• Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association
• /
• v.44 no.12
• /
• pp.105-115
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study is to apply conjoint analysis to fashion product development. Conjoint measurement was undertaken on the traditional casual market, composed of Polo, Beanpole, Maru and Giordano brands. Product's attributes, such as brand name, price, country of origin and style, were selected as choice factors. Twelve profiles were used for full-profile stimulus cards method. Based on the importance and utility rates of the product attributes, preferences for the products currently in the market and simulated products were calculated. The results increased our understanding of the trends in traditional casual market and assisted in the preparation of marketing strategies for each brand.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.230-241
• /
• 1999

The purpose of this study was to investigate the purchasing behavior of adolescent consumer groups divided by their brand orientation. Questionnaires were administered to 507 middle and high school students who resided in Kwang-ju between September 22-27 1997. Data were analyzed by factor analysis cluster analysis ANOVA Duncan-test frequency and {{{{ chi ^2 }}-test. The results were as follows : 1. Adolescent consumers were classified by three groups ; brand attached groups : brand attached group (Group I) brand interest group (Group II) and brand indifference group (Group III) according to their brand orientation. 2. There were significant differences among groups in using information sources : Group II used more sources of information than the other two groups. 3. As evaluating attributes of product Group I considered brand prestige most important Group II considered design fashionablity imfortant orderly and Group III considered pricemost important. 4. Group I patronised expensive brand chain stores Group II patronseied department stores and Group III prefered independently owned cheaper priced retailers. 5. The apparel purchasing price range was higher for Group I and became lower for Group II Group III.