality above all else is the key to ensure that
millennial consumers repurchase from brands. Based on results, fast-fashion brands do
benefit from a behavioural loyalty of repeat purchases but appreciation of these brands is
mostly associated with affordability rather than a deep attachment to the brand. Results
also indicate that if the mass luxury brand maintains a high level of perceived product
quality, there will be less severe dilution of brand image and loyalty when increasing
accessibility.

ii
Acknowledgements
Although admittedly being slight apprehensive about the experience of writing a
dissertation, I have slowly yet surely become to adapt to the demands required and now feel
a certain sense of accomplishment having gotten through the process. The process has
vastly increased my knowledge in an area of expertise I am interested in as a future career
which can only be of benefit to me.

I would firstly like to thank my supervisor Paul Buckley for his guidance throughout the
process. Paul has been very helpful in clearing up any confusion and difficulties I have had
and is clearly a man who knows his marketing.

Secondly, I would like to thank the majority of the academic staff who I have come into
contact with over the last three years for their expertise in the subject areas they teach. A
special mention must go to the elusive Myo Win-Pe. Although I have not had the pleasure of
meeting this gentlemen thus far, he has been helpful and has quickly responded to any
queries I have had over the process after stepping into the role of module leader.

My friends also deserve an acknowledgment. Despite at times being a distraction, without

them I would never have adjusted to life in Cardiff as well as I have done which has in turn
made me more comfortable throughout university process.

Last but not least I would like to thank my family for not only giving me the basis and
opportunity to attend university, but for also going above and beyond to help support me
throughout the process.

iii
 Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Aim ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Key Terms......................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Brand Equity & Brand Loyalty .......................................................................................... 4

2. 2 Exclusivity & Loyalty- Luxury for the Masses? ................................................................ 7

2.3 “Fast Fashion” ................................................................................................................ 12

2.4 Gaps in knowledge ......................................................................................................... 14

2.5 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 3: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 16

3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 16

3.1 Research Design ............................................................................................................. 16

3.2 Mixed Method Approach ............................................................................................... 17

3.3 Quantitative Data........................................................................................................... 18

3.4 Qualitative Data ............................................................................................................. 20

3.5 Sample............................................................................................................................ 21

3.6 Ethical Considerations.................................................................................................... 21

3.7 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 22

3.8 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 22

CHAPTER 4: Results & Analysis ................................................................................................ 23

4.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 23

iv
 4.1 Interest in fashion .......................................................................................................... 23

4.2 Loyal consumers- Why they recommend & repurchase ................................................... 24

4.2.1 Importance of quality in consumer opinion and brand advocates......................... 25

4.2.2 Millennials may seek luxury characteristics but are unwilling to pay a premium .. 27

4.2.3 Willingness to invest in favourite brands................................................................ 28

4.2.4 Reasons for repurchase and positive word of mouth differ ................................... 31

4.2.5 Evidence of the “snob” consumer .......................................................................... 32

4.3 Brand Personality ........................................................................................................... 33

4.4 Brand communities ........................................................................................................ 34

4.5 Fast-fashion- respondent’s opinions and loyalty ........................................................... 36

4.6 Brand Signage ................................................................................................................ 41

CHAPTER 5: Concluding thoughts & suggestions..................................................................... 43

5.1 Suggestions & Recommendations ................................................................................. 43

5.2 Research limitations....................................................................................................... 45

5.3 Further Research............................................................................................................ 46

5.4 Closing Statement .......................................................................................................... 46

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 48

Appendix A: Participant consent and information form...................................................... 48

Appendix B: Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 49

Appendix C: Full research results ......................................................................................... 54

Appendix D: Ethics Approval Form ...................................................................................... 84

Reference List........................................................................................................................... 91

v
 List of Figures

Figure 1: The customer based brand equity model (Keller, 2013)

Figure 2: The Customer Pyramid (Wilson et al, 2012)

Figure 3: Five stage model of the consumer buying process (Kotler & Keller, 2011)

Figure 4: Number of respondents who have purchased branded clothing in the last 12
months

Figure 5: Levels of fashion brand recommendation

Figure 6: …Reasons for recommending the brand/brands

Figure 7: Mean scores highlighting the importance of quality (scoring system set out in
methodology)

Figure 8: Consumer ranking of brand characteristics

Figure 9: Maximum willing to spend on branded clothing

Figure 10: Percentage more willing to spend on favourite brand

Figure 11: Number of respondents who feel they are loyal to fashion brands

Figure 12: Reasons for re-purchasing

Figure 13: Extent to which respondents identify brand personality in fashion brands

Figure 14: Respondents response to identification with brand personality

Figure 15: Brand community members amongst respondents

Figure 16: Mean statement score for negative word of mouth

Figure 17: Number of respondents who purchase from fast-fashion brands frequently

Figure 18: Reasons for admiration of fast-fashion brands

Figure 19: Respondent ranking of brands in terms of quality and exclusivity (1 being the
highest quality and most exclusive).

Figure 20: Number of consumers willing to purchase from their favourite brand without
signage on products.

vi
 Abbreviations

WOM- Word of mouth

Respondent Answers

SA- Strongly Agree

AG- Agree
SWA- Somewhat Agree
NA- Neither agree nor disagree
SWD- Somewhat disagree
D- Disagree
SD- Strongly Disagree

vii
CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1.0 Background

Vast technological advancements and the globalisation of the fashion industry has given
customers more brand choices than ever to choose from, leading to intense competition
amongst the many firms in the market (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010). In the luxury fashion
market particularly, firms are adapting their branding focus towards creating an “emotional
attachment” between the brand and the customer in an attempt to create a growing brand
loyalty (Cailleux et al, 2009). In the past firms have relied upon customers purchasing their
products as a way of demonstrating their social status (Peng et al, 2011). However, with
numerous brand’s almost becoming grouped by customers in terms of their perceived
quality, firms are looking to differentiate their brands identity away from competitors in
order to attract customers.

With the emergence of fast-fashion brands who offer styles similar to more expensive
brands but at more affordable prices (Cachon & Swinney, 2011), there is an apparent threat
to luxury brands. As a result of this, many fashion brands have adopted a downgrading
strategy in order to reach a larger number of consumers through an increase in accessibility
(Truong et al, 2009; Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012; Hennigs et al, 2013). There is a concern
however that the downgrading strategy can have a negative effect on brand image and
brand loyalty (Kim & Lavack, 1996; Hennigs et al, 2013), with Okonkwo (2007) stating that
downgrading threatens the characteristics of luxury brands.

1.1 Aim

The aim of this dissertation is to gain an enhanced understanding of brand loyalty amongst
consumer’s aged 18-34 in the clothing retailing sector. This dissertation will aim to create
suggestions and recommendations based on the results collected.

1
1.3 Objectives

In order to answer the stated research aim, the researcher has set three objectives. These
are:

1. To assess the extent that consumers in the millennial age bracket remain loyal to
fashion brands and to understand the reasons for this loyalty or lack of loyalty.

2. To establish the general position that brands deemed as “mass luxury” hold, in
comparison to traditional luxury prestige brands.

3. To assess the general view consumers hold on brands that operate in a “fast-
fashion” system and whether there is substance to the claim that loyalty is difficult
to cultivate in this market.

Key terms: brand, branding, brand loyalty, mass luxury, luxury, fast-fashion.

1.4 Key Terms

The fashion industry is often used to characterise not only clothing, footwear and
accessories; but also the textile industry (home furnishings & fabrics). Despite previous
literature often coining both clothing and textiles as one industry (Hines & Bruce, 2007),
when referring to the term fashion, this dissertation is solely focused on the clothing
industry. As Black (2008 p.11) states; it is no longer a requirement to differentiate the terms
‘fashion’ and ‘clothing’. In today’s society, most consumers have more clothes than they
need, purchasing to “refresh their wardrobes” rather than for function and necessity. With
the term fashion based on wants and the term clothing traditionally associated with needs,
it is relevant to state that this dissertation encompasses the terms clothing and apparel
within the term fashion, and fashion within the terms clothing and apparel.

Defining the “Brand”

Despite the clear presence of brands throughout business, defining a brand exactly is a near
impossible task due to numerous conflicting assumptions and ideas from various theorists in
the field. The American Marketing Association (AMA) offer a broad definition of a brand

2
being a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of these items. Furthermore,
both Aaker (2009) and Kapferer (2012) state that from a basic legal viewpoint, a brand is
nothing more than a set of signs that make it possible for a business to differentiate its
product from that of a competitor, and to certify product origin. However, De Chernatony
(2009) argues that both the AMA broad definition and the most basic legal viewpoint are too
similar to the definition of a trademark which is defined as a symbol, logo, sign or term
legally established to a company and/or product. This basic explanation of a brand
seemingly only takes into account the tangible aspects that differentiate a brand rather than
the intangible, symbolic aspects that Kotler & Keller (2011) claim are synonymous with what
a brand represents.

As Keller (2008) states, a brand is more than just a name or logo that helps consumers to
identify a product amongst others, to an extent a brand can provide a product with a
personality, which can increase the perceived value and trustworthiness of the product.
With these intangible aspects in mind, De Chernatony (2009) defines a brand as a set of
values that enables a promise to be made about a unique and welcomed experience. The
phrase “unique” is also apparent in Kapferer’s (2012 p.12) definition, stating that the brand
should be understood as a “commitment to a unique set of values” in the products, services
and behaviour which “make the organisation or product stand out”. With an emphasis on
the term “unique” apparent amongst numerous definitions, and a general consensus
amongst theorists that a brand has a set of associations that an individual ensures with a
name and product (Tybout & Calkins, 2005); this dissertation will use the following definition
when referring to the term “brand” or “branding”:

“A distinct set of values and associations that ensures to the consumer a unique
experience with a product or service.”

1.5 Summary
This chapter has outlined the aim and objectives of this dissertation whilst giving a brief
background into the subject area. Chapter two will review the literature that is currently
available on brand loyalty in a fashion context.

3
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

2.0 Introduction

This chapter will outline the key literature and theory surrounding brand loyalty in a fashion
context in an attempt to identify any gaps in knowledge that the research will attempt to fill.

2.1 Brand Equity & Brand Loyalty

Kotler (2008) describes brand equity in its most basic form as the added value or liability that
is given to a product or service stemming from an association with the brand. Aaker (2009)
identifies five categories of brand equity, these are brand Loyalty, name awareness,
perceived quality, brand association and other proprietary brand assets. Of the five
categories listed by Aaker, brand loyalty can be said to be the most beneficial to firms. Kotler
& Keller (2011) suggest that brand loyalty benefits firms by not only providing a
predictability and security in demand but by also making it more difficult for other firms to
enter the market. Aaker (2009) furthermore indicates the importance of brand loyalty to
brand equity, claiming that a small yet intense loyal customer basis can have a significantly
positive effect on brand equity.

Emotional Attachment & Brand Communities

Aaker & Joachimsthaler (2000) claim that brand loyalty needs to be based on the unique
characteristics that the brand offers, an identification with these unique characteristics leads
to a deep relationship with the consumer and loyalty that is more thorough. Thomson et al
(2005) terms this deep relationship and identification with a brand’s unique characteristics,
as an emotional attachment. As interactions with the brand become increasingly positive for
the consumer, Thomson et al claim that loyalty increases and consumers can adopt a form of
emotional attachment towards the brand. Cailleux et al (2009) claims that fashion firms,
especially those who sell at high prices; are looking to shift their branding focus away from a
more traditional purchase for status strategy, and are moving into an effort of building an
emotional attachment for the consumer as they feel this can create a loyalty that lasts
longer. Utilising Keller’s (2013) customer based brand equity model (see figure 1), those who
have an emotional attachment to a brand are placed at the top of the pyramid, in the

4
“Resonance” stage. Consumers in this stage have an intense and active loyalty towards the
brand and will engage in activities such as social media interaction, as they feel a sense of
attachment to the brand and the identity it portrays (Thomson et al, 2005). The mentioned
attachment to the identity a brand portrays is where, according to much theory; fashion
brands can cultivate a loyal following through marketing activities.

Figure 1: The customer based brand equity model (Keller, 2013)

Batra et al (2012) states that as favourable opinions toward a brand increases, a brand love
may occur to the consumer. But, why does this benefit the brand? Firstly, Batra et al
identifies an increased willingness to invest as one of the ten major components of brand
love. Kotler & Keller (2011) claim that consumers are often willing to spend 25% more on a
product from a brand they are loyal towards than they would on a product from a
competing brand.

A loyal following of a brand or an appreciation of a brand’s values and imagery allows

communities to form around a brand (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001; McAlexander et al, 2002).
Aaker & Joachimsthaler (2000) state that not only do loyal and committed customers
provide a stable sales base but they also influence others through positive word-of-mouth
(WOM) and defending any shortcomings of the brand. Brand communities are beneficial as
they consist of consumers who are willing to spend on the brand, whilst also increasing
awareness of new products and creating this stated positive WOM.

5
False Loyalty

Despite the focus firms place on brand loyalty and the benefits associated with it, theorists
such as Dawes et al (2015) argue that brand loyalty may be dissipating. One reason put
forward for this is the inability for brands, especially those operating on a large scale; to
cater for consumers individual differences. Dawes et al claim that the modern day consumer
has more choice and is more dismissing of brands, seeking the best experience rather than
sticking to what they know.

Knox & Walker (2001) suggests that even consumers who appear to show a commitment to
a certain brand will purchase from others occasionally. Furthermore, due to the many
competing brands in the clothing industry and the nature of trends changing on a constant
basis (Black, 2008), consumers are likely to be loyal to multiple brands. Multi-brand loyalty
relates to the when a consumer is supposedly loyal to multiple brands within a product
category. Bandyopadhyay & Martell (2007 p. 39) term consumers who are loyal to and
repurchase from numerous brands within the same product category as “multiple users”.
However, Oliver (1999) states that although loyal customers may purchase from other
brands from time to time; they are less likely to switch brands as often as a non-loyal
customer and are less susceptible to competing brands marketing activities. Additionally,
when a consumer is loyal and identifies with a brand as part of their own actual self-concept;
Kotler & Keller (2011) identify that he/she are unlikely to change opinion on this brand and
are therefore unwilling to consider alternatives. Nonetheless, with the many competing
clothing brands, offering different products for different needs, it is likely that a consumer
would purchase from competing brands at some point. Kotler & Keller’s interpretation of the
consumer’s self-concept suggests that consumers may not consider cheaper alternatives to
their favourite fashion brands. However, with high-street brands; such as Zara, being
majorly successful; which appear to offer styles similar to luxury fashion retailers, there is
real evidence to suggest that consumers will consider cheaper alternatives in the fashion
market. So whilst consumers, may be loyal to a brand’s identity and the image that it
portrays, they may not translate this loyalty into an actual purchase which can profit the
firm; but rather go with cheaper alternatives more often than not when it comes to the
point of purchase.

Behavioural and Attitudinal Loyalty

From a basic measurement of brand loyalty in relation to repeat purchase behaviour (Oliver,
1999; Sharp et al, 2002), a more profound view on brand loyalty has arose, viewing loyalty as

6
not only a behavioural aspect, but also an attitudinal aspect (Jacoby & Kleyner, 1973; Dick &
Basu, 1994; Bennet & Rundle-Thiele, 2002; Bandyopadhyay & Martell, 2007; Cheng, 2011).
More recently developed from Bandyopadhyay & Martell (2007), attitudinal loyalty refers to
consumers who resonate with the brand due to the favourable attributes for which the
brand is associated with. While Keller (2013) identifies the benefits toward a brand when a
consumer resonates with it e.g. engaging in brands activities and spreading positive WOM;
there are possible negatives related to attitudinal loyalty. Whilst those who demonstrate
attitudinal loyalty are admirers of the brand and do benefit the brand through increasing
awareness, Cheng (2011) identifies that if the attitudinal loyal customer is not also
behaviourally loyal (repurchase frequently); they actually benefit very little to the business in
terms of revenue. Furthermore, Cova & Cova’s (2002) study on “consumer tribes” suggest
that tribes (brand communities) form around an emotional aspect; for instance a brand’s
image and the lifestyle associated with this image, rather than a rational or tangible aspect
which in this case can be related to the actual physical purchase of a product. It can be
argued therefore that consumers wish to purchase into the lifestyle of the brand but may do
this through other ways than purchasing the brands products e.g. being active in online
brand communities (Adjei et al, 2010). However, although there are seemingly more
financial benefits associated with behaviourally loyal consumers, they benefit little else to
the brand in terms of promotion and can be lost easily. Whilst behaviourally loyal consumers
may repurchase more frequently, they are more likely to switch brands commonly and be
more susceptible to marketing activities. They are also more likely to spread negative WOM
if they are unsatisfied with a brand’s product (Cheng, 2011).

2. 2 Exclusivity & Loyalty- Luxury for the Masses?

Luxury fashion brands

In the luxury fashion market particularly, firms have relied heavily upon customers
purchasing their products as a way of demonstrating their social status (Peng et al,
2011).This social status is demonstrated through the exclusivity of certain brands. But, what
leads to a brand being characterised as a luxury brand? In terms of the products offered, a
luxury brand is often defined through its superior quality & craftsmanship, distinctiveness
and its high transaction value (Fianda & Moore, 2009). Okonkwo (2007) states that for a
brand to be deemed as luxury, its products must be innovative in design and be of an

7
exceptional standard of quality which eclipses a customer’s expectations. However, a brand
is often deemed as luxury due to more than a perceived high quality of its product range.
Jackson (2004, p. 158) argues that aspects such as exclusivity, premium prices, status and
image come together to make luxury products “more desirable for reasons other than
function”.

Brand Signage

Aaker (1997) suggests that brands hold certain personality characteristics, which can create
distinct associations and values to consumers. Keller (2009) claims brand signage helps
luxury fashion brands to portray these characteristics, which can spark positive associations,
increasing the chance of purchase and a loyalty growing towards the brand.

The main form of brand signage used throughout the fashion industry is a distinguishable
logo or symbol (Okonkwo, 2007). Take for example the American based brand Tommy
Hilfiger. The brand is formed around its signage, with the distinctive red, white and blue logo
prominent in every aspect of the brand from its marketing activities, all the way to product
design. Positive brand associations help contribute to the creation of a fashion brand’s
overall brand image (Huang & Sarigöllü, 2014). In the case of Tommy Hilfiger, the brand
image and identity is built around the “All American” association which stems from the
similarity of the brand signage to the USA flag. Da Silveira et al (2013) claims that the
uniqueness of a brand’s identity helps differentiate the brand from competitors. Through
embracing its American roots, the brand identity is differentiated away from competitors
and the brand personality is distinct; with daring and bold designs in advertising and
products falling into the “excitement” category in terms of Aaker’s (1997) five dimensions of
brand personality. Utilising brand signage effectively has allowed Tommy Hilfiger to hold a
unique positioning, which helps brands to build further by planning strategically, and
extending customer relationships (Wheeler, 2010).

The combination of sound intrinsic and extrinsic values is what allows luxury fashion brands
to charge a premium price for their products (Theng So et al, 2013). If customers purchase
luxury products for reasons other than function and product quality, then it is a necessity for
the luxury fashion brand to ensure their brand image and luxury status are maintained.

Mass Luxury

Nueno & Quelch (1998) identify a limited production run as one of the major brand
dimensions in the luxury fashion industry. With this importance of exclusivity and prestige in

8
the fashion market, firms take a number of steps to ensure their products appear to be out
of reach for the majority of customers. Not only is this done through premium pricing in
order to price out customers deemed as undesirable (Kapferer & Bastien, 2009), but also the
distribution of products is controlled and highly selective in order to limit the accessibility to
customers (Fianda & Moore, 2009).

Despite an evident exclusive strategy amongst numerous firms in the industry, Kastanakis &
Balabanis (2012) claim that one of the main difficulties facing brands within the fashion
industry is the seemingly unmanageable task of maintaining a perceived exclusivity from the
customer’s viewpoint whilst also increasing brand awareness, in order to grow their
revenues and market share. As Simmel (1904; cited in Black, 2008) classically states, fashion
was originally only for the wealthy and elite in society but has now filtered through to the
masses. This has led to brands deemed as luxury, increasing the accessibility of their
products through both price and availability (Okonkwo, 2009).

Silverstein & Fiske (2003 p. 3) describe these brands as “new luxury”. Their products are of a
higher perceived quality and prestige than that of middle range products but are not overly
expensive, increasing the levels of availability to the general consumer (Kastanakis &
Balabanis, 2012). One main way brands within the luxury fashion industry are making their
products more accessible is through line extension (Hennigs et al, 2013). Line extension is
where a current brand is used to enter a new market segment within its existing product
category through a change of price and/or quality (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Kim & Lavack,
1996). When undertaking a line extension, brands can either take an upgrading or
downgrading strategy (Hennigs et al, 2013). In order to increase accessibility to customers a
downgrading strategy is adopted, whereby a brand introduces new offerings at a lower price
and quality level (Kim & Lavack, 1996).

Prestige and luxury for the masses or “masstige” (Truong et al, 2009 p.376), inherently
targets a broader scope of consumers than that of a traditional luxury brand. Price-sensitive
customers who may have admired a brand but have been unable to purchase due to higher
product costs are now inclined to purchase due to the lower-end products associated with a
downgrading line extension strategy, in turn benefiting the brand due to increased sales and
market share (Magnoni & Roux, 2012). Truong et al’s (2009) study on the positioning
strategies of “masstige” brands discovered that consumers rank these brands in terms of
prestige much higher than middle-range brands despite their price points being similar.
Indicating that the mentioned task from Kastanakis & Balabanis (2012) of maintaining a

9
certain level of perceived exclusivity and prestige whilst also taking a mass marketing
strategy can be achieved. Truong et al claim that this has now skewed the line of separation
between luxury brands and others. From the perspective of the consumer, an increase in
accessibility may have a “bandwagon” type effect (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012 p. 139). The
bandwagon effect refers to the extent to which demand for a product or brand increases
due to others using the product or brand (Ko & Megahee, 2012).

Risks of downgrading

However, a downgrading strategy can be damaging to fashion brands. Firstly as the

bandwagon effect attracts those who follow others (Kasatanakis & Balabanis, 2012), those
consumers are unlikely to remain loyal repeat purchasers of the brand’s products as they
may go with the next trend. In terms of the customer pyramid (Wilson et al, 2012), these
customers would lay within the iron or lead sections (figure 2). They have little loyalty to a
brand and are swayed by social cues. A downgrading strategy may also deter those
consumers who were previously loyal advocates of the brand from repeat purchasing
(Hennigs et al, 2013). This is as a downgrading strategy can have a negative effect on how
exclusive the brand is viewed and as a consequence, the brand’s image may be damaged
(Kim & Lavack, 1996). Whilst those who purchase from brands due to an increase in
popularity and accessibility are seen as bandwagon type consumers, Kastanakis & Balabanis
(2012, p. 139) terms those on the opposite end of the spectrum as “snobs”. Snobs have two
main goals from their consumption activities. The first is to disassociate themselves away
from the majority of consumers in order to establish individuality; secondly snobs look to
attain a dissociative status through the uniqueness of their chosen brand. So in its nature,
downgrading can be seen as a way of isolating and disregarding the snob consumer (Ko &
Megahee, 2012).

Most Profitable
Customers Platinum

Gold

Iron
Least Profitable
Customers
Lead

Figure 2: The Customer Pyramid (Wilson et al, 2012)

10
Theng So et al (2013, p. 404) claim that a successful branding strategy allows luxury firms to
make “distinguishable brands” in return for a “loyalty and preference” from customers. With
Hennigs et al (2013) amongst others (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Kim & Lavack, 1996) stating that
a downgrading strategy threatens the luxury characteristics of distinguishability and
uniqueness, then in turn this strategy can detract the more loyal “snob” customers who are
seeking brands for their uniqueness in order to establish individuality.

Downgrading done right- The case of Polo Ralph Lauren

A prime example of a brand successfully undertaking a downgrading strategy can be seen

from the American clothing giant Polo Ralph Lauren. Polo Ralph Lauren have 10 different
ranges of apparel centred on the distinct Ralph Lauren name, most notably the initial Polo
Ralph Lauren range and the more expensive Purple label (Investor.RalphLauren, 2017).
Kapferer (2012) states that Ralph Lauren utilise a downgrading line extension strategy
through two methods. Firstly Ralph Lauren fragment their market through offering a range
of brand subsidiaries, each differing in price points, design, and even quality. Kapferer
argues that this allows customers to purchase from the brand whilst still holding a sense of
individuality despite the high levels of popularity surrounding the brand. For instance, a
customer may purchase from the more exclusive and less accessible Purple label, many
others may own Ralph Lauren items, but not from this particular label. Vigneron & Johnson
(2004) also indicate that as well as purchasing for perceived quality, consumers also have a
preference for luxury brands due to their perceived uniqueness, with the Purple Label
offering both of these qualities to consumers.

Kapferer also identifies that Ralph Lauren utilise a line extension downgrading strategy
within each label they offer with some products much cheaper than others, allowing
consumers to buy into the brand at a lower price. Aaker & Joachimsthaler (2000 p. 129)
states that Ralph Lauren have intuitively developed a portfolio of brands that are “linked
together”, allowing them to introduce new products, aimed at new consumers and market
segments without incurring the expense and risks associated with creating a new brand from
scratch. Aaker & Joachimsthaler suggest that as Ralph Lauren kept the quality of their
products still reasonably high and did not sell at extremely reduced prices, a less severe
dilution of the brands status and upscale appeal was suffered.

11
2.3 “Fast Fashion”

Black (2008, p. 11) claims that in the last fifteen years fashion has become “faster and
cheaper” through vast increases in global communication and competition. This has in turn
spiked demand and consumers expectations, leading to faster fashion cycles. Black puts the
increase in pace down to a change in international trade agreements such as the general
agreement on trade and tariffs (GATT), which has reduced restrictions on cheaper goods
entering the market. Black views this as unsustainable and possibly damaging for the fashion
industry. However, many theorists argue that this is only damaging for the higher priced
luxury fashion brands, identifying the popularity and success of many lower priced high
street and online brands. Cachon & Swinney (2011) state that lower priced brands are
succeeding for two reasons. Firstly they benefit from short production and distribution
times, allowing large scales of production across many outlets. The second benefit stems
from the first. The short production times help to make sure that their product designs are
highly fashionable. Cachon & Swinney claims it is easier for these brands to react to new
changes in style and trends as they can create new products in a quick and efficient manner,
distributing products quickly and directly to customers across various stores and online.

Hamel (2012, p. 86) describes change as “relentless, seditious and occasionally shocking”. In
the fashion industry particularly, change can most definitely be described as relentless. Black
(2008) describes fashion as pluralistic in its nature as a number styles may be in trend and
rapid turnaround is the norm. Furthermore, Cachon & Swinney (2011) claim that socio-
cultural changes in the lifestyle of the consumer have ensured that they are knowledgeable
about new styles and trends in apparel, dispelling the traditional six-month seasonal cycles
that firms could previously base their product range upon. Beatty & Ferrell (1998) claims
that if brands fail to adapt their product lines to change, then they face failure. Fernie (2004)
also identifies that many purchases in the fashion industry are made on impulse by the
consumer, therefore it is critical that there are high levels of availability as demand is
difficult to predict. For these reasons, brands are increasingly operating in a “fast fashion”
system due to the quick response strategies associated with the system so that they can
react to change swiftly and effectively (Gabrielli et al, 2013). The fast fashion system
combines a quick response strategy with enhanced designs systems, synonymous with more
luxury brands.

When referring to the term “fast fashion” this dissertation will use the following definition,
interpreted from Gabrielli et al (2013) & Cachon & Swinney (2011):

12
 “The term used to characterise the set of strategies used by fashion
retailers to respond rapidly and effectively to the ever-changing trends
associated with the fashion industry”

Fast-Fashion, slow loyalty

Despite the positives associated with operating in the fast fashion market, such as an ability
to alter styles efficiently to offer the right products at the right time, there are difficulties
that face firms. Most notably, theorists identify the difficulty in cultivating brand loyalty. One
such reason put forward for this is the concept of heuristics. Heuristics in the case of fashion
brand selection centres on the phrase “it costs more, therefore it must be better”. Parguel et
al (2016) identify that consumers hold perceptions of higher quality and prestige when the
price of a product is also high.

Heuristic thinking and post-purchase behaviour

Kotler and Keller (2011) identify that repurchasing from a brand is a form of post-purchase
behaviour. Gabrielli et al (2013) study on consumers perceptions on fast fashion, found that
as consumers generally hold very low expectations, particularly in terms of product quality;
post-purchase evaluations are generally positive as consumers are mostly more satisfied
with the product than they thought they would be before purchasing. Griffin (2002) expands
further upon Kotler & Keller’s five-stage model of the consumer buying process (figure 2).
Griffin identifies that after the initial purchase in the purchase decision stage, consumers go
through a cycle of actions. Firstly deciding whether or not to repurchase, then secondly
making the repurchase, and thirdly after making the repurchase, moving back into a post-
purchase evaluation. The benefit to brands here is that if the consumer is consistently
satisfied with their purchase, then they are unlikely to fall out of the cycle.

13
 Evaluation Post-
Problem Information Purchase
of purchase
Recognition search decision
alternatives behaviour

Figure 3: Five-stage model of the consumer buying process (Kotler & Keller, 2011)

It can be argued therefore that instead of damaging a fast-fashion firm’s brand loyalty and
equity, the concept of heuristics can, in fact, benefit the brand. This is as consumers
expectations are reduced due to the lower prices associated with fast-fashion brands, which
often results in an increased satisfaction, as value for money is increased due to the trendy
designs and quality of products in relation to price. Griffin (2002) would argue that as the
post-purchase evaluation has been found to be mostly positive, the decision to repurchase is
an easier one for the consumer and repeat purchase beyond this is likely, cultivating a form
of behavioural loyalty for the fast-fashion brand.

2.4 Gaps in knowledge

Bhardwaj & Fairhurst (2010) state that although in recent years there has become a greater
understanding of the fast-fashion process, most literature is focused on an organisational
perspective. Therefore there is limited research on consumer’s behaviour to fast fashion
brands.

Consumer’s behaviour towards clothing brands appears to be generalised, with no

appreciation of the possibly differing consumer attitudes and post-purchase behaviour
across the differing price points and quality levels. Ko & Megahee (2012) claim that luxury
fashion and fast fashion are converging, with the boundaries that characterised the two
previously separate markets starting to erode. D’Aveni (2010) refers to a phenomenon of
“Zarafication”, where characteristics of fine fashion are seemingly appearing within fast-
fashion, such as store patronage where consumers shop in certain high street or fast-fashion
stores in order to demonstrate their social status and to impress others. Purchasing for
social status reasons is accepted to be a key characteristic of the luxury fashion industry

14
(Okonkwo, 2007; Peng et al, 2011; Theng So et al, 2013), so the suggestion that this
characteristic is emerging in the fast-fashion market, questions current literature.

Research in the field has indicated that consumers may purchase less noticeable items of
apparel, such as jeans or base layer tee-shirts; from cheaper fast fashion brands, but when
purchasing noticeable, staple items they purchase from mid-level up (Gabrielli et al, 2013).
The concept that consumers purchase different items from different brands in this manner is
yet to be discovered. There is an indication that consumers are therefore multi-brand loyal
(Knox & Walker, 2001) Thus, this research will aim to further discover consumers purchasing
patterns, as brand loyalty towards luxury brands may be lower than was first thought.

As mentioned in the Brand Equity & Brand Loyalty section of this dissertation, the general
consensus in modern day literature is that loyalty can be separated into two components;
attitudinal and behavioural (Jacoby & Kleyner, 1973; Dick & Basu, 1994; Bandyopadhyay et
al, 2005; Bandyopadhyay & Martin, 2007; Cheng, 2011). Assessing the futility of the claim
that higher priced luxury brands are associated with attitudinal loyalty, whilst behavioural
loyalty is more common in lower priced brands, such as those deemed as fast fashion; is one
objective of this study which will help to gain a better understanding of what affects
consumer loyalty in the fashion industry.

2.5 Chapter Summary

To conclude, this literature review has identified the key theory currently set out which
attempts to explain consumer decision making and brand loyalty. Brand loyalty and
consumer decision making have then been focused on the fashion industry to identify
possible gaps of knowledge for which the research will attempt to fill. Chapter two sets out
the methodology for which the research for this dissertation will adhere to.

15
CHAPTER 3: Methodology

3.0 Introduction

The term methodology refers to the theory of how research should be undertaken
(Saunders et al, 2012). Therefore this chapter will examine the different processes used to
achieve the desired research aim. The project aims to investigate the extent to which brand
loyalty impacts consumer decision making within the fashion industry and the reasons for
this perceived loyalty or lack of loyalty. Easterby-Smith et al (2008) state that one
requirement of research in a business environment is that its findings have some form of
practical consequence, whether that is minimal or leads to the undertaking of some form of
action in response to the research findings. Primary research will be undertaken in the form
of a survey with participants to gain both quantitative and qualitative data in a mixed
method approach. The primary research will gain data from a number of participants
deemed as “millennials” who are deemed integral to the clothing industry. An analysis of the
primary research data will then be constructed, comparing it against secondary research to
identify any contradictions and similarities to previous theories in the field. This will give the
researcher a basis for which to create new suggestions for the fashion industry.

3.1 Research Design

The research design utilised was in the form of a survey. The survey was formulated using an
online self-completed questionnaire (appendix A). Online self-completed questionnaires are
delivered via the internet to each respondent, with each respondent receiving the same set
of questions in a predetermined order without an interviewer being present (Saunders et al,
2012). Using this design maintains the objectivity and validity of the research as there is no
observer effect, which can alter how participants answer questions. O’Cass (2004) utilised a
survey in the form of a self-completed questionnaire for his research on fashion clothing
consumption; gaining clear patterns in data of how involved consumers within the chosen
sample deemed themselves to be with fashion. This indicates that this research design is
effective at gaining participants own personal opinions in relation to the fashion industry,
which is a clear objective of this dissertation.

16
As the research seeks consumer’s opinions on a variety of factors, a purely qualitative
approach in the form of interviews could have been undertaken. The decision was made to
not go with this option as quantitative data helps to identify patterns in respondent’s
answers.

The research takes a pragmatist approach. Pragmatism entails both positivist and
interpretivist approaches (Saunders et al, 2012), applying the most practical approach which
can integrate different perspectives in order to collect and interpret data effectively.
Pragmatism involves the use of research methods and approaches that are solely relevant to
achieving the desired research aim (Kelemen & Rumens, 2008). Although pragmatism is not
strictly tied to the mixed method approach, the concept does take into account that no
single point of view or research design can give an entire picture of the subject being studied
(Saunders et al, 2012). Hence, this research will utilise a mixed method approach, as both
quantitative and qualitative data can give two different viewpoints, giving the data greater
background and allowing comparisons to be made.

As this dissertation will be developing theoretical explanations, and from this; creating
suggestions that can help to further develop insight into consumer’s behaviour in relation to
loyalty in the fashion industry, this dissertation will also utilise a grounded theory method.
Bryant & Charmaz (2007) claim that a grounded theory refers to a methodological approach
which involves inquiry into existing sets of data. Furthermore, Saunders et al (2012) state
that grounded theory is used to develop theoretical explanations within the business
environment; in particular explanations of consumer and employee behaviours. As this
research is involved in understanding consumer’s behaviour, taking a grounded theory
method is therefore appropriate. In turn, utilising the grounded theory method results in
taking an abductive approach (Saunders et al, 2012). Abduction is the process of gaining new
insights in order to create new conceptual possibilities which can then be examined in order
to contribute to the research field (Reichertz, 2007).

3.2 Mixed Method Approach

The researcher is aware of the possible validity and interpretation issues that arrive with the
descriptive nature of qualitative data. However, although descriptive data cannot be
measured numerically, it can be categorised into sets of reoccurring themes amongst the
responses (Saunders et al, 2012). Although a solely quantitative approach could have been
taken with this research, a mixed method approach was undertaken in this study. Bryman &

17
Bell (2011) state that as this method obtains both quantitative and qualitative data, it
increases the validity of the results as both sets of data can be compared and contrasted to
identify any underlying findings. Furthermore, Creswell (2013) states that when both types
of data are used in conjunction with each other, a greater understanding of the research
problem is achieved. One way in which the two methods are used together is through the
use of follow-up questions. After being asked forced-choice closed question e.g. yes or no;
the participant will then be asked to explain their reasoning for their selected option in an
open ended question directly after.

3.3 Quantitative Data

Quantitative data is obtained in the form of a number of closed questions throughout the
survey. Quantitative data refers to data that is numerical (Saunders et al, 2012), this means
it can be easily quantified and analysed in order to identify the central tendencies that stem
from the research.

A form of closed question utilised is through a number of itemised rating scales to gain
participants opinions on a number of statements. The scales are composed of Likert-type
items scored on 7 point scales ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly disagree”. This
technique has been shown to be effective in previous research on brands and fashion.
Goldsmith et al’s (1993) research on fashion leadership utilised a Likert-type scale to gain
participants opinions on 5 different statements related to the study, leading to an overall
score being derived to each participant based on their response. This technique is simple to
self-complete for participants when explaining their attitudes and allows mean scores for
each statement to be calculated (Brace, 2008). Both positive and negative statements will be
used as this ensures that participants read each one carefully and gives real thought to their
selection (Saunders et al, 2012). This research will utilise a similar scoring system to that of
Goldsmith et al’s, the details of which are set out below:

Participants will be attributed a score ranging from 1-7 for each statement in relation to
their choice of response on the seven-point scale.

Strongly Agree (SA) = 1

Agree (AG) = 2
Somewhat Agree (SWA) = 3
Neither Agree nor Disagree (NA) = 4

18
Somewhat Disagree (SWD) = 5
Disagree (D) = 6
Strongly Disagree (SD) = 7

Utilising this scoring system allows a mean score to be easily attributed to each statement,
increasing insight to results. A low score near to 1 will indicate that respondents thoroughly
agree with the statement; a score near 4 will indicate that respondents do not feel strongly
either way, whilst a high score near 7 demonstrates a deep disagreement to the statement.

Ranked List

Additionally, ranking questions are utilised to gain further quantitative data. A ranking
question is a question asked in a closed manner, in which the participant is presented with a
list of items and instructed to place them in a rank order (Saunders et al, 2012). The item
ranked at 1 on the list, is the item that the participant believes is the highest ranked in
relation to the chosen variable.

A key objective of this research is to assess the impact downgrading can have on consumer’s
perceptions of brands and to identify whether there is a distinct set of categories brands in
different price points fall within. In order to gain an understanding of this topic, two ranking
questions where presented to the respondent (see appendix A). Below is the rationale
behind the chosen independent variables (clothing brands) which respondents are
requested to place in a ranked order.

In these ranking questions, participants were asked to place four different unisex brands,
each representing a different price point and market segment as set out in the literature
review (luxury, mass luxury, mid-level and fast-fashion). The brands representing luxury are
Saint Laurent and Burberry. Both of these brands share luxury characteristics such as
superior quality & craftsmanship, distinctiveness and a high transaction value (Fianda &
Moore, 2009). Both brands also utilise premium pricing, which Jackson (2004) claims makes
luxury products more desirable for reasons other than function

The two brands chosen to represent mass luxury are Tommy Hilfiger and Polo Ralph Lauren.
As indicated in the literature review, Polo Ralph Lauren are a brand whose downgrading
strategy is widely acknowledged as successful (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000; Kapferer,
2008), making the brand an ideal representative for mass luxury. Tommy Hilfiger also shares
many similarities with Polo Ralph Lauren in the way that they segment their market; with
different, inexpensive brand subsidiaries seemingly making the brand more accessible. Both

19
brands are priced above brands deemed as fast-fashion, whilst being as a whole, slightly
lower in price than brands termed as mass luxury. Finally, the two variables chosen to
represent the fast-fashion category are Zara and Topshop (Topman). Zara is widely
recognised as the connoisseur of fast- fashion, with the brand making an appearance in
numerous literature (D’aveni 2010; Cachon & Swinney, 2011; Ko & Megahee, 2012).
Likewise, Cachon & Swinney state that the quick response strategies which allow fast-
fashion brands to react to new high fashion trends rapidly, where first developed by Zara.
Topshop, and the male twin brand Topman; also operates with quick response strategies
nearly identical to that of Zara.

3.4 Qualitative Data

Qualitative research is undertaken through a number of open-ended follow up questions.

Qualitative research is associated with interpretation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), meaning the
results had to be analysed and interpreted by the researcher along with the quantitative
results. Consumers are often not entirely aware of their motives in consumption; qualitative
methods allow researchers to gain insight into both the consumers’ conscious and
unconscious motives (Saunders et al, 2012). Although quantitative research methods are
utilised in the survey to gain statistical data, quantitative methods are not equipped to
comprehend information of a subjective nature (Cassel & Symon, 2004); hence the use of
qualitative open ended questions. Qualitative data is based on meanings and words,
therefore the data is non-standardised and requires classification in to categories (Saunders
et al, 2012). The researcher is aware of any validity issues that may arise through the
interpretative nature of qualitative data. Through utilising quantitative data alongside
qualitative data, participant’s answers to open questions can be more reliably categorised
(Saunders et al, 2012)

Bryman & Bell (2015) state that qualitative data is often associated with the generation of
new theory rather than the testing of existing theory, this indicates that qualitative data will
be effective at stemming new knowledge that can contribute to the existing literature on
fashion and branding. Furthermore, Silverman (2015) also states that qualitative data can be
used to test existing literature and theory, allowing the data to test any theory set out in the
literature review.

20
3.5 Sample

Saunders et al (2012) state that as well as being impractical and unmanageable, it can also
be deemed unnecessary to undertake a survey that has a sample representative of the
whole population. The survey sample consisted of those aged 18-34, often termed as
“millennials” (Howe & Strauss, 2009). Millennials are frequent clothing shoppers, with
Mintel (2016) detailing that a total of 45% of U.K. clothing purchases are made by consumers
aged 18-34. Therefore a sample consisting of millennials is relevant to a study on the
clothing industry. The researcher utilised convenience sampling as it adequately and
efficiently collects data (Bryman & Bell, 2015).

A total of 43 participants responded to the survey, with 60% of the sample male and the
remaining percentage female. Although the sample cannot be deemed wholly
representative, with a slight percentage higher of male respondents than female, the sample
population is still of real use. Fashion consumption and involvement are traditionally viewed
as female dominated (Auty & Elliot, 1998; O’Cass, 2004), with research from Goldsmith et al
(1996) finding that women consider themselves to be more fashion innovative than men.
However recent market research has shown that men are becoming much more involved in
fashion, 60% of male shoppers aged 16-24 are buying clothes at least once a month,
compared to 53% of females in the same age bracket (Mintel, 2016). Furthermore, the total
percentage of shoppers being male has risen by 4%, to 46%. Although there is a slight
imbalance with 40% of the survey sample being female and the percentage of U.K. shoppers
being female is 54%, both genders have been fairly represented in the convenience sample
at hand.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

The respondent’s anonymity will remain intact throughout the process. All participants are
made aware prior to commencement of the survey; that the information that they provide
will remain anonymous and that only the researcher will have access to the data. Saunders
et al (2012) identify that ensuring confidentiality of data and the anonymity of the
participants taking part as a key ethical principle to abide by; this research abides by this
principle. Informed consent must also be given by participants before taking part in the
research. Participants are made aware of the voluntary nature of their participation and

21
have the right to withdraw from the study at any time. A statement of the research purpose
is displayed to the participant before initiation of the questionnaire, along with an assurance
of any ethical issues that may be of concern (appendix C). This research has received full
approval from the Cardiff Metropolitan Ethics Committee, demonstrating that there has
been a consideration of any ethical issues that may arise to participants and the researcher
whilst undertaking this research.

3.7 Data Analysis

Both quantitative and qualitative data will be analysed using Microsoft Excel. Depending on
the question variation, a percentage/mean rating/mean ranking will be identified
throughout the results and analysis section as well as a clear demonstration of results
utilising various charts

3.8 Summary

This section has identified the key characteristics of data analysis, whilst indicating how
results will be relevant and interpreted towards the research objectives. This section has
also outlined the research methods which will be utilised to effectively collect data. Chapter
four outlines the findings from the data collected and compares this with existing theory and
literature.

22
CHAPTER 4: Results & Analysis

4.0 Introduction

This chapter will identify the findings from the conducted primary data; for which the
method has been set out in chapter three of this dissertation. The method for collecting the
primary data was in the form of a self-completed online questionnaire based survey,
collecting results from a total of 43 respondents between the ages of 18 and 34.

4.1 Interest in fashion

Figure 4 shows that of the 43 respondents to the survey, 95% claimed they had purchased
an item of branded clothing in the last twelve months. This indicates that the millennial age
group have a large interest in fashion, coinciding with recent market research from Mintel
(2016) which indicated a similarly high figure also.

Have you purchased an item of branded clothing in

the last 12 months?

Yes No

Figure 4: Number of respondents who have purchased branded clothing in the last 12
months.

23
4.2 Loyal consumers- Why they recommend & repurchase

70% of respondents claimed that there are fashion brands that they would recommend to
friends or family members. Whilst 14% of respondents claimed they were unsure on
whether or not they would recommend, 16% answered “no” to the question (Figure 5). With
over two-thirds of respondents claiming they would recommend; this data supports Keller’s
(2013) view that consumers who have positive opinions about a brand can spread positive
word of mouth (WOM), in this case, the positive WOM is an actual encouragement to
purchase from a brand.

Are there any fashion brands that you would

recommend to your friends or family?
7

30

Yes Not Sure No

Figure 5: Are there any fashion brands that you would recommend to your friends or family?

In order to gain further qualitative data to examine the reasons behind participant’s
responses, a follow-up question was asked. Participants were asked the identity of the
brand/brands they would recommend or have recommended and the reasons for doing so if
they had answered “Yes” to the previous question. When explaining their reasons; a number
of mixed responses were gained providing a large amount of qualitative data to be analysed
by the researcher. A categorisation of the key themes and the frequency of their appearance
from the 30 participant’s responses who answered “Yes” to the previous question is shown
in figure 6 (a full list of responses can be found in Appendix A).

24
 Reasons for reccomending the clothing brand
14

No. of mentions in responses

12

10

0
Quality Durability Style/Fit Affordability Intangible Comfort
aspects
Key themes from respondents

Figure 6: …Reasons for recommending the brand/brands

The term that is apparent in nearly all of the total responses is “quality”. This indicates that
consumers will recommend clothing brands to others based mostly on the functional and
physical aspects of the brand’s products rather than the intangible aspects which can
supposedly make a brand more appealing to consumers as set out in the literature review.

4.2.1 Importance of quality in consumer opinion and brand advocates

From the results gathered, clothing brands who satisfy the physical attributes that the
consumer sees as important, such as durability and the fit of the clothing item; are likely to
benefit from consumer recommendations. The most important attribute in relation to
positive WOM and repurchase from the data gathered appears to be quality. Figure 7
highlights this importance. When participants were presented with the statement: “If I am
satisfied with the standard of quality from a new brand I am likely to tell others about the
experience”, in a Likert-type scale question; 93% of responses ranged from “somewhat
agree” (SWA) to “strongly agree” (SA), meaning that a large proportion of participants
scored low in relation to this statement. The mean respondent score for this statement was
2.5 (scoring system set out in chapter 3.3). Furthermore, when participants were shown the
statement “If I am satisfied with the quality of product from a new brand, I am likely to
purchase again from this brand”; 95% of responses ranged from SWA to SA. Meaning that
yet again, participants mostly scored low in relation to this statement; with a mean score of

25
1.9. As well as further indicating the importance of product quality in relation to positive
WOM, this data supports Griffin’s (2002) post-purchase loop, as participants are
demonstrating that if they are satisfied with a product, they are likely to repurchase. This
indicates that consumers in the millennial age bracket do in fact make a post-purchase
evaluation (Kotler & Keller, 2011) in relation to the five stage model of the consumer buying
process (Figure 2).

Mean statement scores (1-7)

3

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
If I am satisfied with the standard of quality from a If I am satisfied with the quality of a product from a
new brand I am likely to tell others about the new brand I am likely to purchase again from this
experience. brand.

Mean statement scores (1-7)

Figure 7: Mean scores highlighting the importance of quality (scoring system set out in
methodology)

Figure 8 further highlights the necessity for a brand to portray a high level of perceived
quality to the consumer. In this ranking question; participants were asked to rank six
separate characteristics of a brand in order of what they seek when purchasing. The
characteristic of “High Quality” was viewed as the most important characteristic by 49% of
respondents, receiving a mean ranking of 1.6. While another tangible brand characteristic of
“Good Product Design”, received the second highest mean ranking of 2.3, with 33% of
participants identifying this as the most important characteristic for a fashion brand.
“Popularity” received the most negative ranking of 5.3, with 56% of participants placing
popularity as the characteristic they are least concerned with when seeking a clothing brand
and 0% of participants ranking the characteristic as the most important of the six presented.

26
An “Identifiable logo or symbol” was also ranked negatively, with a mean ranking of 4.2; 5%
of responses ranked this characteristic as the most important. Likewise, only 5% of
participants ranked “Strong Image/Identity” as the most important characteristic, with this
characteristic receiving a mean rating of 4.0. “Individuality” received a mean ranking of 3.6.
However, 10% of participants recorded this characteristic as the most important; indicating a
demand for uniqueness amongst some millennial consumers.

Consumer ranking of what they seek in a clothing brand (1

being the most important characteristic)

Strong Image/Identity

Identifiable logo or symbol

Good Product Design

Popularity

Individuality

High Quality

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Mean Ranking (1-6)

Figure 8: Consumer ranking of brand characteristics

4.2.2 Millennials may seek luxury characteristics but are unwilling to pay a
premium

Interestingly, the three characteristics that ranked the highest in figure 8 are all associated
with luxury fashion brands. As set out in the literature review of this dissertation; Fianda &
Moore (2009) identify that a luxury brand is often defined by its superior quality and
craftsmanship as well as its high transaction value. Similarly, Okonkwo (2007) claims that for
a brand to be deemed as luxury, its products must be innovative in design and be of an
exceptional standard of quality which eclipses a customer’s expectations. This data indicates
that luxury brands are in fact the most desirable for the millennial age bracket as they
contain the characteristics that the majority of the respondents claimed they rank as the
most important when selecting a brand. Theng So et al (2013) claim that a combination of

27
superior physical properties (e.g. quality & design) and extrinsic values (e.g.
uniqueness/individuality) is what allows luxury brands to charge a premium for their
products. However, although consumers may seek the characteristics associated with luxury
brands; the results shown in figure 9 indicate that consumers may be unwilling to meet the
stated premium prices. The mean response when participants were questioned “What is the
maximum you are willing to spend on a branded item of clothing?” lay within the category of
£75-100. Additionally, only 16% of participants claimed they are willing to spend a maximum
above £150; whilst 33% are unwilling to spend over £75. This also indicates that brands who
take a downgrading line extension strategy (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Kim & Lavack, 1996;
Hennigs et al, 2013), often termed as mass luxury as set out in the literature review; may
inherently target the millennial consumer who is looking for luxury characteristics but at a
more affordable price. This is as mass luxury brands target a broader scope of consumers
through lower product prices (Truong et al, 2009).

Maximum willing to spend on a branded item of clothing

£500+

£300-500

£200-300

£150-200

£100-150

£75-100

£50-75

£25-50

£0-25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Number of participants

Figure 9: Maximum willing to spend on branded clothing

4.2.3 Willingness to invest in favourite brands

Although figure 9 indicates that most consumers in the sample are unwilling to spend a
premium price for luxury clothing items; figure 10 demonstrates that the millennial
consumer does have an increased willingness to invest when they hold favourable opinions

28
toward a brand. Respondents were asked to select one of the eight categories below to
demonstrate the increase in percentage they are willing to spend on their favourite clothing
brand or brands. The mean percentage lay within the 25-40% categorisation; with 32% of
respondent’s stating that this is the percentage band for the increase they are willing to
spend. Just one participant stated that they are not willing to spend more on a brand they
are favourable towards compared to another brand, whilst 7% of participants indicated that
they are willing to spend a difference of 100% and above on their favourite brand or brands.

With the mean percentage of participant responses laying within the 25-40% category; this
indicates that Kotler & Keller (2011) statement, that consumers are often willing to spend
25% more than they would on a competing brand does have some fruition with millennial
consumers. Likewise, Aaker & Joachimsthaler (2000) state that loyal consumers provide a
stable sales basis. However, to characterise this data as evidence of Batra et al’s (2005)
“willingness to invest” component of brand love; would be wrong. Although there is a clear
increase in the amount respondents are willing to spend on their favourite brands compared
to other brands they do not hold such favourable associations with. There is no evidence to
suggest that this brand favouritism can be translated into what Batra et al defines as brand
love.

Despite the lack of evidence from the data identifying brand love, 73% of respondents
claimed they do feel a sense of loyalty to a fashion brand (figure 11). Although this may
seemingly indicate that brand love may be evident within the participant sample; when
considering that 98% of respondents claimed they are willing to spend more on a clothing
brand they deem as their favourite, the results indicate that an increase in willingness to
invest is not just attributed to brand love. This is as a sizeable proportion of participants
(21%) claimed they felt no sense of loyalty towards any fashion brands, whilst also stating
that they are willing to spend an increase of 10% and over for their favourite brand.
Therefore, there may be an over-emphasis on building a deep connection between a fashion
brand and the consumer in order to increase a willingness to invest; as most consumers who
only hold a favourable opinion of a brand rather than feel a sense of loyalty are still willing to
spend more on this brand.

29
 Percentage more willing to spend on favourite brand/s

100%+

75-100%

50-75%

40-50%

25-40%

10-25%

1-10%

0%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Number of respondents

Figure 10: Percentage more willing to spend on favourite brand

Do you feel a sense of loyalty to any fashion brands

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Yes No

Number of respondents

Figure 11: Number of respondents who feel they are loyal to fashion brands

30
4.2.4 Reasons for repurchase and positive WOM differ

An aspect that stands out from the data collected is that respondent’s reasons for
repurchasing brands and recommending brands do appear to have slight differentiations. In
an open ended question, participants were asked the identity of a favourite clothing brand
which they have purchased from on more than one occasion, along with the reasons for this
repeat purchase. Responses to this question naturally resulted in a large amount of
qualitative data which has been categorised into the key themes stemming throughout the
responses (Figure 12). Figure 12 identifies the seven most mentioned aspects that
respondents identified as the reason for their repurchase from the brand they had stated.
The key reason consumers in the research sample repurchase from a brand are the positive
assessment of style, design and fit of the clothing they have purchased from the brand, with
this reason being mentioned by respondents on 17 separate occasions. Similar to
respondents reasons for recommending a brand to friends or family (Figure 6); quality is
seemingly a key aspect in the re-purchase decision as this reason was mentioned a total of
13 times by respondents. Data gathered from figure 12 is also concurrent with respondents
ranking of clothing brand characteristics (Figure 8). This as the two most positively rated
characteristics within figure 8 are “High Quality” and “Good Product Design” which were the
two most frequently mentioned reasons for repurchasing in figure 12. This demonstrates an
assurance in the sample respondents preferable brand characteristics, as on two separate
occasions the same characteristics were identified as important. This data indicates that
there may be an over-emphasis on brands attempting to portray strong extrinsic values
(Jackson, 2004). This as on two separate occasions, a majority of respondents have indicated
that they deem brand values which can be deemed as intrinsic as the most important; as
well as indicating that intrinsic values are the most essential in recommending brands to
others (Figure 6).

Brand image, individuality & uniqueness, and exclusivity where apparent themes in a
number of responses within figure 12. This indicates that millennial consumers do hold the
intangible associations with brands which are frequently mentioned amongst branding
literature (Tybout & Calkins, 2005; Keller, 2013; De Chernatony, 2009; Kapferer, 2012).
Although the mentioned intrinsic values do appear to dominate consumer’s preference, the
key difference between the data in figure 5 and figure 12 is the increase of intangible and
extrinsic values listed by participants.

31
 Reasons for re-purchasing
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 12: Reasons for re-purchasing

4.2.5 Evidence of the “snob” consumer

With individuality & uniqueness, along with exclusivity being mentioned a total of 12
occasions by respondents; there is an indication that the “snob” consumer who purchases
products to disassociate themselves from others through the uniqueness of their brand and
product choice (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012; Ko & Megahee, 2012), may be present
amongst millennial consumers who have an interest in clothing brands. Participant 29’s
response to the reasons why they had/have recommended a brand furthermore identifies
this:

“… I steer away from recommending brands to people that I personally wear” – Participant
29

Despite the appearance of the “snob” consumer from the data gathered, this type of
consumer does still appear to be in the minority. When participants were asked whether an
increase in accessibility of their favourite brand would deter them from purchasing again
(see appendix C); 57% of consumers answered “No”, 33% answered “Maybe” whilst 10%
identified that it would deter them from purchasing again. Despite this, 43% of respondents
did identify that they would either be deterred from purchasing again or were unsure, an
indication that an increase in accessibility would cast some doubt to the repurchase decision
for a proportion of consumers. An increase in accessibility and reduction in price is a key

32
aspect of a downgrading line extension strategy (Kapferer, 2008; Okonkwo, 2009; Hennigs et
al, 2013). A risk that is widely associated with taking a downgrading strategy is that
consumers who were previously loyal brand advocates may be discouraged from purchasing
again from the brand (Hennigs et al, 2013). With a minimum 10% of respondents admittedly
being put off by a downgrading strategy, the data demonstrates that this risk is apparent
amongst the millennial consumer group.

As set out in the literature, Kastanakis & Balabanis (2012) claim that a downgrading strategy
attracts those deemed as “bandwagon” type consumers who are attracted to brands for
their popularity and ease of access. In terms of Wilson et al’s (2012) customer pyramid
(Figure 2), these customers are less profitable to the brand than “snob” consumers. It can
also be interpreted from the literature review that the “bandwagon” consumer is likely to be
multi-brand loyal (Knox & Walker, 2001), if loyal at all. However, the data does indicate that
splitting millennial consumers into a category of “snob” or “bandwagon” is rather limited
and that this concept may not be possible to apply to the fashion industry. Figure 7 reveals
that the large majority of respondents deemed popularity as the least important
characteristic when seeking out a brand. Additionally, in participants open ended answers to
the reasons why they recommend and re-purchase brands (Figure 5 & Figure 12), popularity
was not mentioned by any of the respondents. With “bandwagon” type consumers
associated with selecting brands based on popularity, there is little evidence to suggest that
this type of consumer is present within the sample of respondents.

4.3 Brand Personality

Aaker (1997) claims that brands can have personality traits which can be portrayed to
consumers. Data in figure 13 would suggest that consumers recognise these traits amongst
brands. 84% of respondents claimed that they do see certain fashion brands as having
distinct personality traits. Additionally, in a follow-up question (figure 14); 92% of the
respondents who claimed they do recognise personality traits within brands, indicated that
they prefer clothing brands with personalities they can relate to their own. Thomson et al
(2005) claim that when a consumer can identify with a brand’s unique characteristics an
emotional attachment to the brand can form. The results point toward an indication that
consumers can relate to a brand on a personal level or integrate the brand into their own
self-concept (Kotler & Keller, 2011).

33
 Do you see clothing brands as having distinct personalities?
40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Yes Maybe No

Number of respondents

Figure 13: Extent to which respondents identify brand personality

Do you prefer clothing brands that have personalities you

can relate to your own?
40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Yes No

Number of respondents

Figure 14: Respondents response to identification with brand personality

4.4 Brand communities

Figure 15 demonstrates that the majority of respondents do not consider themselves to be

part of a brand community.

34
 Would you consider yourself to be part of a brand
community?
35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Yes Not sure No

No. of respondents

Figure 15: Brand community members amongst respondents

71% of respondents stated that they do not consider themselves to be part of a brand
community, while 21% of respondents answered yes to the question in figure 15. Although
the data validates the existence of the brand community set out in the literature review
(Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001; McAlexander et al, 2002), the majority of consumers considered
themselves not to be a part of a brand community; indicating that the presence of these
communities may be overstated.

Despite low numbers of respondents being part of a brand community, 74% of respondents
follow a fashion brand on some form of social media which demonstrates a form of
advocacy for the brand. On top of this, 82% of the respondents who stated that they
followed a brand on social media claimed they interact with the brand (liking or commenting
on posts) on at least a monthly basis (see appendix C). In terms of the customer based brand
equity model (Figure 2), Keller (2013) claims consumers who are in the resonance stage have
an intense and active loyalty to the brand. As a high percentage of respondents are
demonstrating that they are interacting with their favourite brands through social media,
the findings are indicative of an active loyalty.

Results indicate that if the millennial consumer is unsatisfied with the quality of a product
from their favourite brand there is a strong possibility that they will dispel any loyalty
towards this brand and spread negative WOM. In a Likert-type scale question with responses
ranging on a 7 point scale from SA to “Strongly Disagree” (SD), 64% of responses were either

35
marked as “Agree”(AG) or SWA when presented with the statement shown in figure 16. The
mean score from respondents was 3.2 (scoring system set out in chapter 3.3). Aaker &
Joachimsthaler (2000) claim that as well as spreading positive WOM, a stable and loyal
customer basis will also defend any shortcomings of the brand, figure 16 indicates that a
large proportion of respondents are unwilling to defend any shortcomings of the brand and
are likely to spread negative WOM if they are unsatisfied with quality. This, therefore,
indicates that the loyalty exhibited by a large proportion of respondents is behavioural, as
behaviourally loyal consumers can be lost easily and are likely to spread negative WOM is
they are unsatisfied with a brand’s product (Cheng, 2011).

"If my favourite brand lets me down with the quality of a product I am likely
to not remain loyal and tell others about the poor quality".

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Mean Statement Score (1-7)

Figure 16: Mean statement score for negative word of mouth

4.5 Fast-fashion- respondent’s opinions and loyalty

In order to gain an understanding of the popularity of fast-fashion brands, respondents were

asked if there are any fast-fashion or high street brands (Zara, River Island, H&M etc.) that
they purchase from on a frequent basis (Figure 17). The results show that 69% of
respondents do purchase from fast fashion brands on a frequent basis.

36
 Number of respondents who purchase from fast-fashion
brands frequently

13

29

Yes No

Figure 17: Number of respondents who purchase from fast-fashion brands frequently

To gain further qualitative data, participants who answered “Yes” in figure 16 were asked a
follow-up question to state what it is that they admire about these brands. Results were
categorised into the key themes in order to aid analysis (Figure 18). The most frequently
mentioned aspect from the open-ended responses was affordability. Affordability was
mentioned by respondents on 14 separate occasions. Secondly, trendy and up to date styles
were mentioned a total of 10 times by respondents. Two more key themes were an
inclination for fast-fashion brands to offer good essential items and a high level of quality for
the cost of the items. Lastly, product variety was mentioned 4 times by respondents. Three
responses which encompass other responses in a more detailed manner are presented
below (full list of responses can be found in appendix C).

Participant 29 said:
“…they offer styles similar to more expensive brands, up to date with the latest trends whilst
also being a lot less expensive. I also like to purchase more essential items from these
brands”.

Participant 16 said:
“Cheap affordable, generally items that are one colour like black jeans or white under t-
shirts”

Participant 18 said:
“There is a lot of choice and the styles are really up to date and affordable”

37
 Aspects of fast-fashion brands that respondents most
admire
16

14

12
No. of mentions

10

0
Affordable Up to date styles Good essential Quality for money Variety
items spent
Key themes from responses

Figure 18: Reasons for admiration of fast-fashion brands

As can be seen in figure 17, affordability was the key reason participants admire fast-fashion
brands. This indicates a loyalty towards fast-fashion brands that is behavioural in its nature
(Jacoby & Kleyner, 1973; Dick & Basu, 1994; Bennet & Rundle-Thiele, 2002; Bandyopadhyay
& Martell, 2007; Cheng, 2011) as responses were mostly associated with the price of the
products fast-fashion brands offer.

Trendy and up to date styles were mentioned often as a reason for admiration of the fast-
fashion brand. This concurs with one of the two main benefits that Cachon & Swinney (2011)
state operating in a fast-fashion system delivers. Cachon & Swinney identify that the short
production times and quick response strategies that are synonymous with the fast-fashion
system help to ensure that products are up to date and in keeping with the latest styles as
products can be produced as and when new trends are identified. The results indicate that
the fast-fashion system does result in this benefit to the brand.

Although up to date styles were mentioned as a reason for admiration, the key subject for
admiration stemmed from a price aspect, company this with a number of respondents (see
participant 29 and participant 16’s response) identifying that they purchase their essential
items from fast fashion brands, then the results indicate that fast-fashion brands may suffer
from a lack of loyalty, especially an attitudinal loyalty. Most responses are associated with
the price aspect, with a lack of indication in results pointing towards an appreciation

38
amongst millennial consumers of positive brand associations. Likewise, with a number of
responses indicating that respondent’s purchase essential items from fast-fashion brands
and may go to more expensive brands for more noticeable items, there is an evident group
of “multiple users” (Bandyopadhyay & Martell, 2007) within the sample. This data concurs
with Gabrielli et al’s (2013) suggestion that some consumers purchase essential items from
fast-fashion brands but when purchasing noticeable staple items, purchase from mid-level
upwards.

4.5
Respondents ranking of brands
4

3.5
Mean consumer ranking

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Luxury Mass Luxury Mid-level Fast-fashion

Exclusivity Quality

Figure 19: Respondent ranking of brands in terms of quality and exclusivity (1 being the
highest quality and most exclusive).

Figure 19 demonstrates that respondents have clear perceptions and opinions towards the
brands representing luxury, mass luxury, mid-level and fast-fashion (justification of brand
choices to represent each category set out in chapter 3.3). In terms of exclusivity, the brand
representing luxury (Saint Laurent) had a mean ranking of 1.4, with 74% of respondents
deeming the luxury brand as the most exclusive of the four brands. Quality was also similarly
ranked to exclusivity for the brand representing luxury (Burberry), with a mean ranking of
1.6 by respondents. However compared to exclusivity, there were a lower number of
participants who ranked the luxury brand as having the highest quality, standing at 57%.

39
The mass luxury brand for exclusivity (Tommy Hilfiger) was given a mean ranking of 2.
Coinciding with this, the mass luxury brand for quality (Polo Ralph Lauren) was also given a
mean ranking of 2. However, a higher proportion of respondents placed the mass luxury
brand as the highest quality than the most exclusive of the four brands shown; with 33%
placing the mass luxury brand as the highest quality compared to 17% of respondents
deeming the brand representing mass luxury as the most exclusive. For exclusivity, the
brand representing mid-level (Levis) was given a mean ranking of 3.8, with the mid-level
brand in the quality ranking (Carhartt) attributing a near identical mean ranking of 3.9. Fast-
fashion brands received the lowest mean ranking in both categories. For exclusivity, the fast-
fashion brand (Topshop) received a mean ranking of 3.8, with 90% of respondents
identifying the fast-fashion brand as the least exclusive. Secondly, the mean quality ranking
for the fast-fashion brand Zara stood at 3.6. However, a lower proportion of respondents
ranked the fast-fashion brand as the lowest quality in comparison with exclusivity, with 67%
deeming the fast-fashion brand lowest in terms of quality.

The results shown in figure 19 indicate that millennial consumers do have clear perceptions
of the quality and exclusivity of fashion brands. As the brands selected were mostly done so
based on their retail prices (see chapter 3.2), there is an indication that millennial consumers
do have a heuristic thinking process when making judgements on a brand. The results
support Parguel et al’s (2016) statement that consumers have higher perceptions of quality
and prestige when the price of a product is also high. This is as the brands ranked highest in
exclusivity and quality are also the brands that retail their products at the highest price.

Additionally, the data gathered indicates that consumers do hold much lower expectations
of quality towards fast-fashion brands. The majority of respondents placed the brand
representative of fast-fashion as the lowest quality of the four brands displayed. Gabrielli et
al (2013) suggest that as consumers hold lower expectations about the quality of the fast-
fashion brand product, they are generally more satisfied, as the quality surpasses their
expectations. Figure 19 demonstrates these lower expectations; whilst data in figure 17
demonstrates that respondents do hold positive post-purchase evaluations in relation to the
quality of fast-fashion brands products.

In agreement with Truong et al’s (2009) study on the positioning strategies of mass luxury
brands, figure 19 demonstrates that respondents hold perceptions of higher perceived
quality and exclusivity with mass luxury brands than other clothing brands that offer
products at a similar price level. This indicates that the two brands utilised in the survey,

40
Polo Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger, have successfully undertaken the mentioned task in
the literature review from Kastanakis & Balabanis (2012) of maintaining a perceived
exclusivity and quality from the customer’s viewpoint whilst also increasing brand
awareness, in order to grow their revenues and market share. However, more research
would have to be undertaken involving a wide range of brands that can be characterised as
mass luxury to be able to generalise this assumption beyond the two stated brands.

4.6 Brand Signage

If your favourite brand was to remove its signage from

products, would you continue to purchase from this brand?

13

29

Yes No

Figure 20: Number of consumers willing to purchase from their favourite brand without
signage on products.

Figure 20 shows that 69% of respondents would continue to purchase from their favourite
clothing brand if the brand removed its logos or symbols from products. To gain further
qualitative data, those who answered “Yes” to the question shown in figure 19 were asked
to explain why they would continue to purchase; those who answered “No” were asked to
give a reason why they would not continue to purchase. The full list of open ended
responses can be found in Appendix B.

41
One reason that came frequently from respondents who claimed they would continue to
purchase was that they saw the brand name as an assurance of the quality of the clothing
item. Most responses identified that they hold favourable opinions about the brand not due
to the signage, but as a result of the quality and the design of the clothing. Take for instance
participant 20’s response

“As quality is of high importance for the branded apparel which I wear, I would continue to
purchase with less outlandish branding as I trust the brand.”

Participant 20’s response amongst many others (see appendix C) further highlights the
necessity for quality in order to hold favourable associations and cultivate loyalty. With most
respondents identifying that they would continue to purchase without brand signage, there
is an indication amongst results that there is too much attention in current literature
(Okonkwo, 2007; Keller, 2013) on the positive characteristics and associations brand signage
can portray.

42
CHAPTER 5: Concluding thoughts & suggestions

This chapter will draw on conclusions and recommendations in relation to the three
objectives identified in Chapter 1.

5.1 Suggestions & Recommendations

i) Fast-fashion brands should continue to focus marketing activities toward a behavioural

loyalty.

The results indicate that the majority of consumers who purchase from fast-fashion brands
do not do so for the brand’s image, but rather for the affordability and quality for the price.
Aaker (1997) identifies that brands can have personality traits that are usually associated
with people, and that when consumers identify with a brand’s personality a loyalty toward
the brand can grow. Data in figure 14 supports Aaker’s viewpoint, with a majority of
respondents claiming that they do prefer brands with personalities they view as similar to
their own. Despite this, the results demonstrate that the millennial consumer does not pay
attention to fast-fashion brands personalities and mostly have a loyalty that is behavioural
with little appreciation of fast-fashion brands unique characteristics. Bandyopadhay &
Martell (2007) would argue that this indicates a lack of attitudinal loyalty among millennial
consumers towards fast-fashion brands as respondents mostly do not claim to admire these
brands for their brand values and unique characteristics but rather for their affordability.

At first glance, the research may point toward a lack of attitudinal loyalty being a real
negative of operating in a fast-fashion system. As set out in the literature review, attitudinal
loyalty benefits the brand through an increased chance of positive WOM and increased
engagement from consumers in brand activities amongst other benefits. However, missing
out on these benefits may be justifiable, Cheng (2011) identifies that consumers who are
attitudinally loyal but do not translate this loyalty into a behavioural form with an actual
purchase are not beneficial to the brand in terms of revenue. With the large economies of
scale that fast-fashion brands operate in and the fast response systems they utilise, high

43
sales levels are essential (Cachon & Swinney, 2011). There is a clear trend amongst the large
majority of respondents indicating that they are behaviourally loyal towards fast-fashion
brands which will, in turn, benefit these brands financially. Despite the likelihood of these
respondents being multi-brand loyal (Knox & Walker, 2001) to a number of fast-fashion
brands which is associated with behavioural loyalty; the researcher suggests that these
brands should continue to focus on cultivating a behavioural loyalty with their marketing
activities as high levels of sales are more significant to sustain and justify the current fast
response systems and high levels of production these brands operate with.

ii) Mass luxury brands may be deemed lower in terms of quality and exclusivity but the
brand image has not suffered drastically from a downgrading strategy.

Although results suggest that the majority of consumers rank luxury brands with the largest
retail prices as the most exclusive and of the highest quality, both luxury brands in figure 19
ranked highly in both aspects; 33% of respondents deemed the mass luxury brand Polo
Ralph Lauren as being of a higher quality than the stated luxury brand Burberry. This
demonstrates that a downgrading strategy can be achieved without a severe dilution of the
brand image, which Kim & Lavack (1996) identify as a major downfall of a downgrading line
extension strategy.

From the data gathered, the mass luxury brand will inherently target the millennial
consumer. This is as the majority of respondents seek characteristics synonymous with
luxury brands but are unwilling to pay the premium prices that come with this (see figure 9).
10% of respondents admitted that they would be put off if their favourite brand increased
its accessibility, which does indicate that the substance of the risk of losing loyal brand
advocates who offer more than just a stable sales basis (Hennigs et al, 2013). Despite this,
the researcher concludes from the data, that amongst millennial consumers the brand
dilution and loss of loyal consumers does not appear severe enough to dispel the
downgrading strategy, as perceived quality and exclusivity can still be maintained.

iii) Quality should be the most important aspect for fashion brands to cultivate a loyalty
from the millennial consumer.

Despite the emphasis on brand image, unique characteristics and personality throughout
branding, and fashion branding literature (Aaker, 1997; Theng So et al, 2013; Da Silveira et

44
al, 2013; Huang & Sarigöllü, 2014), throughout the results the majority of respondents
frequently mention quality and other tangible aspects such as the fit and style of clothing as
the most important brand aspects.

Cailleux et al (2009) claim that firms operating in the luxury fashion market are altering their
branding focus towards creating an emotional attachment between the consumer and the
brand. Results shown in figure 13 and figure 14 do suggest that there is the basis for what
Thomson et al (2005) describes as an emotional attachment to form with the majority of
respondents.

Aaker & Joachimsthaler (2000 p. 33) claim brand identity should be the “cornerstone” of a
brand’s strategy; however, results from the sample of millennial consumers indicate that
there are lower levels of appreciation of brand identity than was previously thought. Despite
figure 13 demonstrating that 84% of participants do recognise distinct personality traits in
fashion brands, and a further 92% of these respondents claiming to prefer brands with
personalities that they can relate to their own (figure 14); this appreciation of brand
personality mostly does not translate through to the reasons respondents claim they
recommend brands (figure 6) or the reasons they repurchase from brands (figure 12).

For these reasons and the results collected, the researcher recommends that primarily
fashion brands should ensure that their products remain of a high quality throughout any
changes such as a downgrading strategy. For fast-fashion brands especially, results
demonstrate that quality is essential in ensuring that consumers are satisfied post-purchase
in order for them to make a positive evaluation and become behaviourally loyal.

For brands deemed as mass luxury, quality is also essential to ensure the risks associated
with a downgrading strategy (see section 2.3) are kept to a minimum. If the quality of
products remains high but accessibility increases, results indicate that there will not be a
dramatic effect on brand image and brand loyalty amongst the millennial consumer group.

5.2 Research limitations

As referred to in section 3.3, the sample size for this study was relatively small in comparison
with other studies in fashion branding literature. The small sample size of 43 means it is not
possible to generalise these results as a representation of the majority of millennial

45
consumers in the UK. Furthermore, the convenience sampling technique utilised resulted in
a slight demographic imbalance, with 60% of respondents being male, which is
unrepresentative of fashion consumption; with Mintel (2016) identifying that there is a
larger amount of fashion consumption amongst women than there is in men within the UK.

The researcher is aware that statistical analysis tools such as SPSS could have been utilised in
order to gain an increased insight into the results. As a large proportion of the research
resulted in a qualitative data to be interpreted by the researcher, the decision was made to
simplify the process. Furthermore the mixed method approach was adopted to ensure
results had both a statistical and interpretivist background.

Additionally, results shown in figure 19 cannot be generalised as respondent’s opinions on

each category. This is as specific brands were shown to respondents, the ranking
respondents gave to each brand may only be representative of their opinion on that specific
brand rather than all brands who share similar characteristics and offer products at the same
prices.

5.3 Further Research

Despite this research not being able to conclusively identify the reasons behind brand loyalty
in the fashion sector, it does show clear patterns amongst respondent’s opinions on clothing
brands and the factors affecting their purchase decisions. With an increase in resources, a
future practitioner will be able to take the basis of the research design and undertake the
research on a much larger scale with greater analytical tools. With more time, future
researchers will be able to use more advanced software such as the mentioned SPSS.
However, there are clear patterns in the data collected, which if replicated on a larger scale
to ensure generalisability could inform market development.

5.4 Closing Statement

Brand loyalty is of vital importance to almost all firms, especially those operating within the
fashion industry. The aspect of product quality is known to be integral to sparking positive
associations with a brand. Yet, with the many brands the consumer has to choose from in
the current market, firms are attempting to differentiate away from competitors by offering
intangible benefits to become part of the consumers own self-image. Whilst results indicate

46
that these intangible benefits can have a positive attempt on the millennial consumer’s
perception of the brand and brand loyalty, quality should not and cannot be overlooked in
the creation of a loyal consumer basis.

47
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Participant consent and information form

Fashion & Brand Loyalty

Summary of Project

The aim of this work is to assess the factors in consumer brand choices and loyalty within
the fashion industry. This project has received the approval of Cardiff School of
Managements‟ Ethics Committee, Cardiff Metropolitan University.

Participation

You have been selected to take part in this survey as you fall under the 18-34 age bracket
(millennial), whom firms within the fashion industry heavily market their products
towards. You have the right to withdraw from the research at any time you choose. In
order to make this data as valid as possible, please do answer the questions as accurately as
possible. The survey should take no longer than 5-7 minutes. Upon receiving the data, the
results will be interpreted and analysed, comparing against other previous theory to
discover any similarities or contradictions.

Privacy

Participants will remain anonymous throughout the survey. Participants are required to
state their age and gender at the beginning of the study. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding this study please do not hesitate to contact me. Email:
[email protected] you in advance for taking the time to complete this
survey.

I understand that participation in this study is entirely voluntary and that I can withdraw
from the study at any time without giving a reason or I can discuss my concerns with the
researcher Marcus Tansey ([email protected]). I understand that my data will
be stored on password protected computers, anonymised after completion of the survey

48
and that no one will be able to trace my information back to me. The raw data will be
retained for up to three years when it will be deleted/destroyed.

 By ticking this box I agree to take part in this study.

Appendix B: Questionnaire

Gender

 Male
 Female

Age:

Have you purchased an item of branded clothing in the last 12 months?

 Yes
 No

Do you feel a sense of loyalty to any fashion brands?

 Yes
 No

Are there any fashion brands that you would recommend to your friends or family?

 Yes
 No
 Not sure

If you answered Yes to the question above, please state the name of the brand/brands you
have recommended and the reasons for doing so.

Do you see certain fashion brands as having distinct personalities that would usually be
attributed to a person such as sophistication, ruggedness and competence?

 Yes
 Maybe
 No

49
If you answered Yes to the above question. Do you prefer clothing brands that have
personalities you can relate to your own?

 Yes
 No

Please rank the following characteristics in order of what you seek in a clothing brand:

______ High Quality (1)

______ Individuality (2)
______ An identifiable logo or symbol (3)
______ Good product design (4)
______ Strong image/identity (5)
______ Popularity (6)

Please state one of your favourite clothing brands that you have purchased items from on
more than one occasion and the reasons for doing so:

What is the maximum price you are willing to spend on a branded item of clothing?

 £0-25
 £25-50
 £50-75
 £75-100
 £100-150
 £150-200
 £200-300
 £300-500
 £500+

For my favourite brand/s, I am willing to pay (X)% more than I would on another brand.

 0%
 1-10%
 10-25%
 25-40%
 40-50%
 50-75%
 75-100%
 +100%

50
Please rank the following statement from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.

Neither
Strongly
Strongly Somewhat agree nor Somewhat Disagree
Agree (2) disagree
agree (1) agree (3) disagree disagree (5) (6)
(7)
(4)
I am likely
to dislike a
brand I
once held
in a high
regard,       
when mass
quantities
of people
are also
wearing it.

Please rank the following brands in terms of exclusivity (1 being the most exclusive):

______ Levis (1)

______ Saint Laurent (Yves Saint Laurent) (2)
______ Tommy Hilfiger (3)
______ Topshop (Topman) (4)

Please rank the following brands in terms of the quality of their products (1 being the
highest quality):

______ Polo Ralph Lauren (1)

______ Zara (2)
______ Burberry (3)
______ Carharrt (4)

Do you follow any fashion/clothing brands on any form of social media? (Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram etc)

 Yes
 No

51
If you answered Yes to the above question. How often do you interact with the brand? For
example liking content or commenting on posts.

 Never
 Every Day
 Weekly
 Fortnightly (4)
 Monthly (5)
 Yearly or very rarely

Would you consider yourself to be part of a brand community? -do you keep up to date with
the brands activities or discuss the brand with other people who are also enthusiasts?

 Yes
 No
 Not sure

If your favourite clothing brand was to remove its signage from products (e.g. logo), would
you continue to purchase from this brand?

 Yes
 No

If you answered Yes to the above question. What are the reasons for continuing to
purchase? If you answered No, why would you not continue to purchase?

If your favourite brand was to reduce its exclusivity and become more affordable, would this
deter you from purchasing again?

 Yes
 Maybe
 No

Are there any "fast fashion" or high street brands (Zara, River Island, H&M etc) that you
purchase from frequently?

 Yes
 No

If you answered Yes to the above question. What is it that you admire about the brand/s?

52
Please rank the following statements from strongly agree to strongly disagree:

Neither
Strongly
Strongly Somewhat agree nor Somewhat Disagree
Agree (2) disagree
agree (1) agree (3) disagree disagree (5) (6)
(7)
(4)
If my
favourite
brand lets
me down
with the
quality of a
product I am
      
likely to not
remain loyal
to the brand
and tell
others
about the
poor quality.
If I am
satisfied
with the
quality of a
product
from a new       
brand I am
likely to
purchase
again from
this brand.
If I am
satisfied
with the
standard of
quality from
      
a new brand
I am likely to
tell others
about the
experience.

Is an increase in personalisation and influence on a brands products and service something

that is of interest to you?

 Yes
 Maybe
 No

53
Appendix C: Full research results

Question 1- Gender

# Answer % Count

1 Male 60.47% 26

2 Female 39.53% 17

Total 100% 43

54
 Question 2 - Age:

Age:

23

21

23

18

22

29

24

21

19

26

34

22

21

22

22

24

18

21

22

20

20

21

22

21

28

19

22

55
22

26

20

22

21

19

22

30

31

27

21

34

20

20

21

26

56
Question 3- Have you purchased an item of branded clothing in the last 12
months?

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 95.35% 41

2 No 4.65% 2

Total 100% 43

57
Question 4- Do you feel a sense of loyalty to any fashion brands?

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 72.09% 31

2 No 27.91% 12

Total 100% 43

58
Question 5.1- Are there any fashion brands that you would recommend to
your friends or family?

# Answer % Count

4 Yes 69.77% 30

6 Not sure 13.95% 6

5 No 16.28% 7

Total 100% 43

59
Question 5.2- If you answered Yes to the question above, please state the
name of the brand/brands you have recommended and the reasons for
doing so.

Recommended Selected. This was due to the quality of the clothing, good fit and the clothing has
lasted me a long time, some brands I have bought from have looked damaged after washes, but
items I have purchased from Selected have not. This is a main reason I have recommended
Ralph Lauren- recommended to a friend who was looking for a high quality shirt

Urban outfitters/ nice fits

Adidas- comfortable and can be worn for different purposes

Recommended ASOS for affordable and trendy clothing

Roxy- pretty dresses

Nike sb. Great quality

Fred Perry, Levi, ASOS, Farah

No fear

Jack Wills - good quality clothing, nice fitting, reasonably priced Ralph Lauren - quality clothing
I have recommended brands based on quality (for example: APC, JW Anderson), or because of a
certain, distinctive style (for example: Hood by Air, Places + Faces). I steer away from
recommending brands to people that I personally wear, because fashion, like many art forms, is
subjective and is to be viewed by oneself in the way which one chooses. Because of this, I feel no
need to encroach my fashion views or ideas on other people.
Whistles- the pieces are of a good quality, durable, stylish and re wearable. Recently
recommended to a friend who was looking for a new sweatshirt.
boohoo as they have really pretty designs and are great value

Nice clothes, nice fit decent brand

North face for reliability, practicality and durability.

Nike shoes, for comfort.

Nike, always good quality

Ralph Lauren/ Levis/ Cahartt/ Selected Homme/ Farah- all affordable and stylish

Vans, Ralph Lauren, Topman- I like them so I would recommend

Nike because they offer so many different types of clothes

BDG, lazy oafs, Topshop- affordable

Marshall Artist, liked the clobber

60
Boohoo it's really cheap and ok quality

Recommend nike for essential gear

H+M- ok quality and stylish

Superdry, as I work for them.

Ralph Lauren, good quality and lovely clothes

No Fear - because I stuck with this brand and I like the image

Diadora - I think it is new, cool and indie

A.P.C as the quality of the products are high and my friends have a similar taste in clothing to me.

61
Question 6 – Do you see brands as having distinct personalities that would
usually be attributed to a person such as sophistication, ruggedness and
competence?

# Answer % Count

1 Yes, 83.72% 36

2 Maybe 11.63% 5

3 No 4.65% 2

Total 100% 43

62
Question 6.2 - If you answered Yes to the above question. Do you prefer
clothing brands that have personalities you can relate to your own?

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 92.31% 36

2 No 7.69% 3

Total 100% 39

63
 Question 7- Please rank the following characteristics in order of what you
seek in a clothing brand:

# High Quality Mean

1 High Quality 1.6

2 Individuality 3.6

3 An identifiable logo or symbol 4.2

4 Good product design 2.3

5 Strong image/identity 4.0

6 Popularity 5.3

# Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

1 High Quality 48.84% 21 41.86% 18 6.98% 3 2.33% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 43

2 Individuality 9.30% 4 16.28% 7 23.26% 10 20.93% 9 16.28% 7 13.95% 6 43

An identifiable
3 logo or 4.65% 2 4.65% 2 20.93% 9 23.26% 10 32.56% 14 13.95% 6 43
symbol
Good product
4 32.56% 14 30.23% 13 16.28% 7 16.28% 7 2.33% 1 2.33% 1 43
design
Strong
5 4.65% 2 6.98% 3 25.58% 11 27.91% 12 20.93% 9 13.95% 6 43
image/identity
6 Popularity 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 6.98% 3 9.30% 4 27.91% 12 55.81% 24 43

64
Question 8- Please state one of your favourite clothing brands that you
have purchased items from on more than one occasion and the reasons
for doing so:

Urban Outfitters... I have always liked the general style and the clothing looks quite individual. I
like my clothing to look quite different to others.
Adidas- always been high quality and very durable.

Saint Laurent- pricey but really high quality and not many other people wear it.

Urban Outfitters.

Boohoo- really wide range of clothing which is similar to my style.

Levi's- bought a few denim jackets and jeans because they're stylish and durable

Whistles / the jeans and dresses are my favourite and like the minimal style.

Superdry... I like the image of the brand and good quality.

Zara- really like the style of the clothes.

Vans. I skate.

I like the style, quality and I know the fit is how I like it.

Carharrt. Practical and fashionable.

No fear, like the fearless image.

Jack Wills - good quality clothing, nice fitting, reasonably priced Ralph Lauren - quality clothing.
Supreme New York: Supreme as a brand has revolutionised street wear, since starting out as an
anti-brand in the later 90's, they have gone on to turn the fashion world upside down,
collaborating with some of the biggest names in fashion, however still sticking true to Supreme's
routes of not caring about connecting to the masses. If you don't know about Supreme or the
subculture behind it, don't worry you're not meant to...
Edit- I like the minimal style, its good quality and it’s quite unique as it’s quite unknown.

Oasis. The designs are nice and simple and work with my other clothes.

Ralph Lauren- Nice material.

Nike, this brand supplies nice affordable clothing that can be used casually as well as in leisure
activities from items like t-shirts down to footwear which are durable.
Nike, levis both decent for my needs.

Nike sportswear as it is good quality, reliable and a typically stylish brand.

Fat face t-shirts, comfortable and great material.

Tommy Hilfiger- really high quality and loads of different styles.

65
New Balance- comfort.
Levis - Californian Heritage brand with a relaxed personality. Strong reputation for good quality
and technical denim.
stussy, love the look of the clothes.

I like Levi's because the quality is good and it lasts a while.

Agora, Unique items that don't sell anywhere else.

Element t shirts... I like the plainness.

BDG, I believe this brand has an individuality.

Ralph Lauren - I like the design, quality and look of most of their clothing.

Nike, comfortable, recognised sports brand.

Selected because I like the nice simple designs in the women's section.

Nike: good quality.

Specialised -Best cycling kit around.

Yumi Clothing - they have a good range of dresses and accessories different to other high street
stores and brands.
Primark- really cheap and a lot of products that I often like.

Fred Perry for good quality.

Ralph Lauren, good quality and timeless fashion.

Superdry - affordable and good quality.

Next - positive previous experiences with the brand and good quality.

Addidas - good specialised gear.

Saint Laurent as love the design of the products and the whole classic French image. Penfield as
the coats and winter wear are warm and a decent price for the quality.

66
Question 9.1 - What is the maximum price you are willing to spend on a
branded item of clothing?

# Answer % Count

9 £500+ 2.33% 1

8 £300-500 9.30% 4

7 £200-300 2.33% 1

6 £150-200 4.65% 2

5 £100-150 11.63% 5

4 £75-100 39.53% 17

3 £50-75 20.93% 9

2 £25-50 4.65% 2

1 £0-25 4.65% 2

67
 Total 100% 43

Question 9.2 - For my favourite brand/s, I am willing to pay (X)% more

than I would on another brand.

# Answer % Count

1 0% 2.33% 1

68
2 1-10% 9.30% 4

3 10-25% 27.91% 12

4 25-40% 30.23% 13

5 40-50% 16.28% 7

6 50-75% 4.65% 2

7 75-100% 2.33% 1

8 +100% 6.98% 3

Total 100% 43

69
Question 10.1 - Please rank the following brands in terms of exclusivity (1
being the most exclusive):

# Question 1 2 3 4 Total

1 Levis 7.14% 3 11.90% 5 76.19% 32 4.76% 2 42

Saint Laurent (Yves Saint
2 73.81% 31 19.05% 8 4.76% 2 2.38% 1 42
Laurent)
3 Tommy Hilfiger 16.67% 7 66.67% 28 14.29% 6 2.38% 1 42

4 Topshop (Topman) 2.38% 1 2.38% 1 4.76% 2 90.48% 38 42

70
Question 10.2 - Please rank the following brands in terms of the quality of
their products (1 being the highest quality):

# Question 1 2 3 4 Total

1 Polo Ralph Lauren 33.33% 14 38.10% 16 26.19% 11 2.38% 1 42

2 Zara 0.00% 0 7.14% 3 26.19% 11 66.67% 28 42

3 Burberry 57.14% 24 30.95% 13 11.90% 5 0.00% 0 42

4 Carharrt 9.52% 4 23.81% 10 35.71% 15 30.95% 13 42

71
 Question 11.1 - Do you follow any fashion/clothing brands on any form
of social media? (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc)

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 76.19% 32

2 No 23.81% 10

Total 100% 42

72
Question 11.2 - If you answered Yes to the above question. How often do
you interact with the brand? For example liking content or commenting
on posts.

# Answer % Count

1 Never 8.82% 3

2 Every Day 2.94% 1

3 Weekly 41.18% 14

4 Fortnightly 20.59% 7

5 Monthly 17.65% 6

6 Yearly or very rarely 8.82% 3

Total 100% 34

73
Question 12 - Would you consider yourself to be part of a brand
community? -do you keep up to date with the brands activities or discuss
the brand with other people who are also enthusiasts?

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 21.43% 9

2 No 71.43% 30

3 Not sure 7.14% 3

Total 100% 42

74
 Question 13.1 - If your favorite clothing brand was to remove its
signage from products (e.g. logo), would you continue to purchase
from this brand?

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 69.05% 29

2 No 30.95% 13

Total 100% 42

75
Question 13.2 - If you answered Yes to the above question. What are the
reasons for continuing to purchase? If you answered No, why would you
not continue to purchase?

My favourite clothing brand is mostly not associated with a clear logo. I like the design and the
style of the clothes rather than a stand out logo. I see the brand name as an assurance of quality
rather than something to show to others.
I want people to know what brand I am wearing. I think a logo is really important.
Saint Laurent is a brand I love for the design and quality of the items. Although I do like the subtle
branding, I would still purchase without it.
My favorite brand barely has any signage on products.

I really like the logo of my favorite brand and it looks stylish in my opinion (three Adidas stripes).

Although I like the logo- I prefer the quality of Levi's.

I like my favourite brand for the style and the quality, not overly fussed on branding.

The logo and branding make the clothes for me.

I really like the logo on my favourite brand.

If the quality and fit is still good I'm not concerned about the logo.

Still good design and quality.

I love the no fear logo.

I like people to see what brand I am wearing.

Once you buy into a subculture, it's no longer about the logo of the brand, it's about the design of
the products, the creative direction behind the image being portrayed. With or without a logo,
you know the image of the brand and subculture and that's the reason you buy the product.
I like my favorite brands as the designs are up to date and are great quality, im not fussy on overly
branded products.
I like the designs rather than the branding.

Because I wouldn't be interested in the brand.

Because generally I buy clothing with a small logo which adds a nice touch without it I'd be
wearing a plain boring shirt.
Because the logo is incorporated into the design of most of their clothing items, which I really like.

Because the logo/brand is not the main reason behind purchasing the product.

Not bothered about the logo.

Quality of the clothing.

No relation anymore.

76
As quality is of high importance for branded apparel which I wear, I would continue to purchase
with less outlandish branding as I trust the brand.
because the clothing is high quality and good style.

I don't pay top price for the name, or for the logo, I pay because the quality is good.

Still good designs.

Would have to see what difference have been made.

Quality.

I usually like the design or look of the clothing.

Could get the same type of item at much less cost.

Most clothes I wear don't have branding.

I like the logo to be on the clothing.

Logos don't matter to me.

Still like the style and design of their clothes and it's a good price point.

Sound logo which I really like.

Quality and style.

Good quality and nice design.

I like the clothes.

Still perceive it to have the same quality even if the brand is less identifiable.

Quality.

I enjoy quite minimalistic designs anyway, not heavy branding.

77
Question 14 - If your favourite brand was to reduce its exclusivity and
become more affordable, would this deter you from purchasing again?

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 9.52% 4

2 Maybe 33.33% 14

3 No 57.14% 24

Total 100% 42

78
Question 15.1 - Are there any "fast fashion" or high street brands (Zara,
River Island, H&M etc) that you purchase from frequently?

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 69.05% 29

2 No 30.95% 13

Total 100% 42

79
Question 15.2 - If you answered Yes to the above question. What is it that
you admire about the brand/s?
I admire these brands as they offer styles similar up to date with the latest trends whilst also being
a lot less expensive. I also like to purchase more essential items from these brands.
Fits my style.

H&M is really similar to my style and is cheaper than some other brands.
I purchase most of my items from these brands. I do like them but do see them as cheaper
alternatives to brands I prefer.
They're affordable and offer great clothes mostly.

I purchase essential items which aren't as noticeable from these brands. I like the affordability.

I but a lot from these stores, I like the styles and the low prices.

Great clothes and can buy quickly.

Affordable and good selection of essentials.

Zara. Good cheap stylish clothes.

I like to buy my basic items from these brands e.g. jeans. As well as the occasional item that I like
the look of. I like Zara a lot.
There is a lot of choice and the styles are really up to date and affordable.

Cheap but effective.

Cheap affordable, generally items that are one colour like black jeans or white under t-shirts.

H&M- cheap.

Zara- love the clothes

Affordability, up to date/ current.

Good quality and somewhat affordable.

Constantly keeping up to date with trends.

Urban outfitters really nice plain clothes.

They often portray a lot of catwalk looks but not as extravagant.

Like the clothes and purchase a lot.

Variety and sizing.

Good selection of clothes, decent prices.

Zara- close to more expensive brands.

Decent quality at affordable prices.

Cheap and okay quality.

80
Fairly cheap and good quality.

Cheap.

81
Question 16 - Please rank the following statements from strongly agree to
strongly disagree:

Statement Strongly Agree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Disagree Strongly

Agree agree agree or disagree disagree
disagree
If I am 4.8% (2) 57.1% 31% (13) 0 4.8% (2) 0 2.4% (1)
satisfied (24)
with the
standard of
quality
from a new
brand I am
likely to tell
others
about the
experience.
If I am 28.6% 59.5% 7.1% (3) 2.4% (1) 2.4% (1) 0 0
satisfied (12) (25)
with the
quality of a
product
from a new
brand I am
likely to
purchase
again from
this brand.

82
 0 38.1% 26.2% (11) 21.4% 9.5% (4) 4.8% (2) 0
If my (16) (9)
favourite
brand lets
me down
with the
quality of a
product I
am likely to
not remain
loyal to the
brand and
tell others
about the
poor
quality.

83
Appendix D: Ethics Approval Form

When undertaking a research or enterprise project, Cardiff Met staff and students are
obliged to complete this form in order that the ethics implications of that project may be
considered.

If the project requires ethics approval from an external agency (e,g., NHS), you will not
need to seek additional ethics approval from Cardiff Met. You should however complete
Part One of this form and attach a copy of your ethics letter(s) of approval in order that your
School has a record of the project.

The document Ethics application guidance notes will help you complete this form. It is
available from the Cardiff Met website. The School or Unit in which you are based may also
have produced some guidance documents, please consult your supervisor or School Ethics
Coordinator.

Once you have completed the form, sign the declaration and forward to the appropriate
person(s) in your School or Unit.

PLEASE NOTE:
Participant recruitment or data collection MUST NOT commence until ethics
approval has been obtained.

PART ONE

Name of applicant: Marcus Tansey- ethics number 2016D0232

Supervisor (if student project): Paul Buckley
School / Unit: Cardiff Metropolitan University
Student number (if applicable): 20063985
Programme enrolled on (if applicable): BA Hons Business Management with
Project Title: Marketing
Fashion & Loyalty: The Extent to which consumer’s
remain loyal to brands within the Clothing Industry.

Expected start date of data collection: 01/02/2017

Approximate duration of data collection: 4 weeks
Funding Body (if applicable): n/a
Other researcher(s) working on the n/a
project:
Will the study involve NHS patients or No
staff?

84
Will the study involve taking samples of No
human origin from participants?

Does your project fall entirely within one of the following categories:

Paper based, involving only documents in No

the public domain

Laboratory based, not involving human No

participants or human tissue samples

Practice based not involving human No

participants (eg curatorial, practice audit)

Compulsory projects in professional No

practice (eg Initial Teacher Education)

A project for which external approval has No

been obtained (e.g., NHS)

If you have answered YES to any of these questions, expand on your answer in the non-
technical summary. No further information regarding your project is required.

If you have answered NO to all of these questions, you must complete Part 2 of this form

In no more than 150 words, give a non-technical summary of the project

The project aims to investigate the extent to which brand loyalty effects consumer
decision making within the fashion industry and the reasons for this perceived loyalty or
lack of loyalty. The author will conduct secondary research in the form of a literature
review which will examine and evaluate existing data and theories on the subject of brand
loyalty and how it relates to the clothing industry. Primary Research will be undertaken in
the form of a survey with participants to gain quantitative data. The primary research will
gain data from a number of participants, particularly those deemed as “millennials” who
are so integral to the clothing industry as well as an older demographic to see if opinions
change with age. An analysis of the primary research data will then be constructed,
comparing it against secondary research to identify any contradictions and similarities to
previous theories in the field.

85
DECLARATION:

I confirm that this project conforms with the Cardiff Met Research Governance
Framework

I confirm that I will abide by the Cardiff Met requirements regarding confidentiality and
anonymity when conducting this project.

STUDENTS: I confirm that I will not disseminate any material produced as a result of this
project without the prior approval of my supervisor.

Signature of the applicant: Date:

FOR STUDENT PROJECTS ONLY

Name of supervisor: Date:

Signature of supervisor:

Research Ethics Committee use only

Decision reached: Project approved

Project approved in
principle

Decision deferred

Project not approved

Project rejected

86
 Project reference number: Click here to enter text.
Name: Click here to enter text. Date: Click here to enter a date.

Signature:

Details of any conditions upon which approval is dependant:

Click here to enter text.

PART TWO

A RESEARCH DESIGN

A1 Will you be using an approved protocol in your No

project?

A2 If yes, please state the name and code of the approved protocol to be used1
n/a

A3 Describe the research design to be used in your project

Survey: The researcher will gain quantitative data in the form of an online survey, taking
advantage of web-based tools such as ‘SurveyMonkey’ and promoting the survey through
social media. ‘SurveyMonkey’ and other online based services are convenient and are
used by many multinational companies (White & Rayner, 2014 p.65). The researcher will
utilise an itemised rating scale within the survey which has been shown to be effective in
previous research on brands and fashion (see Muncy, 1996; Goldsmith et al, 1993). The
scale will be composed of five Likert-type items scored on 5 point scales ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. This technique is simple to self-complete for
participants when explaining their attitudes and allows mean scores for each statement
to be calculated (Brace, 2008). The results will then be analysed by the researcher using
Microsoft Excel to calculate the central tendencies (mean, median & mode) and to see if
there are any fluctuations in results depending on gender and age of the participant.

1
An Approved Protocol is one which has been approved by Cardiff Met to be used under supervision of
designated members of staff; a list of approved protocols can be found on the Cardiff Met website here

87
Survey Sample: The sample will mainly consist of millennials, those aged 18-34 (Horrowits
& Bruce, 2012). The research will use convenience sampling as the survey will be
promoted onto social media and the participants who take part will do so as they are
looking at social media. However, the researcher does have a form of control as to who
can take part in the survey. This is as social media allows the survey to only be sent to
desired participants if required, making use of purposive sampling as judgement will be
used to select the most suitable participants that will best enable the researcher to
answer the research question (Saunders et al, 2012). The sample frame will mostly
contain sample units that are millennials due to the convenience sampling used, however
it will also consist of an older demographic to see if there are any changes with age. This
utilises maximum variation sampling (Saunders et al, 2012) to see if attitudes on clothing
brands changes with age. The sample frame will contain over 400 units. The sample size
will be 80. This will give the researcher enough data to form an argument on the research
topic and the relatively large size in comparison to the sample frame will lower the likely
error of generalising the population. The survey will take a maximum of 5 minutes to
complete for each participant, increasing the likelihood of participants completing the
survey to the best of their abilities. The survey will only ask for the participants age
bracket e.g. 18-21; and the participants gender in an optional section of the survey. This
ensures that the participants confidentiality remains intact.

References

Website

Horovitz, Bruce (4 May 2012). "After Gen X, Millennials, what should next generation
be?". USA Today.

Books

Books

White. B, Rayner. S, (2014). “Dissertation Skills for Business and Management Students.”
2nd ed. Hampshire. Cengage Learning EMEA.

Bearden, W. Netemeyer, R. (1999). “Handbook of Marketing Scales” 2nd ed. SAGE

88
Brace, I. (2008). “Questionnaire Design” 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page.

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. 2012. “Research Methods for Business Students”. 6th
ed. Essex. Pearson Education Limited.

King, N. (2004) “Using Interviews in Qualitative Research” in C. Cassell, G. Symon

“Essential guide to Qualitative methods in Organisational Research.” London: Sage pp 11-
12

A4 Will the project involve deceptive or covert No

research?

A5 If yes, give a rationale for the use of deceptive or covert research

n/a

A6 Will the project have security sensitive No

implications?

A7 If yes, please explain what they are and the measures that are proposed to address
them

n/a

B PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE

B1 What previous experience of research involving human participants relevant to this

project do you have?

None

B2 Student project only

What previous experience of research involving human participants relevant to this
project does your supervisor have?

Paul Buckley has over 35 years’ experience in research in industry, government and
academia. He has consulted internationally in research in the U.K, Europe, U.S.A. and
Mexico and has taught business research and statistics at three leading U.K. business
schools. He has conducted policy research for MAFF, been a consultant to international
law firms and has worked for, and been a consultant on consumer issues to a number of
European blue chip companies and SMEs. His research formed the basis for the
International Grocery Distribution guidelines on food package labelling and contributed to
Government legislation on food labelling. He has a sound commercial understanding of

89
business, business research and strategy and is very experienced in project design and
management. He has wide ranging experience of advising industry on research finding
implications, and extensive experience in statistical analysis. He has made numerous
appearances on TV and radio and at international conferences, being an invited speaker
at the Royal Institution; and has been quoted in and/or had articles published in, all the
major newspapers in the U.K.

C POTENTIAL RISKS

C1 What potential risks do you foresee?

None

C2 How will you deal with the potential risks?

n/a

90
Reference List

Aaker, D., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). “Brand leadership”. New York: Free

Aaker, D., & Lane Keller, K. (1990). “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions”. Journal of
Marketing, 54(1), 27.

Aaker, D.A., (2009). “Managing brand equity”. Simon and Schuster.

Aaker, J.L., (1997). “Dimensions of brand personality”. Journal of marketing research, pp.347-
356.

Adjei, M.T., Noble, S.M. and Noble, C.H., (2010). “The influence of C2C communications in
online brand communities on customer purchase behaviour”. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 38(5), pp.634-653.

Auty, S. and Elliott, R., (1998). “Fashion involvement, self-monitoring and the meaning of
brands”. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(2), pp.109-123.

Bandyopadhyay, S. and Martell, M., (2007). “Does attitudinal loyalty influence behavioral
loyalty? A theoretical and empirical study”. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 14(1), pp.35-44.

Bandyopadhyay, S. Gupta, K. & Dube, L. (2005). “Does brand loyalty influence double
jeopardy? A theoretical and empirical study”. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 14(7), 414-423

Batra, R., Ahuvia A., Bagozzi, R. (2012) “Brand Love” Journal of Marketing, American
Marketing Association, vol. 76:2, p. 1-16

Bearden, W. Netemeyer, R. (1999). “Handbook of Marketing Scales” 2nd ed. SAGE

Beatty, S.E. and Ferrell, M.E., (1998). “Impulse buying: Modelling its precursors”. Journal of
retailing, 74(2), pp.169-191.

Bennett, R. and Rundle-Thiele, S. (2002). “A comparison of attitudinal loyalty measurement

approaches”. The Journal of Brand Management, 9(3), pp.193-209.

Bhardwaj, V., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). “Fast fashion: Response to changes in the fashion
industry”. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research,
20(1), 165-173.

Black, S. (2008). “Eco-chic: The fashion paradox”. London: Black Dog.

Brace, I., & Market Research Society. (2008). “Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure
and write survey material for effective market research” (2nd ed., Market research in
practice series). London: Kogan Page.

Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. eds., (2007). “The Sage handbook of grounded theory”. Sage.

91
Bryman, A. and Bell, E., (2015). “Business research methods”. Oxford University Press, USA.

Cachon, G.P & R, Swinney (2011) “The Value of Fast Fashion: Quick Response, Enhanced
Design, and Strategic Consumer Behaviour”. Management Science, 57(4), 778-795.

Cailleux, H., Mignot, C. and Kapferer, J.-N. (2009), “Is CRM for luxury brands?”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 406-412.

Cassell, C. and Symon, G. eds., (2004). “Essential guide to qualitative methods in

organizational research”. Sage.

Cheng, S.I., (2011). “Comparisons of competing models between attitudinal loyalty and
behavioral loyalty”. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(10),
pp.149-166.

Cova, B. and Cova, V., (2002). “Tribal marketing: The tribalisation of society and its impact on
the conduct of marketing”. European journal of marketing, 36(5/6), pp.595-620.

Creswell, J.W., (2013). “Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches”. Sage publications.

Da Silveira, Lages, & Simões. (2013). “Reconceptualizing brand identity in a dynamic

environment”. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 28-36.

D'Aveni, R.A., (2010). “Beating the commodity trap: How to maximize your competitive
position and increase your pricing power”. Harvard Business Press.

Dawes, J., Meyer-Waarden, L. and Driesener, C., (2015). “Has brand loyalty declined? A
longitudinal analysis of repeat purchase behavior in the UK and the USA”. Journal of
Business Research, 68(2), pp.425-432.

De Chernatony, L. (2009). “Towards the holy grail of defining `brand”. Marketing

Theory,9(1), 101-105

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). “Handbook of qualitative research”, 3.

Dick, A.S. and Basu, K., (1994). “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual
framework. Journal of the academy of marketing science”, 22(2), pp.99-113.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2008). “Management research” (3rd ed.).
London: SAGE.

Fernie, J., & Sparks, Leigh. (2004). “Logistics & Retail Management”. London: Kogan Page.
83-96

Fionda, A.M. & Moore, C.M. (2009), “The anatomy of the luxury fashion brand”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 347-363.

Füller, J., Matzler, K. and Hoppe, M., (2008). “Brand community members as a source of
innovation”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), pp.608-619.

92
Gabrielli, V. Baghi, I. & Codeluppi, V. (2013). “Consumption practices of fast fashion products:
A consumer-based approach”. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 17(2), 206-224.

Goldsmith, R.E., Moore, M.A. and Beaudoin, P., (1999). “Fashion innovativeness and self-
concept: a replication”. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(1), pp.7-18.

Griffin, J. (2002). “Customer loyalty: How to earn it, how to keep it”. San Francisco, Calif.:
Jossey-Bass.

Hamel, G. (2012). “What Matters Now How to Win in a World of Relentless Change,
Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation”. New York: Wiley. 85-86

Hennigs, N. Wiedmann, K.P. Behrens, S. Klarmann, C. & Carduck, J (2013). “Brand extensions:
A successful strategy in luxury fashion branding? Assessing consumers’ implicit
associations”. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17(4), 390-402

Hines, T. and Bruce, M., (2007). “Fashion marketing”. Routledge.

Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2009). “Millennials rising: The next great generation”. Vintage.

Huang, R. and Sarigöllü, E., (2014). “How brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand
equity, and the marketing mix”. Fashion Branding and Consumer Behaviors (pp. 113-
132). Springer New York.

Investor.ralphlauren.com. (2017). “Company Profile - Corporate Overview - Ralph Lauren

Investor Relations”. [online] Available at:
http://investor.ralphlauren.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=65933&p=irol-irhome [Accessed 4
Apr. 2017].

Jackson, T., (2004). “A contemporary analysis of global luxury brands”. International retail
marketing, pp.155-169.

Jacoby, J. and Kleyner, D.B., (1973). “Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behaviour”. Journal
of Marketing research, pp.1-9.

Kapferer, J.N. & Bastien, V. (2009), “The specificity of luxury management: turning marketing
upside down”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 311-322

Kapferer, J.N., (2012). “The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and
strategic thinking”. Kogan page publishers.

Kastanakis, & Balabanis. (2012). “Between the mass and the class: Antecedents of the
"bandwagon" luxury consumption behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 65(10),
1399-1407.

Kelemen, M.L. and Rumens, N., (2008). “An introduction to critical management research”.
Sage.

Keller, K. (2013). “Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand
equity” (4th ed., Global ed.). Boston, [Mass.] ; London: Pearson.

93
Keller, K.L., (2009). “Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications
environment”. Journal of marketing communications, 15(2-3), pp.139-155.

Kim, & Ko. (2012). “Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An
empirical study of luxury fashion brand”. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1480-
1486.

Kim, C. K., & Lavack, A. M. (1996). “Vertical brand extensions: current research and
managerial implications”. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 5(6). 24-37.

Knox, S. and Walker, D., (2001). “Measuring and managing brand loyalty”. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 9(2), pp.111-128.

Ko, & Megehee. (2012). “Fashion marketing of luxury brands: Recent research issues and
contributions”. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1395-1398.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. (2011). “Marketing management” (14th ed., Global ed.). Harlow:
Pearson Education.

Magnoni, F. and Roux, E., (2012). “The impact of step-down line extension on consumer-
brand relationships: A risky strategy for luxury brands”. Journal of Brand
Management, 19(7), pp.595-608.

McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F., (2002). “Building brand community”.
Journal of marketing, 66(1), pp.38-54.

Mintel- Clothing Retailing UK- October 2016 Mintel [viewed 8th April 2017] Available from:
http://www.mintel.com

Nueno , J.L . & Quelch , J.A. ( 1998 ) “The mass marketing of luxury” . Business Horizons 41
(6) : 61 – 68

O'Cass, A. (2004). “Fashion clothing consumption: Antecedents and consequences of fashion

clothing involvement”. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 869-882.

Okonkwo, U. (2007), “Luxury Fashion Branding: Trends, Tactics, Techniques”, Palgrave

Macmillan, New York, NY.

Okonkwo, U. (2009). “The luxury brand strategy challenge”. Journal of brand management,
16(5), 287-289.

Oliver, R.L., (1999). “Whence consumer loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 63, 33–44.

Parguel, B., Delécolle, T. and Valette-Florence, P., (2016). “How price display influences
consumer luxury perceptions”. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), pp.341-348.

Peng, N., Hackley, C., Tiwsakul, R.A. and Chou, C.-L. (2011), “Antecedents of luxury brand
purchase intention”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp.
457-467.

Reichertz, J., (2007). “Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory”. (pp. 214-228).
Sage.

94
Ryan, F. (2009), “Technology will boost consumers’ global power”, Caribbean Business, Vol.
37 No. 9, pp. 38-40

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. (2012). “Research Methods for Business Students”. 6th
ed. Essex. Pearson Education Limited.

Sharp, A., Sharp, B., Wright, M., (2002). “Questioning the value of the ‘‘True’’ brand loyalty
distinction”. International Journal of Research in Marketing 19 (1), 81–90.

Silverman, D., (2015). “Interpreting qualitative data”. Sage.

Silverstein, M.J. and Fiske, N., (2003). “Luxury for the masses”. Harvard business review,
81(4), pp.48-57.

Theng So, J., Grant Parsons, A. and Yap, S.F., (2013). “Corporate branding, emotional
attachment and brand loyalty: the case of luxury fashion branding”. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 17(4), pp.403-423.

Thomson, M. Macinnis D. C. Whan Park. (2005) “The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength
of PARK Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands” Journal of Consumer
Psychology vol. 15 p.77-91

Truong, Y. J., McColl, R., & Kitchen, P. (2009). “New luxury brand positioning and the
emergence of masstige brands”. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5-6), 375-382.

Tybout, A., Calkins, T., & Kellogg School of Management Content Provider. (2005). “Kellogg
on Branding The Marketing Faculty of The Kellogg School of Management”.
Hoboken: Wiley.

Vigneron, F. and Johnson, L.W., (2004). “Measuring perceptions of brand luxury”. The Journal
of Brand Management, 11(6), pp.484-506.

Wheeler, A. (2010). “Designing brand identity: An essential guide for the entire branding
team” (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M., & Gremler, D. (2012). “Services marketing: Integrating
customer focus across the firm” (2nd European ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.

95