JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT

2019, VOL. 35, NOS. 15–16, 1437–1459

https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1665087

The need for services and technologies in physical fast

fashion stores: Generation Y’s opinion
Alexandra Rese, Tobias Schlee and Daniel Baier
Faculty of Law, Business and Economics, Chair of Marketing & Innovation, University of Bayreuth,
Bayreuth, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study answers the question of in which services and technolo- Received 1 March 2019
gies should fast fashion retailers with physical stores invest. Fifteen Accepted 31 July 2019
improvement options were identified through a literature review, KEYWORDS
corporate practice and expert interviews. Then, a sample of 255 Fast fashion retailing;
members of Generation Y evaluated and classified these options as Generation Y; Kano’s
attractive, indifferent, must-be, one-dimensional, or reverse accord- approach; segmented Kano
ing to Kano’s approach using the segmented Kano perspective. perspective; service and
Results show that Generation Y generally values service improve- technology in physical stores
ments (e.g. with respect to salesperson friendliness and competence)
higher than technology improvements. However, this evaluation
differs among customer segments: whereas quality-conscious fast
fashion shoppers are mainly indifferent to technology improvements,
other customer segments rate ‘3D Bodyscan’, ‘Barcode App’,
‘Click&Collect’, ‘iDressroom’, ‘iTerminal’, ‘Loc Aware App’, or ‘Self-
Checkout’ as highly attractive.

Introduction
Today, the differences in the quality of products in most markets diminish because of
globalisation, thus making it increasingly difficult for companies to differentiate them-
selves from competitors (Fletcher, 2010). This situation also holds for the fast fashion
business model, which combines short production and distribution with the latest
fashion trends and is employed by firms such as Benetton, H&M, Peacocks, Primark,
Topshop and Zara (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood, 2006, 2010; Cachon & Swinney, 2011;
Sheridan, Moore, & Nobbs, 2006; Sull & Turconi, 2008). Globalisation is one of the drivers
of fast fashion because it lowers the production cost (Mihm, 2010) and enables the
offering of ‘trendy, fashionable products that are universally affordable and continually
changing’ (Gabrielli, Baghi, & Codeluppi, 2013, p. 206.). The concept has been propa-
gated and implemented in a short time, for example, ‘by virtually all the key own-label
retailers in the UK fashion market’ (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood, 2010, p. 760). In addition,
there is competition from strong online-only retailers with increasing online shopping
market shares (Nash, 2019). Therefore, fast fashion companies will increasingly have to
respond to the expectations and needs of customers to differentiate themselves from
other fast fashion market players (Arrigo, 2016, 2018; Barnes & Lea-Greenwood, 2006).

CONTACT Alexandra Rese alexandra.rese@uni-bayreuth.de Universitätsstraße 30, Bareuth 95447, Germany

© 2019 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
1438 A. RESE ET AL.

This not only applies to the products offered in the store and to the knowledge of
market trends regarding new fast fashion products but also to customer experience. An
effective way to attain brand differentiation is to offer customers supplementary value-
adding service and technology to the tangible fast fashion products (Anderson & Narus,
1995; Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004).
Enabling customers to experience products by combining technology and services
can help to target customers of a digital society. Physical stores will still play a key role in
retailing (Berman, 2019; Reinartz, Wiegand, & Imschloss, 2019), as physical stores offer
‘unique sensory shopping experiences’ (von Briel, 2018, p. 217), comprehensive styling
advice and direct availability (Berman, 2019). At the same time, omnichannel retailing is
becoming more and more important (Berman, 2019; Reinartz et al., 2019; Verhoef,
Kannan, & Inman, 2015), as it combines physical stores and online channels to offer
‘consistent and seamless shopping journeys among [. . .] channels’ (Huré, Picot-Coupey, &
Ackermann, 2017, p. 314). A potential strategy for fast fashion retailers is to heavily
invest in service and technology improvements in the store to stand out from other
market players and to build long-term customer loyalty.
However, digitalisation and advances in smart technologies represent challenges (Inman
& Nikolova, 2017; Kannan & Li, 2017; Willems, Smolders, Brengman, Luyten, & Schoning,
2017), and their effective usage can decide on success or failure (Mani & Chouk, 2017; Roy,
Balaji, Quazi, & Quaddus, 2018). The choice of which services and technologies to implement
and the wants and needs of customers have become decisive. This study considers custo-
mers’ viewpoint (Blázquez, 2014) and compares service and technology improvement
options in physical stores. Kano’s approach (Kano, Seraku, Takahashi, & Tsuji, 1984) is
employed. This research method allows for identifying options with a high customer
satisfaction and prioritising their implementation also against other reasons such as finan-
cial resources (Matzler, Hinterhuber, Bailom, & Sauerwein, 1996). Since customers vary in
how they use technology or need human services (Batt, 2000; Walker, Craig-Lees, Hecker, &
Francis, 2002) a customer segmentation is used for better understanding the choice of
services and technologies.
Generation Y (1980–2001) as customers is in focus, as its members will represent the
majority of consumers by 2020, thus making them predestined to provide direction for
future trends in retailing (Tilford, 2018). Generation Y consists of individuals who grew up in
the digital age and ‘are seen as digital natives’ (Bento, Martinez, & Martinez, 2018, p. 234).
When investigating these customers in the fast fashion setting, Colucci and Scarpi (2013)
concluded that the behaviour of this age cohort had been rarely studied. As they found
similarities between Generation X and Y, they proposed to capture heterogeneity among
the Generation Y. Customer segments can support the better customisation of technologies
in stores (Morisada, Miwa, & Dahana, 2019). For example, Burke (2002) identified different
preferences for in-store technologies regarding age (i.e. people under 25 years, people
25–35 years) and gender. As Generation Y consists of people aged 18–38 years, differences
can be expected. For this generation research had already identified differences in values
and cause-related behaviours (Cui, Trent, Sullivan, & Matiru, 2003; Hyllegard, Yan, Ogle, &
Attmann, 2010; Valentine & Powers, 2013).
A segmentation of Generation Y’s needs and expectations regarding in-store technolo-
gies can provide additional insights into the preferences of early adopters and the early
majority for new technologies (Laukkanen & Pasanen, 2008) as well as hints to speed of
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1439

adoption. Therefore, customer segmentation was developed to distinguish the members of

Generation Y based on their evaluation on the availability of services and technologies in
physical fast fashion stores. The segmented Kano perspective (Baier, Rese, & Röglinger,
2018) is used as a methodological approach for this purpose. This study has the following
objectives: (1) Categorising services and technologies in physical fast fashion stores based
on the evaluations by members of Generation Y, (2) establishing a customer segmentation
of Generation Y based on these evaluations and (3) identifying the differences among
customer segments according to technology usage and shopping orientation.
The following important contributions to the literature on fast fashion, Generation
Y and services and technologies for physical stores are made: (1) Key services and
technologies for physical fast fashion stores are identified. (2) The segmented Kano
perspective maps the current need for services and technologies from the perspective of
three distinct Generation Y customer segments and contributes so to the segmentation
literature. (3) Insights into the early adoption and scheduling of the implementation of
services and technologies in physical fast fashion stores are provided.
The first part of the paper includes a short literature overview on customer in-store
experience and expectations, followed by a discussion on 15 services and technologies
that may be interesting for fast fashion retailers. Then, Kano’s approach and the
segmented Kano perspective, which are used as research methods, are presented.
Evaluations of the 15 services and technologies are collected from a sample of 225
German Generation Y members along with additional information on their shopping
perceptions and expectations. The practical implications for fast fashion retailers and the
research implications and challenges are also discussed.

Literature review
Challenges in fast fashion
The fast fashion industry is highly competitive and characterised by ‘short life cycle
products, volatile demand, and unpredictability, and high level of impulse purchase’
(Arrigo, 2018, p. 1). In 2008, Sull and Turconi (2008, p. 6) introduced a definition of fast
fashion: ‘the retail strategy of adapting merchandise assortments to current and emer-
ging trends as quickly and effectively as possible’. Cachon and Swinney (2011, p. 778)
highlighted the two constituent elements, namely, ‘quick response techniques’ in terms
of production and distribution and ‘enhanced design techniques’ with regard to the
fashion product. Supply chain management is important, as the current trends and
designs from the catwalk are expected to be brought to the market in the shortest
possible time (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood, 2006; Zhenxiang & Lijie, 2011). In recent years,
the product life cycle in the fashion industry has been shortened to one month or even
less (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood, 2010). At the same time, the production costs are kept as
low as possible to be able to offer highly fashionable products at an affordable price for
a broad target audience (Zhenxiang & Lijie, 2011, p. 195). With the emergence of fast
market processes, traditional managerial and marketing approaches as well as business
models have become outdated (Amendola, Calabrese, & Caputo, 2018). In addition,
marketing concepts for fast fashion concentrating on customer experience have ‘not
been explored in any detail’ (Barnes & Lea-Greenwood, 2010, p. 769). However, they are
1440 A. RESE ET AL.

also important because customers get to decide on whether to shop in the physical
store or in the online shop or whether or not to purchase a product.
Research has shown that the attractiveness of fast fashion varies between generations.
Generation Y prefers to purchase fast fashion in greater numbers (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010;
Colucci & Scarpi, 2013) than the baby boomers or Generation X, which usually prefers high-
quality fashion. This condition also holds true for their comfort with technology and virtual
problem solving (Armour, 2005; Bush, Martin, & Bush, 2004). Members of Generation Y are
open to new products and trends (Wolburg & Pokrywczynski, 2001) but at the same time
susceptible to emotional value (Bush et al., 2004; Kumar & Lim, 2008), which can be influenced
by the store environment (Xu, 2007). Colucci and Scarpi (2013, p. 6) discovered the challenges
targeting Generation Y within the fast fashion context. Aside from intergenerational differ-
ences, heterogeneity within generations should also be taken into account. By delving into the
research on Generation Y values and behaviours, gender differences in terms of the concern
for social causes and purchase intentions towards an apparel brand in the context of cause-
related marketing can be established (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2003; Cui et al., 2003; Hyllegard
et al., 2010). Valentine and Powers (2013) identified three lifestyle segments of Generation Y,
varying media usage behaviour and several gender differences in attitudes, beliefs and
behaviours related to marketing. They found that companies ‘could benefit from segmenting
the Generation Y market into meaningful subsets (Valentine & Powers, 2013, p. 602). Following
this recommendation, the current study takes a segmentation perspective on Generation
Y opinions based on the attitudes towards services and technologies in the store (Klena &
Puleri, 2014) and also on store perceptions (Brown, Pope, & Voges, 2003; Collins-Dodd &
Lindley, 2003; Kau, Tang, & Ghose, 2003).

Customer experience in physical stores

Despite the dwindling physical store shopping, it remains important as online retail has
some limits (e.g. in Germany), thus indicating ‘that online customers are not at all lost to
stationary retail’ (Schamel, 2018, p. 7). However, investigating age groups from 20s to
60s in the United Kingdom, Boardman and McCormick (2018, p. 274) found that ‘online
(mcommerce or ecommerce) are the preferred shopping channels for the 20–59s, with
only the 60+ preferring to shop via the physical store’. They recommend that physical
stores should ‘provide value in other ways that are unique to this channel, such as the
environment, added experiences, fitting rooms, and sales assistants’ (Boardman &
McCormick, 2018, p. 278).
According to Kent (2007, p. 734), the ‘value creation process [. . .] has moved from a product
focus to individualised experience’ for retailers. Customer experiences are ‘customers’ sub-
jective thoughts’ (Meyer & Schwager, 2007, p. 5). Gupta and Vajic (2000, p. 34) defined
customer experience as ‘any sensation or knowledge acquisition resulting from some level
of interaction with different elements of a context created by the service provider’.
For fast fashion retailers, Blázquez (2014, p. 98) described the store as an important
touchpoint, with ‘consumers’ making regular visits to the store to see what new items
have arrived’. Similarly, with regard to apparel, consumers can make better buying
decisions because of the possibility to ‘need to touch, feel and try on products’
(Grewal, Iyer, & Levy, 2004, p. 704) and to have the purchase instantly available. Aside
from a diagnostic investigation, Arora, Singha, and Sahney (2017, p. 424) found that the
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1441

‘helpfulness of the sales staff’ supports the buying decision of new clothes. In particular,
personalised styling, combined ideas, inspirations and new trends provided by sales-
persons positively influence purchase decision (Blázquez, Boardman, & Xu, 2019).
Competent service proved to be the most important factor, followed by ‘atmospheric
cues and design features’ (Blázquez et al., 2019, p. 110). In addition, the stationary store
is visited for social interaction (Boardman & McCormick, 2018), for example, with sales-
persons, family, friends and even strangers. Interacting with others was subsumed
together with ‘sights, sounds and smells’ as an in-store shopping experience by
Grewal et al. (2004, p. 708). Therefore, competent and friendly salespersons are an
important in-store service asset.
However, shopping in the store is also considered time consuming and one of the
reasons why people in their 30s prefer online shopping (Boardman & McCormick, 2018).
Therefore, Generation Y customers are expected to perceive interaction with sales
persons as not necessary (Sullivan & Hyun, 2016). Moreover, lack of sociability (e.g.
being shy or embarrassed) leads to avoiding interaction with others when shopping
(Boardman & McCormick, 2018; Martínez-López, Pla-García, Gázquez-Abad, & Rodríguez-
Ardura, 2014; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2001).
Going beyond the physical store as a face-to-face touchpoint with access to human
service, Pantano and Viassone (2015, p. 107) emphasised the provision of interactive
touchpoints ‘to create and accomplish the service’. Technology is considered to improve
the in-store customer experience and ‘to make the store more fun, easier for shoppers’
(Rosenblum & Rowen, 2017, p. 6). In addition, the shopping environment becomes more
attractive and engaging for customers (Blázquez, 2014). From a conceptual point of
view, Blázquez (2014) considered technology in the store under the so-called ambient
cues, which describe the store atmospherics. With social and design cues, the concept
includes two other factors (Puccinelli et al., 2009). Technology can support the transfor-
mation of stationary retail to an omnichannel environment that provides a seamless
experience between offline and online channels (Blázquez, 2014; Hübner, Wollenburg, &
Holzapfel, 2016). However, Blázquez (2014, p. 99) emphasised that the technology
employed in the store is ‘relevant for consumers and really provides value for them’.

Services and technologies in physical fast fashion stores

With regard to the implementation of technological innovations in physical stores, fast
fashion retailers such as Zara and Kohl’s have already been described as pioneers
offering a seamless shopping journey in the store (Colombi, Kim, & Wyatt, 2018).
Currently, self-service concepts and innovative payment solutions that enable a cashier-
free shopping experience are gaining importance in offering a service that requires no
help from a salesperson (e.g. automated checkouts) (Bulmer, Elms, & Moore, 2018). In
the literature, several in-store technologies in retail are mentioned that have to be
adopted to provide customers with the best of both the offline and online worlds
(Betzing, Hoang, & Becker, 2018). Examples of these technologies are store-ordering
hubs, iPads and display screens, click-and-collect services, interactive fitting rooms,
virtual mirrors and self-service technologies equipped with RFID technology (e.g. self-
cash desks, barcode shopping apps and 3Dbody scanning technology) (Amendola et al.,
2018; Blázquez, 2014; Colombi et al., 2018; Pantano & Timmermans, 2014). Betzing et al.
1442 A. RESE ET AL.

(2018, p. 2) highlighted the service improvements by in-store technologies, which they

defined ‘as bundles of hard- and software that change or enhance the interface between
retailers and customers within the physical retail setting’.
Previous studies, marketing research reports, technological forecasts and customer
studies were analysed with regard to innovative (new) and relevant services and tech-
nologies in physical stores, including traditional services such as competent salesper-
sons. The findings were discussed with experts from a management consultancy
specialising in digital retailing in November and December 2017. Altogether, 15 services
and technologies were selected (Table 1). Technology-based solutions can be divided
into those concerning in-store smartphone usage, payment and smart retail technology.
Smart retail technology was defined by Roy et al. (2018, p. 147) as ‘an interactive retail
system which delivers retail services to customers through a network of smart or
intelligent objects and devices. These connected devices can sense the surroundings
and engage in real-time data collection, communication, interaction, and feedback’.

Research method
Categorising services and technologies through Kano’s approach
Kano’s approach (Kano et al., 1984) is a well-known product design model (Matzler et al.,
1996). The main assumption is that customers’ overall satisfaction (low to high) with
a product under study is related to the performance (low to high or absent to existent) of
specific product features (i.e. attributes, elements or components) and that the form of this
relation (e.g. convex, constant, concave or linear) can be used to categorise the features (e.g.
attractive, indifferent, must-be or one-dimensional) (Nilsson-Witell & Fundin, 2005, p. 157). In
our research, the product under study is shopping in physical fast fashion stores, and the
specific product features are the offered (or not offered) services and technologies. The
following is a definition of Kano categories by Wu & Wang, 2012, p. 536) that is similarly
formulated to those found in the literature (e.g. Matzler et al., 1996; Nilsson-Witell & Fundin,
2005). In this definition, abbreviations are used (e.g. CS stands for customer satisfaction), and
attributes are replaced with features. ‘(1) “Must-be” features (“M”): [. . .] are taken for granted
by customers. Their presence does not create customer satisfaction, but their absence or
poor performance will result in high levels of customer dissatisfaction. (2) “Attractive”
features (“A”): [. . .] are not expected by customers. Their presence will create high levels of
CS while their absence will not result in customer dissatisfaction. (3) “One-dimensional”
features (“O”): CS is positively proportional to the fulfilment level of these features: the
higher the level of fulfilment, the higher the CS and vice versa. (4) “Indifferent” features (“I”):
customers do not care about these [. . .], therefore their presence or absence will not affect
the customers’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction levels. (5) ‘Reverse’ features (‘R’): their presence
cause customer dissatisfaction, but their absence result in CS’. In the data collection using
Kano’s approach, a pair of questions is used for each feature. The first question is posed to
capture customer satisfaction if the feature is offered (functional question). The second
question does the same for the feature being not offered (dysfunctional question). Five
different answers are possible: ‘I dislike it that way’, ‘I can live with it that way’, ‘I am neutral’,
‘It must be that way’ and ‘I like it that way’ (Matzler et al., 1996; Nilsson-Witell & Fundin,
2005). To emphasise the positive categories (‘A’, ‘O’ and ‘M’), Berger et al. (1993) introduced
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1443

Table 1. Services and technologies for physical fast fashion stores.

Abbreviation Detailed description References
Competent The store has competent SPs. Traditional physical store
SPs services
Friendly SPsThe store has friendly SPs.
Cash Refund Products can be exchanged for cash instead of vouchers.
Free WiFi The store offers free WiFi.
Free ChargerThe store has free charging stations for smartphones.
Click&Collect
The click-and-collect service combines online and offline channels. Lockie (2014)
The customer searches online for a product and orders it. This item
is shipped to the nearest store to be collected by the customer. In
the store, the customer can try on the item before purchase. If it is
not pleasing or does not fit, the item can be returned.
iTerminal A computer terminal is equipped with a touchscreen that delivers Runyan, Kim, and Baker (2012)
information on the complete product range, including stocks, to
customers unassisted by salespersons.
iStorefront Interactive storefronts offer information about the current products Adidas (2012); Pantano (2016)
even outside of opening hours. Customers can interact with
a touchscreen on the shop window to obtain product details or
examine products on a life-sized digital model. A shopping cart is
available on the shop window that can be accessed via
a smartphone to order the desired item.
iDressroom A touchscreen integrated into the mirror enables one to order an Wolpert and Roth (2016)
item in the desired size directly from the SP from the dressing
room. By scanning a barcode, further information on the fabric and
care, as well as outfit suggestions, can be provided. The customer
can directly pay for the item in the dressing room.
3D Bodyscan 3D body scanners help to find the correct size, as there are variations D’Apuzzo and Gruen (2009);
in the size categories among brands or product lines. Relevant Kinley (2003)
body measures are extracted. An avatar, which can be saved for
future use, closely representing the shape of the scanned person is
generated. The avatar can be dressed with visual representations
of the garments. A 360° visualisation enables one to check the
accurate fit of each size.
Mobile Pay Mobile payment enables one to buy products using mobile devices, Taylor (2016)
such as smartphones, by holding them close to a payment
terminal. Prepaid funds from bank accounts or mobile service
solutions from providers, such as Google, Apple, Samsung, or
PayPal, can be used.
SP Pay Customers pay for the items using the tablet of a SP instead of Aloysius et al. (2016)
a cashier-staffed checkout.
Self- Self-service checkout enables one to scan and pay for the items at Aloysius et al. (2016); Wolpert
Checkout a fixed self-scan terminal without having to rely on the assistance and Roth (2016)
of an SP. An SP can be assigned to support the checkout of
customers if necessary.
Barecode Customers can use their smartphones in the shop to scan the Grewal et al. (2017); Perry,
App barcode of an item and get more information, such as fabric, Kent, and Bonetti (2019)
availability and combination with other clothes. If the desired item
is not available, it can be ordered through the app.
Loc-Aware Customers automatically receive notifications of current offers and Kang, Mun, and Johnson
App discounts when in the vicinity of the store via a location-aware (2015)
app.
SP = Salesperson, App = Application.

an asymmetric metric scale: −2 (‘I dislike it that way’), −1 (‘I can live with it that way’), 0 (‘I am
neutral’), 2 (‘It must be that way’) and 4 (‘I like it that way’) for the functional question and −2
(‘I like it that way’), −1 (‘It must be that way’), 0 (‘I am neutral’), 2 (‘I can live with it that way’)
and 4 (‘I dislike it that way’) for the dysfunctional question. An evaluation table presents the
corresponding category of the feature, which is then aggregated over all the respondents or
among the segments. The category of the feature is established by choosing the most
1444 A. RESE ET AL.

frequent one out of the overall distribution of the categories (Matzler et al., 1996).
Alternatively, averaging the asymmetric scales (described above) also enables the derivation
of the overall aggregation or segment-specific aggregation (Berger et al., 1993).

Segmented Kano perspective

A clustering approach called the segmented Kano perspective has been recently introduced
(see, e.g. Baier et al., 2018, for more details and the formulas). Based on a two-mode cluster
analysis of the respondents’ answers to the functional and dysfunctional questions, the
respondents and features were clustered simultaneously using the alternating least squares
method. As a starting point, a random solution was taken for the respondent clusters (matrix
P), feature clusters (matrix Q) and averaged values of the features with respect to the
functional and dysfunctional questions (matrix W). The algorithm iteratively improved the
solution by alternating between these three matrices. The variance accounted for (VAF)
criterion and the elbow criterion were used to establish the optimal number of clusters for
the respondents and features, respectively. The procedure was implemented in R and
showed advantages over the traditional Kano’s approach, as the heterogeneity of the
respondents’ evaluations of the features was taken into account.

Empirical investigation
Questionnaire and sample
To answer the research questions, young German fast fashion customers were asked to
evaluate services and technologies in physical fast fashion stores through a Kano-based
online questionnaire distributed in fashion online blogs. This step was conducted with the
support of a German management consultancy specialising in digital retailing in early 2018.
The survey instrument (a Qualtrics questionnaire) started with two filtering questions:
whether the respondent is between 18 and 37 years old (part of Generation Y) and
whether he/she is a customer of the fast fashion industry (described by a list of retailers)
having purchased there in the last six months. Then, the respondent was asked to
specify his/her age, sex and how often he/she shops in the fast fashion industry on
a monthly basis. In addition, he/she was asked to rate the importance of the following
six criteria in general when shopping in the fast fashion industry: value for money (e.g.
reasonable price relative to the quality of the article), service (e.g. purchase advice,
payment options, free item exchange and other free services), quality of items (work-
manship, fabric, sustainability, life span of clothes, etc.), location of the shop (downtown
and near other shops), store design (pleasant ambience and architecture) and store size
(convenient size of the store).
In the main part of the survey based on Kano’s approach, the previously described
question techniques and response scales were implemented. For performance measure-
ment the presence or absence of a service or technology was used. The 15 services and
technologies (Table 1) were presented using detailed explanations and sample photos
to illustrate them. Then, the functional and dysfunctional questions were posed. The
responses were asymmetrically scaled with values of −2, −1, 0 . . ., 4, as previously noted
to make averaging across the (sub)samples meaningful.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1445

At the end of the survey, a simple question was asked about service. This last
question consisted of three items rated on a five-point Likert scale, and it determined
the overall importance of service (1 = ‘not important/fully disagree’ to 5 = ‘very impor-
tant/fully agree’): whether a good/bad service will be remembered, whether the perso-
nal treatment of the salespersons can influence the decision to return to the shop, and
whether a good service can be crucial for a positive purchase decision. The answers can
be used to make direct statements about the importance of the service. The results of
the Kano method should also be confirmed by evaluating these items.
A total of 322 online questionnaires were started. However, 37 questionnaires had to
be excluded from the evaluation because they were not completely filled out. Moreover,
60 questionnaires were prematurely ended because the respondents answered at least
one of the two filter questions with ‘no’, and thus they did not belong to Generation
Y and/or were not current customers of the fast fashion industry. In total, 225 fully
completed questionnaires remained for the data analysis. The sample consisted of 65%
female and 35% male customers, with about half of them in the age range of 18–26
(54.7%) and the other half in the age range of 27–37 (45.3%). This distribution resembles
that of the fast fashion shoppers in Germany’s Generation Y. On average, the respon-
dents shopped at a fast fashion retailer at least once a month, with a higher number for
a quarter of the sample (‘2–3 times’: 24.4%; ‘4–5 times’: 1.8%). ‘Value for money’ and
‘quality of items’ were the most important store perceptions (Collins-Dodd & Lindley,
2003) of fast fashion retailers for the entire sample (Table 2). ANOVA showed significant
differences across the criteria at the 0.01 level, and the post-hoc paired comparisons
with the Bonferroni adjustment separated ‘value for money’ and ‘quality of items’ from
the others (α = 0.01).
The overall importance of service agreement was high for a good/bad service to be
remembered (mean: 4.67; std.: 0.675) and for a good service to be crucial for a positive
purchase decision (mean: 4.55; std.: 0.743). The approval was lower for the personal
treatment by the salespersons being influential in the decision to return to the shop
(mean: 3.99; std.: 1.024). This result again confirms that the interaction with salespersons
is not that important for Generation Y to some extent.

Results
According to the responses to the functional and dysfunctional questions for each
respondent, the 15 services and technologies in physical stores were categorised as

Table 2. Mean importance of the fast fashion store

perceptions.
Criteria Mean importance (std. dev.)
Value for Money 4.516 (0.648)
Quality of Items 4.289 (0.768)
Location of the Shop 3.733 (1.126)
Service 3.587 (1.123)
Store Design 3.427 (0.998)
Store Size 3.422 (0.956)
5-point scale from 1 = ‘not important’ to 5 = ‘very important’;
n = 225.
1446 A. RESE ET AL.

being attractive for him/her (‘A’), one-dimensional (‘O’), must-be (‘M’), indifferent (‘I’),
reverse (‘R’) and questionable (‘Q’) (Table 3). For each service or technology, the category
with the highest number of respondents was used as the (aggregated) category.
In particular, the services and technologies that were not yet widespread in the fast
fashion industry (e.g. ‘Self-Checkout’, ‘iTerminal’ and ‘Mobile Pay’, were classified as
attractive or indifferent. From an aggregate perspective, Generation Y did not expect
these new and relatively unknown services and technologies but was enthusiastic about
some of them. By contrast, the need for high-level traditional personal services [e.g.
‘Friendly SPs’ (SP = salesperson), ‘Competent SPs’ and ‘Cash Refund’] was much higher.
These services were categorised as must-be or one-dimensional features.
However, the categorisation of nearly all the features largely varied across the
respondents. For example, 106 respondents categorised ‘iTerminal’ as attractive and
104 respondents considered them as indifferent. To capture this heterogeneity, the
functional and dysfunctional responses to the 15 in-store services and technologies
were analysed using the standard unsegmented approach and the segmented Kano
perspective with different numbers of first-mode clusters (respondents) K and second-
mode clusters (features) L. The elbow criterion with respect to the VAF values was used
to decide on the suitable K and L values. A three-customer segment solution (K = 3) was
favoured if the features were not allowed to cluster (L = 15, Q equals the unity matrix):
the VAF values for K = 1, . . ., 10 customer segments (all with L = 15 feature clusters) were
VAF = 0.2165, 0.3253, 0.3640, 0.3918, 0.4116, 0.4269, 0.4409, 0.4573, 0.4685 and 0.4743.
Starting with K = 10, an initial large VAF reduction occurs when transferring the three-
customer segment solution to a two-customer segment solution. Aside from the one-
customer segment solution (K = 1, the Kano model), the three-customer segment
solution (K = 3 with L = 15, segmented Kano perspective without clustering the features)
was also selected.
The results from the unsegmented Kano perspective (one-customer segment, see
Figure 1) confirmed, to some extent, the results in Table 3 and showed that the
respondents rated the services and technologies in the physical fast fashion stores

Table 3. Categorisation of the services and technologies in physical stores.

Services and technologies #A #O #M #I #R #Q Aggregated Category
Click&Collect 123 4 3 94 1 0 Attractive
3D Bodyscan 121 10 0 71 23 0 Attractive
iDressroom 115 10 1 69 29 1 Attractive
Self-Checkout 109 12 1 85 18 0 Attractive
iTerminal 106 5 2 104 7 1 Attractive
SP Pay 104 13 6 85 17 0 Attractive
Free Charger 43 5 3 166 8 0 Indifferent
Free WiFi 64 4 3 146 7 1 Indifferent
iStorefront 80 5 2 123 15 0 Indifferent
Mobile Pay 54 11 5 117 37 1 Indifferent
Barecode App 91 16 3 110 5 0 Indifferent
Loc-Aware App 56 15 6 107 37 4 Indifferent
Friendly SPs 19 82 106 17 0 1 Must-be
Competent SPs 36 48 72 69 0 0 Must-be
Cash Refund 62 72 62 27 1 1 One-dimensional
#A: number of respondents that categorised the service or technology as attractive,
#O: as one-dimensional, #M: as must-be, #I: as indifferent, #R: as reverse #Q: as
questionable; SP = salesperson; n = 225
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1447

4
Attractive One-dimensional

Cash Refund
3 Friendly SPs
Functional (-2: like,...,4: dislike if offered)

Competent SPs

Click&Collect

3D Bodyscan
Self-Checkout
2 iDressroom
SP Pay
Barcode App
iTerminal

iStorefront

Free Wifi Mobile Pay

1
Free Charger Loc-Aware App

Indifferent Must-be
0

0 1 2 3 4

Dysfunctional (-2: like,...,4: dislike if offered), SP=Sales person

Figure 1. Categorisation of services and technologies (unsegmented Kano perspective).

differently on average. Some ‘new’ services and technologies (e.g. ‘Click&Collect’ and ‘3D
Bodyscan’) were categorised as attractive from an average customer’s point of view
(implying that they should be implemented), and other ‘new’ services and technologies
(e.g. ‘VR Storefront’, ‘Mobile Pay’, ‘Loc-Aware App’ and ‘Free WiFi’) were categorised as
indifferent (implying no need to be implemented). The scepticism of the average
customer became even more apparent in the analysis on ‘traditional’ services such as
‘Friendly SPs’, ‘Competent SPs’ and ‘Cash Refund’, which were categorised as one-
dimensional. The average customer would be satisfied if these features were offered
but dissatisfied if not. In addition, the interaction with salespersons was on the edge of
‘attractive’ with regard to directly paying [e.g. through a tablet (‘SP Pay’)].
In contrast to these results, the segmented Kano perspective (Figure 2) showed the
heterogeneity of the customers in more detail. Segment 1 (28.9%) included customers
who considerably liked the ‘new’ services and technologies. ‘Barcode App’ and ‘Loc-
Aware App’ were rated as one-dimensional, and nearly all the others (e.g. ‘Click&Collect’,
‘3D Bodyscan’, ‘Self-Checkout’, ‘iDressroom’, ‘iTerminal’, ‘iStorefront’, ‘SP Pay’ and ‘Free
WiFi’) were evaluated as attractive. Only ‘Free Charger’ and ‘Mobile Pay’ were cate-
gorised as indifferent. The term trailblazers can be used for the members of Segment
1 (Klena & Puleri, 2014). A closer look into the descriptive statistics (demographics, store
perception and shopping behaviour) showed that the customers in this segment highly
value good service and value for money in comparison with those in the other two
segments. They can be described as price–bargain-conscious shoppers (Stephenson &
1448 A. RESE ET AL.

4
Attractive One-dimensional
3D Bodyscan
Barcode App
iDressroom
Cash Refund Cash Refund
Click&Collect
Self-Checkout
SP Pay iDressroom Friendly SPs
3 Loc-Aware App
iTerminal iTerminal Friendly SPs
Functional (-2: dislike,..., 4: like if offered)

Friendly SPs
SP Pay Competent SPs
Cash Refund Competent SPs
iStorefront
Competent SPs
Click&Collect
3D Bodyscan Free Wifi
2 Self-Checkout Mobile Pay
Click&Collect

Barcode App iStorefront

Free Charger
Segment 1 (28.9%)
Barcode App
Segment 2 (38.7%)
Mobile Pay
Free Wifi Segment 3 (32.4%)
1 3D Bodyscan
Self-Checkout
Free Charger

Free Wifi SP Pay

iTerminal Loc-Aware App
iStorefront Free Charger
iDressroom Indifferent Must-be
0 Loc-Aware App
Mobile Pay
0 1 2 3 4

Dysfunctional (-2: like,..., 4: dislike if not offered), SP=Sales Person

Figure 2. Categorisation of services and technologies (segmented Kano perspective).

Willett, 1969). Moreover, their shopping frequency for fast fashion was the highest (Table
A1 in the Appendix).
The customers from Segment 2 (38.7%), which is the largest segment, were the
most sceptical ones: all ‘new’ services and technologies were rated as indifferent.
These respondents seem to have no need for new solutions and can be described as
traditional (Klena & Puleri, 2014). An analysis of the background variables showed that
these customers preferred the location of the shop to be in the town centre and in
the vicinity of other shops, again indicating a traditional shopping behaviour (Kau
et al., 2003).
The last segment, Segment 3 (32.4%), is similar to Segment 1 in that it is also composed of
customers interested in the ‘new’ services and technologies. The customers in this segment
rated the services as attractive, particularly ‘Mobile Pay’ and ‘Pay SP’, but their need for them
seemed to be lower than that of the customers in Segment 1. This description corresponds
to the so-called tech-intrigued segment in the study of Klena and Puleri (2014). The store
design and size were more important for this segment, which had a higher percentage of
males and was more service quality conscious (Swait & Sweeney, 2000).
However, from the segmented Kano perspective, the three segments rated the ‘tradi-
tional’ services (i.e. ‘Friendly SPs’, ‘Competent SPs’ and ‘Cash Refund’) as one-dimensional on
average. Their need for these services was predominant in comparison with their need for
highly innovative ‘new’ services and technologies. In addition, the derived segments did not
differ with regard to male/female and age composition.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1449

To deepen the analysis, other segmentations based on gender, age and buying
intensity were investigated. Taking gender as an example, the two gender segments
were compared (see Figure 3). Some differences could be established: male customers
find ‘SP Pay’, ‘iDressroom’ and ‘iTerminal’ attractive, whereas women prefer ‘Barcode
App’ and ‘Self-Checkout’. However, unlike in the three-customer segment solution, only
a few significant differences were found: the males rated ‘SP Pay’, ‘Mobile Pay’ and
‘iStorefront’ significantly higher than the females. Overall, the female customers
shopped more often and rated quality of items and service as significantly more
important than the male customers (Table A2 in the Appendix). This distinction between
the male and female customers shows the dominant need for the traditional services.
‘Friendly SPs’, ‘Competent SPs’ and ‘Cash Refund’ were again rated as one-dimensional.
The same result held for other a priori segmentations (with respect to age and shopping
frequency).

Discussion
Against the background of a highly competitive fast fashion market and the concept of
in-store customer experience, Kano’s approach was used to investigate the opinions of
the tech-savvy Generation Y with regard to the 15 selected services and technologies in
physical stores. Several of these services and technologies were rated by the respon-
dents as ‘one-dimensional’ and ‘attractive’. Therefore, they should be the focus of fast

4
Attractive One-dimensional

Cash Refund

3 Friendly SPs
Cash Refund
Functional (-2: dislike,..., 4: like if offered)

Friendly SPs
Click&Collect Competent SPs
SP Pay Competent SPs
Click&Collect
iTerminal 3D Bodyscan
3D Bodyscan Barcode App
2 iDressroom Self-Checkout
iDressroom
iStorefront
iTerminal
Self-Checkout SP Pay
Barcode App
Mobile Pay
Free Wifi Free Wifi
female
Loc-Aware App male
1 Free Charger iStorefront
Mobile Pay Loc-Aware App

Free Charger

Indifferent Must-be
0

0 1 2 3 4

Dysfunctional (-2: like,..., 4: dislike if not offered), SP=Sales Person

Figure 3. Categorisation of services and technologies (female and male).

1450 A. RESE ET AL.

fashion retailers because they lead to highly positive customer satisfaction if implemen-
ted or to proportionally increased customer satisfaction. In addition, some services and
technologies were categorised as ‘indifferent’.
For the members of Generation Y, ‘3D Bodyscan’ and ‘Click&Collect’, as well as
‘iDressroom’, ‘Self-Checkout’, ‘SP Pay’ and ‘iTerminal’ to some extent, are attractive and
create a special experience in physical fast fashion stores. Kano’s (unsegmented)
approach, which takes the average evaluation of all services and technologies into
account, helps to clarify the important features (e.g. ‘3D Bodyscan’ and ‘Click&Collect’).
The segmented Kano perspective provides a differentiated picture of Generation
Y. A three-customer segment solution revealed the differing speeds in technology
adoption based on the functional and dysfunctional evaluation and not on the demo-
graphic differences such as age or gender. For the most advanced group, nearly all the
technologies were attractive. We tried to shed light into the differences in the three
groups to explain their heterogeneity with the store perceptions of fast fashion retailers
and the overall importance of service (Collins-Dodd & Lindley, 2003; Colucci & Scarpi,
2013).
The three segments that were established resemble the ones that were found in
a study differentiating customers by their omnichannel maturity (Klena & Puleri, 2014).
Unsurprisingly in our study that surveyed Generation Y, the segment of trailblazers was
larger (32.3%) than that of the other study with respondents 18 years and older (12%).
The tech-intrigued segment was almost similar in size (32.4%) to that in the other study
(29%), and the traditional segment included a little more than a third of the respondents
(38.7% vs. 19%). The latter segment lagged behind in the adoption of in-store
technologies.
Although several studies segmented customers according to their shopping orienta-
tion (Brown et al., 2003; Kau et al., 2003), research has not examined customer segmen-
tation that considers the store perception of fast fashion stores. The findings are
consistent with those of Swait and Sweeney (2000), who identified for the retailers of
durable goods (electrical household appliances) three customer segments based on
product and store perceptions: service quality-conscious, value-conscious and price-
conscious customers. As fast fashion retailers offer fashion clothing at a lower price,
the last segment is not relevant in this context. In addition, the results of the study
contribute to the literature on Generation Y by showing a variation in shopping and
technological attitudes (Valentine & Powers, 2013).
However, traditional services with ‘Competent SPs’, ‘Friendly SPs’ and ‘Cash Refund’
are even more important for Generation Y. The absence of these salespersons results in
the comparatively great dissatisfaction of Generation Y customers. Conversely to the
literature, where interaction with salespersons was indicated as not important for
Generation Y customers (Sullivan & Hyun, 2016), in our study Generation Y is in favour
of a competent and friendly salesperson being available when needed to provide
support, styling and combined ideas.
Overall, the study shows how important having a mix of traditional services and ‘new’
services and technologies is for Generation Y. The implementation of the former pre-
vents customer dissatisfaction, and the latter inspires Generation Y’s customer experi-
ence. The implementation of these two antipodes represents a major challenge.
Generation Y apparently has high expectations in terms of service offerings and expects
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1451

not only familiar services but also surprising and new services and technologies (e.g. ‘3D
Bodyscan’ and ‘Click&Collect’).

Managerial implications
Fast fashion retailers must continually improve the services and technologies they offer
in physical stores to meet the high expectations of Generation Y. The Kano perspective
gives some clues about the order in which in-store services and technologies should be
implemented: ‘must-be’ > ‘one-dimensional’ > ‘attractive’ > ‘indifferent’ (Berger et al.,
1993). If the must-be features are at an acceptable level, improving the one-dimensional
and attractive features is important to increase customer satisfaction. Moreover, imple-
mentation recommendations can be derived over time.
Our results show that traditional services are important and should not be neglected.
Fast fashion retailers should continue to offer a set of traditional services, such as
competent and friendly salespersons and cash refund, especially if they have been
successful in the past. As the ‘new’ in-store technologies were rated as attractive, they
should be used to evoke the pleasure and arousal of Generation Y and to create more
than a proportional customer satisfaction. In terms of in-store technologies, this age
generation is open and opts for more. Aside from being technologically advanced,
individuals belonging to Generation Y were found to use technology for emotional
value (Bush et al., 2004; Kumar & Lim, 2008). The implementation of ‘new’ technologies
in the store that creates a special customer experience can convince Generation Y at the
emotional level. Overall, the combination of the two antipodes has the potential to win
Generation Y as lifelong customers (Wolburg & Pokrywczynski, 2001).
With regard to timing effects, Segment 1 found nearly all ‘new’ in-store services and
technologies to be attractive. Therefore, ‘3D Bodyscan’ and ‘Click&Collect’ should be
implemented first, followed by in-store technologies, which was indicated by Segment 1
to be attractive, and cost considerations should be taken into account. According to Klena
and Puleri (2014, p. 9) ‘tech-intrigued shoppers will follow a similar path as the trailblazers’.

Limitations and future research

Although socio-demographics and store perceptions were used to describe the respon-
dents, determining and describing the customer segments remain difficult. Therefore,
other criteria such as shopping attitude, shopping enjoyment, income level and digital
social engagement should be included (Klena & Puleri, 2014).
The respondents were not asked whether they knew of the in-store services and
technologies or had already experienced using them. In this study, the respondents
were indifferent to several ‘new’ in-store technologies (e.g. mobile payment and the
interactive storefront). When using Kano’s approach to categorise different options,
features the respondents gained little or no experience with, were often placed under
the ‘indifferent’ category (Kano, 2001; Nilsson-Witell & Fundin, 2005). Collecting knowl-
edge of and usage experience with these in-store services and technologies can add
more insights (Zhao & Roy Dholakia, 2009). Generation Y has been described to rely
heavily on technology and therefore it is easy to form expectations to technologies in
the environment they operate in. However, the study should be connected to more
1452 A. RESE ET AL.

information about preferences and attitudes towards technologies and services in the
stores (Vannucci & Pantano, 2019). While performance has been measured by a service
or technology being absent or existent, alternatively the level of performance (low to
high) could be used and related to respondent’s experience with the service or technol-
ogy. Repeating the study after some time and determining the frequent usage of the
technologies in the fast fashion stores would be interesting. With regard to customer
satisfaction, an in-depth analysis of the different in-store services and technologies
relying on qualitative interviews or focus groups would be of interest [see e.g.
Pantano (2016) for a study on the interactive storefront] to gain more insights into the
positive and negative aspects and into the interest of the respondents in the ‘new’ in-
store technologies. With regard to the retailers, the differences and similarities in
conventional or even luxury fashion can be examined (Pantano, Passavanti, Priporas, &
Verteramo, 2018). With regard to the sample, other generations such as the baby
boomers, Generation X and Generation Z can be investigated and the results compared.
Consequently, fast fashion retailers can develop and focus on service technology stra-
tegies that appeal to the target group of the respective brands. As fast fashion retailers
are mostly large global players, customers of other countries should be investigated as
well to address the country-specific aspects. In addition, other technologies such as
robots, drones, chatbots, Internet of Things, digital signage and electronic shelf labels or
services such as coupons (Betzing et al., 2018; Grewal, Roggeveen, & Nordfält, 2017) can
be included. Online channels with technologies such as augmented and virtual reality or
artificial intelligence (Grewal et al., 2017) can also be used to improve omnichannel
retailing.

Conclusion
For fast fashion retailers, understanding the factors influencing the shopping beha-
viour of Generation Y is important. Despite being characterised as tech savvy, this
generation is characterised by more variations with regard to technology affinity and
store perceptions that have to be considered by fast fashion retailers. The segments
can support fast fashion retailers to allocate their scarce resources when deciding to
implement in-store technologies. Digitalisation has created new online distribution
channels in the fast fashion industry, changing stationary retail to an omnichannel
environment with the convergence of offline and online channels (Hübner et al.,
2016). Innovative service technology concepts have to be considered for and inte-
grated into all channels to improve the seamless shopping journey to build long-term
customer relationships. However, technology is no compensation for personal service.
Moreover, the careful selection, further education, training and motivation of new
staff and employees continue to be an important, if not the most important, task for
fast fashion retailers.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1453

Notes on contributors
Alexandra Rese (alexandra.rese@uni-bayreuth.de) is Assistant Professor at the Chair of Marketing
and Innovation at the University of Bayreuth, Germany. She completed her dissertation in
sociology and entrepreneurship at the University of Karlsruhe and her habilitation in business
administration at Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg. Her works have
appeared in journals such as R&D Management, Creativity and Innovation Management,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Research Policy and Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. Her current research focuses on
the acceptance of innovative applications in retailing, e.g. augmented reality or chatbots, as well
as abilities and roles in innovation management.
Tobias Schlee was a student of Business Administration at the University of Bayreuth, Germany. As
a trainee student at a management consultancy specialised in digital retailing his main research
interest is the implementation of in-store services and technologies in the fast fashion industry.
Daniel Baier is Professor of Marketing and Innovation at the University of Bayreuth, Germany. His
research interests are in market-oriented design of products and services, adoption and diffusion
of new products and services, multivariate statistics, data and web mining. He studied computer
science at the University of Karlsruhe where he also completed his dissertation and habilitation in
business administration. He has published in journals such as Advances in Data Analysis and
Classification, Annals of Operations Research, Creativity and Innovation Management, Journal of
Econometrics, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change and R&D Management.

References
Adidas. (2012). Adidas’ tests new window shopping experience of the future at Nürnberg Neo store.
Retrieved from https://www.thenewsmarket.com/global/latest-news/all/adidas–tests-the-new-win
dow-shopping-experience-of-the-future-at-n-rnberg-neo-store/s/245172e1-8fb4-49d2-8f43-
fc61326a4e48
Aloysius, J. A., Hoehle, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2016). Exploiting big data for customer and retailer
benefits: A study of emerging mobile checkout scenarios. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 36(4), 467–486.
Amendola, C., Calabrese, M., & Caputo, F. (2018). Fashion companies and customer satisfaction:
A relation mediated by information and communication technologies. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 43, 251–257.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1995). Capturing the value of supplementary services. Harvard
Business Review, 73(1), 75–83.
Armour, S. (2005, 6). Generation Y: They’ve arrived at work with a new attitude. USA Today.
Retrieved from http://www.rit.edu/news/utilities/pdf/2005/2005-11-06_usaTod_genY.pdf
Arora, S., Singha, K., & Sahney, S. (2017). Understanding consumer’s showrooming behaviour:
Extending the theory of planned behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 29
(2), 409–431.
Arrigo, E. (2016). Fast fashion business model: An overview. In A. Vecchi & C. Buckley (Eds.),
Handbook of research on global fashion management and merchandising (pp. 186–209).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Arrigo, E. (2018). Customer relationships and supply chain management in the fast fashion
industry. In I. Lee (Ed.), Diverse methods in customer relationship marketing and management
(pp. 1–16). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Baier, D., Rese, A., & Röglinger, M. (2018, December 13–16). Conversational user interfaces for online
shops: A segmented Kano perspective. Proceedings of 39th International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS), San Francisco, CA.
1454 A. RESE ET AL.

Bakewell, C., & Mitchell, V. W. (2003). Generation Y female consumer decision-making styles.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(2), 95–106.
Barnes, L., & Lea-Greenwood, G. (2006). Fast fashioning the supply chain: Shaping the research
agenda. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: an International Journal, 10(3), 259–271.
Barnes, L., & Lea-Greenwood, G. (2010). Fast fashion in the retail store environment. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 38(10), 760–772.
Batt, R. (2000). Strategic segmentation in front-line services: Matching customers, employees and
human resource systems. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(3),
540–561.
Bento, M., Martinez, L. M., & Martinez, L. F. (2018). Brand engagement and search for brands on
social media: Comparing Generations X and Y in Portugal. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 43, 234–241.
Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., & Walden, D. (1993). Kano’s
methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center for Quality Management Journal, 2
(4), 3–36.
Berman, B. (2019). Flatlined: Combatting the death of retail stores. Business Horizons, 62(1), 75–82.
Betzing, J. H., Hoang, A. Q. M., & Becker, J. (2018). In-store technologies in the retail servicescape.
Proceedings of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 1671–1682), Lüneburg, Germany.
Bhardwaj, V., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). Fast fashion: Response to changes in the fashion industry. The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20(1), 165–173.
Blázquez, M. (2014). Fashion shopping in multichannel retail: The role of technology in enhancing
the customer experience. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18(4), 97–116.
Blázquez, M., Boardman, R., & Xu, L. (2019). International flagship stores: An exploration of store
atmospherics and their influence on purchase behaviour. International Journal of Business and
Globalisation, 22(1), 110–126.
Boardman, R., & McCormick, H. (2018). Shopping channel preference and usage motivations:
Exploring differences amongst a 50-year age span. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: an International Journal, 22(2), 270–284.
Brown, M., Pope, N., & Voges, K. (2003). Buying or browsing? An exploration of shopping orienta-
tions and online purchase intention. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), 1666–1684.
Bulmer, S., Elms, J., & Moore, S. (2018). Exploring the adoption of self-service checkouts and the
associated social obligations of shopping practices. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
42, 107–116.
Burke, R. R. (2002). Technology and the customer interface: What consumers want in the physical
and virtual store. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 411–432.
Bush, A. J., Martin, C. A., & Bush, V. D. (2004). Sports celebrity influence on the behavioral intentions
of generation Y. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(1), 108–118.
Cachon, G. P., & Swinney, R. (2011). The value of fast fashion: Quick response, enhanced design,
and strategic consumer behavior. Management Science, 57(4), 778–795.
Collins-Dodd, C., & Lindley, T. (2003). Store brands and retail differentiation: The influence of store
image and store brand attitude on store own brand perceptions. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 10(6), 345–352.
Colombi, C., Kim, P., & Wyatt, N. (2018). Fashion retailing “tech-gagement”: Engagement fueled by
new technology. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel, 22(4), 390–406.
Colucci, M., & Scarpi, D. (2013). Generation Y: Evidences from the fast-fashion market and implica-
tions for targeting. Journal of Business Theory and Practice, 1(1), 1–7.
Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause-related marketing: How generation
Y responds. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6), 310–320.
D’Apuzzo, N., & Gruen, A. (2009). Recent advances in 3D full body scanning with applications to
fashion and apparel. 9th Conference on Optical 3-D Measurement Techniques, Vienna, Austria.
Fletcher, K. (2010). Slow fashion: An invitation for systems change. Fashion Practice, 2(2), 259–265.
Gabrielli, V., Baghi, I., & Codeluppi, V. (2013). Consumption practices of fast fashion products: A
consumer-based approach. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: an International
Journal, 17(2), 206–224.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1455

Grewal, D., Iyer, G. R., & Levy, M. (2004). Internet retailing: Enablers, limiters and market
consequences. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 703–713.
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A. L., & Nordfält, J. (2017). The future of retailing. Journal of Retailing, 93(1),
1–6.
Gupta, S., & Vajic, M. (2000). The contextual anddialectical nature of experiences. In
J. A. Fitzsimmons & M. J. Fitzsimmons (Eds.), New service development: Creating memorable
experiences (pp. 33–51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hübner, A., Wollenburg, J., & Holzapfel, A. (2016). Retail logistics in the transition from
multi-channel to omni-channel. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 46(6/7), 562–583.
Huré, E., Picot-Coupey, K., & Ackermann, C. L. (2017). Understanding omni-channel shopping value:
A mixed-method study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39, 314–330.
Hyllegard, K. H., Yan, R. N., Ogle, J. P., & Attmann, J. (2010). The influence of gender, social cause,
charitable support, and message appeal on Gen Y’s responses to cause-related marketing.
Journal of Marketing Management, 27(1–2), 100–123.
Inman, J. J., & Nikolova, H. (2017). Shopper-facing retail technology: A retailer adoption decision
framework incorporating shopper attitudes and privacy concerns. Journal of Retailing, 93(1),
7–28.
Kang, J. Y. M., Mun, J. M., & Johnson, K. K. (2015). In-store mobile usage: Downloading and usage
intention toward mobile location-based retail apps. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 210–217.
Kannan, P. K., & Li, H. (2017). Digital marketing: A framework, review and research agenda.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 22–45.
Kano, N. (2001). Life cycle and creation of attractive quality. In Proceedings of the 4th QMOD
conference (pp. 18–36). Linkoping. Retrieved from http://www.huc.edu/ckimages/files/
KanoLifeCycleandAQCandfigures.pdf
Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Journal
of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39–48.
Kau, K. A., Tang, Y. E., & Ghose, S. (2003). Typology of online shoppers. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 20(2), 139–156.
Kent, T. (2007). Creative space: Design and the retail environment. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 35(9), 734–745.
Kinley, T. R. (2003). Size variation in women’s pants. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 21(1),
19–31.
Klena, K., & Puleri, J. (2014, March). Greater expectations: Consumers are asking for tomorrow, today.
IBM Institute for Business Value. Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/
L0XGRQNN
Kumar, A., & Lim, H. (2008). Age differences in mobile service perceptions: Comparison of
Generation Y and baby boomers. Journal of Services Marketing, 22(7), 568–577.
Laukkanen, T., & Pasanen, M. (2008). Mobile banking innovators and early adopters: How they
differ from other online users? Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 13(2), 86–94.
Lockie, W. (2014). Delivering an effective click-and-collect strategy: A retailer case study. Journal of
Digital & Social Media Marketing, 2(2), 139–152.
Lovelock, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Whither services marketing? In search of a new paradigm
and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 20–41.
Mani, Z., & Chouk, I. (2017). Drivers of consumers’ resistance to smart products. Journal of
Marketing Management, 33(1–2), 76–97.
Martínez-López, F. J., Pla-García, C., Gázquez-Abad, J. C., & Rodríguez-Ardura, I. (2014). Utilitarian
motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 13(3), 188–204.
Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H. H., Bailom, F., & Sauerwein, E. (1996). How to delight your customers.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 5(2), 6–18.
Meyer, C., & Schwager, A. (2007). Understanding customer experience. Harvard Business Review, 85
(2), 116.
1456 A. RESE ET AL.

Mihm, B. (2010). Fast fashion in a flat world: Global sourcing strategies. International Business and
Economics Research Journal, 9(6), 55–63.
Morisada, M., Miwa, Y., & Dahana, W. D. (2019). Identifying valuable customer segments in online
fashion markets: An implication for customer tier programs. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 33, 100822.
Nash, J. (2019). Exploring how social media platforms influence fashion consumer decisions in the
UK retail sector. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: an International Journal, 23(1),
82–103.
Nilsson-Witell, L., & Fundin, A. (2005). Dynamics of service attributes: A test of Kano’s theory of
attractive quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(2), 152–168.
Pantano, E. (2016). Engaging consumer through the storefront: Evidences from integrating inter-
active technologies. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 149–154.
Pantano, E., Passavanti, R., Priporas, C. V., & Verteramo, S. (2018). To what extent luxury retailing
can be smart? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 43, 94–100.
Pantano, E., & Timmermans, H. (2014). What is smart for retailing? Procedia Environmental Sciences,
22, 101–107.
Pantano, E., & Viassone, M. (2015). Engaging consumers on new integrated multichannel retail
settings: Challenges for retailers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 25, 106–114.
Perry, P., Kent, A., & Bonetti, F. (2019). The use of mobile technologies in physical stores: The case
of fashion retailing. In W. Wojciech Piotrowicz & R. Cuthbertson (Eds.), Exploring omnichannel
retailing (pp. 169–195). Cham: Springer.
Puccinelli, N. M., Goodstein, R. C., Grewal, D., Price, R., Raghubir, P., & Stewart, D. (2009). Customer
experience management in retailing: Understanding the buying process. Journal of Retailing, 85
(1), 15–30.
Reinartz, W., Wiegand, N., & Imschloss, M. (2019). The impact of digital transformation on the
retailing value chain. International Journal of Research in Marketing. doi:10.2139/
ssrn.3299669
Rosenblum, P., & Rowen, S. (2017, July). The 2017 retail store: The change imperative. Benchmark
Report, Retail Systems Research, Miami. Retrieved from http://ikusmer.blog.euskadi.eus/wp-
content/uploads/2017/08/The-Retail-Store-In-2017-The-Change-Imperative.pdf
Roy, S. K., Balaji, M. S., Quazi, A., & Quaddus, M. (2018). Predictors of customer acceptance of and
resistance to smart technologies in the retail sector. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
4, 147–160.
Runyan, R., Kim, J. H., & Baker, J. (2012). The mall as bazaar: How kiosks influence consumer
shopping behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(1–2), 85–102.
Schamel, J. (2018). European retail in 2018. GfK study on key retail indicators: 2017 review and
2018 forecast. Retrieved from http://www.gfk-geomarketing.de/fileadmin/gfkgeomarketing/en/
EN_European_Retail_Study_2018.pdf
Sheridan, M., Moore, C., & Nobbs, K. (2006). Fast fashion requires fast marketing: The role of
category management in fast fashion positioning. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: an International Journal, 10(3), 301–315.
Stephenson, P. R., & Willett, R. P. (1969). Analysis of consumers’ retail patronage strategies. In
P. R. McDonald (Ed.), Marketing involvement in society and the economy (pp. 316–322). Chicago,
IL: American Marketing Association.
Sull, D., & Turconi, S. (2008). Fast fashion lessons. Business Strategy Review, 19(2), 4–11.
Sullivan, P., & Hyun, J. (2016). Clothing retail channel use and digital behavior: Generation and
gender differences. Journal of Business Theory and Practice, 4(1), 125–138.
Swait, J., & Sweeney, J. C. (2000). Perceived value and its impact on choice behavior in a retail
setting. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 7(2), 77–88.
Taylor, E. (2016). Mobile payment technologies in retail: A review of potential benefits and risks.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 44(2), 159–177.
Tilford, C. (2018, June 6). The millennial moment — In charts. Financial Times. Retrieved from
https://www.ft.com/content/f81ac17a-68ae-11e8-b6eb-4acfcfb08c11
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1457

Valentine, D. B., & Powers, L. T. (2013). Generation Y values and lifestyle segments. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 30(7), 597–606.
Vannucci, V., & Pantano, E. (2019). Digital or human touchpoints? Insights from consumer-facing
in-store services. Information Technology & People. doi:10.1108/ITP-02-2018-0113
Verhoef, P. C., Kannan, P. K., & Inman, J. J. (2015). From multi-channel retailing to omni-channel
retailing: Introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retailing. Journal of Retailing, 91(2),
174–181.
von Briel, F. (2018). The future of omnichannel retail: A four-stage Delphi study. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 217–229.
Walker, R. H., Craig-Lees, M., Hecker, R., & Francis, H. (2002). Technology-enabled service delivery:
An investigation of reasons affecting customer adoption and rejection. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 13(1), 91–106.
Willems, K., Smolders, A., Brengman, M., Luyten, K., & Schoning, J. (2017). The path-to-purchase is
paved with digital opportunities: An inventory of shopper-oriented retail technologies.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124, 228–242.
Wolburg, J. M., & Pokrywczynski, J. (2001). A psychographic analysis of Generation Y college
students. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(5), 33–52.
Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2001). Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun. California
Management Review, 43(2), 34–55.
Wolpert, S., & Roth, A. (2016). Technology as a service enabler in retail environments. In T. Russo-
Spena & C. Mele (Eds.), What’s ahead in service research? New perspectives for business and society
(pp. 1038–1057). Proceedings of the 26th Annual RESER Conference. Naples, Italy: RESER,
University of Naples “Federico II”.
Wu, M., & Wang, L. (2012). A continuous fuzzy Kano’s model for customer requirements analysis in
product development. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture, 226(3), 535–546.
Xu, Y. (2007). Impact of store environment on adult generation Y consumers’ impulse buying.
Journal of Shopping Center Research, 14(1), 39–56.
Zhao, M., & Roy Dholakia, R. (2009). A multi-attribute model of web site interactivity and customer
satisfaction: An application of the Kano model. Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal, 19(3), 286–307.
Zhenxiang, W., & Lijie, Z. (2011). Case study of online retailing fast fashion industry. International
Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 1(3), 195.
Appendix
1458

Table A1. Descriptive statistics of the three customer segments.

Segment 1 Segment 3
Price-bargain-conscious, Segment 2 Service quality conscious, tech- F value
trailblazers Traditional intrigued (p-value)
A. RESE ET AL.

Mean (std. dev.) Mean (std. dev.) Mean (std. dev.)

Value for Money 4.63 (0.651) 4.47 (0.626) 4.47 (0.667) 1.450 (0.237)
Quality of Items 3.74 (1.050) 3.63 (1.173) 3.40 (1.115) 1.714 (0.183)
Location of the Shop 4.26 (0.815) 4.43 (0.622) 4.15 (0.861) 2.631 (0.074)
Service 3.74 (1.189) 3.63 (1.132) 3.85 (1.063) 0.737 (0.480)
Store Design 3.48 (1.047) 3.29 (0.975) 3.55 (0.972) 1.476 (0.231)
Store Size 3.42 (1.088) 3.36 (0.876) 3.51 (0.930) 0.492 (0.612)
A good/bad service will be remembered. 4.69 (0.727) 4.64 (0.664) 4.67 (0.647) 0.098 (0.906)
My personal treatment by the salespersons influences my decision to visit the 3.94 (1.014) 3.99 (0.994) 4.03 (1.080) 0.129 (0.879)
shop again.
A good service can be crucial for a positive purchase decision. 4.72 (0.484) 4.45 (0.886) 4.52 (0.729) 2.675 (0.071)
Age 26.42 (4.883) 26.85 (5.017) 25.58 (4.412) 1.429 (0.242)
Chi2 (p-value)
Shopping frequency (per month): up to 1 67.7% 74.7% 78.1% 2.464 (0.651)
2–3 29.2% 24.1% 20.5%
4–5 3.1% 1.1% 1.4%
Gender: females, males 67.7%; 69.0%; 58.9%; 1.999
32.3% 31.0% 44.1% (0.368)
n (%) 65 (28.9%) 87 (38.7%) 73 (32.4%)
5-point scale from 1 = ‘not important/fully disagree’ to 5 = ‘very important/fully agree’; n = 225.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1459

Table A2. Descriptive statistics of the female and male customers.

Females mean Males mean F value
(std. dev.) (std. dev.) (p-value)
Value for Money 4.50 (0.656) 4.54 (0.638) 0.148
(0.700)
Quality of Items 3.84 (1.034) 3.12 (1.139) 23.095
(0.000)
Location of the Shop 4.28 (0.783) 4.31 (0.744) 0.071
(0.790)
Service 3.84 (1.102) 3.53 (1.148) 4.118
(0.044)
Store Design 3.45 (0.994) 3.38 (1.099) 0.211
(0.646)
Store Size 3.45 (0.966) 3.37 (0.941) 0.331
(0.566)
A good/bad service will be remembered. 4.65 (0.720) 4.71 (0.584) 0.387
(0.535)
My personal treatment by the salespersons influences my 3.95 (1.023) 4.05 (1.031) 0.474
decision to visit the shop again. (0.492)
A good service can be crucial for a positive purchase decision. 4.54 (0.804) 4.56 (0.616) 0.036
(0.849)
Age 26.73 (5.082) 25.51 (4.127) 3.338
(0.069)
Chi2
(p-value)
Shopping frequency (per month): 66.7% 87.2% 11.628
up to 1 (0.003)
2–3 30.6% 12.8%
4–5 2.7% 0.0%
5-point scale from 1 = ‘not important/fully disagree’ to 5 = ‘very important/fully agree’; n = 225.
Copyright of Journal of Marketing Management is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.