2016
DOI: 10.7819/rbgn.v18i62.1702
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Expectations concerning retail: a study of clothing and shoe consumers at the bottom of the social pyramid

Abstract: Purpose -To understand different perceptions of retail by consumers at the bottom of the social pyramid, to thus understand specific market niches that are a part of the low income segment.Design/methodology/approach -We carried out a survey including 560 cases. We also used cluster and discriminant analysis.Findings -We observed the formation of four groups of customers, which showed significant distinctions in the characteristics considered for choosing a store.Originality/value -The clusters represents a di… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In relatively low-involvement and low expenditure products, such as FMCGs (the focus of our study), we can reasonably assume that high-income consumers who do not face budgetary constraints will show biased or specialized (Felix, 2014) true loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994) unless the category is made up of completely undifferentiated brands (Felix, 2014). However, because LICs face the conflict between the desire for premium brands and budgetary limitations (Antoni and Basso, 2016;Costa Filho and Motta, 2015;Kochuyt, 2004), it is likely that cognitive factors, such as the deliberations of price against quality, will be intense for LICs. Likewise, because brands serve as important symbolic markers of distinction among LICs, affective reactions to brands are also likely to be intense.…”
Section: Brand Loyalty Among Low-income Consumersmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In relatively low-involvement and low expenditure products, such as FMCGs (the focus of our study), we can reasonably assume that high-income consumers who do not face budgetary constraints will show biased or specialized (Felix, 2014) true loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994) unless the category is made up of completely undifferentiated brands (Felix, 2014). However, because LICs face the conflict between the desire for premium brands and budgetary limitations (Antoni and Basso, 2016;Costa Filho and Motta, 2015;Kochuyt, 2004), it is likely that cognitive factors, such as the deliberations of price against quality, will be intense for LICs. Likewise, because brands serve as important symbolic markers of distinction among LICs, affective reactions to brands are also likely to be intense.…”
Section: Brand Loyalty Among Low-income Consumersmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Furthermore, they focus on value, rarely trust and aim for emotional goals (Praceus and Herstatt, 2017, p. 97; Singh, 2016, p. 27). For urban BOP consumers, value through store atmospherics means affordability, quality and fulfilment of aspirations (Antoni and Basso, 2016, p. 596). Mistrust is popular among urban BOP consumers who want to trust that retailers will deliver valuable yet positive emotional experiences, which make them extra attentive to store atmospheric elements to develop perceptions (Antoni and Basso, 2016, p. 601; Barki and Parente, 2006, p. 56).…”
Section: Literature Review and Conceptual Model Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various studies agree (Sharma and Gupta, 2021, p. 308; Srivastava and Srivastava, 2021, p. 1), showing that BOP consumers aspire to have a better shopping experience. Store atmospherics are particularly important to BOP consumers as they: prefer to buy from physical stores rather than online; require greater decision-making guidance from the retail experience than more affluent segments; and prioritise value, trust and emotional goal attainment (Antoni and Basso, 2016, p. 596; Coffie and Darmoe, 2016, p. 386; Hasan et al , 2017, p. 154). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations