An executive summary for
managers and executive
readers can be found at the
end of this article
Electronic retailing
Growth the dominant
theme
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002, pp. 89-102, # MCB UP LIMITED, 1061-0421, DOI 10.1108/10610420210423464
Buying apparel over the Internet
Ronald E. Goldsmith
Professor of Marketing, Marketing Department, College of Business,
Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Elizabeth B. Goldsmith
Professor, Department of Textiles and Consumer Science, Florida
State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Keywords Internet, Online transaction processing, Consumer behaviour ,
Clothing industry, Marketing
Abstract Tests ten hypotheses describing characteristics that distinguish consumers who
have purchased apparel online from those who have not. A sample of 263 men and 303
women students completed a survey that measured their online and offline buying
behavior , attitudes and predispositions. The results showed that the 99 online apparel
buyers had more online buying experience in general. Online buyers did not differ from
non-buyers in their belief in how cheap buying online is, in their overall enjoyment of
shopping, or in how often they bought clothing by any means. The demographi c variables
of age, sex and race were unrelated to online apparel buying. A further analysis showed
that the online buyers used the Internet more hours per week and were more likely to buy
online in the future than non-buyers. The findings are consistent with previous studies of
consumer Internet behavior and with consumer theory and provide guidance for e-
commerce apparel strategies.
Introduction
Electronic retailing continues to grow in size and importance as increasing
numbers of consumers buy online, and apparel purchases represent a
significant portion of online purchasing. Not only does buying apparel online
represent a new form of consumer behavior in the ``computer-mediated
shopping environment’’ (Hoffman and Novak, 1996), apparel e-tailers face
intense competition. Thus, consumer researchers wish to extend current
theories of consumer behavior into this new consumption realm, and apparel
marketers and managers seek to develop effective strategies based on
knowledge of their consumers (Goldsmith and McGregor, 1999). Although
some research on consumer Internet behavior has begun to appear (e.g. Citrin
et al., 2000), little attention has been devoted specifically to buying apparel
online. Our study fills this gap by focusing on this new clothing behavior.
While the number of online buyers and value of their purchases change
constantly, growth is the dominant theme (Goldsmith and McGregor, 2000).
Americans spent $184B on total apparel in 1999 with $1.1B or 0.6 per cent
attributed to online apparel purchases (Kuntz, 2000). For 2000 the proportion
of total US apparel sales online is estimated at less than 3 per cent but still
nearly $3.5B (Vickery and Agins, 2001). Apparel spending in the UK was
£30B (Wilson, 1999). According to one estimate, approximately 67 per cent
of Americans use the Internet and 52 per cent of them buy online (UCLA,
2000). Apparel is an important category of online purchases with new sites
constantly appearing (Murphy, 1999). An Internet-based research company
estimated online sales in 2000 to be $37B, up from $18.6B in 1999
(eMarketer, 2000, p. 9). One estimate of total weekly online purchases in
2000 puts the number at 3.582 million, with 300,800 or 8.4 per cent of these
in the apparel category (Nelson, 2000). Two separate surveys showed
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
89
 clothing among the top six categories of holiday gifts in the USA for the
2000 Christmas season (eMarketer, 2000, p. 30). Thus, apparel is an
important consumer purchase category with a significant online component.
Unique challenges E-commerce is expensive, however, and many companies have found profits
hard to come by (Harvard Management Update, 2000). Selling apparel
online presents unique challenges to cybermarketers. Little is known of
consumer buyer behavior online, and e-tailers need to attract those
consumers most likely to buy in order to cover the costs of e-commerce and
make a profit to justify this new form of distribution. The first buyers of a
new product or service, however, are likely to be systematically different
from later buyers (Eastlick and Lotz, 1999; Goldsmith, 2000; Limayem et
al., 2000). Hence, the purpose of the present study was to compare
consumers who had purchased apparel online with consumers who had not
purchased apparel online with regard to demographics and attitudes toward
online purchasing. Several hypotheses about buying apparel online were
derived from consumer research and tested using data from a survey of
student consumers. Testing the hypotheses not only enhances our knowledge
of consumer behavior by extending the scope of theory into the new
shopping environment, this information may help online apparel marketers
improve their strategies designed to entice customers to buy online.

Hypotheses
Previous experience Consumers differ in the extent of online buying in which they engage.
According to the standard discussions of buying frequency, relatively few
buyers in a product category account for the majority of purchases (Hallberg,
1995). Since online buying is a new consumer activity, we expect that
consumers who have previous experience in online buying will be more
likely to buy apparel online than those who lack such experience. This is
because, as consumers gain experience with online buying, perhaps with
small purchases at first, they will be likely to develop confidence and skills
that facilitate more ambitious buying (Seckler, 2000). Thus, H1 is that
consumers who have bought apparel online will have more experience
buying online in general.
Consumers who have bought apparel online may likely be those who buy
more frequently than other consumers. In other words, consumers who buy
apparel frequently are likely involved with clothing as a product category;
they not only shop frequently, they probably spend more than less involved,
less frequent shoppers. Thus, H2 is that consumers who purchase apparel
online shop for apparel by any means more frequently than those who have
not bought apparel online.
Online buying behaviour Several studies of consumer online behavior have shown that attitudes toward
the Internet and toward online buying are systematically related to online
buying behavior (Eastlick and Lotz, 1999; Goldsmith and Bridges, 2000;
Karson, 2000; Katz and Aspden, 1997). Goldsmith (2000) presents Likert
scales to measure five specific attitudes toward e-commerce, describing
individual perceptions of its enjoyment, safety, speed, how economical it is,
and how much confidence consumers have in their ability to shop and buy
online. These attitudes were all related to online buying. Thus, H3 through H7
are that, compared with consumers who have not bought apparel online, those
who have bought online feel that the Internet is more fun, safer, quicker,
cheaper, and they have more confidence in their ability to buy.
Similarly, how consumers feel about shopping in general should influence
whether they shop online and specifically purchase apparel online (see

90 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002


Ethnic distribution
Questions and responses
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002
Solomon, 1999, pp. 311-13). Thus, H8 is that a positive disposition toward
shopping should be associated with buying apparel online. Finally,
consumers who are more innovative and knowledgeable with regard to the
Internet and its uses are more likely to buy online than less innovative and
knowledgeable consumers (Citrin et al., 2000; Limayem et al., 2000). H9
and H10 are that online apparel buyers will describe themselves as more
innovative and knowledgeable regarding the Internet than non-buyers.
Method
Survey participants
The data came from a survey of 566 students at a large southern university in
the USA in the spring of 2000. The students were in either marketing or
human sciences classes. Both undergraduates and MBAs participated.
Although not representative of all consumers, these young buyers are
important, because they are heavy buyers of clothing, influence the clothing
spending of many other consumers, and represent the future of e-commerce
(Hogg et al., 1998; Silverman, 2000). There were 263 (46.5 per cent) men
and 303 (53.5 per cent) women in the sample. Their ages ranged from 18 to
50, with a mean of 22.6 years (SD = 4.9). The modal age was 20 years. Most
of the participants were juniors (276, 48.8 per cent) and seniors (195, 34.5
per cent), with the rest being 17 (3 per cent) sophomores, 75 (13.3 per cent)
graduate students, and 3 (0.5 per cent) other. There were 419 (74 per cent)
whites, 65 (11.5 per cent) African-Americans, 42 (7.4 per cent) Hispanics,
and 40 (7.1 per cent) others. This distribution is quite similar to the ethnic
distribution on this campus. There was no statistically significant (p < 0.05)
difference in mean age between the men and women, nor were the mean ages
of the four ethnic groups significantly different. A cross-tabulation of sex by
race showed that the proportions of men and women in each ethnic category
were nearly identical, with the exception that the sample contained
proportionally more African-American women and proportionally fewer
white women.
Questionnaire
An initial version of the questionnaire was pilot-tested with 39 students in a
marketing research class for readability, ease of use, and clarity. After
correcting obvious errors and making their suggested changes in wording
and organization, the revised questionnaire was fielded by requesting student
volunteers to complete it.
The questionnaire contained demographic questions asking for the
participants’ sex, age, race, and class standing. Other questions asked
whether the respondents had access to the Internet, how many hours they
used it per week, and whether they had ever purchased any apparel online. It
also contained rating scales to measure their online purchasing behavior,
likelihood of future online purchases, and apparel purchase. Table I shows
these questions and the responses. For the chief variable of interest to this
study, whether a respondent had ever purchased apparel online (termed
EVER), 99 or 17.5 per cent of the respondents affirmed that they had so
purchased, and 467 (82.5 per cent) said that they had not. This is similar to
one report that 16 per cent of Internet users purchased apparel in cyberspace
during the previous month (Seckler, 2000).
The next section of the questionnaire contained 25 Likert-type statements
reflecting attitudes toward shopping over the Internet and enjoyment of
shopping in general. A portion of these items appears in Table II. These
Internet shopping items were adapted from a set of online buying attitude
91
 Variable Questionnaire item Response N %
ACCESS Do you have access to the Yes 562 99.3
Internet? No 4 0.7
EVER Have you ever purchased any Yes 99 17.5
clothing online? No 467 82.5
OFTEN How often would you say that Very often 4 0.7
you purchase online? Often 18 3.2
Sometimes 119 21.0
Rarely 201 35.5
Never 224 39.6
BUY Asked another way, how often More than once a week 3 0.5
do you purchase online? About once a week 6 1.1
Only about once every two
weeks 12 2.1
Less than once every two
weeks, but more than once
a month 30 5.3
Less than once a month 283 50.0
I never do 232 41.0
TIMES How many times have you ± ± times
bought something online since
January 1, 2000?
MEANS How often do you purchase Very often 83 14.7
clothing by any means? Often 179 31.6
Sometimes 226 39.9
Rarely 55 9.7
Never 21 3.7
Missing 2 0.4
HOURS On average, about how many None 5 0.9
hours a week do you spend Less than one 68 12.0
using the Internet? One to five 244 43.1
Five to ten 164 29.0
Ten to 20 63 11.1
More than 20 21 3.7
Missing 1 0.2
LIKELY Regardless of how much you Definitely will buy 82 14.5
buy online now, how likely are Probably will buy 107 18.9
you to buy online in the Might buy 208 36.7
coming year? Probably will not buy 141 24.9
Definitely will not buy 23 4.1
Missing 5 0.9
SPEND How much do you spend on
clothing purchases in an
average month?

Table I. Internet and buying questions

items developed by Goldsmith (2000). Three of the shopping enjoyment

items were adapted from O’Guinn and Faber (1989), and one original
shopping item was added for this study.
Internet innovativeness Finally came a section containing the Domain-Specific Innovativeness Scale
or DSI (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991). This scale was included to measure
Internet innovativeness. A factor analysis of the six items revealed a two-
factor solution, with the three positive items forming one factor and the three
negative items a second factor. We decided to use only the three negative
items as a summed scale, because this subscale (termed DSI) had the higher
internal consistency (coefficient alpha = 0.79). The items appear in Table III
along with a five-item subjective knowledge scale (Flynn et al., 2000) used
to measure knowledge of the Internet. Factor analysis showed that these

92 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002


Composite measure
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002
Attitude itema Fun Shop Safe Conf. Cheap Quick
Buying over the Internet is more fun than
buying in a store 0.79
I enjoy buying over the Internet 0.56
I find shopping on the Internet less pleasant
than shopping in storesb 0.49
I sometimes shop for goods, but then buy
them on the Internet 0.41
I get a real ``high’’ from shopping 0.86
Shopping is fun 0.83
I shop because buying things makes me
happy 0.80
I do not mind spending a lot of time
shopping b 0.69
Buying over the Internet is no riskier than
buying in a store 0.84
It is risky to buy over the Internetb 0.73
Buying over the Internet is safer than buying
in a store ±0.33 0.48
I lack the confidence to buy correctly on the
Internetb 0.64
I am confident in my ability to buy
successfully over the Internet 0.55
There are so many dot.com companies out
there it’s confusingb 0.49
I cannot get the buying information I want
over the Internetb 0.40
I cannot save much money buying over the
Internetb 0.89
Buying over the Internet is cheaper than
buying in a store 0.67
Buying over the Internet is quicker than
buying in a store 0.64
Buying over the Internet is more efficient
than buying in a store 0.39
It takes a lot of time and trouble to buy on
the Internetb ±0.32 0.37
Eigenvalue 5.5 2.8 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.0
Percent of variance 27.4 13.9 7.6 6.8 5.4 5.1
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequac y = 0.840
a
Notes: Only loadings > 0.30 are shown; using a five-point agree-disagree response
format; b reverse-coded items
Table II. Factor analysis of attitude items
items formed a unidimensional scale (termed KNOW) with acceptably high
internal consistency (coefficient alpha = 0.90).
Results
The first preliminary analysis reduced the three online purchasing questions
(OFTEN, BUY, and TIMES from Table I) into a composite measure of the
self-reported amount of online buying of each respondent. This was done
using a principal components analysis of the three items (Hair et al., 1998,
Ch. 3) and computing factor scores using the SPSS regression method. The
analysis extracted a single component with an eigenvalue of 2.37 that
explained 79 per cent of the variance in the correlation matrix of the three
variables. The resulting variable was labeled PURCH. Summary descriptive
statistics appear in Table IV.
93
 Scale itema Factor 1 Factor 2
Internet knowledge (KNOW)
When it comes to the Internet, I really do not know a lotb 0.88
I know pretty much about the Internet 0.83
Compared with most other people, I know less about the Internetb 0.82
I do not feel very knowledgeabl e about the Internetb 0.81
Among my circle of friends, I am one of the ``experts’’ on the
Internet 0.65
Internet innovativenes s (DSI)
In general, I am among the last in my circle of friends to purchase
something over the Internetb 0.81
Compared with my friends, I do little shopping over the Internetb 0.79
In general, I am the last in my circle of friends to know the names
of the latest places to shop on the Internetb 0.62
Eigenvalue 4.15 1.55
Percent of variance 51.8 19.4
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequac y = 0.865
a
Notes: Only loadings > 0.30 are shown; using a five-point agree-disagree response
format; b reverse-coded items

Table III. Factor analysis of Internet knowledge and innovativeness items

Common factor analysis The second preliminary analysis examined the structure of the 25 attitude
items by submitting them to a common factor analysis followed by an
oblique rotation on the assumption that the attitude dimensions would be
correlated with one another (Hair et al., 1998, Ch. 3). The analysis was
conducted four times, each time identifying items that did not load on a
factor with other items or which had small loadings (< 0.03) or sizeable
(> 0.30) cross-loadings on more than one factor. Items were retained for
factors if they had sizeable loadings (> 0.30) on factors made of items with
similar content. These analyses reduced the initial pool of attitude items to
20 items that combined into six easily interpretable subscales that were
similar to those reported by Goldsmith (2000). The final analysis results
appear in Table II, where the six factors represent the attitudes that shopping
on the Internet is fun, safe, cheap and quick, and that the respondent had
confidence in his/her ability to shop online, as well as the general
``enjoyment in shopping’’ scale. The scales are labeled: FUN, SAFE,
CHEAP, QUICK, CONFIDENCE, and SHOP. The individual items were
summed to form short scales (see Table IV).
Focal variables Next, the Internet innovativeness and knowledge items were factor-analyzed
via common factor analysis, which revealed that the items loaded on two
distinct factors, indicating discriminant validity for these items (see Table
III). The individual items were summed to form two scales, DSI and KNOW.
Thus, the focal variables in the study were amount of online buying
(PURCH), how often clothing was purchased by any means (MEANS), the
attitudes toward online buying (FUN, SAFE, CHEAP, QUICK, and
CONFIDENCE), attitude toward shopping (SHOP), Internet innovativeness
(DSI), and knowledge of the Internet (KNOW).
Cross-tabulation was used to assess the relationship between EVER (those
who had purchased apparel online versus those who had not) and sex and
race. These analyses showed no statistically significant relationships
between these variables. A t-test showed no statistically significant
difference in the mean age of those who had purchased apparel online versus
those who had not. The correlations in Table IV provide internal evidence for
the validity of the measures. The significant correlations of the DSI with

94 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002

Variables Range Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Age 18-50 22.6 4.9 ±
2. Sex 0-1a ± ± 0.06 ±
3. Ever 0-1b ± ± 0.02 ±0.05 ±
4. Purch ±0.88 - 8.68 0 1.0 0.08 0.18 0.42 ±
5. Means 1-5 3.44 0.98 ±0.11 ±0.31 0.01 0.02 ±
6. Fun 4-20 10.5 2.7 0.08 0.16 0.35 0.56 0.02 (0.74)c
7. Safe 3-15 7.2 2.2 ±0.03 0.10 0.15 0.37 0.06 0.44 (0.76)
8. Cheap 2-10 6.1 1.6 0.08 0.24 0.02 0.38 ±0.08 0.44 0.29 (0.75)
9. Quick 3-15 9.3 2.7 0.10 0.09 0.17 0.29 ±0.04 0.47 0.29 0.40 (0.58)
10. Conf 4-20 13.6 3.0 0.06 0.08 0.23 0.43 0.00 0.46 0.36 0.43 0.39 (0.70)
11. Shop 4-20 13.2 3.9 ±0.26 ±0.45 0.05 ±0.11 0.40 ±0.16 ±0.04 ±0.21 ±0.13 ±0.16 (0.86)
12. DSI 3-15 9.4 2.7 ±0.04 0.04 0.28 0.48 0.15 0.42 0.29 0.25 0.19 0.47 0.04 (0.79)
13. Know 5-25 18.4 4.0 ±0.00 0.08 0.11 0.28 0.06 0.26 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.49 ±0.05 0.40 (0.90)
14. Spend 0-500 89.3 74.8 ±0.09 ±0.22 0.03 0.06 0.43 ±0.01 0.03 ±0.08 ±0.01 ±0.01 0.30 0.13 0.01 ±
15. Hours 1-6 3.5 1.0 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.36 0.04 0.31 0.16 0.20 0.16 0.34 ±0.08 0.28 0.47 0.04 ±
16. Likely 1-5 3.2 1.1 0.08 0.12 0.33 0.67 0.04 0.59 0.40 0.35 0.37 0.46 ±0.07 0.47 0.28 0.05 0.34 ±
a b
Notes: Correlations of 0.09 and larger are statistically significant at p < 0.05 (two-tailed); 1 = male and 0 = female; 1 = yes and 0 = no;
c
coefficient alpha in parentheses

Table IV. Descriptive statistics and correlations

95
 FUN, SAFE, CHEAP, QUICK, and CONFIDENCE are similar to those
reported by Goldsmith (2000). Moreover, the correlation of the DSI with the
knowledge measure (r = 0.40) is comparable with that reported by Flynn et
al. (2000).
Influence of age, sex and An analysis was performed to assess the influence of age, sex and race on the
race dependent variables. A MANCOVA with sex and race as the two
independent variables and age as a covariate was run with PURCH through
KNOW as the ten dependent variables. The correlations in Table IV suggest
that age was only significantly correlated with shopping enjoyment, and this
was confirmed by the results of the MANCOVA, so age was no longer
incorporated in the analyses. The results also showed no statistically
significant multivariate interaction between sex and race (F(33, 1500) = 1.14,
p = 0.266). There was a statistically significant multivariate effect of race
(F(33, 1500) = 1.62, p = 0.014), but the only univariate differences were for
SAFE (p = 0.033), where African-Americans rated the Internet as less safe
than whites and CHEAP (p = 0.032), where the ``others’’ rated the Internet as
cheaper than both whites and African-Americans. These differences were
few and small in size, and so race was no longer included in the analyses.
The multivariate effect of sex was significant (F(11, 498) = 4.8, p < 0.001).
Univariate tests showed that women reported purchasing apparel by any
means more often than men, they spent more on apparel than men, and they
enjoyed shopping more than men; while the men reported purchasing more
online than the women and felt that the Internet was cheaper than the
women. These differences suggest that sex should be included in the final
analysis of the differences between those who have purchased apparel online
and those who have not.
For this analysis a 2 £ 2 (SEX £ EVER) MANOVA was run with the ten
dependent variables as before (see Table V). The interaction term was

Mean scoresa Observed

Dependent variables Men Women Fb p eta2 power
Univariate main effects for SEX
PURCH 0.678 0.126 30.8 < 0.000 0.052 1.0
MEANS 3.06 3.75 37.8 < 0.000 0.072 1.0
FUN 11.9 10.8 14.5 < 0.000 0.025 0.967
SAFE 7.7 7.3 2.9 0.089 0.005 0.397
CHEAP 6.8 5.7 41.8 < 0.000 0.070 1.0
QUICK 9.9 9.4 4.6 0.032 0.008 0.576
CONFIDENT 14.5 13.9 3.5 0.060 0.006 0.468
SHOP 11.5 14.8 68.7 < 0.000 0.110 1.0
DSI 10.1 10.0 0.3 0.601 0.000 0.082
KNOW 19.2 18.4 3.2 0.074 0.006 0.431
Univariate main effects for EVER
H1 PURCH ±0.184 0.988 139.1 < 0.000 0.200 1.0
H2 MEANS 3.4 3.4 0.075 0.784 0.000 0.059
H3 FUN 10.1 12.7 87.9 < 0.000 0.136 1.0
H4 SAFE 7.0 7.9 12.1 0.001 0.021 0.934
H5 CHEAP 6.1 6.3 1.4 0.245 0.002 0.213
H6 QUICK 9.2 10.2 19.7 < 0.000 0.034 0.993
H7 CONFIDENT 13.3 15.1 32.0 < 0.000 0.054 1.0
H8 SHOP 13.0 13.3 0.646 0.422 0.001 0.126
H9 DSI 9.1 11.0 44.8 < 0.000 0.074 1.0
H10 KNOW 18.2 19.4 7.8 0.005 0.014 0.798
a b
Notes: Estimated marginal means; df = 1,558

Table V. Comparisons of mean scores

96 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002


Online apparel buyers
Additional variables
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002
statistically significant (F(10, 549) = 2.4, p = 0.01). Follow-up univariate
analyses showed that the interactions, however, were significant for only
two of the dependent variables. For PURCH, the amount of online buying,
men reported buying more than women, but men who had bought apparel
online reported buying disproportionately more online than women who
had bought apparel online. The opposite effect was observed for MEANS,
buying apparel by any means. Women reported buying apparel by any
means more than men, but men who had bought apparel online reported
buying disproportionately less apparel by any means than the women
online buyers.
The multivariate main effect for SEX was significant (F(10, 549) = 14.3,
p < 0.001). In addition to significant main effect differences for PURCH and
MEANS, women reported that they enjoyed shopping (SHOP) more than
men, and men reported that they thought online buying was more fun,
cheaper and quicker than the women. These findings are similar to those
reported in other studies of online buying.
The multivariate main effect for EVER, whether a respondent had ever
bought apparel online, was statistically significant (F(10, 549) = 20.4,
p < 0.001). The univariate analyses showed that, compared with those who
had not bought apparel online, those who had bought apparel online had
more experience purchasing online in general (PURCH) and thought that
buying over the Internet was more fun, safer, quicker, and they were more
confident in their ability to buy online. The online apparel buyers also were
more innovative and knowledgeable about the Internet than non-buyers.
Thus, H1, H3, H4, H6, H7, H9 and H10 were confirmed. There were no
statistically significant differences in the self-reported apparel purchase
(MEANS), perceptions that online buying was cheaper (CHEAP), or in
shopping enjoyment (SHOP). Because Box’s test of the equality of the
covariance matrices was significant (indicating that the covariance matrices
were not identical across the groups of respondents) and because Levene’s
test of equality of error variances showed that the error variances of four of
the dependent variables were not equal, thus violating the assumptions of
MANOVA (Huck and Cormier, 1996, pp. 313-15, 374-7), a Mann-Whitney
non-parametric analysis was conducted testing whether the observations
from the two groups of online apparel buyers were equivalent in location.
These analyses were consistent with the parametric tests.
As a final analysis, a 2 £ 2 (SEX £ EVER, with age as a covariate)
MANCOVA was conducted comparing the buyers and non-buyers on three
additional variables. These were:
(1) the number of hours the respondent was online in an average week
(HOURS);
(2) the amount of reported spending on apparel (SPEND); and
(2) how likely the respondent was to buy online in the coming year
(LIKELY).
The results showed that men averaged more hours online per week than
women, women spent more on apparel than men, and the men were more
likely to shop online in the future than were the women. Finally, online
apparel buyers reported spending more time online and were more likely to
buy online in the future than non-buyers.
97
 Discussion
Respondent demographics The present study compared selected characteristics of consumers who had
purchased apparel online with those who had not. The results showed that
online apparel buyers purchased online more often, felt that online buying
was more fun, safer and quicker than non-buyers. Online apparel buyers
were more confident in their ability to buy online and were more innovative
and knowledgeable about the Internet than non-buyers. Online apparel
buyers did not differ from non-buyers in their belief in how cheap buying
online is, in their overall enjoyment of shopping, or in how often they bought
apparel by any means. Respondent demographics were also unrelated to
buying apparel online. Online apparel buyers further differed from non-
buyers in that they spent more time online than non-buyers and were more
likely to buy online in the future than non-buyers. These results reveal a
systematic pattern of psychological and behavioral factors that seem to
facilitate online apparel purchase.
These findings confirm theoretical accounts of consumer behavior and
extend their generality into the new realm of cyber-commerce. The findings
are consistent with other studies that show that favorable attitudes are related
to online buying. From the methodological perspective, the attitude measures
appear to be robust across studies and provide valid, reliable
operationalizations of these constructs. This should encourage researchers to
use them as standardized measures of e-commerce-related attitudes. The
findings also confirm the reliability and validity of the innovativeness (DSI)
and knowledge scales, consistent with a series of studies that have evidenced
their psychometric soundness (e.g. Flynn et al., 2000; Goldsmith, 2000).
Unique consumption The findings suggest that consumers are motivated to buy apparel online by a
activity combination of factors and that the special circumstances of e-commerce
make this a unique consumption activity. Online apparel buyers obviously
must want and need clothing, so this basic motivation partially underlies
their behavior. They seem, however, to be motivated differentially by their
attitudes toward the Internet. While online apparel buyers were clearly more
positive on the attitudinal and psychological characteristics, they were no
more likely than non-buyers to shop for clothes by other means, to enjoy
shopping in general, or to spend money buying clothes. That is, they are not
disproportionately motivated by clothing as a product category or by interest
in shopping, but by the perceived advantages of online buying and their
positive predisposition toward this mode of commerce.
Positive attitudes For managers, the results suggest that their online buyers may be somewhat
different from their in-store customers and may represent new customers.
Consumers who buy disproportionately more apparel likely enjoy shopping
and want the emotional and sensory pleasures of touching, seeing and trying
on clothes (see Seckler, 2000; Underhill, 1999). Note the positive
intercorrelations in Table IV between spending on apparel and shopping
(r = 0.30), spending and buying by any means (0.43), and between shopping
and buying (0.40). None of these variables was correlated with amount of
online buying (PURCH). Online buyers, in contrast, appear to be motivated
by their positive attitudes toward the Internet. Thus, to attract apparel buyers
to Web sites, e-marketers might focus on emphasizing the added advantages
of fun, speed and safety. They should first ensure that their sites are fun to
use, load rapidly with prompt post-sale delivery of ordered merchandise, and
are completely safe to use. They might emphasize how different online
buying is and not pretend that it is the same as in-store shopping. Joint or
cooperative strategies might display apparel online, but suggest that a

98 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002

 different experience could be had in the store, where unique accessories or
combinations of clothes could be seen. Online apparel buyers and non-
buyers did not differ in their perception that buying online is cheaper than
offline. Thus, Seckler’s (2000) argument that offering price discounts may be
a prime way to attract non-buyers is supported. To attract new buyers online,
apparel e-tailers may have to change perceptions that online buying is unsafe
(see Robinson, 2000). Web sites must be made simple and easy to use,
because non-users are not very confident that they can buy online
successfully. In-store demonstrations of online shopping might encourage
non-buyers to shop online. As online apparel buying spreads beyond the
innovative and knowledgeable consumer to the less sophisticated shopper,
apparel marketers should cater to their unique tastes, abilities and habits.
This is especially true, since the results suggest that many online apparel
buyers will buy online again.
Snapshot picture The study is limited by the nature of the sample, measures, specificity, and
time studied. Lack of randomness in the sample limits generalizability of the
point and interval estimates to a larger population; but since the main
purpose of the study was to test theoretical hypotheses about online buying,
this is a minor limitation (Calder et al., 1981). No conclusions can be drawn
about concepts that might be related to online apparel buying, but were not
measured; and the results are limited to the measures employed. Similarly,
the focal topic was clothing in general and not a specific type (new fashion,
sports clothes, work clothes, etc.). Finally, since e-commerce and online
consumer behavior are constantly changing phenomena, the present study is
only a snapshot picture and not a longitudinal view.
Expand the scope of the Advantages of the study lie in the large sample size and validity of the
findings measures used. Future research should examine online apparel using data
from other demographic, socio-economic and national groups of consumers
to expand the scope of the findings. The online buyer behaviors studied
should be expanded beyond just buying to include browsing, comparison
shopping and combining the Internet with in-store consumption, as well as
consumption of specific categories of apparel, such as new fashions or
unique sizes and needs. As noted in the introduction, growth is a major
theme of e-commerce. Thus, replication studies would be a valuable way to
track changes in online apparel buying over time. Accumulation of such
studies would expand our knowledge of both apparel consumer behavior and
consumer Internet behavior to the advantage of both consumer theory and
apparel marketing. Finally, other researchers could make use of our measures
to study buying behavior in other areas as well.

References
Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W. and Tybout, A.M. (1981), ``Designing research for application ’’,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, September, pp. 197-207 .
Citrin, A.V., Sprott, D.E., Silveman, S.N. and Stem, D.E. Jr (2000), ``Adoption of Internet
shopping: the role of consumer innovativeness’’ , Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 100 No. 7, pp. 294-300 .
Eastlick, M.A. and Lotz, S. (1999), ``Profiling potential adopters and non-adopter s of an
interactiv e electronic shopping medium’’, Internationa l Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management , Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 209-23.
eMarketer (2000), ``The e-holiday shopping report’’, available at: www.emarketer.co m
Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. and Kim, W. (2000), ``A cross-cultura l validation of three new
marketing scales for fashion research: involvement , opinion seeking, and knowledge ’’,
The Journal of Fashion Marketing and Managemen t, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 110-20.
Goldsmith, R.E. (2000), ``How innovativenes s differentiate s online buyers’’, Quarterly Journal
of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 323-33.

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002 99

 Goldsmith, R.E. and Bridges, E. (2000), ``E-tailing vs retailing: using attitudes to predict
online buying behavior ’’, Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 245-53.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991), ``Measuring consumer innovativeness ’’, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-21.
Goldsmith, R.E. and McGregor, S. (1999), ``Electroni c commerce: an emerging issue in
consumer education ’’, Proceedings of XIX Internationa l Consumer Studies and Home
Economics Research Conference, Belfast.
Goldsmith, R.E. and McGregor, S. (2000), ``E-commerce: consumer protection issues and
implications for research and education ’’, Journal of Consumer Studies & Home
Economics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 124-7.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hallberg, G. (1995), All Consumers Are not Created Equal, John Wiley, New York, NJ.
Harvard Management Update (2000), ``Lessons from the online war for customers’’,
Harvard Management Update, January, pp. 3-4.
Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (1996), ``Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediate d
environments : conceptua l foundations’’ , Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 153-61.
Hogg, M.K., Bruce, M. and Hill, A.J. (1998), ``Fashion brand preference s among young
consumers’’, Internationa l Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 26 No. 8,
pp. 293-300 .
Huck, S.W. and Cormier, W.H. (1996), Reading Statistics and Research, 2nd ed.,
HarperCollin s College Publishers, New York, NY.
Karson, E. (2000), ``Two dimensions of computer and Internet use: a reliable and validated
scale’’, Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Katz, J. and Aspden, P. (1997), ``Motivations for and barriers to Internet usage: results of a
national public opinion survey’’, Internet Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 170-88.
Kuntz, J. (2000), ``Age and income play key roles in online sales’’, Daily News Record,
27 March, p. 19.
Limayem, M., Khalifa, M. and Frini, A. (2000), ``What makes consumers buy from the
Internet? A longitudina l study of online shopping’’, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 421-32.
Murphy, R. (1999), ``Download: Internet news II’’, The Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management , Vol. 3 No. 4., pp. 376-7.
Nelson, J. (2000), ``Internet at a glance’’, Business 2.0, 12 September, p. 279.
O’Guinn, T.C. and Faber, R.J. (1989), ``Compulsive buying: a phenomenologica l exploration’’ ,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 147-57.
Robinson, E. (2000), ``Click and cover’’, Business 2.0, 12 September, pp. 168-80.
Seckler, V. (2000), ``Survey says Web apparel buys doubled ’’, Women’s Wear Daily, 12 July,
p. 2.
Silverman, D. (2000), ``More women wardrobe online than ever’’, Women’s Wear Daily,
31 July, p. 20.
Solomon, M.R. (1999), Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being, 4th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
UCLA (2000), ``The UCLA Internet report: surveying the digital future’’, available at:
www.ccp.ucla.edu
Underhill, P. (1999), Why We Buy: The Science of Shoppin g, Simon & Schuster,
New York, NY.
Vickery, L. and Agins, T. (2001), ``Retailers find Web apparel unprofitable ’’, Wall Street
Journal , 6 June, p. B6.
Wilson, J. (1999), ``Keynot e address’’, The Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 370-6.
&

100 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002

 This summary has been
provided to allow managers
and executives a rapid
appreciation of the content
of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the
topic covered may then read
the article in toto to take
advantage of the more
comprehensive description
of the research undertaken
and its results to get the full
benefit of the material
present
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002
Executive summary and implications for managers and
executives
Retailing online ± know your customer and learn from mail order
marketing
E-commerce and especially online retailing have received much attention, a
great deal of thought and significant investment. Despite this, we still lack
any clear understanding of the business models that can deliver success
online. For every apparent e-retailing success, we get a massive ± and
usually very expensive ± failure. We can say ± with some safety ± that the
prospects for another Internet trading investment boom have gone.
For marketers this situation is a disappointment. We are, after all, the
experts on distribution and sales channels. The failure to make e-retailing
work sits in our court and we continue to chew away at the e-commerce bone
in the hope that it will eventually come good. At the same time we have
raised questions about the capacity of the technology to deliver what we
want. Doubts persist about the security of money transfers online. Weak links
between real world distribution ± getting the product to the customer ± and
the cosy virtual world get in the way of seamless service. And, while getting
the online equivalent of footfall is easy, converting these visitors to
customers is a massive challenge.
Know your customer ± the marketer’s mantra
Goldsmith and Goldsmith observe that, while a great deal is said about
online processes, technology and promotion, little is known about the actual
online customer. We know too little about the differences between the
enthusiastic innovators who buy goods online and the rest who are happy to
look but do not buy.
The difference between ``innovators’’ and ``early adopters’’ is well
researched and, in general terms, understood by marketers. E-retailing has
not taken off, because the chasm between these two groups remains
unbridged. As a result the apparent mass market for e-commerce remains a
future dream. Two-thirds of Americans might have access to the Internet but
they are not using it to buy things ± at least not in sufficient numbers.
Goldsmith and Goldsmith set out to compare clothes buyers who have
bought online with those who have not made this sort of purchase.
Underlying the study is the assumption (supported by research and largely
common sense) that `` . . . consumers who have previous experience in online
buying will be more likely to buy apparel online than those who lack such
experience.’’ We should also note, like Goldsmith and Goldsmith, that the
people who matter to e-retailers are those very similar to existing users who,
at present, are non-users.
Are you frightened of the Web?
Goldsmith and Goldsmith find that there are substantial differences between
e-buyers and the rest of humanity (I always knew that Web enthusiasts were
strange). Some of these differences are pretty prosaic ± online buyers have
fewer security worries, appreciate the ``quickness’’ and flexibility of online
buying and see the Web as making buying easier. However, the other (more
psychological) factors suggest that these preferences are symptomatic of the
type rather than definitional. The remainder of Goldsmith and Goldsmith’s
findings throw up words like ``confident’’, ``innovative’’, ``knowledgeable’’
and ``fun’’. Our e-buyers take the view that `` . . . the special circumstances
of e-commerce make this a unique consumption activity.’’ These people are
different and we need to know why and, at the same time, to understand the
resistance of others to e-commerce.
Part of the resistance appears to lie in fear (characterised as being a lack of
confidence). People who do not buy online do not have a great deal of trust in
101
 the medium. This seems to hold true, even when they use the Internet for a
variety of other activities (information gathering, communications, games etc.).
Until these issues of fear (or trust, or confidence) are dealt with, marketers will
struggle to take the idea of e-commerce into the mainstream of retailing.

Removing the fear

Two elements are involved in removing consumer distrust of e-commerce.
The first is more confidence with the technology involved in buying online.
Bear in mind that most of us who use computers take advantage of a tiny part
of the capacity of even basic software. Even with comprehensible manuals,
on-screen and online help and ``idiot guides’’, we still stick to basic
processing.
Ease-of-use is fundamental to successful e-retailing and, so far, we have
failed to achieve sufficiently easy systems to remove the consumer’s worry
about getting it wrong. But this is just one problem and its solution lies as
much in the relationship between the ordinary consumer and Internet
technology as in specific marketing actions.
The second element is purely promotional and is about securing trial and
reducing the distrust. E-commerce becomes accessible when these barriers
are removed and there are many techniques available that marketers can
use.
Mail order and direct marketers have always faced resistance to their
channel. Indeed, mail order people appreciate that there remains a large
chunk of the population that will never buy mail order, whatever the
incentive. Nevertheless, these marketers have developed (and tested) a
variety of simple techniques to secure trial and build confidence:
product and service guarantees;
payment on delivery rather than payment with the order;
featuring low-risk entry products;
no-quibble return policies;
product endorsement ± by real customers;
testimonials; and
prize draws, free gifts and other order incentives.

E-commerce represents a new channel and, for some businesses, a different

means of delivering product. But for most businesses and especially
retailers, the Internet does not change the nature of the product itself (a pair
of shorts remains a pair of shorts). Rather than reinventing the wheel, e-
retailers should learn from direct marketers.
E-commerce needs more confidence to sell itself successfully but, in the final
analysis, the e-retailer does little that is different from the mail order
company. And the direct marketer knows that profits come from repeat
business rather than from the first sale. Too many e-commerce operations
have floundered, because they ignored the experience of others and tried to
run a business without good databases or the strategies to sustain income
from existing buyers.
Do you want your e-retailing business to succeed? Hire an experience direct
marketer and you will stand a better than average chance of success.
Pretending that the e-marketers have nothing to learn from old, grizzled (and
boring) mail order people is a mistake that is probabl y costing you money.

(A preÂcis of the article ``Buying apparel over the Internet’’. Supplied by

Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

102 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 11 NO. 2 2002