Importance of Apparel Shopping for Millennial Men Consumers

Literature Review

Theoretical Frameworks

5-Stage Consumer Decision-Making Process

Marketers have always sought to enter into the minds of the consumers in the bid to understand how they make the decision to purchase. Since the 1960s, scholars have defined models targeted at comprehending this complex phenomenon. The decision-making process depends on the nature of the product. The most important products dictate the making of more multifaceted decision making. For instance, if risks are involved, the buyer engages in careful considerations when deciding to buy. In this case, the decision-making process necessitates a high capacity of cognitive effort (Erasmus, Boshoff, & Rousseau, 2001). Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell (1968) proposed a model for understanding the decision-making founded on the view of a consumer as a rational decision-maker. In the decision-making model, the authors suggest chronological (linear) process leading to a clear decision from an evaluation of alternatives. Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard (1995) gave a summary of the decision-making model, suggesting that: “thought and evaluation precede the act of purchase and use because of the importance of making the right choice” (Engel et al., 1995, p. 156). The model proposed by Engel et al. (1968) is a 5-Stage consumer decision-making process.

According to Engel et al. (1968), the model is founded on a comprehension of decision-making among consumers as a conscious process that entails movement from one step to another. The interrelated variables conspire over a time period. The model highlights consumer decision-making, explaining the potential for by-passing some steps, particularly in repeat purchases. From the theoretical point of view, the marketers seek to communicate to the consumer the information necessary for decision-making (Hibić & Poturak, 2016). The consumer decision-making model relates to the decision to purchase, following the understanding of needs, evaluation of alternatives, the actual purchase, and the reassessment in a post-evaluation stage. The purchase decision stage is the focus of the model (Engel et al., 1968).

Information has a critical role in the learning model of decision-making behavior proposed by Engel et al. (1968). In the choice of the most effective solution, an evaluation is critical, indicating the significance of adequate information prior to the decision (Hibić & Poturak, 2016). Yang (2004) indicates the growing importance of the internet as a source of information. The information is critical to the process that leads to the final decision. The decision is made in relation to the one that is most suited to the needs of the customer based on product’s attributes and cost (Engel et al., 1995). In addition, Engel et al. (1995) define “salience” as the difference in the impact of the diverse dimensions on the customer’s decision. With the right and adequate information, it is possible for the customer to make the decision on the product most suited to meet the needs (Engel et al., 1968; Engel et al., 1995). If the information about the product is not adequate, the price might be the determining factor.

General Consumer Decision-Making

Hall and Towers (2017) introduce a novel view of consumer behavior, even as the consumers move to the digital media in making their purchase decisions. Focusing on the Millennial, the researchers investigated the move to the digital media, especially in the search for information to make the decision on what to purchase and where. Bart and Keller (2016) introduce a new reality in the shift of consumer behavior as a function of the new media. The changes are also evident in the linear decision-making model that has been used for decades.

Need, Want, Desire. Marketing is basically founded on establishing the needs, wants or desires of the customers (Schor, 1999). While the three concepts differ, there is a logical progression between them. A need is basic, completely a necessity. A want is a feeling for something that is lacking. A desire is a craving for apprehending the want. Hibić and Poturak (2016) posit that understanding and differentiating these concepts is critical for marketers to understand the decision-making process and use the information for targeted marketing. According to Hibić and Poturak (2016), the necessity can arise from a need that is not satisfied by a previous purchase or it might be an entirely new need that will be met by a new purchase. Establishing the needs of the customers is the foundation for an effective marketing strategy (Darley, Blankson, & Luethge, 2010). It is the basis for effective targeting of the customers.

Information Gathering. Information search in the modern new media environment is a phenomenon that is increasingly being explored (Bart & Keller, 2016; Hall & Towers, 2017). The millennial customers have an added advantage of real-time information due to the powerful search tools. In the journey to establish the best alternative to meet the needs of the customers, there is evidence of increasingly new channels that can be utilized. With a simple click of the mouse, the customer can get vast information. The information is in the form of postings by marketers and reviews from other consumers who have used the same product. Bart and Keller (2016) suggest the use of integrated marketing communication as the basis for availing adequate information to the consumer in making the decision to purchase.

Evaluation of Alternatives. The market presents a number of alternatives to the consumer for meeting the need. The process entails a search for the most appropriate solution through an evaluation of the available options. In the process of conducting of the evaluation, some factors that emerge in research include brand name, research, and country of origin. However, those factors may differ in their impact on the decision. Evaluation of alternatives in an environment of vast information enhances the use of the social media and other digital communication networks (Bolton, Parasuraman, Hoefnagels, Migchels, Kabadayi, Gruber, Loureiro & Solnet, 2013; Bart & Keller, 2016). Bolton et al. (2013) investigated the behavior of the millennials in terms of their use of social media. Evidently, the authors reveal that new media has a critical impact on how these consumers access and use information in evaluating alternatives on which to base their decisions. The interaction with the social media has an impact on the way the consumers are searching for the information on alternatives to satisfy their needs (Bart & Keller, 2016). With the right and adequate information, it is possible for the customer to make the decision on the most suited product to meet their needs (Engel et al., 1968; Engel et al., 1995).

Purchase Decision. Engel et al. (1968) aver that the evaluation of the alternatives directs the consumer to a particular purchase decision. The decision is based on what and where to make the purchase. The logical decision made by the customer is made after an assessment of the facts based on the needs and wants of the customer. Again, the information on the new media is mainly what is being used to make the decision. However, Clow, and Baack (2005) suggest that a purchase decision does not always have to follow from the evaluation of the alternatives. A consumer might reach a store having decided to buy one brand, but leaves with a different product. Hence, the assessment is made based on the emotional connections/experiences with the product or the conviction based on advertising/marketing campaigns. Interestingly, most of the members of the millennial generation are making the purchases online (Bolton et al., 2013). Major expectations accompany the decision, which are evaluated after the purchase has been made and the product used. This leads to the post-purchase behavior that includes the evaluation of the purchase decision.

Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction, Cognitive Dissonance, Consumption, and Divestment. Post-purchase behavior is critical following the decision of the buyer to purchase a product anticipated to meet the identified need. The evaluation is based on the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The assessment is founded on the potential of the product to meet the expectations of the customer. For the Millennial, for example, the process includes writing reviews online (Elwalda & Lu, 2016). Following dissatisfaction, cognitive dissonance arises in some of the purchases (Darley, Blankson, & Luethge, 2010). It is worth noting that cognitive dissonance is the mental stress resulting from the use of the purchased product. In fact, this negative outcome can be minimized by understanding the needs of the customers and targeting their marketing.  The potential for loyalty is eroded when consumers perceive poor performance of the product. Instead, there is development of negative influencers in the customers. Elwalda and Lu (2016) suggest that the reviews are critical sources of information on future purchases. The same determines the disinvestment decision, which relates to the way the consumer disposes of the product or packaging following use, which can be through disposal, remarketing, reselling, or recycling.

Generational Cohort Theory

The generational cohort theory emerged out of the efforts to explain differences across generations. The idea of divergent generations coming into being was proposed in 1923 by Mannheim and published in his essay, The Problem of Generations, in 1928. The theory was later refined by Howe and Strauss in their book,  Generations (1991). Research has focused on the diversity of the traits, which differ across generations in as far as consumer behavior is concerned (Burnsed & Bickle, 2015). From the theoretical point of view, social reforms and critical historical incidents critically impact on the beliefs, inclinations, values, and attitudes of the people (Burnsed & Bickle, 2015). Such events can come in the form of ideological experiences, which forms the basis for the differences in the shopping behaviors. The people who come into being during the same time and go through the same events (the same cohort) are most likely to have common cognitive styles and inclinations (Mannheim, 1993). The presumption that these elements are due to age and maturity of the person is the alternative to this theoretical model. However, the theory differs from the perspective, claiming that occurrences within a generation are a function, not of biological process, but of social events (Carpenter, Moore, Doherty, & Alexander, 2012). Hence, generational events have an important role in explaining the differences.

Brosdahl and Carpenter (2011) when using the Generational Cohort Theory revealed the differences in lifestyle and shopping behaviors among male shoppers. In this case, they indicated four different generational cohorts, including “the Silent generation, the Baby Boomers, the 13th Generation, and the Millennials” (Brosdahl and Carpenter, 2011, p. 548). The results of the study indicate a high level of enjoyment in shopping among male shoppers in the millennial generation. The shoppers also revealed to have a high propensity for recreational shopping. A particular generational cohort; for instance, millennials, have common features and characteristics (Petra, 2016). Specific boundaries, such as age or years of birth, define a generational cohort. Millennials are the individuals whose date of birth falls between 1980 and 2000. Shopping behavior is one of the characteristics that differentiate them from others. For the marketers, this is an important segment because of the fact that they have the greatest purchase power. Brosdahl and Carpenter (2012) revealed that male generational cohorts differ in the way they make their purchases. The comparison between Silent Generation and Millennial Generation showed that the latter are most likely to do their shopping online.

Men’s Shopping Behavior

Changing Attitude

A gap in research exists in relation to the shopping behavior of men. Regardless, Parker, Simmers, and Schaefer (2014) established that men are also concerned about their appearance and they are most likely to care about being fashionable. There has been an increase in fashion consciousness among men (Bakewell, Mitchell, & Rothwell, 2006). However, fashion adoption is not common among the millennial male consumers. Men are shown to have the tendency to consider fashion from a simplistic view, with a heightened “anti‐fashion” dimension. Nonetheless, further research has depicted contrary view. The focus of research is evident in the preferences of men in relation to clothing, and fashion in general. An exploratory study by Noh, Li, Martin, and Purpura (2015) revealed that the main driver of preference for fashion among men is comfort and conformity with the norm. Avoidance of some clothes is a function of incongruence of the clothes with the styles of men. The view norm, including stereotypes, is a factor in determining whether a particular style of clothing will become popular with the younger men or not.

Shopping preferences among the millennial men have been changing, especially due to the impact of the family structures and social class. Men within this cohort are showing evidence of increasing patient to do shopping (Funches, Yarber-Allen, & Johnson, 2017). The retail market for men has been on the increase since 1992, indicating the reality that the shopping behavior among men has been transforming. Compensatory consumption emerges as the force behind the increasing shopping activity among male shoppers (Woodruffe-Burton, 2017). Some experts have explored the force behind the changes in shopping behavior among men, among them Otnes and McGrath (2001), who revealed an assumption of gender role transcendence and a means of achieving a moral position within the marketplace. On the other hand, hegemonic masculinity is the connector of the positives and negatives as far as the shopping propensity of men is concerned (Barry, 2015). The benefits that abide men to shop include identity expression, cultivation of success, and engagement facilitation. At the same time, there is a negative side such as body anxiety, exclusion, and sartorial stress. Evidence of success in navigating through the pressures to become legitimate shoppers is also another factor (Rinallo, 2007). Just like women, men are engaged in the fashion advertisement where they process the information through the same modes as women (Barry & Phillips, 2015). The information and transformations in male shopping behavior are a critical to fashion marketing.

Increase in Men Shopping

The desire to be fashionable for the male shoppers is emerging as an important trend for the designers and retailers (Martins, 2014). While gender plays an important role in the shopping behaviors of the participants as depicted in the study by Pentecost and Andrews (2010), there is an evident increase in the male shoppers, belonging to the millennial cohort. The male members of the generational cohort have increased their shopping frequency as well as in fashion fanship, attitudes, and impulse buying. Men are shopping more, but they are most likely to be found shopping online. Lipke (2012) elucidates that marketers are taking advantage of the trend. On the same aspect, the author maintains that there is an increase in the number of online sites, which target male shoppers. iProspect and analytics company, comScore released a study indicating that the Web, especially through mobile devices is the most suited for this segment of shoppers. Among the online tools that have emerged, making the search for information easier and faster, include Smartphone applications, Quick Response Code, mobile visual search, augmented reality, and GPS based technologies (Hall & Towers, 2017). The tools are famous among the millennial male shoppers.

Although women have historically been the focus of fashionable designs, including accessories, the trend is changing, with more men entering the fashion arena. Women’s apparel brands are currently focusing on male shoppers (Stugatz, 2012). In the recent past, there has been a growth in men’s fashion accessories. The millennial men have redefined the belief in gender tropes. Compared to the previous generations, research has indicated that millennial men are spending twice as much on fashion accessories, even as their general shopping behavior is transforming (Carroll, 2015). This trend indicates a shift that marketers should comprehend; hence, focus their brands towards men shoppers.

Brand Conscious

The decision-making style used by men in relation to shopping is a topic that is gaining interest in research. The potential difference between men and women in decision-making styles is among the areas under research investigation. Bakewell and Mitchell (2006), in a study to compare males and females in relation to some decision-making traits, indicated some traits that cut across the genders. However, the real interest was on three novel traits specific to men, including “store-loyalty and low-price seeking, confused time-restricted, and store-promiscuity” (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2006, p. 1297). The results of the study indicated the importance of capitalizing on the brand consciousness of the male shoppers to build brand loyalty.

Brand Loyalty

Lazarevic (2012) assumed a unique view about creation of brand loyalty by the marketers targeting the millennial consumers. As a background, the author indicated that the generational cohort is a notoriously disloyal segment. Hence, a challenge is posed to marketers to establish effective means of creating the connection between the brand and the consumers within this segment. Use of integrated marketing communication model as well as branding, in novel ways, can be applied in developing brand loyalty among the millennial consumers. Trends indicate the potential for the millennial consumers to be the main consumer segments for various sectors, including the hotel sector, globally (Bilgihan, 2016). The members of this cohort are more interested in experience, factors that marketers can capitalize on to build brand loyalty. The marketers should create an emotional connection with the brand. When the consumers develop the emotional connection with the brand, the brand loyalty develops. The new media channels are open for use by the marketer to develop the loyalty with the millennial consumers.

Male Decision-making versus Female

Gender has remained an important factor in the decision-making process as one of the main forces in the process assumed by the customer. Women and men tend to approach shopping with diversity in relation to intentions, perspectives, and rationales. A decade’s worth of research evidence is available on the topic. The research indicates obvious differences in the behavior of men and women in shopping and further points to the fact that the thought process of men and women when approaching shopping tend to be largely different. The gender-specific tendencies play a role in the way marketing is approached (Harvell, Stillman, Cranney, Schow, & Nisbett, 2016). The online shopping environment has fueled the need for more research to show the online buying behavior across genders, and if the conventional gender-specific tendencies have found their way to this environment.

While there are still evident differences in the shopping behavior between the two genders, research on the young generation indicates that there are some shared traits (Bakewell & Mitchell, 2006). However, some different traits should be understood to target market to the particular gender. Applying the Sproles and Kendall’s (1986) Consumer Styles Inventory, Bakewell and Mitchell (2006) explored the four new traits that are particular to men in making purchase decisions, which include “store-loyal/low-price seeking, time-energy conserving, confused time-restricted and store-promiscuity” (Bakewell and Mitchell, 2006, p. 1297). The results of the study are applicable to market segmentation, as it remains evident that decision-making behavior for men differs from women.

Male Shopping Orientations

From a retail point of view, the research interest on the male shopper is on the rise. As opposed to the vast research, that has only compared men to women in terms of shopping behavior, Brosdahl and Carpenter (2012) made a comparison between different generational cohorts of men. The millennial male shoppers have increased preferences to shop, but mostly online. The generations differ because of the divergent economic and social realities that they have experienced (Ordun, 2015). The marketers can effectively divide the male shoppers along the different generations as the shopping behaviors of the members of each generation are found to be similar. For example, they can use the enthusiasm of the millennial shoppers to shop from the malls (Gilboa & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2010). The information indicates the importance of studying the shoppers using the generational theoretical framework as opposed to a gendered perspective alone.

The importance of establishing the link between shopping orientation and male shopping behavior led to the study by Banytė, Rūtelionė, and Jarusevičiūtė (2015). The study indicated the potential of modeling shopping behavior of men to their shopping orientation. The process is informed by the importance of understanding the orientations related to the way men shop and use the information in targeting the segment. The patterns, as well as motives behind shopping attitudes, should be the focus of the evaluation by marketers when targeting a particular cohort of shoppers. The shopping patterns and orientations of the millennial shoppers differ from other generations and understanding the differences can be critical to marketers.

Men’s Shopping Behavior 

Men are shopping now more than they did in the past. However, there is limitation in research findings on the perceptions of the shopping behavior of men and their actual shopping behavior. The present information on the shopping behavior of men is based on stereotyping. Otnes and McGrath (2001) explored three main stereotypes that are held in relation to the shopping behavior of men, including “Grab and Go,” “Whine and Wait,” and “Fear of the Feminine” (p. 112). Evidence of the actual shopping behavior of men, from their personal evaluations, discounts the stereotypes. Men, for instance, agree that they engage in the evaluation of alternatives, bargaining, and even shopping in “feminine” stores. The theoretical foundation of men shopping behavior being founded on gender roles should be redefined as the male shoppers have developed gender role transcendence in their shopping behavior. Male shoppers are much more than the stereotypes when it comes to making the shopping decision. They undertake a decision-making process that leads to the final decision to purchase.

Utilitarian/Hedonistic

With the increase in online retailing, the impact on the shoppers is an area that needs more research. Lin (2011) carried out the study aimed at investigating, in the context of TV-and-online retailing, the gender differences in the connection between online patronage behavior and multi-channel shopping values. The impact of utilitarian and hedonic TV shopping values has been established, impacting more on men than women. The established effect is on consumer online aid intentions as the shoppers interact with the online channels. The patronage behavior of the males compared to females is more affected through the mediated role of the online environment (Lin, 2011). Marketers can take advantage of the multichannel effect in targeting their messages to the male consumers.

Shopping is taking place in different environments due to the emergence of multichannel marketing. Shoppers can either shop online or offline depending on the need, preferences or just for fun. The shopping behavior and intentions of the shoppers in either of the environments differ. The offline shoppers differ from online shoppers based on the simplified causalities structure, a higher level of maturity, and strong connections with the brand among the offline shoppers. In the online environment, shoppers are most likely to shop for fun, while offline shopping is more goal-oriented and involves greater sharing of experiences (Scarpi, Pizzi, & Visentin, 2014) Knowledge of this reality has an important role to play in the model of marketing assumed, including the word-of-mouth.

Shopping Channel Decision

Brick and Mortar

With the growth in the shopping world made possible by the Internet, it remains interesting that there are still some men still stuck in the brick and mortar-shopping environment. Otnes and McGrath (2001) could be revisited in looking at the stereotypes that exist in terms of the shopping behavior of men. Following the stereotypes, it could be assumed that men will shop more through online platforms because of the anxiety associated with shopping in the physical environment. Men would be assumed to be afraid of moving around the physical stores to do their shopping. While it could be true for some, the online environment cannot replace the social and highly personal retail experience offered by the brick and mortar shopping settings. Even with the anachronistic nature of the setting, there are men who are still shopping from the physical stores. Companies are addressing the aversion of men to shopping by moving their business online at a very high rate (Berthiaume, 2015). However, it remains surprising that some men are still gathering at brick-and-mortar stores to do their shopping. More research is important to establish the underlying factor for the continued shopping behavior among men.

E-commerce

The current research on the business carried out online is focused on the perspective of the seller. E-commerce has gained popularity as a function of the benefits offered to the seller, including greater volume and efficiency in terms of the speed of ordering and delivery of products to customers. It is critical to look at the impact of the online shopping experience from the perspective of the buyer (Hansen & Jensen, 2009). While there has been a decline in client base, a growth in sales volume is evident in the online environment. Online retailers, such as Amazon.com, have gained popularity among shoppers. The increase in the volume of sales from the sites is an indication of the greater tendency of shoppers to shop from the sites as opposed to the fixed retail locations. Research on the gender differences in this reality is not diverse.

Schulz and Block (2015) investigated the role played by gender differences in shopping orientations across different shopping platforms. Men and women are revealed to differ in terms of their shopping orientations. Their willingness to shop for clothing online is another area that is different across the two genders. Online shopping is associated with a reduction in the challenges involved in selecting the clothes. However, the selection challenge evident in the online environment has been revealed to have greater impact on women than on men. Men are shown to have fewer challenges when selecting the clothing in the online environment. This explains why more men than women are expected to shop for clothing through an online platform. The fun factor is also revealed to affect men more than women in the decision to shop online.

M-commerce

Mobile commerce is a reality that emerged with the development of mobile devices, including smartphones and tablets among others. Using a two-step hurdle model, Cozzarin and Dimitrov (2016) investigated consumer behavior in m-commerce. The first step is the investigation of the decision to purchase, while the second approach is determination of the amount of order. There are important factors that play a role in the decision to use m-commerce platforms and the amount of orders to make. The two factors are access to mobile device and the security risk assessment. A comparison of those who are most likely to use the platforms leads to the evidence that those who are less anxious about the security of their resources and information are most likely to make a purchase through mobile platforms.

M-shopping is a common trend among the male shoppers because of the eradication of the difficulties involved in physical shopping. The convenience offered by the mobile platforms is the main factor behind the decision to use the shopping model. Nonetheless, even with the increase in the subscription to the mobile services, fewer numbers of consumers who are making their purchases using the mobile devices are still evident. Social influencers are evident in the decision to make purchases using the mobile devices. Personal innovativeness is another important factor in the decision (Kalinic & Marinkovic, 2016). Research in this area, especially in relation to gender differences has not been adequate. There is a need for more studies that will explore the gender differences in decision making to use the mobile commerce environment.

Social Media

Marketers are taking advantage of the social media to market their products. Perception of the customers plays an important role in their adoption of the channels in making their purchases. Compared to other forms of marketing, social media marketing is revealed to have a huge influence on the decision-making process by the consumers. Adoption of the social media model is greater among the younger generation of shoppers (Vejačka, 2017). However, there is no indication of differences across gender in the adoption of the social media consumer decision-making model. Indee, it is possible that the differences do exist in the use of the information across the genders, but this area requires more research.

Among the Millennial shoppers, the online interpersonal interactions and communications are playing an important part. Although there is a lower rate of adoption of the social media in various parts of the world, there is evidence that the communication channels are influencing the decision-making processes of the millennial shoppers, both men and women. An investigation of the millennials’ attitudes toward social media use is a critical process in marketing. A hierarchical reaction model attitude stages among millennial shoppers is revealed within social media marketing communications. The findings provide evidence of the influence of the social media in decision making among the millennial shoppers. Among the demographic characteristics in the use of the social media for shopping decisions is gender, although greater exploration is necessary on how the factor plays out.

Multichannel Marketing

While the world of marketing has witnessed a growth in digital platforms, the physical contact with the customers has not been lost. Marketers still interact with the customers through multiple channels. Consumers have the chance to shop both online and offline depending on the shopping intention. Whether one is shopping for need or fun, the approach determines the choice of the channel for use in making the purchase (Scarpi, Pizzi, & Visentin, 2014). For the male shoppers, there is a complex decision-making process when making a purchase. Hence, it is possible to find the male shopper shopping either online or offline. Just like women, there is a growth in the proportion of men shopping for fun. There are yet those who are likely to shop because of the need to make the purchase. Just like the diversity in intentions, there is diversity in the choice of the channel for use in making the purchase. No matter the level of development in technology, there will always be the need for the physical touch, including the word-of-mouth, which explains why the multichannel market will remain an important reality.

Omnichannel

There is a new trend in the United States retail market, the adoption of omnichannel marketing. Amazon, on acquiring Whole Foods, realized the significant role played by the model of marketing in reaching to a wider range of customers. The combination of in-store and online has become important for the day-to-day purchases. The shoppers in the country are embracing the omnichannel strategies in the purchases of basic consumables (GfK, 2011). An increase in the shopping for the household products is indicative of the trend and the fact that the shoppers are using all the environments available to make the purchases. The young shoppers are embracing the concept of convenience in their shopping. It is for this reason that they are embracing the multiple channels that are promising the convenience. For various categories of products, including beauty and personal care products, the shoppers, both men and women are shopping from both in-store and online sources. Interestingly, the increase in the digital media and online platforms has not deterred the continued importance of the brick-and-mortar outlets. The reality is that they are coexisting and that both the sellers and buyers have embraced them. Essentially, buyers will tap more from the customers if they will be able to capitalize in all the channels available to them.

References

Bakewell, C., & Mitchell, V.W. (2006) Male versus female consumer decision making styles. Journal of Business Research, 59, 1297-3000.

Bakewell, C., Mitchell, V.W., & Rothwell, M. (2006) UK generation Y male fashion conscious.Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 10(2), 169-180.

Banytė, Rūtelionė, & Jarusevičiūtė. (2015). Modelling of Male Shoppers Behavior in Shopping Orientation Context. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 694-701.

Barry, B. & Phillips, B.J. (2015). The fashion engagement grid: understanding men’s responses to fashion advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 35(3), 438-464.

Bart, R., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Integrating Marketing Communications: New Findings, New Lessons, and New Ideas. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 122-145. doi:10.1509/jm.15.0419

Berthiaume, D. (2015). Session Spotlight: Reinventing Brick-and-Mortar. Chain Store Age, 91(3), 112.

Bilgihan, A. (2016). Gen Y customer loyalty in online shopping: An integrated model of trust, user experience, and branding. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 103-113.

Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Loureiro, K.Y. & Solnet, D. (2013). Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245-267.

Brosdahl D.J.C., & Carpenter, J.M. (2012). U.S. male generational cohorts: Retail format preferences, desired retail attributes, satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(6), 545-552.

Brosdahl, D. J., & Carpenter, J. M. (2011), “Shopping orientations of US males: A generational

Burnsed, K. A., & Bickle, M. C. (2015). Comparison of U.S. Generational Cohorts’ Shopping Mall Behaviors And Desired Features. International Journal Of Sales, Retailing & Marketing, 4(4), 18-30.

Carpenter, J., Moore, M., Doherty, A. M., & Alexander, N. (2012). Acculturation to the global consumer culture: a generational cohort comparison. Journal Of Strategic Marketing, 20(5), 411-423. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2012.671340

Carroll, D. (2015). The Millennial Manscape. Vision Monday, 14.

Clow, K. E., & Baack, D. (2005). Consumer decision-making process. Concise Encyclopedia Of  Advertising, 44-45.

cohort comparison”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 18, pp. 548-554

Cozzarin, B. P., & Dimitrov, S. (2016). Mobile commerce and device specific perceived risk. Electronic Commerce Research, 16(3), 335-354.

Darley, W. K., Blankson, C., & Luethge, D. J. (2010). Toward an integrated framework for online consumer behavior and decision making process: A review. Psychology & Marketing, 27(2), 94-116.

Elwalda, A., & Lu, K. (2016). The impact of online customer reviews (OCRs) on customers’ purchase decisions: An exploration of the main dimensions of OCRs. Journal Of Customer Behaviour, 15(2), 123-152. doi:10.1362/147539216X14594362873695

Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. & Miniard, P.W. (1995). Consumer behavior. International ed. Florida. Dryden.

Engel, J.F., Kollat, D. T. and Blackwell, R.D. (1968). Consumer behavior, 1^st ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Erasmus, A. C., Boshoff, E., & Rousseau, G. G. (2001). Consumer decision-making models within the discipline of consumer science: a critical approach. Journal of Consumer Sciences, 29(1), 82-89

Funches, V., Yarber-Allen, A., & Johnson, K. (2017). Generational and family structural differences in male attitudes and orientations towards shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 37, 101-108.

GfK. (2011, August). Omnichannel Shopping for Everyday Items Spikes in US – GfK’s FutureBuy®. Business Wire (English).

Gilboa, S., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2010). Four generations of mall visitors in Israel: A study of mall activities, visiting patterns, and products purchased. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17, 501-511.

Hall, A., & Towers, N. (2017). Understanding how Millennial shoppers decide what to buy: Digitally connected unseen journeys. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(5), 498-517.

Hansen, T., & Jensen, J.M. (2009). Shopping orientation and online clothing purchases: the role of gender and purchase situation. European Journal of Marketing, 43(9/10), 1154-1170.

Harvell, L. A., Stillman, T., Cranney, K., Schow, A., & Nisbett, G. S. (2016). A Field Investigation of Flight Anxiety: Evidence of Gender Differences in Consumer Behaviors Amongst Las Vegas Passengers. Journal Of Airline & Airport Management, 6(1), 45-60. doi:10.3926/jairm.41

Hibić, S., & Poturak, M. (2016). Impact of a Brand on Consumer Decision-making Process. European Journal Of Economic Studies, 17(3), 405-414. doi:10.13187/es.2016.17.405

Howe, Neil & Strauss, William (1991). Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to    2069. New York: William Morrow & Company

Kalinic, Z., & Marinkovic, V. (2016). Determinants of users’ intention to adopt m-commerce: an empirical analysis. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 14(2), 367-387.

Lazarevic, V. (2012). Encouraging brand loyalty in fickle generation Y consumers. Young Consumers, 13(1), 45-61.

Lin, H. (2011). Gender differences in the linkage of online patronage behavior with TV-and-online shopping values. Service Business, 5(4), 295-312.

Lipke, David. (2012). Rules of engagement: Video, mobile devices key to online marketing. (Survey). WWD, 203(92), n/a.

Mannheim, K. (1928). “The Problem of Generations,” in Essays on the    Sociology of    Knowledge. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 276-320.

Mannheim, K. (1993). From Karl Mannheim. New York: Transaction Publishers.

Martens, Cynthia. (2014). Strong men’s sales seen continuing through 2013. WWD, 205(2), n/a.

Noh, M., Li, M., Martin, K., & Purpura, J. (2015). College men’s fashion: Clothing preference, identity, and avoidance. Fashion and Textiles, 2(1), 1-12.

Ordun, G. (2015). Millennial (Gen Y) consumer behavior, their shopping preferences and perceptual maps associated with brand loyalty. Canadian Social Science, 11(4), 40-55.

Otnes, C., & McGrath, M.A. (2001). Perceptions and realities of male shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 111-137.

Parker, R., Simmers, C., & Schaefer, A. (2014). An exploratory study: Gen Y males and their attitudes toward fashion. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 18(2), 79-89.

Pentecost, R., & Andrews, L. (2010). Fashion retailing and the bottom line: The effects of generational cohorts, gender, fashion fanship, attitudes and impulse buying on fashion expenditure. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17, 43-52.

Petra, K.K. (2016). Generation Y Attitudes towards Shopping: A Comparison of the Czech          Republic and Slovakia, Journal of Competitivenes 8(1), 38 – 54

Rinallo, D. (2007). Metro/fashion/tribes of men: Negotiating the boundaries of men’s legitimate consumption. In Consumer tribes, ed. B. Cova, R. Kozinets, and A. Shankar, 7692. London: Routledge.

Scarpi, D., Pizzi, G., & Visentin, M. (2014). Shopping for fun or shopping to buy: Is it different online and offline? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21, 258-267.

Schor, J. B. (1999). The overspent American: Why we want what we don’t need. New York: HarperPerennial.

Schulz, D.E., & Block, M.P. (2015). U.S. online shopping: Facts, fiction, hopes and dreams. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 23, 99-106.

Strugatz, Rachel. (2011). Women’s accessories brands branching into men’s arena. WWD,201(61), MW6.

Vejačka, M. (2017). Social media marketing in comparison with other forms of marketing in the Slovak Banking Sector. Trziste / Market, 29(1), 23-38. doi:10.22598/mt/2017.29.1.23

Woodruffe-Burton, H. (1998). Private desires, public display: Consumption, postmodernism and fashion’s “new man”. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 26(8), 301-310.

Yang, K. C. (2004). Effects of Consumer Motives on Search Behavior Using Internet Advertising. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 430-442. doi:10.1089/1094931041774668