The objectives were (1) to investigate brand name awareness and image perceptions of nationally known women's brand name apparel and (2) to identify these characteristics of female consumers which influence brand preferences. The statistical analysis of data collected from 130 female students and 75 working women indicated brand name awareness was influenced by subjects' occupational status and clothing expenditure. Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren showed more distinctive image characteristics than 12 other national apparel brands. Brand preference was affected by brand attributes, clothing interest, clothing expenditure, and age. A few marketing implications were suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AginsT. (1988) Clothing retailers stress private labelsThe Wall Street Journal, 211(112), June 9, p. 33.
2.
AskerD. A.ShansbyJ. G. (1982) Positioning your productBusiness Horizons, 25(3), 56–62.
3.
BaughD. F.DavisL. L. (1989) The effect of store image on consumers' perceptions of designer and private label clothingClothing and Textile Research Journal, 7(3), 15–21.
4.
BellizziJ. A.KrueckebergH. F.HamiltonJ. R.MartinW. S. (1981) Consumer perception of national, private, and generic brandsJournal of Retailing, 57, 56–70.
5.
CassillN.DrakeM. F. (1987) Employment orientations' influence on lifestyle and evaluative criteria for apparelHome Economics Research Journal, 16, 23–34.
6.
CunninghamI. C. M.HardyA. P.ImperiaG. (1982) Generic brands versus national brands and store brandsJournal of Advertising Research, 22, 25–32.
7.
DavisK. R. (1981) Marketing management (4th ed.) New York: Wiley.
8.
DavisL. L. (1985) Effects of physical quality and brand labeling on perceptions of clothing qualityPerceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 671–677.
9.
FinnA. (1985) A theory of the consumer evaluation process for new product concepts In ShethJ. N. (Ed.), Research in consumer behaviorVol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Pp. 35–65.
10.
GardnerD. M. (1970) An experimental investigation of the price/quality relationshipJournal of Retailing, 46, 25–41.
11.
HartleinR. (1989) Private label debate focuses on art of dealWomens Wear Daily, 158(56), 7.
12.
HawesJ. M.LumpkinJ. R. (1986) Perceived risk and the selection of retail patronage modeJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1986, 14(4), 37–42.
13.
HornM.GurelL. (1981) The second skinBoston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
14.
Invasion of the cachet snatchers. (1988) Time, 132(21), 114.
15.
KwonY. H. (1988) Effects of situational and individual influences on the selection of daily clothingClothing and Textile Research Journal, 6(4), 6–12.
16.
LeoneR. P. (1981) The effect of an individual's sex on preference for brand names In BernhardtK. L.DolishI.EtzelM.KehoeW.KinnearT.PerreaultW.Jr.RoeringK. (Eds.), The changing marketing environment: New theories and applicationsChicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Pp. 197–200.
17.
Leslie Fay: Winning with little shops. (1988) Womens Wear Daily, 156(105), 10.
18.
LymanB. (1984) An experiential theory of emotion: A partial outline with implications for researchJournal of Mental Imagery, 8, 77–86.
19.
MartineauP. (1957) Motivation in advertisingNew York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
McConnellJ. D. (1968) The price-quality relationship in an experimental settingJournal of Marketing Research, 5, 300–303.
21.
MolloyJ. T. (1977) The women's dress for success hookChicago, IL: Follett.
22.
Naming the brands. (1989) Apparel Merchandising, 8(3), 35–42.
23.
NevidJ. S. (1981) Effects of brand labeling on ratings of product qualityPerceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 407–410.
24.
PetersonR. A. (1970) The price-perceived quality relationship: Experimental evidenceJournal of Marketing Research, 7, 525–528.
25.
Rigaux-BricmontB. (1982) Influences of brand name and packaging on perceived quality In MitchellA. (Ed.), Advances in consumer researchVol. 9. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. Pp. 472–477.
26.
RyanM. S. (1966) Clothing: A study in human behaviorNew York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
27.
SchiffmanL. G.KanukL. L. (1987) Consumer behaviorEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
28.
StaffordJ. E.EnisB. M. (1969) The price-quality relationship: ExtensionJournal of Marketing Research, 6, 456–458.
29.
The high price of unhappy customers. (1988) Newsweek, 112(23), 64.
30.
TullD. S.BoringR. A.GonsiorM. H. (1964) A note on the relationship of price and imputed qualityJournal of Business, 1964, 37, 186–191.
31.
WheatleyJ. J.ChiliJ. S. Y. (1977) The effects of price, store image, and product and respondent characteristics on perceptions of qualityJournal of Marketing Research, 14, 181–186.
32.
WheatleyJ. J.ChiuJ. S. Y.GoldmanA. (1981) Physical quality, price, and perceptions of product qualityJournal of Retailing, 57, 100–116.
33.
WoodsideA. G. (1974) Relation of price to perception of quality of new productsJournal of Applied Psychology, 59, 116–118.
34.
Working women: Where they shop, how much they spend, on what. (1988) Stores, 70(5), 20.
