U.S. male generational cohorts: Retail format preferences, desired retail attributes, satisfaction and loyalty

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 545–552

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

U.S. male generational cohorts: Retail format preferences, desired retail attributes, satisfaction and loyalty Deborah J.C. Brosdahl n, Jason M. Carpenter 1 University of South Carolina, Department of Retailing, Columbia, SC 29208, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

abstract

Available online 28 July 2012

Reports in the academic and popular press acknowledge the growing importance of male shoppers from a retail perspective (Albright, 2010) yet to date most studies have only compared men to women or when examining fashion products (Shim and Kotsiopulos, 1991). No research has been done to segment males in order to provide retailers with a better understanding of male shopping behavior (Bakewell and Mitchell, 2003; Meredith et al., 2007). This exploratory study surveyed 560 U.S. males examining retail format preferences, desired retail attributes, satisfaction and loyalty using Generational Cohort Theory (GCT). Results suggest significant differences between male generational cohorts in terms of retail format preferences with males from the Silent Generation preferring the category killer format more than males in the Millennial Generation and both 13th Generation and Millennial Generation males preferring internet-only retailers than did Silent Generation Males. Silent Generation males were also found to be more satisfied with retailers in their area, when compared to the younger Baby Boomer and 13th Generation males. No significant differences were found in desired retail attributes or store loyalty. Additional research investigating U.S. and non-U.S. males using GCT is suggested. & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: U.S. retail industry Generational cohort Consumer behavior Males Retail Survey

1. Introduction Male shoppers have been gaining attention as an increasingly important market segment for retailers (Albright, 2010; Gogoi, 2006; Keenan, 2010). For decades marketers treated virtually all consumers as female, investigating almost all areas of women’s lives and how these affected or explained their consumption behavior (Catterall and Maclaran, 2002; Catterall et al., 2000; Frederick, 1929), while largely ignoring men, or examining men but only when comparing them to women (Hansen and Jensen, 2008; Pentecost and Andrews, 2009). In fact, Penaloza (2000) even asserted that unlike researchers in other disciplines, marketing academicians have ‘never had to justify all female samples of consumers’ (Catterall and Maclaran, 2002, p. 406), because of the underlying assumption that females were the most important consumer segment doing most, if not all, household shopping. Recently, male shopping behavior has become a hot topic in the popular press as men are shopping more than ever and are also spending record amounts (Albright, 2010; Bakewell et al., 2006; Gogoi, 2006; Keenan, 2010; Wellington, 2010). Studies investigating male shopping orientations (Bakewell and Mitchell, 2004), mall shopping behavior and shopping mall attribute importance (Du

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 803 777 6249; fax: þ1 803 777 4357. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.J.C. Brosdahl), [email protected] (J.M. Carpenter). 1 Tel.: þ1 803 777 6856; fax: þ 1 803 777 4357. 0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.06.005

Preez et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2005), shopping dependence (Dodd et al., 2005) and perceptions of the shopping environment (Otnes and McGrath, 2001) have contributed valuable information to understanding the over 153.2 million males in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). However, there is still much to understand about this important market segment. Up to now, studies investigating males have done so treating all men as a singular group, based only on gender. Yet market segmentation has been hailed as a highly successful way for companies to merchandise products and market communications to create efficiencies and customer loyalty based on giving smaller groups of like-minded groups of individuals exactly what they want and/or need (Schewe and Meredith, 2004). Exploring different ways to divide the male shopper into segments can serve academicians and practitioners alike. Birth age is one of the most common methods used to segment markets, and although helpful, segmentation by age alone does not help to understand segment motivations (Schewe and Meredith, 2006). Segmenting people by their generational cohort groups—an aspect of segmenting consumers based on similar ideas, values, and beliefs that has been shown to be valuable for understanding consumer behavior (Bakewell and Mitchell, 2003; Dou et al., 2006; Meredith et al., 2007). Of the three studies located that address cohort differences in consumer behavior, all focused on selected facets of fashion retailing all using a largely female sample (Littrell et al., 2005; Ma and Niehm, 2006; Pentecost and Andrews, 2009). No studies have been found that

546

D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 545–552

examine similarities and differences between the generational cohorts of men. Therefore, in light of the importance of male shoppers as a market segment, the dearth of extant research specific to segmentation of male shoppers, and the limited scope of research topics explored previously, the purpose of this exploratory study is to examine the four important retail concepts of retail format preference, desired retail attributes, as well as satisfaction and loyalty among male shoppers across four U.S. generational cohorts.

2. Review of literature 2.1. Male shopping research The dearth of research exploring males as a consumer group in the retail environment is notable. Perhaps the most significant work on understanding the male shopper was accomplished over 10 years ago by Otnes and McGrath (2001). This study developed three commonly-held stereotypes about male shopping behavior, stereotypes they labeled as the ‘Grab and Go,’ ‘Whine and Wait,’ and ‘Fear of the Feminine’ (1 1 1) then sought to explore whether or not these stereotypes are, in fact, retailing truths. Otnes and McGrath found that contrary to popular belief, these stereotypes are not correct and instead that men often shop purposefully and will enjoy their shopping excursions. In order to enjoy shopping men must either ‘rise above culturally entrenched notions of masculinity and acknowledge that shopping is an acceptable activity’ (1 2 8) or they shop purposefully as a way to feel achievement or success. However, although important in its own right, Otnes and McGrath’s work did not specifically address the variables explored in the present study—retail format preference, desired retail attributes, loyalty to, and satisfaction with, various retail formats.

2.3. The silent generation According to the Pew Center Reports (2010) the Silent Generation refers to a generation of approximately 49 million Americans who were born between 1925 and 1945 and who value conformity and civic responsibility. In 2010, this generation would be between 65 and 85 years of age. The defining events that helped shape this generation’s values, attitudes and beliefs include the Great Depression, and many within this generation served in World War II, the Korean War, or the early part of the Vietnam War. Because of these events, Strauss and Howe (1991) defined this generation as having strong conventional and middle-age values who married early, raised their families, and worked very hard. Furthermore, having lived through the Great Depression, most people in this generation had very poor childhoods and yet many in this generation are now more affluent than the generation proceeding them (termed the G.I. Generation by Strauss and Howe (1991)), or the Baby Boomers, immediately following them. Up until 1980, little interest was paid to the Silent Generation or Baby Boomer Generation in the US (Moschis, 2009). However, with the release of the 1980 U.S. Census, companies began seeing the value of the mature market both in terms of its size and its market size. As people in the Silent Generation age, they experience physiological changes such as difficulty reading, increasing problems with manual dexterity, and/or hearing. Such issues ‘‘affect the way the mature shopper responds to products and services and create different needs for marketing offerings’’ (Moschis, 2009, p. 156). Moschis also notes that ‘‘cohort and historical factors are forces (independent of aging process) that shape shopping habits and are likely to influence the present and future shopping behavior of those in the older aged brackets’’ (Moschis, 2009, p. 157). As people age, it has been shown that they become more cautious when buying products, often wanting to try a product before buying it, spending more time examining and evaluating products (perhaps because of reading difficulties), and are more hesitant than the next youngest group, the Baby Boomers, in buying a new product (Moschis, 2009).

2.2. Generational cohort theory 2.4. The baby boomers Inglehart (1977) first proposed generational cohort theory as a way to describe a segment of the population that shares the same attitudes, ideas, values, and beliefs. Strauss and Howe (1991) popularized the theory, extending the theory and defining a generational cohort as being composed of a generation of people (typically 20–25 years) that share the same attitudes, ideas, values and beliefs based on being born during the same time period and living through similar emotional events during their early teens and twenties. For the people of the U.S., events such as the Great Depression, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Iraqi War, September 11, 2001, the invention of the Internet, etc. are examples of events that help shape the core values that do not change and that will impact how they view aspects of their life such as jobs, racial tolerance, money, family make-up, etc. (Meredith and Schewe, 1994; Meredith et al., 2007; Strauss and Howe, 1991; Tsui, 2001). Strauss and Howe (1991) said that the U.S. was largely composed of four groups including the Silent Generation (also known as the Matures—born between 1925 and 1942), the Baby Boomers (aka Boomers, born between 1943 and 1960), the 13th Generation (known most commonly as Generation X—born between 1961 and 1981), and the Millennial Generation (often referred to as Generation Y—those born between 1982 and 2000). And as people age, the events that define their lives changes, and the consumption process and activities associated with each event changes as well (Moschis, 2009).

The name Baby Boomer generation was coined because of the huge boom in the number of babies born to the Silent Generation after returning men and women came home from WWII and the Korean War. In the U.S., there were almost 79 million babies born into this cohort group, and when they were young Baby Boomers were ‘the cultural and spiritual focal point for American society as a whole’ (Strauss and Howe, 1991, p. 301). As the Silent Generation moved away from urban centers into the suburban landscape to raise their larger families, there was a subsequent demand for consumer products, homes, roads, and services. Unlike their parents, Baby Boomers are often referred to as having values including being idealistic (often leading them to being rebellious), nonconforming, spiritual, and self-serving (rather than being civic-minded like their parents) (Strauss and Howe, 1991). Just as manufacturers, retailers, and builders saw increased demand for consumer products and services because of the Baby Boom generation starting their lives, the retirement and death of this Generation is causing great concern as spending winds down as well. However, that is not to say that this Generation has stopped spending altogether. Because of the sheer number of Baby Boomers, they still spent over $900 billion in 2008 (Dunne and Lusch, 2008). What needs to be understood by producers and retailers alike is how this group has changed what they buy. As this group ages they are more likely to buy services such as yard care, home upkeep, and medical care (Dunne and Lusch, 2008).

D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 545–552

Also important to understand is that there is a wide variety in the types of goods and services required by those Boomers who are still working and very active compared to those Boomers who are in their 80 s and may be experiencing physical and financial challenges (Dunne and Lusch, 2008; Strauss and Howe, 1991; Moschis (2009) found that the values of Baby Boomers affect their shopping patterns. Of particular note to consumption behavior, Moschis found that Baby Boomers: want instant gratification and immediate reward; are self-indulgent; focus on youthful selfconcepts and spend money trying to stay young; and are ambivalent about the future and tend to be in debt because they have not planned for the future. 2.5. The 13th generation Born between the years 1961–1981, Robert Capa was the first to term this generation Generation X (Deverson and Hamblett, 1965), although Strauss and Howe (1991) termed this generation the ‘13th Generation’. People in this cohort are estimated to number between 46 and 51 million, much smaller the proceeding Baby Boomer generation (Dunne and Lusch, 2008; Lim et al., 2005). This generation is considered the first to experience high numbers of divorces and the subsequent ‘latchkey’ child phenomenon, children who come home to an empty house as more mothers than ever went to work. This independence after school also extended to the 13th Generation being attributed as having attitudes, values, and behaviors of self-reliance, pragmatism, being mistrustful of institutions, and disliking authority (Loretto, n.d. 2011; Thielfoldt and Scheef, 2005). This generation was largely responsible for an explosion in information as the first true users of the internet which became available for public use in 1992. Being distrustful of institutions coupled with the exposure to more information than any previous generation, the 13th Generation are very sophisticated in their buying behavior and are turned off by slick and generalized promotions (Dunne and Lusch, 2008). Smaller in number and in buying power than the Boomer Generation, the 13th Generation still spends annually approximately $125 billion in the U.S. (Dunne and Lusch, 2008). 2.6. The millennials Although demographers differ on what constitutes this generation, Strauss and Howe (1991) define the Millennial Generation (also commonly known as Generation Y) as being born between 1982 and 2000. This generation is approximately 26% of the total U.S. population and is the most racially diverse generation ever with approximately one-third of the group being of minority descent (Cone Inc., 2006). Characterized as ‘flighty, risk-taking, and demanding more of their employers than a good salary’ (Bela, 2011, para. 1), they also exhibit traditional values and are very optimistic about the future (Dunne and Lusch, 2008; Straus et al., 2006). Based on the ‘demands of a modern knowledge-based economy’ (Pew Center Reports, 2010, para. 9), this technologicallysavvy group believes that education ‘is a key to success’ (Martin, 2005, p. 39). Therefore, they place a high value on education and respond to learning (Dunne and Lusch, 2008; Straus et al., 2006) and as such are more likely to have completed high school and to go onto higher education ‘on course to become the most educated generation in American history’ (Pew Center Reports, 2010, para. 9). However, compared to 40 years ago, people in this generation are less likely to have left home, gotten married, or reached financial independence (Jayson, 2006). This generation has also come from families where 3 of 4 mothers work outside the home, and demonstrate liberal

547

spending patterns accounting for more than 4% of annual household spending in the U.S. (Dunne and Lusch, 2008; Straus et al., 2006). Millennials have enormous influence and buying power behind them, with teens estimated to have discretionary spending of $60–$100 per week (Di Frances, n.d. 2011), and total generational spending approximated to be roughly $172 billion (Straus et al., 2006). Of the two studies located that address cohort differences, both focused on selected facets of fashion retailing (Littrell et al., 2005; Pentecost and Andrews, 2009). Littrell et al. (2005) examined 1055 consumers of fair tradeapparel in the Generation X, Baby Boomer, and Swing (labeled the Silent Generation in the present study) cohort generation groups. Results indicated that consumers from the baby boomer and swing groups differed from Generation X consumers in that the older consumer groups wanted more apparel comfort, value and quality while demanding authentic products compared to the younger Generation X consumers were more interested in wearing fashionable attire. The researchers found support for using generational cohorts to expand market boundaries. Pentecost and Andrews (2009) found that there was both gender and generational cohort differences as well as psychographic differences (fashion fanship, attitudes and impulse behavior) in their study examining fashion expenditure frequency. Generation Y made more frequent and more impulse purchases than did consumers from Generation X, Baby Boomer, and Swing generations. Females were found to purchase more frequently and have higher expenditures than were males in their study. However, no studies were found that specifically examine male shopping behavior in relation to retail format preference, desired retail attributes, satisfaction, and loyalty either when broken into the four different generational cohorts.

2.7. Retail format preference Of the few studies that purposefully focus on exploring male shopping behavior, most have been from a fashion-product oriented perspective and only four have specifically addressed male preference for retail formats (Du Preez et al., 2007; Seo et al., 2001; Shim and Kotsiopulos, 1991; Torres et al., 2001). Du Preez et al. (2007) in their study involving 297 South African males ages 20–35, found that male subjects preferred specialty stores, department stores, and discount stores, in that order, when shopping for clothing. However, male generational cohorts were not examined or compared in the study. A study of the casualwear shopping behavior of U.S. college-aged men by Seo et al. (2001) suggests that low-involved male customers never or rarely visited specialty stores, and that store type did not significantly affect the level of casual wear involvement. Shim and Kotsiopulos, 1991 investigated big and tall male consumers and found that highly involved consumers were loyal to big and tall specialty stores over other formats when shopping for clothes. Torres et al. (2001) found a correlation between men’s shopping satisfaction and store preferences when shopping for clothing. The sample that consisted of males between the ages of 20–35 were found to prefer to shop for clothing at department stores, then specialty stores, and expressing the least favor for discount stores. And although Otnes and McGrath (2001) did not examine preference of retail shopping formats specifically, they did say that perhaps men’s preference for Internet shopping ‘may actually play a special role in men’s goal of shopping to win—men are able to distance themselves from the more feminine sphere of the marketplace and use technology as a tool for achievement and demonstrate expertise among their peers’ (1 2 9).

548

D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 545–552

2.8. Desired store attributes Only two studies examining desired store attributes by males were found (Shim and Kotsiopulos, 1991 and Torres et al., 2001). In Shim and Kotsiopulos’ (1991) study, it was found that big and tall men’s ‘satisfaction level with general quality of sales personnel was significantly different among the groups’ (p. 22) of respondents exhibiting different levels (high, medium and low) of involvement. They also found that highly involved men have higher interest and stronger store patronage, and value excellent sales assistance, customer service, and product knowledge. Torres et al. (2001) found that price, quality and selection of apparel were the attributes desired by young men ages 18–25. Additionally, this study found that the least desirable store attributes were sales service in the store, having the newest fashions stocked in the store and the availability of charge credit.

2.9. Satisfaction/dissatisfaction of male shoppers with stores Three studies addressed satisfaction of male shoppers with stores where they shop. Alreck and Settle (2002) looked at the differences by gender of satisfaction with three formats of retail. Overall they found that women are more satisfied with brick-and-mortar stores than are men, as well as being more satisfied with catalogue shopping. However, as expected men enjoyed and were found to be more satisfied with Internet shopping. In their study of big and tall men, Shim and Kotsiopulos (1991) found that in general, big and tall men were dissatisfied consumers, ‘especially concerning fit, variety in store, and style selections’ (p. 22). Torres et al. (2001) found that although the young (ages 18–25) male respondents they surveyed were satisfied with the overall shopping experience because of clothing attributes, they were not necessarily satisfied with the stores in the area.

2.10. Loyalty of male shoppers When examining loyalty or re-patronage intentions of male shoppers, two studies examined loyalty by comparing and contrasting women and men, and only one examined loyalty on a strictly male respondent basis. Hart et al. (2007) round that ‘Due to their propensity to be decisive and saving time in shopping, men appear to show more loyalty in their shopping choices’(p. 598). Melnyk et al. (2009) found that male and female consumer loyalties are different whereas males consumers are more loyal to companies, females are more loyal to individual service providers. Shim and Kotsiopulos (1991) found that big and tall men that were highly involved in the shopping process also tended to be loyal to the specialty stores (big and tall) where they shopped.

3. Method 3.1. Research questions Given the dearth of extant literature on males and especially male cohorts, it was determined that research questions, rather than hypotheses, were more appropriate to guide this study: RQ1: Do male shoppers in the four U.S. generational cohort groups differ in their preferences for retail formats? RQ2: Do male shoppers in the four U.S. generational cohort groups differ in their perceptions of the importance of retail attributes?

RQ3: Do male shoppers in the four U.S. generational cohort groups differ in their satisfaction with stores in their local area? RQ4: Do male shoppers in the four U.S. generational cohort groups differ in their loyaltyto stores?

3.2. Data collection Data were collected using an online survey among a panel of U.S. male consumers aged 18 years and older. Internet administration was chosen for its effectiveness and efficiency in reaching the focal demographic group within a short time period and on a specified budget. According to a research industry trends report by Pioneer Marketing Research, online surveys are ‘the most frequently used survey method today in marketing research’ (Hair et al., 2010b, p. 112). While Internet administration offers advantages, samples are rarely representative and non-response bias can be high. Approximately 70% of consumers in the U.S. have access to the Internet, there are still households that do not have access (Hair et al., 2010b). Quota sampling was used to secure a sample of male shoppers that included equal numbers of respondents from each of the four generational cohort groups. In addition, care was taken to represent all geographic regions of the U.S., as well as income and education groups. A market research firm with expertise in online survey methods was contracted to carry out data collection. The research firm purchased a list of email addresses through The Sample Network (TSN) (http://www.thesamplenetwork.com) in order to recruit members of TSN’s consumer panel to participate in the survey. A blended sampling approach is used where TSN panelists are combined with panelists from partner companies to avoid any bias that might be involved in the recruitment of only one panel. When a consumer opts-in to the panel, TSN validates the email address and limits multiple accounts in the same household. Digital fingerprint technology is used to eliminate fraudulent and suspect respondents. Panelists received a basic email invitation disclosing the length of the survey and incentive (cash or points toward merchandise) offered, as well as a link to the survey. A reminder email was sent to panelists who did not respond to the initial email invitation to participate, and a second reminder was sent to those who did not respond to the first two email invitations. 3.3. Instrument and measures Retail format preferences were captured by asking respondents to indicate on a five-point scale (1¼never prefer, 2¼ rarely prefer, 3¼occasionally prefer, 4¼usually prefer, 5¼always prefer) how often they prefer to shop in department stores such as Sears, JC Penney, or Macy’s; discounters, such as Wal-Mart or Target; category killers such as Home Depot or Best Buy; dollar stores such as Dollar General, Family Dollar or Dollar Tree; and, Internet only retailers such as Amazon.com. For desired retail attributes, respondents were asked to indicate the importance of each attribute using a five-point scale (1¼never important, 2¼rarely important, 3¼ sometimes important, 4¼often important, 5¼always important). The list of retail attributes was compiled based on previous studies reported in the literature (Shim and Kotsiopulos, 1992a, 1992b; Torres et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2005) and included price competitiveness, location, convenience to home, knowledgeable salespeople, well-known brands, store atmosphere, product selection, quality of products, ease of access into and out of the store, products always in stock, easy exchanges and returns, and the availability of a store credit card. Respondents’ satisfaction and loyalty toward the retailers in

D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 545–552

their area was captured using Reynolds and Beatty (1999) scales. The survey also included demographic questions including age, ethnicity, education, income, household size, and region of the country where the respondent resided.

4. Analysis and results 4.1. Sample characteristics The sample consisted of 560 male consumers in the U.S., including 140 males from each of the four generational cohort groups. Comparison to U.S. census data suggests that the age distribution of respondents is similar to that of the population, with the exception of a significantly larger percentage of the sample falling in the age range of 65 þ (Table 1). Ethnicity between the sample and the U.S. population is similar with the exceptions of a slight underrepresentation of African American/ Black respondents and a slight overrepresentation of Hispanic respondents. The income of the respondents is also similar to that of the U.S. population. Overall, the sample appears to be more educated than the general male population. The regional distribution of the respondents is similar to that of the U.S. population, indicating that a nationwide sample was achieved. 4.2. Preliminary data analyses The list of retail attributes used in this study was gathered from several different previous studies, and no single prior study has included all of the retail attributes within the same investigation. In

addition, not all of the retail attributes included in the study have been previously applied in male-specific research. Therefore, following the exploratory nature of the current study, exploratory factor analysis was employed for the list of retail attributes. Specifically, principal axis factoring with promax rotation was used to analyze the retail attribute items. This method was chosen due to its ability to include only shared variance in the solution, thus avoiding the inflation of variance accounted for by the solution (Costello and Osborne, 2005; Hair et al., 2010a). In order for items to be retained, factor eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and rotated factor loadings of .50 or greater were required (Hair et al., 2010a). Any item loading at .40 on multiple factors was eliminated from the analysis. According to the guidelines of Hair et al. (2010a), variables that did not provide a contribution in explaining variance (evidenced by communalities of less than .40) were also removed from the analysis. Given these guidelines, several items including frequent sales, store credit card availability, and price competitiveness were removed from the analysis due to low communalities. In addition, ease of access into and out of the store was removed due to a low factor loading. All other items were retained. Two retail attribute dimensions were identified, explaining approximately 51% of the variance. This factor structure was accepted due to the robust loading of items on the two factors, the lack of cross-loading of items on multiple factors, the interpretability of the solution, and the scree plot (Hair et al., 2010a). The retail attributes (factors) included people and products (including knowledgeable salespeople, friendly sales staff, product selection, quality of products, store atmosphere, well known brands, productsalways in stock, and easy returns and exchanges – 44% of variance explained) and location and convenience (including store location and convenience to the respondent’s home – 6% of

Table 1 Sample characteristics as compared to U.S. census data. Variable

Level

Frequency

%

U.S. census %

Age

18–19 20–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65þ Total Median Caucasian/white African American/black Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic Other Total Less than $25,000 $25,000–$50,000 $50,001–$100,000 4$100,000 Total No high school degree High school graduate Some college or associate’s degree 4 year degree Graduate/professional degree Total Northeast Midwest South West Total

5 52 104 104 77 78 140 560 47.6 years 440 43 25 33 10 551 144 207 140 56 546 1 135 229

1.0 9.3 18.6 18.6 13.8 13.9 25.0 100 78.6 7.7 4.5 5.9 1.8 98.4nn 25.7 36.9 25.0 10.0 97.6nn .2 24.1 40.8

7.4n 7.1 13.8 14.2 14.7 11 10.7 78.9 35.4 years 80.2 12.1 4.0 1.7 2.0 100 28.6 29.3 29.7 12.3 100 20.0 29.5 25.0

133 61

23.7 10.8

16.5 9.0

559 111 127 211 111 560

99.6nn 19.8 22.6 37.8 19.8 100

100 18.3 22.1 37.7 23.6 100

Ethnicity

Income (annual)

Education

Region

n

U.S. census data includes ages 15–19 in this category, but the sample includes those 18 and older. Missing values resulted in less than 100% response for variable.

nn

549

550

D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 545–552

variance explained). The Cronbach alpha value for the people and products factor (8 items) was .87. Since the location and convenience factor consisted of two items, a correlation of .62 (po.001) was produced as evidence of reliability. Raw scores for individual items in each factor were summed and averaged for use in further analyses. The Cronbach values for the satisfaction and loyalty scales were .95 and .83, respectively. Raw scores for the individual satisfaction and loyalty items were summed and averaged for use in further analyses.

4.3. Analysis of variance comparing generational cohorts One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to facilitate comparison of the cohort groups’ retail format preferences, desired retail attributes, satisfaction and loyalty. The ANOVA models for retail format choice suggested significant differences between the cohorts’ preferences for category killers (F¼2.735, p o.05) and for Internet-only retailers (F ¼7.468, p o.001) (Table 2). In contrast, the ANOVA models yielded no significant differences among cohorts for department stores (F ¼.982, p¼ .401), discounters (F ¼.687, p¼.560), warehouse clubs (F ¼1.025, p ¼.380), dollar stores (F¼1.768, p¼ .149), or locally owned retailers (F¼ .224, p ¼.880). To investigate the significant differences in cohorts’ preferences for category killer andInternet-only retailers, multiple

comparisons were performed using Tukey HSD tests. The test for the category killer format indicated a significantly stronger preference among The Silent Generation as compared to Millennials (mean difference¼.26, p o.05, Table 2). In contrast, the tests for the Internet-only format indicated a significantly stronger preference among The 13th Generation as compared to The Silent Generation (mean difference¼.42, p o.01), and a significantly stronger preference among Millennials as compared to The Silent Generation (mean difference¼ .56, po.001). The ANOVA models for the importance of retail attributes yielded no significant differences among generational cohorts for people and products (F ¼2.557, p ¼.06) or for location and convenience (F ¼.269, p¼ .848). The ANOVA model for satisfaction suggested significant differences among the cohorts (F ¼3.286, po.05), with Tukey HSD tests demonstrating a significantly higher level of satisfaction among The Silent Generation as compared to Baby Boomers (mean difference ¼.27, p o.05) and The 13th Generation (mean difference¼.25, po.05). In contrast, the ANOVA model for loyalty suggested no significant differences between the generational cohorts (F ¼2.330, p o.07). 5. Discussion This study compares the retail format preferences, desired retail attributes, satisfaction and loyalty of male shoppers across

Table 2 Analysis of variance models across cohorts. Focal variable Retail format preferences

Department stores

Discounters

Category killers

Warehouse clubs

Dollar stores

Locally owned retailers

Internet-only retailers

Importance of retail attributes

People & products

Location & convenience

Satisfaction

Loyalty

n

Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total

Sum of squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

2.548 481.150 483.698 1.379 372.043 373.421 5.900 399.843 405.743 4.763 859.593

3 556 559 3 556 559 3 556 559 3 556 864.355 3 556 559 3 556 559 3 556 559 3 556 559 3 556 559 3 556 559 3 556 559

.849 .865

.982

.401

.460 .669

.687

.560

1.967 .719

2.735

.043na

1.588 1.546 559 2.416 1.353

1.027

.380

1.786

.149

.198 .884

.224

.880

9.240 1.237

7.468

.000nnnb

1.063 .416

2.557

.064

.170 .631

.269

.848

2.126 .647

3.286

.021nnc

.978 .420

2.330

.073

7.248 752.250 759.498 .593 491.343 491.936 27.721 687.929 715.650 3.189 231.153 234.342 .509 350.846 351.355 6.379 359.746 366.125 2.935 233.516 236.451

Significant at .05 level, Significant at the .01 level, Significant at the .001 level. a The silent generation produced a significantly higher mean as compared to Millennials (mean difference ¼ .26, p o .01). b The 13th generation produced a significantly higher mean as compared to The Silent Generation (mean difference¼ .42, p o .01) and millennials produced a significantly higher mean as compared to the silent generation (mean difference¼ .56, p o .001). c The silent generation produced a significantly higher mean as compared to Baby Boomers (mean difference¼ .27, p o .05) and The 13th generation (mean difference ¼.25, po .05). nn

nnn

D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 545–552

the four different generational cohort groups identified by Strauss and Howe (1991). Our first research question addressed whether the male cohorts differ in terms of their retail format preferences. The results suggest that shoppers from The Silent Generation demonstrate a significantly stronger preference for category killers as compared to Millennial shoppers. These findings suggest that male shoppers in The Silent Generation place greater value on a retail format where the assortment is narrow in breadth but deep in terms of the choices within a given product category. Rather than encountering a format crowded with many different product categories, perhaps male shoppers in the Silent Generation prefer focusing on fewer product categories at one time. This would make sense as previous research (Moschis, 2009) has found that those in the Silent Generation take more time evaluating products and, in the category killer format, having a wider variety of choice within the same product type would allow consumers who want to take time for an in-depth comparison. Millennials, on the other hand, have grown up with the supercenter and large-format store concepts and are more likely to be comfortable with these types of formats. As a rule, retailers still do not focus advertising or efforts on trying to persuade males to shop at their stores. However, it may be wise for category killer retailers to emphasize the advantages of their stores, especially as it relates to the interests of the often wealthy Silent Generation. The results also suggest that Millennial and 13th Generation shoppers demonstrate a significantly stronger preference for Internet-only retailers as compared to shoppers from The Silent Generation. These findings may also be due to the Millennials and 13th Generation having more experience with online retailers, and therefore having lower perceptions of risk and higher levels of comfort in shopping completely online. It is estimated that approximately 70% of U.S. households have access to the Internet, and that percentage is expected to continue to grow (Hair et al., 2010b). Perhaps as more members of The Silent Generation obtain Internet access and gain more experience with shopping online, additional members of the cohort will become more comfortable with shopping online. Our second research question addressed whether the male cohorts differ in terms of their perceptions of the importance of retail attributes. The results suggest no significant differences between the cohorts’ perceptions of the importance of people and products or location and convenience. While a lengthy and comprehensive list of retail attributes was assembled from the literature, perhaps there are additional retail attributes not examined in the study which would point to differences between the male generational cohorts. However, our results suggest that the cohorts do not differ in terms of their perceptions of the importance of retail attributes. Our third research question addressed whether the male generational cohorts differ in terms of satisfaction with the stores in their local area. The results suggest that members of The Silent Generation are significantly more satisfied as compared to Baby Boomers and 13th Generation shoppers. Perhaps because Baby Boomers and 13th Generation shoppers have grown up during a time of increasing variety and choice among retail formats, they have come to expect more than shoppers in The Silent Generation. In addition, as it is possible that Silent Generation men know what they want and where they can get it, they prefer to shop where they are comfortable and where they know they have been satisfied with their shopping experiences in the past. Perhaps there is a difference between this mindset and the ‘get in and get out’ mindset that many retailers wrongly perceive men to possess (Otnes and McGrath, 2001). It may also be that because Baby Boomers have been found to want immediate gratification and are self-indulgent (Moschis, 2009), this generation may experience higher levels of dissatisfaction if they cannot

551

immediately find what they want or if they experience any difficulties during the shopping experience. In contrast to the findings regarding loyalty among the cohort groups, the results for our fourth research question which addressed whether the cohorts differ in terms of loyalty to specific stores, indicate no significant differences among the cohorts. This suggests that no particular generational cohort expresses a stronger amount of loyalty than anyother cohort. However, it still may benefit retailers to explore the loyalty of their men shoppers by examining data from loyalty cards and programs.

6. Limitations and further study There are several limitations of the present study. Specifically, this study looks at only the generational cohorts of men living in the United States. As it has been shown that cohort groups in various countries will experience different events in their formative years, cohort groups’ values, attitudes, and behaviors in other countries may be different than those found in the U.S. (Dou et al., 2006; Fam et al., 2008). Future research into differences between U.S. male cohort groups and other countries is suggested. Additionally, comparing the differences in females and males in each of the cohort groups in the U.S. is also suggested. The sample in this study did not perfectly match the U.S. male population. While the quota controls placed during the sampling procedure allowed us to produce a sample that included all four of the U.S. generational cohorts, the sample did not perfectly match the population in terms of other demographic variables. Future studies could attempt to achieve a closer match across ethnicity, in particular. In addition to demographic characteristics, sexual orientation could be an influencing factor in male shopping preferences. Another limitation of the study is that respondents were not asked to reflect on a specific product category or purchase situation when responding to the survey. Future studies could evaluate a range of product categories and purchase situations in order to gain insight within specific shopping contexts and settings. Finally, while the choice of the online survey provided for effectiveness and efficiency in capturing a sample of male shoppers, other methods of data collection including in-person interviews could provide opportunities for probing questions and thus a more in-depth understanding of male shoppers. Moreover, it must be noted that while many consumers in the U.S. have access to the Internet, not all consumers do. Therefore, the web-based survey method may have caused a non-coverage error. Future studies should consider alternate methods of data collection. Although the present study involving male generational cohort groups found differences only in retail format preferences and retailer loyalty, because it is the first study of its kind, it is an important addition to what we know about male shopping behavior. Due to the dearth of research into generational cohorts in general and male generational cohort groups in particular, it would be well warranted to examine other aspects of male shopping behavior. Additional research could tell researchers and retailers alike whether segmenting groups based on their generational cohort group is a profitable avenue to pursue. References Albright, M. (2010, June 28). Marketing to Men: Catering to New Shopping Realities. St. Petersburg Times, Retrieved September 15, 2010 at /http:// license.icopyright.net/user/ viewFreeUse.actS. Alreck, P., Settle, R.B., 2002. Gender effects on Internet, catalogue and store shopping. Journal of Database Marketing 9 (2), 150–162. Bakewell, C., Mitchell, V., 2003. Generation Y female consumer decision-making styles. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 31 (2), 95–106.

552

D.J.C. Brosdahl, J.M. Carpenter / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 545–552

Bakewell, C., Mitchell, V., 2004. Male consumer decision-making styles. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 14 (2), 223–240. Bakewell, C., Mitchell, V.W., Rothwell, M., 2006. UK generation Y male fashion consciousness. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 10 (2), 169–180. Bela, D. (2011, Aug. 27). Generation Y Demanding, Hard to Attract with Traditional Jobadvertisements. News.com.au. Retrieved on September 6, 2011 from /http://www.news.com.au/money/generation-y-demanding-hard-to-attractwith-traditional-jobadvertisements/story-e6frfmci-1226123220300S. Caterall, M., Maclaran, P., 2002. Gender perspectives in consumer behaviour: an overview and future directions. The Marketing Review 2, 405–425. Catterall, M., Maclaran, P., Stevens, L. (Eds.), 2000. Marketing and Feminism: Current Issues and Research (Eds.). Routledge, London. Cone Inc. (2006). The Millennial Generation: Pro-Social and Empowered to Change the World. The Millennial Cause Study. Retrieved on February 28, 2011 at /http://www.coneinc.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/b45715685e62ca5c6ce b3e5a09f25bba/files/2006_cone_mill ennial_cause_study_white_paper.pdfS. Costello, A., Osborne, J., 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 10 (7), 1–9. Deverson, J., Hamblett, C., 1965. Generation X. Tandem Books, London. Dodd, C.A., Linaker, A., Grigg, N.P., 2005. He’s gotta have it: shopping dependence and the homosexual male clothing consumer. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4 (5), 374–389. Dou, W., Wang, G., Zhou, N., 2006. Generational and regional differences in media consumption patterns of Chinese 13th Generation consumers. Journal of Advertising 15 (2), 101–110. Du Preez, R., Visser, E., Zietsman, L., 2007. Profiling male apparel consumers: lifestyle, shopping orientation, patronage behavior, and shopping mall behavior. Management Dynamics 16 (1), 2–19. Dunne, P.M., Lusch, R.F., 2008. Retailing, second ed. South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. Fam, K., Waller, D.S., Ong, F., Yang, Z., 2008. Controversial product advertising in China: perceptions of three generational cohorts. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 7, 461–469. Frederick, C., 1929. Selling Mrs. Consumer. The Business Bourse., New York. Gogoi, P. (2006, Jan. 20). Men Dress for (Retail) Success. Business Week, Retrieved September 8, 2010 from /http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/ jan2006/nf20060120_5808_db035.htmS. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., 2010a. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, seventh ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hair, J., Wolfinbarger, M., Ortinau, D., Bush, R., 2010b. Essentials of Marketing Research. McGraw-Hill Iwrin, New York, NY. Hansen, T., Jensen, J., 2008. Shopping orientation and online clothing purchases: the role of gender and purchase situation. European Journal of Marketing 43 (9/10), 1154–1170. Hart, C., Farrell, A.M., Stachow, G., Reed, G., Cadogan, J.W., 2007. Enjoyment of the shopping experience: impact on customers’ repatronage intentions and gender influence. The Service Industries Journal 27 (5), 583–604. Inglehart, R., 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Jayson, S. (2006, June 29). The ‘Millennials’ Come of Age. USA Today. Retrieved 9/6/ 2011 from /http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2006-06-28-generationnext_x.htmS. Keenan, T. (2010, Aug. 15). Back-to-School Sales Equal Nails on Chalkboard. New York Post, Retrieved on August 25, 2010 from /http://www.nypost.com/p/news/ business/back_to_school_sales_equal_nails_Lw1oelJrPKIZTsFyMASahK#ixzz0zf 07uJL4S. Lee, M., Atkins, K., Kim, Y.K., Park, S.H., 2005. Competitive analyses between regional malls and big-box retailers: a correspondence analysis for segmentation and positioning. Journal of Shopping Center Research 13 (1), 81–98. Littrell, M.A., Ma, Y.J., Halepete, H., 2005. Generation X, baby boomers and swing: marketing fair trade apparel. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 9 (4), 407–419.

Ma, Y.J.U., Niehm, L.S., 2006. Service expectations of older Generation Y customers: an examination of apparel retail settings. Managing Service Quality 16 (6), 620–640. Martin, C.A., 2005. From high maintenance to high productivity: what managers need to know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training 37 (1), 39–44. Melnyk, V., van Osselaer, S.M.J., Bijmolt, T.H.A., 2009. Are women more loyal consumers than men? Gender differences in loyalty to firms and individual service providers. Journal of Marketing 73 (4), 82–96. Meredith, G.E., Schewe, C.D., 1994. The power of cohorts. American Demographics 16 (12), 22–31. Meredith, G.E., Schewe, C.D., Karlovich, J., 2007. Defining Markets, Defining Moments: America’s 7 Generational Cohorts, Their Share Experiences, and Why Businesses Should Care. BookLocker Publishers, Retrieved September 7, 2010 at locker.com/books/2780.html. Moschis, G.P. 2009. Generational marketing. In: Jones, I.R., Higgs, P., Ekerdt, D.J. (Eds.), Consumption and Generational Change: The Rise of Consumer Lifestyles, pp. 149–169. Otnes, C., McGrath, M., 2001. Perceptions and realities of male shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing 77, 111–137. Penaloza, L., 2000. Have we come a long way, baby? Negotiating a more multicultural feminism in the Marketing Academy in the USA. In: Catterall, M., Maclaran, P., Stevens, L. (Eds.), Marketing and Feminism: Current Issues and Research. Routledge, London, pp. 39–56. Pentecost, R., Andrews, L. (2009). Fashion retailing and the bottom line: the Effects of Generational Cohorts, Gender, Fashion Fanship, attitudes, and impulse buying on fashion expenditure. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.003. Pew Center Reports. (February 24, 2010). Social and Demographic Trends, (accessed 1/18/11) from /http://pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/Millennialsconfident-connected-open-tochangeS. Pew Center Reports, 2010. Social and Demographic Trends. Accessed 1/18/11 from /http://pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/Millennials-confident-connectedopen-tochange/S, February 24, 2010. Reynolds, K., Beatty, S., 1999. Customer benefits and company consequences of customer salesperson relationships in retailing. Journal of Retailing 75 (1), 11–32. Schewe, D.C., Meredith, G., 2004. Segmenting global markets by generational cohorts: determining motivations by age. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4 (1), 51–63. Seo, J.I., Hathcote, J.M., Sweeney, A.L., 2001. Casual wear shopping behaviour of college men in Georgia, USA. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 5 (3), 208–222. Shim, S., Kotsiopulos, A., 1991. Big and tall men as apparel shoppers: consumer characteristics and shopping behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 9, 16–24. Shim, S., Kotsiopulos, A., 1992a. Patronage behavior of apparel shopping: Part I. Shopping orientations, store attributes, information sources, and personal characteristics. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 10 (2), 48–57. Shim, S., Kotsiopulos, A., 1992b. Patronage behavior of apparel shopping: Part II. Testing a patronage model of consumer behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 10 (2), 58–64. Strauss, W., Howe, N., 1991. Consumer Behavior. The Dryden Press, London. Straus, W., Howe, N., Markiewicz, P., 2006. Millennials and the pop culture: strategies for a new generation of consumers. Great Falls, VA: Life Course Associates. Torres, I., Summers, T., Belleau, B., 2001. Men’s shopping satisfaction and store preferences. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services 8, 205–212. Tsui, B. (2001). Generation Next. Advertising Age, 72(3), p. 14–15. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Retrieved May 5, 2011 at /http://www.census.gov/news room/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb11-ff04.htmlS. Wellington, E. (2010, Sept. 4). Men are Boosting Back-To-School Shopping. Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved Sept. 11, 2010 from /http://www.philly.com/inquirer/ front_page/20100904_Men_are_boosting_back-to-school_shopping.htmlS.