Gender differences in mail-catalog patronage motives

M A R Y ANN EASTLICK RICHARD A. FEINBERG

Gender Differences in MailCatalog Patronage Motives MARY ANN EASTLICK is currently an assistant professor in the Division of Merchandising and Consumer Studies at The University of Arizona. She received her PhD from Purdue University. Her dissertation research, Morives ofthe MailCafa/og3hopper,provided data used for this manuscript. RICHARD A. FEINBERG is currently professor and head of Consumer Sciences and Retailing at Purdue University He received his PhD from the University of Oklahoma and has contributed widely to publications in consumer behavior. This research was supported by a research grant from the University of Cincinnati Direct Marketing Policy Center and by Purdue University.

MARY ANN EASTLICK

RICHARD A. FEINBERG

ABSTRACT This study investigated the rational and nonrational patronage motives of males and females for catalog shopping. Data was collected using a self-administered questionnaire from a national random sample of catalog shoppers. Using a value-expectancy model, consumers indicated both the importance of their rational and nonrational motives and the expectation that these motives would be satisfied through patronage of a mail catalog. Based on differences in their motives, results indicated that each gender may constitute a different market segment of catalog shoppers. Salient motives of males for catalog patronage consisted primarily of merchandise and service motives. Females, on the other hand, indicated that their salient motives were convenience oriented.

@ 1994 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc CCC 0892-0S91/94/02037-08

JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1994 37

During the past two decades, catalog retailing has become an increasingly prevalent form of retailing. According to the Direct Marketing Association, approximately 54 percent of all adult consumers in the United States reported shopping by mail or telephone during 1989. Due to increased competition for these shoppers, along with economic pressures on catalog and other nonstore retailers, targeting segments of consumers has become extremely important ( 5 ) . Despite the acknowledgment that males may constitute a unique and important segment of catalog shoppers, most published studies on consumers who shop from nonstore outlets have used exclusively female samples. Although much has been learned about catalog shopping behavior in general, limited attention has been directed toward shopping differences between the genders (6,11,15). This research examined the catalog patronage motives of both male and female catalog shoppers.

BACKGROUND Catalog Shopping

Several studies on catalog shopping behavior, using either exclusively or predominantly female samples, have identified motives of catalog shoppers. Researchers reported convenience to be one of the motives for catalog patronage. Using the measures of time savings and locational convenience, Korgaonkar found that the convenience orientation of shoppers was directly related to purchase intentions toward mail or telephone shopping from a catalog (9). These results supported those of an earlier study that compared in-home to in-store grocery shoppers ( 2 ) . Finally, convenience motives related to accessibility to shopping, time savings, effort savings, and the ability to shop from the home environment were identified as salient motives for mailcatalog purchasers of both clothing and sporting goods ( 3 ) . Empirical evidence on other motives of catalog shoppers has also supported the existence of motives related to the merchandise assortments offered by catalog retailers, specifically the need to find broader selections (17), uniqueness (8,lo), and

38 JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING

quality ( 3 ) in merchandise assortments. A fourth merchandise-related motive, shopping for low price, has also been acknowledged (9). However, other studies presented contradictory evidence on this motive by showing that catalog shoppers had either lower (2,12) or similar (17) levels of price consciousness when compared to in:store shoppers. Finally, one motive related to the service policies of catalog retailers has also been identified. Consumers reported being motivated to patronize catalogs due to their perception that these retailers stand behind their merchandise (3). Most research on motives for catalog shopping has examined only those motives related to tangible retailer attributes. However, results of studies on in-store shopping behavior indicate that consumers’ shopping motives tend to be related to both tangible and nontangible retailer attributes (7,14) as well as psychosocial reasons for shopping ( 2 3 , 2 4 ) . The theory of shopping preference (21) proposes two classes of motives. Those related to such tangible retailer attributes as price, convenience, and merchandise assortment are defined as functional or rational motives. Those motives related to intangible attributes, such as store atmosphere and clientele and psychosocial reasons for shopping, are classified as nonfunctional (i.e., nonrational) motives. Sheth (21) conceived that consumers have dominant rational and/or nonrational motives that influence their shopping and patronage behavior, and that these motives vary among general product classes. Although empirical studies on motives for catalog shopping have provided evidence for the existence of several motives, no distinction has been made between male and female catalog shoppers. Differences in social expectations and roles of the genders suggest that each may also have different shopping needs and, therefore, different motives for shopping. Consequently, an examination of betweengender differences has been recommended by several researchers (6,11,15). Gender Differences and Consumption Behavior

Explanations offered for variations in purchasing and shopping patterns due to gender have included both psychological and social differences. Because social psychologists documented few psychological differences (131, social differences between the

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1994

genders due to experiences, roles, and so forth were cited most often as an explanation for variations in consumption behavior (1,16,25). Recently, some researchers suggested that the increasing tendency for males and females to share common social experiences (e.g., child care, household duties) may reduce differences in their purchasing and shopping patterns (18). Similar to the research on catalog shopping, most consumer-oriented gender research also focused primarily on the female consumer. Studies typically examined family purchase behavior for working compared to nonworking housewives and family decisionmaking. Therefore, little is known about differences between male and female shopping behavior. Examinations of female consumers have associated both role overload (16) and occupation (20) of females with household consumption of convenience goods and services. Evidence suggests that females’ employment and type of occupation (i.e., career, job only) influences the amount of time and effort spent shopping. In one study that investigated supermarket shopping habits of both genders, Zeithmal (25) reported that each exhibited different shopping patterns. Compared to females, males used less shopping information, planned less, placed lower importance on economizing, and made more shopping trips. Variations in the shopping behavior of both genders may suggest that each is driven based on different motives for shopping. HYPOTHESES

Previous research on motives for catalog shopping has emphasized rational motives related to tangible retailer attributes such as merchandise, service, and convenience (2,11,15). This approach is also consistent with the predominant focus of research on retail store patronage (14). Since nonrational motives have not received extensive examination, it was assumed for this study that the predominant focus of catalog patronage research indicated the importance of rational over nonrational motives. Also, gender has not been reported to be an important determinant of motive strength. Therefore, hypothesis 1 predicted that, for both males and females, rational motives for catalog shopping would

JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING

be stronger than nonrational motives, independent of product class. Despite the fact that over half of all adult females are currently employed in the labor force, females still have the primary responsibility for shopping in most households (4). Zeithmal (25) found that females tended to make fewer shopping trips and plan for shopping more than did males, a possible indication of greater convenience orientation on the part of female shoppers. Other studies on shopping patterns and preferences of females have shown that role overload, created by employment outside the home, may be a factor in their convenience orientations (16). Consequently, hypothesis 2a predicted that convenience motives for catalog shopping would be stronger for females than for males. Due to the limited information on other shopping motive differences between genders, hypothesis 2b served an exploratory purpose by predicting that there would be no difference between males and females in the strength of the other motives. METHOD

Catalog patronage motives for purchasers of two types of products, clothing and sporting goods, were examined. Both products were selected based on their purchase frequency from mail catalogs. Clothing represented a high purchase-frequency product, while sporting goods represented a moderate purchase-frequency product (22). Motives shown by past research to be related to retail patronage were examined. These motives were classified within the context of Sheth’s theory of shopping preference as either rational or nonrational (21). Rational motives included merchandise quality, assortment, style, uniqueness, and price (7,14). The convenience motives of accessibility, time savings, and effortsavings, and a physical facility motive related to the convenience of from-home shopping (ability to shop in safety, comfort, and privacy of the home environment) were also among the rational motives (10). Other rational motives were service motives of credit, guarantees, returns, delivery, and order placement (7,14). Nonrational motives consisted of those related to intangible retailer attributes such as clientele, promotion, institutional, posttransaction satisfac-

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1994

39

tion, salesperson service, and store atmosphere motives (7). Also among nonrational motives were psychosocial shopping reasons including affiliation, anticipated utility, choice optimization, negotiation, power and authority, role enactment, and stimulation (24). Sampling and Data Collection A national sample of 1500 male and female catalog

shoppers was surveyed via a self-administered questionnaire during October 1988.The sample was drawn randomly and stratified by state from a database that contained names of approximately 75 million catalog shoppers. Shoppers in the database had reported making at least one purchase from a mail catalog during the previous 12-month period. Of the 1500 surveys mailed, 98%were deliverable, and a 35% return (458 usable surveys) was obtained. An analysis of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the sample revealed that their ages, incomes, occupations, locations of residence, and numbers of persons living in the household were not significantly different from the population of adult catalog shoppers (22). Chi-square statistics did not exceed critical values at the .05 level. However, 88% of the’respondents were females and 11.6% were males. Therefore, the sample was biased toward females, and this should be considered when generalizing the results of the study. Chi-square tests were also used to examine differences in demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the males and females in the sample. Results indicated that males and females were significantly different ( p < .05) in level of education. More males had graduated from college or had attended graduate school than had females. Occupations held by each group were also significantly different ( p < .05).Males had a greater tendency to be employed in professional/managerial and precision/craft occupations than did females. Conversely, more females were employed in clerical/ sales positions. There were no significant differences (p’s> .05) for other demographic and socioeconomic characteristics including age, income, population and geographic location of primary residence, household size, and number of household members employed either full- or part-time. In addition, purchasing patterns of both genders were not significantly different (p’s > .05). These included total annual purchases, total annual mail-

40 JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING

catalog purchases, and percent of mail-catalog purchases out of total purchases for all types of products, clothing, and sporting goods. Instrument Subjects completed a questionnaire consisting of 50 pairs of statements for both products. The statements, which assessed both the importance and belief of satisfying the motives through catalog shopping, were measured using five-point Likert scales. The Likert scales ranged from very unimportant (1) to very important ( 5 ) for the importance statements, and from very unlikely (1) to very likely (5) for the belief statements. An expectancyvalue model was used to operationalize the strength of each motive. Motive strength was defined as nt

c

hJ%k

k=l

si = ni

where S, was the subject’s motive strength rating on motive i. V, was the subject’s importance rating of motive i as indicated on statement k. Eik was the subject’s expected satisfaction from catalog shopping for motive ias indicated on statement k. The number of pairs of k statements used to measure the importance of and expected satisfaction for each motive was represented by n,. Reliability tests performed on each section of the questionnaire revealed Cronbach’s alpha-coefficients of .91 and .96, respectively, on importance statements for clothing and sporting goods. On the belief statements, the Cronbach’s alpha-coefficients were .94 for each product. RESULTS

Hypothesis 1predicted that rational motives for catalog shopping would be stronger than nonrational motives, independent of the product. For each gender, repeated-measures ANOVAs were used to examine the strengths of both categories of motives. Results of the ANOVAs, given in Table 1, supported this hypothesis. For both genders and types of product, results show that catalog shopping was driven by rational motives. The ANOVA results for females indicated the importance of rational over nonrational motives by

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1994

TABLE 1 Summary Table for Repeated-Measures ANOVAs Source Females Product Motive category Product ‘by motive category Error Males Product Motive category Product by motive category Error

df

Mean Square

F

P

1 1

338.82 4542.29

107.81 1445.34

.oOoI

1 1196

16.34 3.14

5.20

.0228

1 1

3.83 624.97

14.89 2.03

.1561

1 156

.09 1.88

331.77

,8251

.oooO

Order Placement

Home Environment

.oOoI 5

10

15

20

:5

FIGURE 1 Rank Order by Gender of the Rational Catalog Patronage Motives for Clothing

both the significant interaction for product by motive category and significant main effect for motive category (p’s < .05). The average strength for rational motives was 15.9 compared to 12.5 for nonamong the females’ strongest motives. On the other rational motives. Also, the significant interaction was hand, the strongest motives for males were predue to a greater difference between rational motive dominantely merchandise and service-related mostrengths of each product than between nonrational tives. Accessibility was their only strong convemotive strengths. The average rational motive nience motive. The profiles of the strongest motives strengths were 16.5 (clothing) and 15.4 (sporting of both genders for the sporting goods product pargoods) compared to average nonrational motive alleled those for clothing (see Fig. 2). strengths of 12.9 (clothing) and 12.2 (sporting goods). This ANOVA also revealed a significant main effect for product due to the stronger average strength of all motives for clothing of 14.7 - - sversus e e t n a r a uG 13.7 for sporting goods. The ANOVA results for males showed the importance of rational motives by its significant ( p < .05) main effect for motive category. The average strength for rational motives was 15.5 compared to 12.0 for nonrational motives. Order Placement Due to the salience of rational motives for both females and males, the remainder of analyses were Home Environment limited to rational motives. The remaining hypotheses tested for differences in rational motives between genders. Hypothesis 2a predicted that convenience motives for catalog patronage would be stronger for females. Hypoth0 5 10 15 20 3 esis 2b served an exploratory purpose by predicting no differences between genders in the strengths of Females mMala their remaining motives. A comparison, by gender, of the rank order of motives for each product was first conducted. For FIGURE 2 clothing (see Figure l),convenience motives of acRank Order by Gender of the Rational Catalog Patronage Motives for Sporting Goods cessibility, time savings, and effort savings were

JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1994 41

To test hypotheses 2a and 2b, the strengths of rational motives were examined separately for each product class using three-way MANOVAs. Gender, level of education, and occupation served as independent variables. For each MANOVA, gender consisted of male and female. Occupation included five levels: professional/managerial, technician/sales/ clerical, precision/craft, other employed, and retired. Finally, education had five levels: under 12 years, high-school graduate, some college, bachelor’s degree, and more than 16 years. Because both gender groups in the sample were different in their levels of education and occupations, significant interactions between gender and one or both of these variables would indicate that differences in their motive strengths might be confounded by these demographic differences. For both products, neither MANOVA produced significant (p’s > .05) interactions. However, there were significant main effects for both gender and education (p’s < .05) as shown in Table 2 for clothing and Table 3 for sporting goods. The main effects obtained for gender meant that there were differences between genders on catalog shopping motives. The main effects obtained for education indicated that the strength of several motives varied by level of education. Univariate ANOVA’s were used to identify motives on which these differences occurred. For clothing, differences in motive strengths between genders are shown in Table 4 . Convenience motives for catalog shopping were significantly more salient for females than males (p’s < .05). Females felt stronger than did males that shopping from catalogs permitted greater accessibility to shopping and saved time and effort. Females also

TABLE 2 MANOVA Table for Rational

Gender

Motive Strength for Clothing

3.a3

Num. df

14

Den. df

3 78

P

.ooo2

Education

1.62

56

1473

,0030

Occupation

1.23

56

1473

.I213

Gender by education

1.18

56

1473

. I 788

Gender by occupation

1.06

56

1473

,3528

Education by occupation

1

.oo

210

3922

,4973

Gender by education by occupation

1.16

140

31 I9

.I021

42

MANOVA Table for Rational Motive Strength for Sporting

Goods Source

F

Gender

2.18

14

368

.0080

Education

1.34

56

1434

,0483

Occupation

112

56

1434

,2597

Gender by education

1 08

56

1434

.3270

Gender by occupation

1.01

56

1434

,4522

Den.df

p

.98

2 10

3819

,5855

Gender by education by occupation

.97

140

3037

,5710

perceived that catalog shopping offered benefits of shopping in the home environment to a greater extent than did males. These results supported the hypothesis of a greater convenience orientation for females (hypothesis 2a). There were also significant differences (p’s < .05) between males and females on two of the other motives indicating partial support for the exploratory hypothesis (2b) of no dif-

TABLE 4

Gender Differences in Rational Shopping Motives for Clothinq Mean Ratinqs’ Motive

FRatio

p

Females

Males

Accessibilityb

4.99

,0260

18.92

17.04

Time savingsb

4.75

,0298

16.97

15.07

Effort savingsb

14.07

.ooo2

16.60

14.38

Quality

.06

.a037

17.42

17.27

Assortment

.59

,443I

16.15

16.26

.0437

15.40

14.25

.3651

14.76

14.81 13.38

Price

4.10 .82

Uniqueness

1.10

,2960

13.91

Guarantees

2.96

,0862

19.26

18.90

12.91

. m 4

15.9I

12.47

.33

.5676

16.23

16.59

Home environmentb Delivery

.00

.9708

16.00

15.45

Order placementD

5.00

,0260

16.49

15.26

Returns

2.91

,0889

16.52

17.1 I

Credit

~

a

JOURNAIL OF DIRECT MARKETING

Num.df

Education by occupation

Styleb

F

Source

TABLE 3

Higher ratings indicate greater motive strength for catalog patronage (range 1-25) Significantly different at p’s < 0 5

=

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1994

ference between genders on other motives. Compared to males, females perceived greater ease of order placement through catalog shopping, a service motive related to Convenience. They also felt more strongly than did males that catalog shopping offered greater accessibility to fashionable clothing styles. For sporting goods, the univariate ANOVAs, shown in Table 5, revealed that females felt significantly (p’s < .05> more strongly than did males that catalog shopping provided both conveniences of effort savings and being able to shop in the home. Since differences between males and females for the other two convenience motives were not significant (p’s > .05), the hypothesis that females were more convenience oriented was only partially supported. Hypothesis 2b was also partially supported. Only one additional motive was shown to be significantly different. Compared to females, males felt significantly more strongly ( p < .05> that catalog shopping for sporting goods provided benefits of liberal return policies. Because results on differences in motive strength by level of education were not related to gender

differences, means for each motive by educational level are not provided. However, the distribution of these means for both products revealed that, as level of education increased, perceptions that catalog shopping provided time and effort savings, low prices, the ability to shop in the home, and liberal return policies decreased, and perceptions that catalog shopping offered credit availability increased. For clothing, two additional relationships were noted. As educational level increased, perceptions that catalog shopping offered merchandise guarantees decreased. However, attitudes regarding ease of order placement via catalogs increased.

DISCUSSION

Significantly different at p’s i.05.

For both genders, rational motives for catalog patronage were stronger than nonrational motives. This finding was consistent for both products and supports the importance placed on rational motives by previous store patronage research (2,11,14,15). Results regarding the relationship between convenience and catalog patronage are also consistent with past research (2,9). However, it is important to note that perceived convenience benefits gained by catalog shopping were more salient for females than males, suggesting that convenience may be an important attribute differentiating the catalog shopping benefits sought by each gender. The convenience orientation of females may be related to role overload. At the same time that females are experiencing increased participation in the labor force along with other lifestyle demands, they still have the primary household responsibility for shopping ( 4 ) . Contrary to findings by Schaninger and Allen (20) and Zeithmal (25), occupation did not interact with any convenience motive.’Somestudies suggest that employment is just one of many lifestyle factors that define one’s time pressures (10). Consequently, there may not be a simple relationship between convenience orientation and one’s occupation. The findings of this study suggest that females and males may constitute different market segments based on benefits each seek from catalog shopping. However, due to the limited number of males in the sample, these results should be viewed with caution. Clearly, though, the results of this study do support suggestions by other researchers regarding

JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1994 43

TABLE 5

Gender Differences in Rational Shopping Motives for Sporting Goods Mean Ratings” Motive

FRatio

4

Females

Males

Accessibility

1.18

.2789

17.65

I7.23

Time savings

1.37

.24 1 7

15.75

14.65

Effort savings”

7.25

,0074

15.69

14.40

Quality

I .55

.2 I38

16.64

17.23

Assortment

.08

-7762

14.48

15.87

Style

.47

,4918

13.02

13.11

Price

.oo

.9819

14.01

14.84

Uniqueness

.I0

,7558

12.74

13.66

Guarantees

2.64

.I052

I7.98

18.42

Home environmentb

7.45

.0066

14.69

12.30

Delivery

.I0

,7520

15.38

16.15

Credit

.o1

,9303

15.48

15.08

Order placement

1.21

.27 I7

15.67

15.28

Returnsb

4.82

.0288

15.78

16.89

a

Higher rattngs indicate greater motive strength for catalog patronage(range

= 1-25).

further study on differences between male and female catalog shoppers (6,11,15). More examination is needed to determine if gender should be used as a differentiating characteristic for defining catalog market segments and for positioning a catalog’s image, selling and service policies, and merchandise assortment.

1. Bellante, D. and Foster, A. C. (1984), “Working Wives and Expenditure o n Services,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (September), 700-707. 2. Berkowitz, E. N., Walton, J. R., and Walker, 0.C. (1979), “InHome Shoppers: The Market for Innovative Distribution Systems,” Journal of Retaifing, 55 (Summer), 15-33. 3. Eastlick, M. A. (1989), “Shopping Motives of the Mail-Catalog Shopper,” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Purdue University. 4. Fram, E. H. and Axelrod, J. (1990), “The Distressed Shopper,” American Demographics, 12 (October), 44-45. 5. Gill, P. (1989), “Targeting Direct Mail,” Stores, 72,42-52 6. Gillett, P. L. (1976), “In-Home Shoppers-An Overview,” Journal of Marketing, 40 (October), 40-45. 7. Hansen, R. A. and Deutscher, T. (1977-78), “An Empirical Investigation of Attribute Importance in Retail Store Selection,” Journal of Retailing, 53 (Winter), 59-72, 95. 8. Januz, L. R. (19831, “It’sHelpful to Know Who Is Purchasing Through the Mail,” Marketing News, (August 19), 4. 9. Korgaonkar, P. K. (1984), “Consumer Shopping Orientations, Non-Store Retailers, and Consumers’ Patronage Intentions: A Multivariate Investigation,” Journal of the Academy OfMarketing Science, 12 (Winter), 11-22. 10. Kubes, D. (1981), “Mail Order: Why Do People Buy?“ Direct Marketing, 44 (October), 132-136. 11. Lumpkin, J. R., and Hawes, J . M. (19851, “Retailing without Stores: An Examination of Catalog Shoppers,” Journal of Business Research, 13 (April), 139-151. 12. Lumpkin, J. R. and McConkey, C. W. (1984), “Identifying

44

JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING

Determinants of Store Choice of Fashion Shoppers,” Akron Business and Economic Review, 15 (Winter), 30-35. 13. Maccoby, E. E. and Jacklin, C. N. (1974), The Psychology of Sex Dfferences, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 14. Mazursky, D. and Jacoby, J. (1986), “Exploring the Development of Store Images,” Journal of Retailing, 62 (Summer), 145-165. 15. McCorkle, D. E., Planchon, J . M. and James, W. L. (19871, “In-Home Shopping: A Critical Review and Research Agenda,” Journal of Direct Marketing, 1 (Spring), 5-21. 16. Reilly, M. D. (19821, “Working Wives and Convenience Consumption,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (March), 407418. 17. Reynolds, F. D. (1974), “An Analysis of Catalog Buying Behavior,” Journal ofMarketing, 38 (July), 47-51. 18. Roberts, M. L. (1984). “Gender Differences and Household Decision-Making: Needed Conceptual and Methodological Developments,” in Advances in Consumer Research (vol. 1l ) , T. C. Kinnear, ed., Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 276-278. 19. Robinson, J. P. (1990), “The Time Squeeze,” American Demographics, 12 (February), 30-33. 20. Schaninger, C. M. and Allen, C. T. (1981), “Wife’s Occupational Status as a Consumer Behavior Construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 189-196. 21. Sheth, J. N. (1983), “An Integrative Theory of Patronage Preference and Behavior,” in Patronage Behavior and Retail Management, W. R. Darden and R. F. Lusch, eds., New York: Elsevier, pp. 9-28. 22. Simmons Market Research Bureau, Inc. (1986), “Direct Mail & Other In-Home Shopping, Yellow Pages, Florists, Telegrams, & Greeting Cards,” 1986 Study ofMediu &Markets (vol. P-12), New York: Simmons Market Research Bureau, Inc., p. 521. 23. Tauber, E. M. (1972), Why Do People Shop?JournalofMarketing, 36 (October), 46-49. 24. Westbrook, R. A. and Black, W. C. (1985), “A MotivationBased Shopper Typology,” Journal of Retailing, 61 (Spring), 78103. 25. Zeithmal, V. (1985), “The New Demographics and Market Fragmentation,”Journal of Marketing, 49 (Summer), 64-75.

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1994