See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233198283

Explaining the do-it-yourself (DIY) retail market in a developing country:

Preliminary lessons from India

Article  in  The International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research · July 2010
DOI: 10.1080/09593969.2010.491210

CITATIONS READS

9 2,132

3 authors, including:

Anjula Gurtoo Colin C Williams

Indian Institute of Science The University of Sheffield
48 PUBLICATIONS   475 CITATIONS    734 PUBLICATIONS   13,927 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Informal sector entrepreneurship View project

SHADOWS: Tackling Undeclared Work in the European Union View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Colin C Williams on 29 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research

ISSN: 0959-3969 (Print) 1466-4402 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rirr20

Explaining the do-it-yourself (DIY) retail market in

a developing country: preliminary lessons from
India

Anjula Gurtoo , Vidosh Sarup & Colin C. Williams

To cite this article: Anjula Gurtoo , Vidosh Sarup & Colin C. Williams (2010) Explaining the do-
it-yourself (DIY) retail market in a developing country: preliminary lessons from India, The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20:3, 335-351

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2010.491210

Published online: 23 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 211

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rirr20

Download by: [University of Sheffield] Date: 29 December 2016, At: 01:32

The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research
Vol. 20, No. 3, July 2010, 335–351

Explaining the do-it-yourself (DIY) retail market in a

developing country: preliminary lessons from India
Anjula Gurtooa*, Vidosh Sarupb and Colin C. Williamsc,1
a
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India;
b
Grindwell Norton Limited, Saint Gobain Abrasives, Bangalore, India;
c
School of Management, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
(Received September 2009; final version received April 2010)

Until now, studies of the Do-It-Yourself (DIY) market have been confined to
advanced market economies, with developing countries ignored. This article
begins to bridge this gap. Analysing a survey of 500 households in India, a
developing country characterized by cheap and surplus labour, and a different
cultural milieu, this article investigates whether it is possible to distinguish DIY
consumers in the same manner as in Western nations as ‘reluctant’ or ‘willing’
DIYers. The analysis finds that in India, DIY consumers can be concurrently
both willing DIYers doing so for pleasure (the choice model) or seeking self-
identity from the end-product (post-modern theory) and at the same time
reluctant DIYers doing so out of economic necessity reasons (economic
determinism model) or due to the lack of appropriately skilled labour (a market
failure model). Results also reflected cultural connotations to the respondent
perceptions. The multiplicity of reasons, in consequence, shows that no one
theorisation of DIY consumers’ motives is universally relevant but all theories are
sometimes valid. As such, a new typology of DIY consumers’ motives has been
inductively generated which is theoretically integrative. The results conclude on
the need to move beyond using one theory and treating the others as rival
competing theories, for a comprehensive explanation of DIY.
Keywords: do-it-yourself; home improvement; consumer motives; India;
developing country

Introduction
Do-it-yourself (DIY) is a well-established phenomenon in most developed countries
and involves substantial consumer activity (Williams 2004, 2008; Mintel 2006). For
example, the size of the DIY market, aggregated on all major product categories, has
been estimated at £8.8 billion in the United Kingdom and e19.15 billion in France
(Mintel 2006). Annual home-owner spending on DIY projects has approached
US$22 billion in the United States (Reade 2001). However, when it comes to DIY in
the majority developing (third) world, little has been so far written. Indeed, the only
known exception is Brazil where it has been shown that DIY sales amounted to
US$27.2 billion in 2006 (Euromonitor 2008).

*Corresponding author. Email: anjula@mgmt.iisc.ernet.in

ISSN 0959-3969 print/ISSN 1466-4402 online

Ó 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09593969.2010.491210
http://www.informaworld.com
336 A. Gurtoo et al.

In this article, therefore, the aim is to examine the DIY market in a developing
country with a fast-growing economy, namely India. This is a nation witnessing an
increase in demand for urban housing, has shown sustained high GDP growth for
some time and has a burgeoning middle class with growing annual disposable
incomes (Euromonitor 2007). One recent estimate of the size of the Indian home
improvement market is INR 154.3 billion (Euromonitor 2007). In absolute terms,
this is smaller than the DIY markets of the United States and Germany but
significantly bigger than countries like Canada, UK, France and Brazil. Beyond such
overall estimates, however, there has been no research on DIY from a developing
country perspective. Until now, almost all the research on DIY has been confined to
the developed Western world context (predominantly North America and Western
Europe). In this article, therefore, the intention is to begin bridging this significant
gap in the literature.
First, a review will be provided of previous literature written on the DIY
market in general, and DIY consumers’ motives more particularly, revealing that
existing literature from Western countries suggests that one can differentiate
between ‘reluctant’ and ‘willing’ DIYers. The second section then reports
empirical data collected during 500 face-to-face interviews in Indian cities with
the aim of, on the one hand, identifying the potential DIY consumer profile in
India, and on the other hand, determining their rationales for engaging in DIY
activity. This will reveal both the characteristics of the people most likely to carry
out DIY in India and the motives of DIY consumers. The third and final section
then compares the findings with studies previously conducted in advanced Western
economies and draws out the lessons from this developing country study. From
the managerial perspective, interpretation of the DIY market in a developing
country context provides for growth and servicing of a new market. The results
also have implications for marketing strategy. Understanding differences can help
marketers in developing appropriate strategies to reach DIY and non-DIY
consumers.

DIY consumers’ motives: a review of previous theoretical perspectives

Given that few, if any, empirical studies of the DIY market and DIY consumers’
motives have been conducted in developing countries, the review of the literature in
this section refers solely to studies conducted in Western nations.

Nature of DIY a household characteristics

DIY is a consumption process, one that involves acquisition, assembly and
transformation of retail commodities (Watson and Shove 2005). DIY practices
and products co-evolve in a manner such that the competence required for
completion of the task gets distributed over the product (tool or commodity) and the
human DIYer. Simple labour-intensive jobs are typically the ones that are most
amenable to DIY (Davidson, Redshaw, and Mooney 1997; Reade 2001). These are
classified as discretionary and/or replacement activity. Discretionary activity
involves improvement or re-configuration of space and replacement activity involves
system upgrades and substitutions. They include painting, carpentry, plumbing,
general repair and maintenance and broadly classified under the following categories
(Mintel 2006):
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 337

. Building – doors and windows, interior decorations, plumbing, electrical

accessorisation, fencing, glass work, and roofing and drainage modifications
. Home decoration – painting (interior and exterior), tiling (wall, floor), wall
coverings
. Other products – shelving/storage, security products, gardening

Early studies show that certain household characteristics are significant so far as
the propensity of households to hire a professional or undertake DIY are concerned.
Households with higher income and owners of higher-value homes show less
inclination to conduct DIY home renovation work (Mendelsohn 1977; Smiley 1979).
Similar results can be found in other studies (Bogdon 1996; Pollakowski 1988; Baker
and Kaul 2002). Furthermore, household repair and improvement strategies change
according to lifecycle and occupancy stages. Younger households and recent movers
tend to be more actively involved in DIY repair and maintenance activity in order to
personalise domestic space (Arnott, Davidson, and Pines 1983; Pollakowski 1988;
Baker and Kaul 2002). Increasing age of the dwelling unit as well as the resident
reduces repair through DIY (Naohiro and Naoaki 2004; Watson and Shove 2005).
Though not significant, owners in suburban locations are seen to more frequently
engage in DIY activity than others (Baker and Kaul 2002).

Socio-economic drivers and participant characteristics

Younger owners do their own repairs more frequently, and do more of the basic
repair work on a DIY basis (Mendelsohn 1977; Arnott, Davidson, and Pines 1983;
Bogdon 1996; Baker and Kaul 2002). Within the younger DIYers, those with a
family background of skilled manual trade or the building trade creates greater
amenability towards DIY work (Davidson, Redshaw, and Mooney 1997). Married
households or households with multiple adults are also more likely to conduct DIY
(Bogdon 1996; Swartzlander and Bowers 2007). Those who are married, young and
with children and an owner-occupier are most likely to conduct DIY, tackling
problems as they arise and also undertaking repair work to improve liveability
(Arnott, Davidson, and Pines 1983; Leather, Littlewood, and Munro 1998; Watson
and Shove 2005).
Education, ethnicity, gender and income moderate these participant character-
istics. A white race background and male gender increases the propensity to DIY
(Davidson, Redshaw, and Mooney 1997; Foster 2004; Watson and Shove 2005).
Owners with higher levels of education (i.e., those who can anticipate increased
future earnings) are likely to hire professional help (Baker and Kaul 2002;
Swartzlandser and Bowers 2007). Hence, the probability of hiring outside help
increases in cases of higher-income households (Leather, Littlewood, and Munro
1998; Ashby, Ozanne-Smith, and Fox 2007). However, review of socio-economic
group reveals significant DIY activity within the affluent and educated bracket, but
purely as a matter of choice (Mintel 2006).

DIY consumer motives: competing theorisations

To explain participation in DIY, two broad approaches have been adopted. On the
one hand, there have been attempts to apply the wider theorisations of consumption
and the consumer to the DIY sector. On the other hand, those focusing on DIY have
338 A. Gurtoo et al.

theorised either that participation is economically determined and/or distinguished

between those conducting DIY out of economic necessity or choice.
Those applying broader theorisations of consumption and the consumer to the
DIY sphere to understand consumers’ motives adopt three contrasting theoretical
approaches. First, there is the rational utility maximisation model of consumption
and the consumer which derives from neo-classical economic thought. Here, the DIY
consumer is depicted as somebody treating their home as a business investment and
as engaging in DIY improvements in order to maximise the market value of their
property by measuring the costs of their DIY activities against their investment
return. An exemplar of such approach is Broderson (2003) who in his study of DIY
in Denmark depicts DIYers as rational economic actors who calculate the money
saved by doing-it-yourself and as people who pursue projects to maximise the value
of their home, despite the evidence gathered elsewhere that DIY projects are more
about increasing the comfort than value of the home (Littlewood and Munro 1996).
A second broader theorisation of consumption and the consumer applied to DIY
is that which depicts the consumer as a dupe or passive subject whose aspirations are
formed and manipulated by the mass media, and served and fuelled by retail
businesses (Slater 1997). From this perspective, home improvements are a response
by passive subjects seeking the latest media-inspired fads and ‘must haves’ for their
home. This account of DIY consumers is to be found in the reports by Mintel (2002,
2005, 2006) who place great emphasis on the rise of television makeover programmes
and property development shows as the primary driver for the growth in DIY
activity.
A third and final broader theorisation of consumption and the consumer
sometimes applied to DIY are the post-modern approaches that view consumers as
manipulating commodities to produce symbolic meanings and constitute identities
(e.g., Leach 1984; Wolff 1985; Benson 1986; Abelson 1989; Buck-Morss 1989; Willis
1991; Williamson 1992; Dowling 1993; McCracken 1998; Crewe 2000; Campbell
2005). Here, DIY is a means of realising effects which convey individuality and self-
identity. Woodward (2003) in Australia argues that DIY consumers prioritise
aesthetic ideals, and Clark (2001) argues that DIY is about constructing self-identity
and that home improvements are an attempt to reconcile who people are with their
image of who and what they would like to be.
The problem with all these attempts to apply broader theories of consumption
and the consumer to the DIY sector, however, is that first they tend towards making
universal generalisations of the motives for participation in DIY and second, focus
more on why people seek to undertake home improvements (e.g., installing a
fireplace) rather than why DIY is used instead of other labour to undertake these
tasks. Installing a fireplace may of course be a product of: a rational economic
person seeking to improve the market value of property; a consumer responding to
media-inspired aspirations of interior design, and an attempt to express individuality
by acting as a manipulator of symbols. However, these ends are all achievable
independent of DIY, such as by employing a tradesperson to realise them. These
theories thus tell us little about why DIY was used.
Studies focusing more specifically on why people participate in DIY have
explained participation as either economically determined or conducted out of
choice. Earlier studies tended to emphasise how DIY was conducted out of economic
necessity such as because they could not afford to outsource the task to a
tradesperson. Analyses of the American Housing Survey (Pollakowski 1988; Bogdon
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 339

1996) and the Scottish House Condition Survey (Littlewood and Munro 1996),
however, reveal that the relationship between income and participation in DIY is not
clear cut. The consequence in recent years is that studies have sought to distinguish
between those engaging in DIY out of economic necessity and those who do so more
out of choice (Davidson and Leather 2000; Munro and Leather 2000; Mintel 2002;
Williams 2004). The problem, however, is that this distinction does not in practice
exist amongst consumers when empirically evaluated. As Williams (2004) identifies
in a study of DIY in urban England, in over 80% of instances where DIY was used,
both economic necessity and choice were co-present in the motives of DIYers.
One particularly fruitful avenue recently pursued in a study of rural England
(Williams 2008) has been to derive from respondents own perceptions a view of those
engaged in DIY as either ‘reluctant’ or ‘willing’ DIYers. ‘Reluctant’ DIYers engage in
DIY either because they cannot afford to outsource the task or due to problems with
regard to finding and using trades people, such as getting a tradesperson to turn up, the
perceived inferior quality of the end-product and trust issues related to leaving them
alone in the home. For these reluctant DIYers, in consequence, the use of DIY is their
chosen option but not first choice. For ‘willing’ DIYers, meanwhile, DIY was their first
choice and conducted for reasons ranging from an economic desire to maximise the
value of their home (akin to the neo-classical model of the consumer), the pleasure they
get from the process of DIY (akin to the choice model) or the satisfaction received from
creating an end-product, completing a job, mastering a skill or simply doing something
for oneself (supporting post-modern theories of the consumer).
Given this, attention here turns towards some inductive research that has sought
more grounded explanations for participation in DIY from face-to-face interviews
using open-ended questions. The intention in so doing is to evaluate which, if any, of
the above theorisations of the motives of DIY consumers is relevant.

Methodology and research design

DIY activities studied include electrical work, plumbing, indoor painting, outdoor
painting and carpentry. The research followed a two-stage design. As the research is
exploratory, a pilot study was conducted.

Pilot study
Existing participation levels, motivators and barriers were investigated using focus
group discussions, in two town class types, namely in one metropolitan city
(Bangalore) and one small southern town (Ranipet). The members of the group were
carefully selected based on the following criteria – individuals belonging to socio-
economic classification as middle income and higher; conducted engagement in
home repair/maintenance/improvement in the previous month; and householders for
at least five years. The discussions were also coordinated to seek comparisons with
perceptions of Western attitudes.
The pilot results revealed three significant issues. First, the interest in DIY was
significant. However, women did not respond with interest or inclination, in both the
town class types. Second, cultural barriers (of social class) came as a significant
reason for not doing DIY despite inclination and interest. This was especially so for
small town, graduate respondents. Third, the sense of fulfilment and satisfaction on
doing things on one’s own was the biggest motivator. This was followed by the
340 A. Gurtoo et al.

growing frustration with the indiscipline and lack of professionalism displayed by

the labour class. For the metropolitan males, specifically, a big motivator was
‘enhancement in social esteem’ and ‘giving expression to their masculinity’. Lack of
knowledge seemed to be the biggest barrier for these metropolitan males.

Final survey
The multiplicity of dimensions and directions in conducting DIY, revealed through
the pilot results, gave an inclusive and broad base to the final survey. The survey
captures demographics like age, town class, education, etc., economic variables of
income and savings, social variables of gender perceptions, cultural mindsets,
support systems, etc., housing attributes, household characteristics and technological
determinants like knowledge of tools and literature. The survey included only those
respondents who have practiced DIY and are likely to do so in the future.
The sampling design was stratified based on town class – metro, mini metro and
small town. The respondent profile was restricted to male chief wage earners, belonging
to socio-economic classification A or B, and between 25 to 55 years in age, who have
attempted a DIY activity at least once. Classified by the National Readership Survey
(2006), the socio-economic classification of A and B groups are: at least high school
educated, skilled, and working in an organisation or in ones own enterprise. Data were
collected between January and December 2006. The total sample size taken for analysis
was 500, divided between metro (200 samples), mini metro (150 samples) and small town
(150 samples). The data collection plan (for a total sample size of 500) is given below:

. Metro City [Mumbai and Chennai, 100 interviews each] – Total 200
. Mini Metro City [Jaipur and Vizag, 75 interviews each] – Total 150
. Small Town [Rajkot and Meerut, 75 interviews each] – Total 150

Data analysis
Determinants of consumer choice behaviour were investigated through determina-
tion of relative occurrence of various DIY activities; plotting of frequency graphs to
determine the reasons for undertaking or not undertaking DIY, and to explore
factors that would influence this decision; and analysis of the attitude and perception
difference between DIYers who would continue and ones who would not, through a
set of likert scale scores.
Testing the dependence of DIY activity on the demographic variables provides
the profile identification of possible long-term DIYers. Contingency tables were
created to study respondent variations for the following: 1) Ever done against Never
done 2) Will avoid against Will not avoid. Chi-square test for independence
establishes dependence (or independence) of a particular DIY activity against these
demographic variables. Contingency tables and calculation of chi-square statistic
with its corresponding p value assumes a ¼ 5%.

Analysis
Determination of engagement in DIY
Aggregating all activities in a single category of ‘DIY activity’, Figure 1 reveals that
self satisfaction emerged as the most important reason for undertaking DIY
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 341

Figure 1. Reasons for undertaking DIY.

(n ¼ 500, 51%). This was followed by a desire to impress others (12%) and as an
expression of masculinity (22%). Importance of ‘self satisfaction’ and ‘DIY as
representation of domestic masculinity’ signified the presence of personal factors as
moderators of DIY (Sheth, Newman, and Gross 1991; Leaver and Zubaidi 1996).
DIY was seen as a means of realising effects which convey individuality and self-
identity (Leach 1984; Wolff 1985; Benson 1986; Abelson 1989; Buck-Morss 1989;
Willis 1991; Williamson 1992; Dowling 1993; McCracken 1998; Crewe 2000;
Campbell 2005). Consumers buy products to obtain variety of benefits, emotional or
experiential benefits, and social or symbolic benefits, being two important ones. The
results show that DIY is seen to significantly derive emotional and social value for
several DIYers.
Moreover, these results also highlight the emergence of a new class of activities in
India for personal satisfaction. Historically, doing low-skill jobs is not seen as good
and ‘up to one’s social class’ (Gudykunst and Kim 1997). However, as seen in
Tables 2 and 3, town class as a significant variable reflects that the urban male is
beginning to transcend these socio-cultural barriers and moving towards deriving
personal satisfaction from physical work that may not require formal skills.
However, two other results were noteworthy. First, about 6% of the respondents
said they conducted DIY as they found the labour too costly. This hinted at the
presence of DIYers who were conducting DIY due to economic necessity. Second,
while cost of labour emerged as significant for 6%, labour issues like lack of skill and
labour discipline emerged as significant for 20% of the DIYers. These two results
were a significant indication of DIY occurring not purely as a matter of personal
choice and warranted further exploration.

Were there reluctant DIYers in this developing country?

Further exploration highlighted that, contrary to conventional wisdom of easy
availability of cheap labour, a developing country DIY sector did have a substantial
set of reluctant DIYers conducting DIY not due to economic necessity alone but also
because of practical reasons of non availability of reliable trades people. As Figure 2
displays, about 51% did not engage in DIY willingly, as depicted in the fact that 35%
say they have no time for it any more and 16% do not see it as a priority activity. For
8% it was not an exciting activity and 19% expressed insufficient knowledge as a
reason. Exploration of reasons for the above, as reflected in Figure 1, displayed 26%
342 A. Gurtoo et al.

were conducting DIY because they felt that labour available lacked in skills, was
unreliable or lacked discipline. These were ‘reluctant’ DIYers. For these ‘reluctant’
DIYers, doing the job personally was not a first choice. DIY was either to do with
economic necessity or perceived problems that can come with hiring someone. Skills
like carpentry, plumbing and gardening form part of the unregulated informal
economy. This economy is characterised by lack of training, unplanned and on the
job learning, financial insecurity, and has direct link to poverty (Gardner and Osella,
2003). Survey results reflect these characteristics as lack of labour skill and discipline.
Exploration on what differentiates the long-term DIYers from reluctant DIYers
revealed significant cultural connotations. While practical reasons of labour
indiscipline led to several conducting DIY, Table 1 highlights the cultural aspects
of who will continue and who will not continue with DIY. Future non-DIYers
believed house work should be left to skilled people. There was a willingness to put
up with labour problems for fear of being labelled as penny pinchers and fear of
being ‘looked down upon’ by conducting low-skill jobs. Indians are different from
their Western counterparts in the meaning they attach to time and work. They are
seen to have a ‘high context’ culture (Hall 1976; Hofstede, 1980). The survey results
reflect this context.
In high context situations, groups have a strong sense of tradition and rely on
history to transact in the society (Hoecklin 1995, Samovar and Porter 2004). The
Indian lifestyle is conservative with strict observance of the social hierarchies and

Figure 2. Reasons for not wanting to do DIY further.

Table 1. Willing versus non-willing DIYers: significant differences.

t Sig. level
Best left to skilled people 3.00 .00
Will get labelled as penny pinchers 73.35 .00
People tend to look down on these jobs 7.12 .00
Would DIY if user friendly tools available 7.97 .33
Very little knowledge on how to do it properly 7.74 .45
Don’t have enough time 1.01 .31
These activities are anyway rare occurrences .59 .55
Are low priority pursuits 7.49 .61
Better to put up with labour problems 72.91 .00
Availability of tools that make DIY easy 7.09 .92
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 343

roles compartmentalised as belonging to a certain social and economic class

(Gudykunst and Kim 1997). DIY in an Indian culture does not come naturally, as
professions are chosen through social and historical family backgrounds and are
divided on strict social lines.
These results highlight several motives and complexities that exist in the DIY
domain and consumer choice. While several people saw DIY as personal satisfaction
and masculine appeal, there were also a small set of people who were conducting
DIY due to economic necessity and a significant set of people conducting DIY due to
lack of reliable trades people. DIY was not their first choice. Exploration of data also
threw up significant cultural connotations to consumer choices and DIY motives.
This contests the fact that DIY as a consumer choice can be explained by a single
theorisation of either rational utility maximisation or personal choice.

Identification of potential future DIYer profile

The data demographically separated significantly according to town, class, age and
marital status. Test of significant difference found married males, below 35, and
staying in the metros as most inclined to do DIY (see Table 2).
While overall large numbers agreed to time constraints in undertaking DIY,
single males put more emphasis on time constraints. Differentiating on education,
graduate engineers were seen to be least inclined for DIY activity. These results
indicated the characteristic of people and location more amenable to DIY and are
detailed in Annex 1.
Exploration of what would determine their continuation towards DIY,
indicated need for better knowledge (49% þ 22%) as an important facilitating
factor. How to carry out the task and knowledge of the material were both
important considerations. Demographically, town class was a significant differ-
entiator. People in metropolitan areas and bigger cities sought DIY-related
knowledge more than people from smaller towns. Figure 3 and Table 3 show these
results. Manufacturing and organised retailing companies do not yet identify DIY
as a distinct market segment in India. Products that are sold in the home
improvement market are largely targeted at professionals (electricians, plumbers,
painters, carpenters, etc.). Information printed on products meets the statutory
requirements and does not contain instructions related to application and usage.
Tools that are specially designed to enhance ease in usage and for mitigating the
level of skill required are not easily available in the Indian market yet. The results
reflect these market conditions.

Table 2. Reasons for doing DIY: tested across demographic variables.

Town class Age Marital status

t Sig. level t Sig. level t Sig. level
Self satisfaction 11.93 .001 81.36 .001 38.56 .001
Impress others 12.33 .001 37.65 .001 .278 .77
Masculine appeal 54.73 .001 104.84 .001 29.39 .001
Labour lacks skill 3.23 .05 16.75 .001 .137 .79
Labour unreliable .00 .97 4.02 .05 23.26 .001
Labour costly .051 .89 2.71 .12 1.46 .35
344 A. Gurtoo et al.

Profile across each DIY activity

Table 4 defines the profile of the potential DIYer for each of the DIY activities,
namely – electrical repairs, plumbing, painting (indoor and outdoor) and carpentry.
Overall, the potential DIY customer emerged as male, married, less than 35 years in
age, living in big cities (metro and mini metro) and with graduate or post-graduate
education. The differences between activities were as follows: a) electrical work and
plumbing DIY were also dependent on the housing attributes, namely, age of the
building and number of years spent in the same rented apartment. People living in
the same place for more than five years and building age being more than 15 years,
show higher inclination for DIY. Here, functional or utilitarian value drives the DIY

Figure 3. Facilitating factors for carrying out DIY.

Table 3. Facilitating factors: tested across demographic variables.

Town class
Items F-value Sig. level
Better knowledge of how to do it 3.19 .05
Better knowledge of material 101.70 .001
Better availability of tools 57.61 .001
Better availability of material 27.64 .001
Non availability of labour 22.17 .001

Table 4. Profile of the potential customer for each of the DIY activities.

DIY activity Profile

Electrical repairs Married male, living in metros and mini metros, graduate
and above and staying in buildings more than 10 years old
Plumbing Married male, living in metros and staying in an
accommodation for atleast five years.
Painting (indoor and Less than 35, self employed, graduate engineer, from mini
outdoor) metro staying in a rental building for atleast five years
Carpentry Male working in an organisation in a 9 am—5 pm job,
staying with other adults in the house
Table 5. Chi-square test results for defining consumer profile across DIY activities.

Town Acco. Marital No. of Age of Duration

class Age Type Edu. Work status adults building of stay Ethnicity
Electrical
Ever done v/s Never done 0.18 0.15 0.47 0.69 0.18 0.89 0.13 0.01 0.31 0.62
Avoid v/s will not avoid 0.53 0.22 0.82 0.81 – 0.72 – 0.01 0.40 0.48
Plumbing
Ever done v/s Never done 0.00 0.44 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.20 0.61 0.77 0.12
Avoid v/s will not avoid 0.00 0.93 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.94 0.17 0.32 0.23
Painting (indoor)
Ever done v/s Never done 0.84 0.41 0.30 0.09 0.71 0.29 0.65 0.99 0.82 0.22
Avoid v/s will not avoid 0.32 0.02 0.17 0.02 0.17 0.40 0.09 0.59 0.30 0.19
Painting (outdoor)
Ever done v/s Never done 0.00 0.30 0.02 0.91 0.00 0.04 0.82 0.10 0.11 0.58
Avoid v/s will not avoid 0.00 0.89 0.05 0.51 0.00 0.02 0.60 0.00 0.01 0.54
Carpentry
Ever done v/s Never done 0.00 0.17 0.44 0.66 0.01 0.34 0.03 0.54 0.41 0.22
Avoid v/s will not avoid 0.00 0.39 0.56 0.36 0.03 0.51 0.08 0.97 0.27 0.17
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research
345
346 A. Gurtoo et al.

choice; b) painting DIY shows higher inclination with engineering graduates and
post-graduates. Engineering degree exposes the person to all the DIY activities
listed, except painting. Hence other than painting none contain epistemic or
emotional value for an engineering graduate; c) for painting and carpentry, both
time-consuming activities, the nature of job pursued gains important. Painting gets
preference from people with flexible work hours (running their own business) and
carpentry gets preference from people with predefined work hours (in service or job).
Table 5 reports the chi-square values.

Conclusions
The findings of this study of DIY in India displayed marked variations in the
motivations of a DIYer. Reasons for DIY varied from personal pleasure, to seeking
self-identity from the end-product, to forced DIY due to problems with finding and
using trades people. There were also significant reluctant DIYers across different
population groups. Results also reflected cultural connotations to the respondent
perceptions. In bigger cities and amongst younger age groups, people were markedly
more likely to be willing DIYers, while the likelihood of somebody being a reluctant
DIYer increased in smaller towns where the high context culture is more prevalent
and the lifestyle is conservative, with strict observance of the social hierarchies and
roles. These results, nevertheless, highlight the heterogeneity of consumers’ motives.
The multiplicity of reasons for conducting DIY, as found in this study, does not
lend themselves to an easy interpretation from either of the existing theories. Until
now, participation in DIY has been explained either by drawing upon broader
theories of consumption, namely rational utility maximisation, structuralist and
post-modern models, or by using a structure/agency classificatory schema of
consumers’ motives that differentiates between economic necessity and/or choice (see
Williams 2004).
To evaluate which, if any, of these theories apply as reasons for participation in
DIY and to develop more grounded theory, a study has been reported here, which
comprised face-to-face interviews with 500 households in India. The finding has been
that no one theorisation of DIY consumers’ motives is universally relevant but all
theories are sometimes valid. As such, a new typology of DIY consumers’ motives
has been inductively generated which is theoretically integrative. Here, a marked
difference has been identified between ‘willing’ DIYers who choose to do DIY either
to improve the value of their home (reflecting the rational utility maximisation
model), for pleasure (the choice model) or to seek self-identity from the end-product
(post-modern theory), and ‘reluctant’ DIYers forced into DIY for economic reasons
(economic determinism model) or due to problems with finding and using trades
people (a market failure model).
This typology therefore recognises that none of the theories so far propagated
explain all DIY activity. Just one in three instances of DIY, for instance, were found
to be conducted out of economic necessity, one in seven for reasons that might be
related to DIYers making rational economic calculations as purported by neo-
classical theorisations of consumption, and one in eight for reasons associated with
manipulating commodities for reasons associated with constructing self-identity as
argued by post-modern approaches. Few if any consumers, however, and perhaps
unsurprisingly, viewed themselves as dupes. Consumers did, nevertheless, assert in
one in five cases that DIY was undertaken due to the lack of access to, or reliability
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 347

of, trades people, which is an explanation that has been so far seldom discussed in
the academic literature. The overall implication, therefore, is that participation in
DIY cannot be explained using just one of these theories. Instead, and if a fuller and
more comprehensive explanation is to be achieved, there needs to be a move beyond
using one theory and treating the others as rival competing theories, and towards
using them all in order to understand the diverse reasons for participating in DIY.
Future research will need to further unpack which motives apply to which
populations. More widely, however, future research could also evaluate the wider
applicability and usefulness of this taxonomy of consumers’ motives and analyse
whether this differentiation between reluctant and willing consumers is more widely
applicable to other realms of consumer behaviour, consumption and retailing
beyond the DIY sector. If this article encourages others to evaluate the wider validity
and applicability of this typology of the heterogeneity of consumers’ motives, and to
move beyond making universal generalisations about their rationales, then it will
have achieved its objective.
However, design issues present one of the main limitations of this study. The
study tests causal relationship only with people who had tried DIY at least once.
Hence the results are more applied for the post-buying consumer evaluation process.
Due to sample constraints gender bias in buying behaviour could not be measured
and analysed. As the study is exploratory, limited marketing and service-oriented
questions are explored. The current research is limited to two aspects of DIY,
namely, potential profile and consumer choice behaviour. Future work on DIY in
developing countries should measure gender equations. Moreover, it should explore
development and servicing of the DIY market in more detail. In particular,
exploration of the relationship between price, non-economic value and culture offers
fruitful avenues of future research.

Note
1. The authors appear in alphabetical order. All authors have contributed equally to the
article.

References
Abelson, E. 1989. When ladies go thieving: Middle class shoplifters in the Victorian department
store. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arnott, R., R. Davidson, and D. Pines. 1983. Housing quality, maintenance and
rehabilitation. Review of Economic Studies 50: 467–94.
Ashby, K., J. Ozanne-Smith, and B. Fox. 2007. Investigating the over-representation of older
persons in do-it-yourself home maintenance injury and barriers to prevention. Injury
Prevention 13: 328–33.
Baker, K., and B. Kaul. 2002. Using multi-period variables in the analysis of home
improvement decisions by home owners. Real Estate Economics 30, no. 4: 551–6.
Benson, S. 1986. Counter cultures: Saleswoman, managers and customers in American
department stores. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Bogdon, A.S. 1996. Homeowner renovation and repair: The decision to hire someone else to
do the project. Journal of Housing Economics 5, no. 4: 323–50.
Broderson, S. 2003. Do-it-yourself work in north-western Europe: Maintenance and improve-
ment of homes. Copenhagen: Rockwool Foundation.
Buck-Morss, S. 1989. The dialectics of seeing: Walter Benjamin and the arcades project.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Campbell, C. 2005. The craft consumer: Culture, craft and consumption in a pastmodern
society. Journal of Consumer Culture 5, no. 1: 23–42.
348 A. Gurtoo et al.

Clark, A. 2001. The aesthetics of social aspiration. In Home possessions, ed. D. Miller, 23–45.
Oxford: Berg.
Crewe, L. 2000. Geographies of retailing and consumption. Progress in Human Geography 24:
275–90.
Davidson, M., and P. Leather. 2000. Choice or necessity? A review of the role of DIY in
tackling housing repair and maintenance. Construction Management and Economics 18:
747–56.
Davidson, M., J. Redshaw, and A. Mooney. 1997. The role of DIY in maintaining owner
occupied stock. Housing Research Findings July: 220. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Dowling, A. 1993. Femininity, place and commodities: A retail case study. Antipode 25: 295–
319.
Euromonitor. 2007. DIY and gardening in India. Chicago, IL: Euromonitor International.
Euromonitor. 2008. DIY and gardening in Brazi. Chicago, IL: Euromonitor International.
Foster, C. 2004. Gendered retailing: A study of customer perceptions of front line staff in
the DIY sector. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 32, no. 9:
442–7.
Gardner, K., and F. Osella. 2003. Migration, modernity and social transformation in South
Asia. New Delhi: Sage.
Gudykunst, B., and Y.Y. Kim. 1997. Communicating with strangers: An approach to
intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Leather, P., M. Littlewood, and M. Munro M. 1998. Make do and mend: Explaining home-
owners approaches to repair and maintenance. Bristol: Policy Press.
Littlewood, A., and M. Munro. 1996. Explaining disprepair: Examining owner occupiers’
repair and maintenance behaviour. Housing Studies 11, no. 4: 503–25.
McCracken, G. 1998. Culture and consumption. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Mendelsohn, R. 1977. Empirical evidence on home improvements. Journal of Urban
Economics 4: 459–68.
Mintel. 2002. The DIY consumer. London: Mintel.
Mintel. 2005. DIY review 2005. London: Mintel.
Mintel. 2006. DIY Review 2005. London: Mintel.
Munro, M., and P. Leather. 2000. Nest-building or investing in the future? Owner-occupiers’
home improvement behaviour. Policy and Politics 28, no. 4: 511–26.
Naohiro, T., and O. Naoaki. 2004. A study of housing management by DIY of detached
houses residents. Memoirs of the Hokkaido Institute of Technology 32: 41–5.
Pollakowski, H.O. 1988. The determinants of residential renovation and repair activity. Final
Report prepared for the office of policy development and research: US Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
Reade, J. 2001. Remodelling spending in major metropolitan areas. Joint Centre for Housing
Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Samovar, L.A., and R.E. Porter. 2004. Communication between cultures. Belmont, CA:
Thompson and Wadsworth.
Sheth, J.N., B.I. Newman, and B.L. Gross. 1991. Why we buy what we buy: A theory of
consumption values. Journal of Business Research 22: 159–70.
Slater, D. 1997. Consumer culture and modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Smiley, R.H. 1979. The levels and determinants of household insulation activity. Energy 4:
1087–98.
Swartzlandser, A., and J. Bowers. 2007. Relationships between consumer characteristics and
do-it-yourself behaviour (do-it-yourself activity). International Journal of Consumer
Studies 13, no. 1: 39–51.
Watson, M., and E. Shove. 2005. Doing it yourself: Products, competence and the meaning
in the practices of DIY. Paper presented at the European Sociological Association
Conference: Torun-Poland.
Williams, C.C. 2004. A lifestyle choice? Evaluating the motives of do – it – yourself
(DIY) consumers. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 32, no. 5:
270–8.
 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 349

Williams, C.C. 2008. Re-thinking the motives of do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 18: 311–23.
Williamson, J. 1992. I-less and gaga in the West Edmonton mall. In The anatomy of gender, ed.
D. Currie and V. Raoul, 23–41. Ottawa, ON: Carleton University Press.
Willis, P. 1991. Common culture. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Wolff, J. 1985. The invisible flaneuse: Women in the literature of modernity. Theory, Culture
and Society 2: 37–46.
Woodward, I. 2003. Divergent narratives in the imagining of the home amongst middle-class
consumers; aesthetics, comfort and the symbolic boundaries of self and home. Sociology
39, no. 4: 391–412.
350 A. Gurtoo et al.

Annex 1. Results for demographic variables (N ¼ 500).

 The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 351

Annex 1. (Continued).

View publication stats