Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

0969-69

http://d

E-m

Pleasretai

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvementand implications for retailing

Anders Parment

Stockholm University School of Business, Stockholm University, Department of Marketing, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Generational cohorts

Generational marketing

Market segmentation

Generation Y

Baby Boomers

Consumer behavior

Purchase involvement

Retail strategies

89/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. A

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001

ail address: anp@fek.su.se

e cite this article as: Parment, A., Gling. Journal of Retailing and Consum

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents some significant empirical findings about generational cohorts and their shopping

behavior marketing has long relied on the use of market segmentation. While birth age has been a

useful way to create groups, it describes segments but does not help to understand segment

motivations. However, environmental events experienced during one’s coming of age create values

that remain relatively unchanged throughout one’s life. Such values provide a common bond for those

in that age group, or generational cohort. Segmenting by ‘coming of age’ age provides a richer

segmentation approach than birth age. This study compares two significant cohorts: Baby Boomers and

Generation Y, with respect to their shopping behavior and purchase involvement for food, clothing and

automobiles. For the three types of products, Baby Boomers value the retail experience and in-store

service higher than Generation Y. For Baby Boomers, the purchase process starts with a retailer the

consumer trusts, who gives advice for choosing the right product, while for Generation Y, the purchase

process starts with choosing a product. This study presents implications for retail strategies that have

an appeal to different generational cohorts and considers how retailers should deal with building

customer relationships.

& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Finding groups or segments of consumers that have strong,homogeneous bonds is like finding the ‘Holy Grail’ of marketing.When such similarities exist, marketers can offer the same or verysimilar product, service, distribution, and communications pro-grams to a large number of potential customers who are morelikely to respond in a homogenous way. Ever since the 1950s,marketers have sought to serve markets that are internallyconsistent on some common ground, yet externally different fromother market segments. Segmentation has thus been the key tomarketing effectiveness and efficiency.

Segmentation approaches that have long been known employdescriptive variables such as demographic and geographic meth-ods, along with psychographic approaches that attempt to gobeyond the surface of consumers in order to understand buyingmotivation among other behavioral issues. The behavioral issue of‘why consumers buy’ is of great importance in designing andimplementing strategies for retailing. Age has long been used as asegmentation variable but, as we will see, it does not address the‘why’s’ of consumption and consumer motivation. Marketingaccording to generational cohort delves below the descriptive

ll rights reserved.

eneration Y vs. Baby Boomeer Services (2013), http://

surface to understand motivations associated with age (Howe,2000; Meredith et al., 2002; Zemke et al., 2000; Lancaster andStillman, 2002; Parment, 2011).

Consumer motivations and purchase engagement often liebelow the surface of age; we could gain a deeper understandingby considering generational cohorts. Generational cohorts arecomprised of people who are born during a particular period,and whose life courses correspond to each other. Generationalcohort marketing has become a useful tool in segmenting marketssince cohort members share similar values (Meredith et al., 2002;Lyons et al., 2005; Schewe and Noble., 2000). Societal eventswhich are cataclysmic in nature (assassinations, wars, economicchanges, strong new technological advancements, etc.) have beenfound to create values within those coming of age (roughlybetween the ages of 17 and 23) and those values have beenfound to remain relatively stable throughout the lives of thosewithin a cohort (Cutler, 1977; Mannheim, 1927; Rentz et al.,1983; Rogler, 2002; Ryder, 1985 [1959]; Schuman and Scott,1989). These values are derived from the ‘defining moment’events that were experienced during this highly impressionabletime of late adolescence/early adulthood. For instance, those UScitizens who came of age during the Great Depression valuefinancial security and still save, even on the verge of death; thosewho came of age during World War II were and still are themost patriotic of Americans today (cf. Meredith et al., 2002).

rs: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications fordx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001i

A. Parment / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]2

These cohorts meld age descriptors with behavioral motivationsand values. The Generation Y cohort, sometimes called Millen-nials, is an important cohort and target audience for retailers andconsumer product companies alike because it is sizeable and hassignificant purchasing power. The same holds for Baby Boomers,born approximately between 1945 and 1958.

A few studies have connected the segmentation of genera-tional cohorts to purchase behavior, more specifically in thedomains of fashion (Littrell et al., 2005; Pentecost and Andrews,2010), travel and tourism (Beldona, 2005), wine consumption(Fountain and Lamb, 2011) and fair-trade consumption (Ma et al.,2012). These studies deal with specialist products with limitedrelevance for a broader understanding of purchase behaviorrelated to generational cohorts. Moreover, little is being saidabout how the backgrounds and values of generational cohortsinfluence purchase behavior, and those studies which do addressthese factors do not take a retail perspective.

Generational cohorts have different experiences which influ-ence their values, preferences and shopping behavior (Parment,2011), something that has been proven in numerous contexts(Holbrook and Schindler, 1989, 1994; Schindler and Holbrook,1993; Schuman and Scott, 1989). The existence of cohorts hasbeen found in numerous developed countries (Meredith et al.,2002; Schewe and Meredith, 2004; Hung et al., 2007; Dou et al.,2006; Parment, 2007; Chaston, 2009; Parment, 2009). The differ-ent experiences and preferences of various generational cohortscould be assumed to result in differences in purchase behaviorand the level of buyer involvement for distinct types of products.

The idea that consumers differ in the amount and type of effortthey put into shopping has long been established within the fieldof marketing (cf. Katona and Mueller, 1955; Newman and Staelin,1972; Slama and Tashcian, 1985). Such differences are crucial formarketers since they influence consumers’ reactions to marketingstrategies. Assuming that background and experiences of a cohorthave an influence on the cohort’s values, these factors are alsolikely to influence the level of buyer involvement. It has beensuggested that Generation Y individuals put little effort, emotionsand time into low-involvement decisions, such as the choice ofelectricity or home insurance supplier, but a lot of effort, energyand emotions into high-involvement decisions (Parment, 2011).Although a comparison of cohorts’ purchase behavior cannoteliminate the overlap of the cohort effect and the age effect,it may shed some light upon the purchase behavior of differentcohorts. Several studies indicate that consumers’ spending pat-terns vary over the course of an individual’s life cycle (Bleichrodtand Quiggin, 1999; Bodie et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2005; Shepardand Zeckhauser, 1984). Hence, it could be assumed that prefer-ences and behavioral traits may develop as an individual goesthrough different stages of the life cycle, and, as suggested bygenerational cohorts research, different generational cohortsfollow different patterns in developing values, attitudes andpreferences.

For marketing purposes, it is crucial to develop productive toolsfor segmentation, something that applies for producers as well asretailers. While segmentation for producers already start at thedesign stage (cf. O’Neill and Sackett, 1994; Matthyssens and vanden Bulte, 1994; Moorthy, 1984; Wells Jr., 1968), retailers maydraw substantial benefits from knowing more about the prefer-ences and behavioral traits of different generational cohorts in moreapplied respects, such as how customers are dealt within the store.With the product assortment and consumer offers at hand, custo-mers can be addressed in a significantly better way if more isknown about the customers. Numerous studies deal with segmen-tation from a retailer perspective (Lumpkin, 1985; Marcus, 1998;Lee et al., 2006; Boone and Roehm, 2002; Dennis et al., 2001).Lumpkin (1985) takes a closer look at shopping orientation

Please cite this article as: Parment, A., Generation Y vs. Baby Boomretailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2013), http://

segmentation of elderly (65þ) consumers. However, with theexception of Lumpkin’s paper, there has been little research con-ducted on segmentation from a perspective based on generationalcohorts that focuses on issues related to purchase behavior andretail strategies.

Another stream of research investigates the rationale forconsumers to buy in a particular store (Bitner et al., 1994;Erdem et al., 1999; Thang and Tan, 2003). For instance, Thangand Tan (2003) rank attributes that consumers suggest to be themost important in choosing a retailer. However, there is reason toassume that these attributes differ across generational cohorts (cf.Parment, 2011), which suggests that studying purchasing beha-vior of generational cohorts could be very beneficial.

Although much of this past research has helped our under-standing of the influence of store characteristics and image onconsumer choices, little attempt has been made to examine howdifferent generational cohorts conduct their choice of store andthe overall purchase process.

As emphasized by Holmes and Crocker (1987), Richins andBloch (1986) and Rotschild (1979), the level of purchase involve-ment, something that appears to differ across product categories,is crucial in understanding purchase considerations and decisions.Earlier research suggests the level of involvement to differ acrossgenerational cohorts; for example, Generation Y spends moreeffort on high-involvement product decisions than earlier gen-erations (Parment, 2011). Hence, the level of purchase involve-ment is important when attempting to understand how purchaseconsiderations differ across generational cohorts.

This paper delves deeper into generational cohorts and aims attaking a closer look at two specific generational cohorts: Genera-tion Y and Baby Boomers. By contrasting their purchase consid-erations and behavior based on purchase involvement andconsiderations for three types of products — groceries, clothingand automobiles, thus representing a variety of situations — theaim of this paper is to generate insights for improving thesegmentation of cohorts with particular focus on issues crucialfor retailers.

2. Methods

The first phase of the data collection was characterized by anexploratory approach. An analysis of Europe’s and Sweden’shistory throughout the 20th century was followed by interviewsand focus groups with individuals belonging to different genera-tional cohorts in order to identify cataclysmic events and othercircumstances that may have shaped Swedish generationalcohorts, their values and attitudes. Two cohorts, significant inattitudes and values, were chosen: Baby Boomers (born 1945 and1958) and Generation Y (born 1977 and 1989), for the followingreasons. First, definitions of cohorts vary, which makes it difficultto compare two cohorts that follow directly after each other.Second, Baby Boomers are in many instances parents of Genera-tion Y individuals, hence the focus group interviews dealt withthe parent–child relationship, something that is likely to enrichthe analysis and further the understanding of the two genera-tions. Third, a number of studies suggest the two chosen cohortsto have unique characteristics. Data were collected on thepreferences and attitudes of these cohorts in purchasing threetypes of goods: clothing, groceries and automobiles.

With the literature on generational cohorts as starting point,34 in-depth interviews were carried out with Generation Yindividuals from 10 countries. Themes related to consumptionpatterns were discussed. Twenty in-depth interviews with BabyBoomers were conducted. Three focus groups were run and, basedon the results, an online survey was designed and sent to both the

ers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications fordx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001i

A. Parment / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3

Generation Y and the Baby Boomer cohorts in Sweden, with thelatter cohort also being researched through 20 in-depth inter-views. Three hundred fifty-two surveys were completed by babyboomer individuals while 1425 surveys were completed byGeneration Y individuals.

The interviews were based on interactivity between theresearchers and participants in which both parts performed theirstories, negotiated their identities, and constructed meaningthrough interpersonal processes (Holstein and Gubrium, 1995),thus they were collaborative, communicative events in whichsocial interactions are structured by researchers and interviewees(cf. Hammersley and Atkinson, 1996). Understanding a genera-tion’s coming-of-age experiences is a tricky endeavor. Insightsfrom anthropology suggest that one’s position within or outsidethe defined boundary of an experience will impact the interviewprocess and outcome. Insider knowledge is likely to be differentfrom that which is available to the outsider (cf. McGinn, 2005;Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003).

3. Theoretical assumptions

3.1. Segmentation of generational cohorts

This paper’s starting point in understanding markets and definingsegments is generational cohorts who have experienced similar keyevents in their lives during their late adolescent/early adulthoodyears, typically during the coming-of-age years, 17–24 years of age.These ‘defining moments’ influence their values, preferences, atti-tudes, and buying behavior in ways that remain with them for theirentire lifetime (Meredith and Schewe, 1994; Ryder, 1985 [1959];Mannheim, 1927; Cutler, 1977; Parment, 2011; Rentz et al., 1983;Rogler, 2002). Shared experiences during the highly impressionablecoming-of-age years embed these values, or cohort effects. Researchhas shown that they remain relatively unchanged throughout life(Hill, 1970; Rogler and Cooney, 1984).

Generational cohorts are not the same as generations(Markert, 2004). Each generation is defined by its years of birth;while a generation typically is 20–25 years in length, or roughlythe time it takes a person to grow up and have children, a cohortcan be as long or short as the external events which define it.Rather than using time of birth to determine different genera-tions, generational cohorts are set apart by cataclysmic eventsthat produce a change in the values, attitudes, and predispositionsin a society. These events create a discontinuous historical time-line; such secular change events can be characterized as a ‘senseof rupture with the past’ (Wohl, 1979, p. 210).

3.2. We are what we experience when coming of age

The notion of cohorts rests on the assumption that individualsare influenced by events occurring during their coming-of-ageyears. This has been proved in several studies. Schuman and Scott(1989) asked 1410 Americans to recall three national and worldevents over the past 50 years that were especially important tothem and tell why they were important. World War II and theVietnam War were mentioned most frequently by all age groups.An interesting pattern occurred: individuals who were between16 and 24 years old during World War II (1941–1945) and 15–27years old during the Vietnam War (1965–1973) were significantlymore likely to recall these events as being especially important tothem. Schuman and Scott also found that individuals whoexperienced these events during their formative coming-of-ageyears were able to cite personal experiences as reasons why theseevents were influential to them. Individuals who did not come ofage during World War II or Vietnam were unable to give these

Please cite this article as: Parment, A., Generation Y vs. Baby Boomeretailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2013), http://

kinds of accounts. Instead, they cited less personal reasons for theimportance of these events; it is therefore unlikely that theirvalues, attitudes, and behaviors were strongly influenced by theevents.

Similar patterns emerged in Schuman and Scott’s (1989) studyon individuals’ recollections of the depression, advances in com-munication and transportation, John F. Kennedy’s assassination,terrorism, and nuclear weapons. Individuals who would havebeen in their teens and early to mid-20s when Kennedy wasassassinated in 1963 were the most likely to mention this eventas influential. Thus, Schuman and Scott (1989) clearly demon-strated that individuals in certain generational cohorts havesimilar memories. These memories are recalled predominantlyfrom adolescence and young adulthood. Additionally, individualsappear to have personal experiences with the events that theycited, suggesting that these events are likely to influence them inthe future.

Similarly, Holbrook and Schindler (1989, 1994) suggest thatexperiences in young adulthood influence consumers well intotheir adulthood; consumers are most prone to the socializationfrom music, movie stars and preferences for apparel in the yearsbetween 14 and 23. When asked to rate their preferences forphotographs exemplifying various types of women’s apparel overthe decades, men showed the most preference for apparel thatwomen were wearing at the time when they (the men) werearound 24 years of age (Schindler and Holbrook, 1993).

A Swedish study on individuals born in the 1980s (Soderqvist,2010) suggests that one event has a unique position in shapingGeneration Y: the 9–11 terror attack in New York. The secondmost important event to which participants referred varies withthe age of the interviewees: those born in the early 1980s refer tothe sinking of the Estonia ferry in September 1994, which claimed852 lives and was the single deadliest shipwreck disaster inpeacetime to have occurred in the Baltic Sea in recorded history(Joint Accident Investigation Commission, 1997). Those born inthe late 1980s recall December 2004 when Thailand’s westerncoast was struck by the Boxing Day tsunami caused by the 2004Indian Ocean earthquake, and they claim this to be influential tothem. The waves killed 543 Swedes and approximately 225,000people in total.

Generation Y individuals came of age during a period of economicgrowth, a strong emergence of social media and reality television, andthe disappearance of modernist values, supported by internationali-zation and strong influences from popular culture (Parment, 2011),Many individuals in the Generation Y cohort show strong feelings forBerlin, a strong representation of the end of the Cold War and theemergence of a united Europe. One-third of Swedes born in the 1980shave a foreign background, meaning one or both parents were born incountries other than Sweden, which contributes to making thisgenerational cohort more integrative and international than earliergenerations (Soderqvist, 2010).

The existence of cohorts has been found in numerous devel-oped countries (Chaston, 2009; Meredith et al., 2002; Parment,2007, 2011; Hung et al., 2007; Dou et al., 2006). Yet it is thenature of the defining moments within a culture that defines thetopography of the cohort terrain. Different defining momentscreate cohorts with different dates, different lengths, and differentvalues. While some events cover numerous countries and regions,others are local by nature.

4. A generational cohorts perspective on purchase behavior

This empirical section of the paper presents the findings onpurchase behavior for the two generational cohorts investigated.

rs: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications fordx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001i

A. Parment / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]4

Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1955 and arecharacterized by a revolutionary outlook, ignited by the 1968student revolt in Paris, France, and by the war in Vietnam. Chartertravel to new and distant countries took off during their coming-of-age years, as did internationalization of trade, food and culture.Hence, this group values mobility in one’s life. Baby Boomerstraveled more than older cohorts; they have seen more and havehigh aspirations for the future. Marketers can reflect this inter-national tone in advertising and marketing campaigns; it willresonate well with this target group. Large movements andintegration of immigrants occurred across European countrieswhich makes cultural diversity somewhat natural for this cohort,something that can be and is depicted in promotional campaigns.The technological feat of the United States’ landing on the moonsuggested to Baby Boomers that ‘anything is possible’. This cohortfinds Bob Dylan and the Beatles to be iconic heroes; they wouldresonate well with this group as marketing symbols.

Generation Y individuals were born between 1977 and 1990,and they came of age between the late 1990s until recently. Thefinancial turbulence of the early 1990s affected early members ofthis cohort, something that suggests a loss in feelings of security.One has to be one’s own manager and explore the increasingnumber of opportunities that come in increasingly deregulatedstates supported by the internationalization of trade and newinformation technologies. Intense internationalization of tradeduring Generation Y’s coming-of-age years dissolved theirbelief in national solutions to social and economic problems.

Fig. 1. The influence of a high price and the consumer’s financial status on the

level of purchase involvement.

Table 1Conclusion of the interviews and focus groups.

Generation Y

Great product supply/many market

opportunities

An opportunity and source of inspira

Large supply of information OK to deal with, know how to naviga

landscape

Purchase criteria emphasis Emotional

Main risks Social risk

Choice of product Emotional

Choice of retailer Rational

Retailer loyalty Low

Attractive products Innovative: early adoption

Social influence on purchase decisions High

Source of social influence Well-known and influential people, f

Main role of the brand Image, social profiling and quality

Please cite this article as: Parment, A., Generation Y vs. Baby Boomretailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2013), http://

Consequently, this cohort is deeply engaged in (for or against)globalization. Generation Y does not want to take over perspec-tives provided by authorities without adding some of its ownreflections, something that explains the loss of power for unions,churches and political parties.

The constant and overwhelming flow of information hasbecome the rule for this cohort. They are multi-taskers who usetheir mobile phones for just about anything: social networking,to find a job, and to get grassroots-generated information aboutproducts, services, schools, employers and travel destinations.Clearly this cohort offers substantial opportunities for marketingthrough the Internet and through other technologies as theybecome available. However, Generation Y wants to decide when,where and how companies communicate with them, and becausethey are used to information overload, they are not as stressed bythe information flow as older generations. Brands such as Appleand Spotify that help Generation Y realize want-satisfying oppor-tunities can become engaging icons.

During Generation Y’s coming-of-age years, many more life-styles became accepted, supported by events in popular culture,and a multitude of television programs, such as Sex and the City,(Pop/American) Idol and Desperate Housewives. The acceptance ofnew family structures, high mortgages to realize one’s desire for agreat home, and odd consumption patterns increased substan-tially. The parents of Generation Y became party to this develop-ment and supported it. Thus, Generation Y has become more acohort of ‘free agents’ and finds itself more self-sufficient thanother older cohorts. This group can be expected to appreciateindependence and not relying on others in their lifestyles.Depicting such contexts or suggesting such themes when market-ing should resonate well with this cohort.

In general for all generational cohorts, marketing practitionerscan be successful in targeting different cohorts by appealing tothe values and icons that made deep life-long impressions oneach cohort as they were coming of age.

4.1. Generational cohorts and purchase behavior

This section will deal with the purchase behavior of BabyBoomers and Generation Y for three types of consumer products:groceries, clothing and automobiles, thus representing a variety ofpurchase situations.

An important concept in understanding consumer purchasebehavior is the level of buying involvement in a purchase situation;hence, products are often categorized as high-involvement or low-involvement products (Holmes and Crocker, 1987; Richins andBloch (1986); Rotschild, 1979).

Baby Boomers

tion Somewhat frustrating

te the information Stressful, takes time to deal with

Rational

Physical and financial risk

Rational

Emotional

High

Mature: late adoption

Limited

riends Experts and close friends—but they hesitate to

confess it

Quality

ers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications fordx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001i

A. Parment / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5

A number of themes related to consumption patterns, thevalues behind them, and how the values, cultural settings,coming-of-age experiences and attitudes in a broad sense aremanifested in concrete purchase situations were discussed duringthe interviews and focus groups.

The outcome of the interviews and focus groups is concludedin Fig. 1 (Table 1).

4.1.1. Buyer involvement: Baby Boomers and Generation Y

Based on the focus group interviews, we can identify threefactors that influence buyer involvement: the product’s impact onthe consumer’s financial situation; the consumer’s interest in theproduct; and the product’s impact on how the consumer isperceived by the social environment.

The level of purchase involvement is highly affected by theextent to which the product’s expense influences the buyer’sfinancial situation. In this respect, only minor differences betweenBoomers and Generation Y were found (Fig. 1). The consumer’sinterest in the product has a higher average influence on Genera-tion Y’s degree of purchase involvement, which may reflect ahigher degree of emotional involvement in choosing and purchas-ing (Fig. 2).

Generation Y individuals worry much more than Baby Boom-ers about how others perceive them as consumers and the

Fig. 2. The influence of a consumer’s interest in the product on the level of

purchase involvement.

Fig. 3. The influence of how others perceive the consumer on the level of purchase

involvement.

Please cite this article as: Parment, A., Generation Y vs. Baby Boomeretailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2013), http://

products they are buying (Fig. 3). This very clear tendency,however, could not be explained solely by the cohort effect. It islikely that young individuals, regardless of which cohort theybelong to, are more worried about how others perceive them.Boomers support this argument by responding that they get‘more relaxed’ or ‘care less about what others think and say’ asthey get older.

4.1.2. Purchase involvement for different product categories

Boomers show a higher degree of buyer involvement forgroceries, something that might be explained by more purchasepower and, as some interviewees expressed, higher demands thatcome with increasing age: ‘As a student I could eat anything. NowI’m 60 plus and I deserve great food’ (Fig. 4).

The degree of purchase involvement for clothing (Fig. 5) istricky to understand. On the one hand, young individuals aremore interested in clothing. On the other hand, Boomers paymore attention to ‘optimizing’ purchase decisions, for example, byavoiding poor quality pieces of clothing and by making suredifferent elements of the wardrobe fit together. As a 65-year-oldfemale replied: ‘‘In the store, I start thinking about what mywardrobe looks like and how I can find something that fits withthe clothes I already have.y New pieces should fit to make surethey could be used in at least 10 combinations.’’

Fig. 4. Purchase involvement for groceries.

Fig. 5. Purchase involvement for clothing.

rs: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications fordx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001i

Fig. 8. Importance of a having a relationship with the store for groceries.

A. Parment / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]6

In the case of automobiles, the trend among younger indivi-duals to put less emphasis on the car as a product is mirrored inthe considerably lower purchase involvement for Generation Yindividuals (Fig. 6). In many Western countries, the percentage ofdriver’s license holders has declined and the role of the car as astatus symbol has been challenged by an increased interest forother products. When Generation Yers came of age, the car hadalready been questioned for its impact on the physical environ-ment, its contribution to traffic congestions, and the high costs itincurs for its owners. Hence, the car never reached the same levelof iconic status as it did for Baby Boomers. Furthermore, con-sumers are more likely to search for and be better informed aboutdurable goods than about non-durable goods (Tellis andWernerfelt, 1987). Consequently, the purchase decision for adurable good, such as a car, is more likely to be rational;functional aspects, such as price and quality, as opposed to socialand emotional aspects, are likely to be the major considerations inassessing product utility (cf. Holbrook et al., 1986). The tendencyamong Generation Y is to see cars as less important than earliergenerations, which signifies a declining interest in automobiles(Parment, 2007).

4.1.3. Manufacturer vs. store brand

The interviews clearly suggest that Generation Yers emphasizethe product in the first place, and, after the product choice has

Fig. 6. Purchase involvement for automobiles.

Fig. 7. The importance of the store brand and the manufacturer brand.

Please cite this article as: Parment, A., Generation Y vs. Baby Boomretailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2013), http://

been made, the choice of channel, meaning how to get theproduct delivered in the most cost-efficient way. Boomers trusttheir local dealers and tend to be loyal to one retailer — whether

Fig. 9. Importance of having a relationship with the store for clothing.

Fig. 10. Importance of having a relationship with the store for automobiles.

ers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications fordx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001i

A. Parment / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 7

for clothing, groceries, cars, cheese or outdoors equipment — whowill give the Boomers advice that they can trust in purchaseconsiderations. Hence, one could assume the manufacturer brandto be stronger for Generation Yers and the store brand to be

Fig. 11. How often do you ask for assistance in the grocery store?

Fig. 12. How often do you ask for assistance in the clothing store?

Fig. 13. How often do you ask for assistance at the automobile dealership?

Please cite this article as: Parment, A., Generation Y vs. Baby Boomeretailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2013), http://

stronger for Boomers. The survey data are very unclear on thismatter (Fig. 7); however, the strong tendency to make a rationalchoice when choosing product (Generation Y) or retailer (BabyBoomers) may dominate over branding issues in this case.

Boomers emphasize how important the retailer is to themwhen they were asked about their relationship to certain stores.For all three types of products (Figs. 8–10), in particular forgroceries and automobiles, Boomers are significantly more keenon having a relationship with the store, something that givesthem a source of getting information and advice, and makes themfeel secure when shopping. Generation Y are more keen onshopping around and looking for the best deal when the decisionon which product to buy has been made.

A similar pattern emerges when assessing how often GenerationYers and Boomers ask for assistance in the store. All three types ofproducts follow the same pattern: Boomers are significantly keeneron asking for assistance than Generation Yers (Figs. 11–13).

5. Discussion

This section presents some insights from the empirical results,and relates them to earlier studies on purchase behavior. Basedon the exploratory study presented in this paper, only tentativeconclusions can be made. Hence, further studies will in manyinstances be required to get a richer picture of how consumers’cohort membership influences different aspects of purchasebehavior.

The analysis will follow a typical purchase process, thusstarting with consumer considerations before deciding on productand retailer. Research suggests that most shoppers purchase on aportfolio basis, switching from store to store at will (Kau andEhrenberg, 1984). There would seem to be very few shoppers thatremain loyal to both brands and stores, and these are generallylight shoppers (Ehrenberg, 1993). However, how this differsacross generations is unclear. The results indicate that by apply-ing a perspective based on generational cohorts, a pattern appearsin which the Baby Boomer cohort is more likely to build relation-ships with stores, to be more loyal to stores, and to shop in fewerstores.

5.1. The importance of retailer–customer relationships

A large amount of research suggests customer relationships tobe crucial in convincing customers (Berry, 1995; Dwyer et al.,1987; Fontenot and Wilson, 1997; Gwinner et al., 1998; Juttnerand Wehrli, 1994; Wray et al., 1994), something that has beenemphasized in very competitive retail environments, particularlywhere a strong consumer value orientation is necessary to staycompetitive. As stated by Davis (1997), p. 32, ‘the philosophicalshift toward retail relationship marketing is fueled not only byreduced customer loyalty, but also by escalating consumerdemands for value’.

De Wulf and Odekerken-Schroder (2003) suggest, based on astudy on customer loyalty to apparel retailers, that the retailer’scommitment to the relationship shows a strong positive correla-tion with the consumer’s familiarity with a particular retailer, thedistance to a retailer and competing retailers, or the existence of amonopoly (the latter is in most markets unlikely for the productsdiscussed in this paper). Hence, efforts to improve the consumerrelationships are likely to bear fruit if the consumer is familiarwith the retailer, and lives, works or stays close to the retailer.However, this effect appears to be significantly stronger for BabyBoomers than for Generation Y, the latter cohort being moreflexible and less loyal in terms of the choice of retailer, and theyare in less need of help from store personnel when buying.

rs: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications fordx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001i

A. Parment / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]8

5.1.1. Relations and loyalty

Rewarding regular and, hopefully, profitable (this is a trickyissue, cf. Kumar and Shah, 2004) customers in order to securetheir loyalty is a way of building relations with customers. Severalscholars warn that tangible rewards generally do not lead tosustainable competitive advantages since price is the most easilyimitated element of the marketing mix. Hence, some customersmay react opportunistically, and customers who are already loyalcan be ‘unnecessarily’ rewarded (Berry, 1995; Christy et al., 1996;Dowling and Uncles, 1997; O’Brien and Jones, 1995). O’Brien andJones (1995) argue that rewarding strategies can lead to sustain-able competitive advantages if they are planned and implementedparts of a larger loyalty-management strategy. However, ourcurrent study on purchase behavior from a perspective based ongenerational cohorts provides doubt about the potential forbuilding customer loyalty purely through rewarding loyal clients.

Something that came out of the interviews and focus groupswas that members of Generation Y have a very limited loyalty toretailers, unless they provide superior customer value or anyother advantage, such as price. While Baby Boomers argue thatthey enjoy shopping in one store as much as possible, somethingthat is seen as convenient and easy, Generation Yers are basingtheir choice of retailer either on the lowest price or on conve-nience attributes, such as buying groceries in a store that theypass by on the way home from work.

Manufacturers of fast-moving consumer goods have long beenaware of the importance of customer loyalty, something that hasbeen the focus of numerous academic and business models sincethe 1950s. Links between brand loyalty and indicators of marketperformance have been established (Ehrenberg et al., 1990).Retailers, on the other hand, have traditionally placed lessstrategic importance on customer loyalty (Wrigley and Dunn,1984). The present study suggests the Generation Y cohort topurchase on a portfolio basis, switching from store to store at will,a tendency described long ago by Kau and Ehrenberg (1984). Aslater suggested by Ehrenberg (1993), there would seem to be veryfew shoppers that remain brand and store loyal, and these aregenerally light shoppers. How this differs across generations isunclear but the tendency among young individuals is to be lessloyal to stores. Retailers’ attempts to make customers loyal mayhence be ineffective.

Knox and Denison (2000) compared loyalty levels across retailsectors in the UK and disaggregated the data by loyalty types. Aninteresting result emerged: while loyal shoppers tend to havesmaller monthly budgets than those who frequently switchstores, they spend double the amount in their ‘first choice’ store.However, this is again more likely to happen with Baby Boomercustomers than with Generation Y customers.

5.2. Cohort effects on buying behavior

Knox and Denison’s (2000) study suggests that while consu-mer behavior with confectionary/food shows the lowest storeloyalty, clothing enjoys high store loyalty. In buying clothing,however, the difference in purchase behavior between BabyBoomers and Generation Y is very significant. While Baby Boom-ers argue that they buy on quality, strive for the opportunity tocombine pieces of clothing, look for classical, timeless designs andonly visit one (males) or a few (females) clothing stores, Genera-tion Y shows an entirely different shopping pattern. They are veryflexible in terms of buying expensive and cheap products (some-thing heavily promoted in fashion magazines), they regularly visitnumerous (typically 5–20) stores, they put much effort intostaying in tune with what is ‘in’ at the moment, and they oftenvisit clothing stores without having a pronounced need, or anintention, to buy. They just want to see whether there is

Please cite this article as: Parment, A., Generation Y vs. Baby Boomretailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2013), http://

something that might fit and look great for a reasonable price.Hence, the Generation Y cohort manifests a strong tendency toapply variety-seeking purchase behavior, which mirrors a moregeneral tendency in marketing: variety-seeking purchase beha-vior has increased over time (cf. Kahn, 1995).

5.2.1. Manufacturer vs. store brand

A manufacturer’s brand will often outperform a store brand inproduct categories where risk of public exposure of the product isan important issue (Semeijn et al., 2004). This is definitely thecase with clothing. Dhar and Hoch (1997) as well as Semeijn et al.(2004) point to the fact that retailers can take the lead inestablishing store brands by developing, nourishing and sustain-ing a store image, thus achieving differentiation and positioningrelative to other chains. How this works with the differentgenerational cohorts is unclear. On the one hand, Baby Boomersput a lot of emphasis on the store atmosphere and environment.On the other hand, Generation Y is significantly more interestedin clothing, and the success of retail chains such as Hennes &Mauritz and Zara are largely based on sales to younger customers.In fact, a number of Baby Boomers explicitly stated that theyavoid these brands, something that Generation Yers did notreport. Semeijn et al.’s (2004) suggestion to focus on storeenvironment, merchandise quality and value, and customerservice is likely to be more successful with Baby Boomers thanwith Generation Y consumers. However, further studies arenecessary to understand this.

Quelch and Harding (1996), Dunne and Narasimhan (1999),and Apelbaum et al. (2003) suggest that the objective qualitydifferential between supplier and retailer brands is decreasing; infact, the quality of some store brands is even superior. Thisapplies to groceries and clothing but hardly to automobiles sincethey never bear the retail brand solely.

Davies and Brito (2004) performed blind tests, presentingconsumers four categories of food products. Most of the con-sumers in the study’s sample reported that they usually pur-chased a name brand in the product category under evaluation.Yet, only a small proportion of these consumers chose the namebrand in the blind test. And very few of those who chose the namebrand did so again once they knew the price at which it was beingsold to the public. Apparently in many cases, the brand image isthe only explanation for the premium paid by consumers whenthey purchase a manufacturer brand, which is something crucialin order to understand consumer buying patterns.

Generation Y show a high degree of image-awareness, whichcould be expected to be translated into a strong reason forGeneration Y to prefer manufacturer brands over retail brands.However, they also show a strong tendency to avoid paying morethan necessary for products that are not very interesting for them.Hence, store brands that provide strong value for the price arelikely to be successful in appealing to Generation Y. Baby Boomersare more reluctant to take in new products, and they show ahigher degree of skepticism for unknown products, such as value-priced import products.

5.2.2. Buying behavior: customer store preferences

Thang and Tan (2003) developed and tested customer storepreferences through post-visit ranking of the stores. The resultsidentified the following attributes as significantly influencingconsumer preference: merchandising/store location, accessibility,reputation, in-store service and store atmosphere. As Thang andTan emphasize, merchandising, accessibility and in-store serviceare elements that save time for the consumer. Although thepresent study suggests in-store service to be less important for

ers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications fordx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001i

A. Parment / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9

Generation Y than for Baby Boomers, further studies are requiredon the matter.

5.3. Generation Y and the social risk of buying

The product’s impact on how the consumer is perceived by thesocial environment, meaning the social risk of how certainconsumption patterns influence peers’ perception of the consu-mer, is more important for Generation Y, something that might beexplained by this generational cohort’s strong tendency to profilethemselves and express their desired views of self through theway they consume (cf. Parment, 2011). Hence, the social environ-ment’s reaction to a Generation Y individual’s consumption iscrucial to how the person succeeds in profiling himself in thesocial environment.

5.3.1. Generation Y: social risk and the purchase of clothing

The inability to physically examine apparel products whenshopping online increases the risk perceptions associated withonline shopping as consumers cannot touch, feel, or try onproducts before purchase. It is clear that consumers often useproduct brand name (Dawar and Parker, 1994; Greatorex andMitchell, 1994) and store name (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Teas andAgarwal, 2000) as a surrogate for product quality in order toreduce their risks and simplify their purchase decision, especiallywhen shopping online, where many product attributes cannot beexamined directly.

The present study emphasizes another type of risk whichprimarily applies to younger consumers, in this case GenerationY: social risk. As young individuals generally put more effort intotheir appearance than older individuals, it is difficult at this stageto assess to what extent the social risk is a generational cohortphenomenon and to what extent it is likely to disappear asindividuals get older. It is well-known that buying clothing orapparel include inherits risks, but it has thus far been defined asproduct risk associated with shopping for apparel, and in the caseof online buying and shopping, as suggested by Aghekyan-Simonian et al. (2012).

A few authors (Liljander et al., 2009) emphasize social risk;however, clothes are visible and used to express one’s self-identity, which makes the social risk larger than for products thatare not seen by others. However, more generic pieces of clothing,such as men’s shirts (often worn under a coat or suit), can beexpected to be less sensitive to social risk than many otherclothing items for which the brand is more visible to others.

5.4. The persistence of cohort effects

Cohort effects appear to be life-long effects, and the resultspresented in this paper indicate that many issues related todesigning and implementing retail strategies are better understoodand implemented by taking into account a perspective based ongenerational cohorts. In many cases, similarities within a cohortprovide the communality for each cohort being targeted as aseparate market segment. Since these cohorts can be described bythe ages of their constituents, they offer an especially rich vehicle formarketing campaigns. The values can be reflected in creativecommunications which then resonate strongly with the targetedcohort.

6. Conclusions

The tentative conclusions that might be drawn from thisexploratory study on generational cohorts their purchase patternsstrongly support the contention that different cohorts have

Please cite this article as: Parment, A., Generation Y vs. Baby Boomeretailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2013), http://

different values, attitudes and preferences that significantlyinfluence their purchase patterns.

The tentative results are thus promising and provide anavenue for a number of future research possibilities. Futureresearch needs to integrate the generational cohort perspectivemore extensively in order to understand different aspects ofconsumer behavior, purchase patterns and how marketers candesign and implement strategies effectively and efficiently.A more refined conceptualization and measurement of consumerbuying patterns based on theories related to consumer behaviorand purchase behavior would be required in future research.

The study was conducted with an exploratory approach, startingwith interviews and focus groups, and then continued with asurvey. Clearly, this is not optimal for modeling causal relation-ships. However, to capture the differences between generationalcohorts, something that has been the major focus in this research,the method worked well, and this study reveals some cohort effects,along with a number of important practical implications.

In some instances, the segmentation of cohorts may be a moreeffective technique than employing other segmentation techni-ques. In general, consumers have high demands; they oftenrequire personal attention and products that suit their lifestyle.They do not want to be encumbered with mistargeted ormisguided products and promotions. Generational cohort analysiscan provide a sense of familiarity and personal appeal to thesesavvy consumers, bringing them one step closer to making apurchase and providing the groundwork for building long-termrelationships.

Generational cohort analysis may also be helpful in bolsteringcommunication with customers, both when designing commu-nication campaigns and during personal interactions. Determin-ing music, movie stars, or icons that cohorts identified withduring their coming-of-age years can be an effective means ofspeaking to a given cohort. These tactics work because they relyon nostalgia marketing, which means reminding individuals oftheir good old days. Consumers readily recognize that themarketer is talking directly to them. Reflecting a generationalcohort’s values in the copy of an advertisement immediately tellsthe cohort members that you understand them and their innerfeelings. Such an execution of marketing is likely to resonate wellwith cohort members. Finally, as cohorts age and enter new life-stages, they bring their coming-of-age cohort value systems,wants, and needs with them. Cohort analysis can help track andforecast changes that will take place. Considering the increasingpercentage of purchase decisions being made in the store — 76%in 2012 compared to 70% in 1995 in the case of groceries (Popai,2012) — and figures from the automobile industry indicating thatas much as 70% of customers showing up in a showroom arenever addressed by salesmen (Parment, 2009), it is more impor-tant than ever to take care of the customers when they enter thestore, and to have a strategy behind this interaction to do it in aclever way.

References

Aghekyan-Simonian, M., Forsythe, S., Suk Kown, W., Chattaraman, V., 2012. Therole of product brand image and online store image on perceived risks andonline purchase intentions for apparel. Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices 9, 325–331.

Apelbaum, E., Gerstner, E., Naik, P.A., 2003. The effects of expert quality evalua-tions versus brand name on price premiums. Journal of Product and BrandManagement 12 (32), 154–165.

Beldona, S., 2005. Cohort analysis of online travel information search behavior:1995–2000. Journal of Travel Research 44 (2), 135–142.

Berry, L.L., 1995. Relationship marketing of services—growing interest, emergingperspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23, 236–245.

Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., Mohr, L.A., 1994. Critical service encounters: theemployee’s viewpoint. Journal of Marketing 58, 95–106.

rs: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications fordx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001i

A. Parment / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]10

Bleichrodt, H., Quiggin, J., 1999. Life-cycle preferences over consumption andhealth: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis?Journal of Health Economics 18 (6), 681–708.

Bodie, Z., Detemple, J.B., Otruba, S., Walter, S., 2004. Optimal consumption-portfolio choices and retirement planning. Journal of Economic Dynamicsand Control 28 (6), 1115–1148.

Bolton, R.N., Drew, J.H., 1991. A multi-stage model of consumers’ assessments ofservice quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research 17 (4), 375–384.

Boone, D.S., Roehm, M., 2002. Retail segmentation using artificial neural networks.International Journal of Research in Marketing 19 (3), 287–301.

Chaston, I., 2009. Boomer Marketing. Routledge, London.Christy, R., Oliver, G., Penn, J., 1996. Relationship marketing in consumer markets.

Journal of Marketing Management 12, 175–187.Cutler, N., 1977. Political socialization research as generational analysis: the

cohort approach vs. the lineage approach. In: Renton, S.A. (Ed.), Handbook ofPolitical Socialization Theory and Research. The Free Press, New York,pp. 294–326.

Davis, J.F., 1997. Maintaining customer relationships through effective databasemarketing: a perspective for small retailers. Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice 5, 31–42.

Davies, G., Brito, E., 2004. Price and quality competition between brands and ownbrands: a values system perspective. European Journal of Marketing 38 (1–2),30–55.

Dawar, N., Parker, P., 1994. Marketing universals: consumers’ use of brand name,price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of productquality. Journal of Marketing 58 (2), 81–95.

De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G., 2003. Assessing the impact of a retailer‘srelationship efforts on consumers’ attitudes and behavior. Journal of Retailingand Consumer Services 10, 95–108.

Dennis, C., Marsland, D., Cockett, W.A., 2001. The mystery of consumer behaviour:market segmentation and shoppers’ choices of shopping centres. InternationalJournal of New Product Development and Innovation Management 3 (3), 221–237.

Dhar, S.K., Hoch, S.J., 1997. Why store brand penetration varies by retailer.Marketing Science 16 (3), 208–227.

Dou, W., Wang, G., Zhou, N., 2006. Generational and regional differences in mediaconsumption: patterns of Chinese generation� consumers. Journal of Adver-tising 35, 101–110.

Dowling, G.R., Uncles, M., 1997. Do customer loyalty programs really work? SloanManagement Review 38, 71–82.

Dunne, D., Narasimhan, C., 1999. The new appeal of private labels. HarvardBusiness Review 77, 41–52.

Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H., Oh, S., 1987. Developing buyer–seller relationships.Journal of Marketing 51, 11–27.

Ehrenberg, A.S.C., 1993. If you’re so strong, why aren’t you bigger? Making the caseagainst brand equity. Admap 28 (10), 13–14.

Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Goodhardt, G.J., Barwise, T.P., 1990. Double jeopardy revisited.Journal of Marketing 54, 82–91.

Erdem, O., Oumlil, B., Tuncalp, S., 1999. Consumer values and the importance ofstore attributes. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management27 (4), 137–144.

Fontenot, R., Wilson, E.J., 1997. Relational exchange: a review of selected models for aprediction matrix of relationship activities. Journal of Business Research 39, 5–12.

Fountain, J., Lamb, C., 2011. Generation Y as young wine consumers in NewZealand: how do they differ from Generation X? International Journal of WineBusiness Research 23 (2), 107–124.

Greatorex, M., Mitchell, V.W., 1994. Modelling consumer risk reduction preferencesfrom perceived loss data. Journal of Economic Psychology 15 (4), 669–685.

Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D., Bitner, M.J., 1998. Relational benefits in servicesindustries: the customer’s perspective. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience 26, 101–114.

Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P., 1996. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. Tavistock,New York.

Hill, R., 1970. The three-generation research design: method for studying familyand social change. In: Hill, R., Konig, R. (Eds.), Families in East and West:Socialization Process and Kinship Ties. The Hague, Mouton, pp. 536–551.

Holbrook, M.B., Lehmann, D.R., O’Shaughnessy, J., 1986. Using versus choosing: therelationship of the consumption experience to reasons for purchasing. Eur-opean Journal of Marketing 20 (8), 49–62.

Holbrook, M.B., Schindler, R.M., 1989. Some exploratory findings on the develop-ment of musical tastes. Journal of Consumer Research 16, 119–124.

Holbrook, M.B., Schindler, R.M., 1994. Age, sex and attitude toward the past aspredictors of consumers’ aesthetic tastes for cultural products. Journal ofMarketing Research 31, 412–442.

Holmes, J.H., Crocker, K.E., 1987. Predispositions and the comparative effectiveness ofrational, emotional, and discrepant appeals for both high involvement and lowinvolvement products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 15 (1), 27–35.

Holstein, J.A., Gubrium, J.F., 1995. The Active Interview. Sage, Thousand Oaks.Howe, M.L., 2000. The Fate of Early Memories: Developmental Science and the

Retention of Childhood Experiences. American Psychological Association,Washington, DC.

Hung, K.H., Gu, F.G., Yim, C.K., 2007. A social institutional approach to identifyinggenerational cohorts in China with a comparison to American consumers.Journal of International Business Studies 38, 836–853.

Joint Accident Investigation Commission of Estonia, Finland and Sweden, 1997.Final Report on the Capsizing on 28 September 1994 in the Baltic Sea of theRORO Passenger Vessel MV Estonia. Edita Limited, Helsinki.

Please cite this article as: Parment, A., Generation Y vs. Baby Boomretailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2013), http://

Juttner, U., Wehrli, H.P., 1994. Relationship marketing from a value systemperspective. International Journal of Service Industry Management 5, 54–73.

Kahn, B.E., 1995. Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services: anintegrative review. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2 (3), 139–148.

Katona, G., Mueller, E., 1955. A study of purchasing decisions. In: Clarke, L.H. (Ed.),Consumer Behavior: The Dynamics of Consumer Reaction. New York Uni-versity Press, New York, pp. 30–87.

Kau, A.K., Ehrenberg, A.S.C., 1984. Patterns of store choice. Journal of MarketingResearch XXI, 99–409.

Kim, H.J., Knight, D.K., Crutsinger, C., 2009. Generation Y employees’ retail workexperience: the mediating effect of job characteristics. Journal of BusinessResearch 62 (5), 548–556.

Knox, S.D., Denison, T.J., 2000. Store loyalty: its impact on retail revenue. Anempirical study of purchasing behaviour in the UK. Journal of Retailing andConsumer Services 7 (1), 33–45.

Kumar, V., Shah, D., 2004. Building and sustaining profitable customer loyalty forthe 21st century. Journal of Retailing 80 (4), 317–329.

Lancaster, L.C., Stillman, D., 2002. When Generations Collide. Who They Are. WhyThey Clash, How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work. Collins Business,New York.

Lee, M.-Y., Atkins, K.G., Kim, Y.-K., Park, S.-H., 2006. Competitive analyses betweenregional malls and big-box retailers: a correspondence analysis for segmenta-tion and positioning. Journal of Shopping Center Research 13, 83–98.

Liljander, V., Polsa, P., van Riel, V., 2009. Modelling consumer responses to anapparel store brand: store image as a risk reducer. Journal of Retailing andConsumer Services 16, 281–290.

Littrell, M.A., Yoon, J.M., Halepete, J., 2005. Generation X, baby boomers, andswing: Marketing fair trade apparel. Journal of Fashion Marketing andManagement 9 (4), 407–419.

Lumpkin, J.R., 1985. Shopping orientation segmentation of the elderly consumer.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 13 (1–2), 271–289.

Lyons, S., Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., 2005. Are Gender Differences in Basic HumanValues a Generational Phenomenon? Sex Roles 53 (9–10), 763–778.

Ma, Y.J., Littrell, M.A., Niehm, L., 2012. Young female consumers’ intentions towardfair trade consumption. International Journal of Retail and DistributionManagement 40 (1), 41–63.

Mannheim, K., 1927. The problem of generations. In: Kecskemeti, P. (Ed.), Essays onthe Sociology of Knowledge. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 276–320.

Marcus, C., 1998. A practical yet meaningful approach to customer segmentation.Journal of Consumer Marketing 15 (5), 494–504.

Markert, J., 2004. Demographics of age: generational and cohort confusion. Journalof Current Issues and Research in Advertising 26, 10–26.

Matthyssens, P., van den Bulte, C., 1994. Getting closer and nicer: partnerships inthe supply chain. Long Range Planning 27 (1), 72–83.

McGinn, M.K., 2005. Ethical and friendly researchers, but not insiders: a responseto Blodgett, Boyer, and Turk. Forum: Qualitative Social Research/Sozial-forschung 6 (3). (article 37) /http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/33/70S.

Meredith, G., Schewe, C.D., 1994. The power of cohorts. American Demographics16 (12), 22–31.

Meredith, G., Schewe, C.D., Karlovich, J., 2002. Defining Markets, DefiningMoments: America’s Seven Generational Cohorts, Their Shared Experiences,and Why Businesses Should Care. John Wiley & Sons, New York, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764553941.

Moorthy, K.S., 1984. Market Segmentation: self-selection, and product line design.Marketing Science 3 (4), 288–307.

Newman, J.W., Staelin, R., 1972. Prepurchase information seeking for new cars andmajor household appliances. Journal of Marketing Research 9 (Aug), 249–257.

O’Brien, L., Jones, C., 1995. Do rewards really create loyalty? Harvard BusinessReview 73, 75–82.

O’Neill, H., Sackett, P., 1994. The extended manufacturing enterprise paradigm.Management Decision 32 (8), 42–49.

Parment, A., 2007. Generation Y as Consumers – A Study into the ConsumerBehaviour and Marketing Communications, International School of Manage-ment and Industrial Engingeering, Research Report 2007, 3, Linkoping Uni-versity, Linkoping.

Parment, A., 2009. Automobile Marketing: Distribution Strategies for Competi-tiveness. VDM Publishing, Saarbrucken.

Parment, A., 2011. Generation Y in Consumer and Labour Markets. Routledge, NewYork.

Pentecost, R., Lynda, A., 2010. Fashion retailing and the bottom line: the effects ofgenerational cohorts, gender, fashion fanship, attitudes and impulse buying onfashion expenditure. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (1), 43–52.

Popai, 2012. Shopper Engagement Study. Media Topline Report.Quelch, J., Harding, D., 1996. Brands Versus Private Labels: Fighting to Win.

Harvard Business Review 74, 99–109.Rentz, J.O., Reynolds, F.D., Stout, R.G., 1983. Analyzing changing consumption

patterns with cohort analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 12–20.Richins, Marsha L., Bloch, Peter H., 1986. After the new wears off: the temporal

context of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 13, 280–285.Rogler, L.H., 2002. Historical generations and psychology. American Psychologist

27, 1013–1023.Rogler, L.H., Cooney, R.S., 1984. Puerto Rican Families in New York City:

Intergenerational Processes. Waterfront Press, Maplewood.Rotschild, M.L., 1979. Marketing communications in nonbusiness situations or why

it’s so hard to sell brotherhood like soap. Journal of Marketing 43 (2), 11–20.

ers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications fordx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001i

A. Parment / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 11

Ryder, N.B., 1985 [1959]. The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. In:Mason, W.M., Fienberg, S.E. (Eds.), Cohort Analysis in Social Research. Springer,New York, pp. 9–44.

Schewe, C., Noble, S.M., 2000. Market segmentation by cohorts: the value andvalidity of cohorts in America and abroad. Journal of Marketing Management16, 129–142.

Schewe, C., Meredith, G., 2004. Segmenting global markets by generationalcohorts: determining motivations by age. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4,51–63.

Schindler, R.M., Holbrook, M.B., 1993. Critical periods in the development of men’sand women’s tastes in personal appearance. Psychology and Marketing 10,549–564.

Schuman, H., Scott, J., 1989. Generations and collective memories. AmericanSociological Review 54, 359–381.

Semeijn, J., van Riel, A.C.R., Ambrosini, A.B., 2004. Consumer evaluations of storebrands: effects of store image and product attributes. Journal of Retailing andConsumer Services 11, 247–258.

Shepard, D.S., Zeckhauser, R.J., 1984. Survival versus consumption. ManagementScience 30 (4), 423–439.

Slama, M.E., Tashcian, A., 1985. Selected socioeconomic and demographic character-istics associated with purchasing involvement. Journal of Marketing 49, 72–82.

Soderqvist, M. (Ed.), 2010. 80-talisterna - sa funkar de. Den kompletta guiden tillgenerationen som stamplar in nar 40-talisterna loggar ut [People born in the

Please cite this article as: Parment, A., Generation Y vs. Baby Boomeretailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2013), http://

1980s - how they are. The complete guide to the generation that clocks inwhen those born in the 1940s log out]. United Minds, Stockholm.

Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (Eds.), 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &Behavioral Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Teas, R.K., Agarwal, S., 2000. The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value. Journal of the Academy of Market-ing Science 28 (2), 278–290.

Tellis, G.J., Wernerfelt, B., 1987. Competitive price and quality under asymmetricinformation. Marketing Science 6, 240–253.

Thang, D.C.L., Tan, B.J.B., 2003. Linking consumer perception to preference of retailstores: an empirical assessment of the multi-attributes of store image. Journalof Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (4), 193–200.

Wells Jr., L.T., 1968. A product life cycle for international trade? Journal ofMarketing 32, 1–6.

Wohl, R., 1979. The Generation of 1914. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Wray, B., Palmer, A., Bejou, D., 1994. Using neural network analysis to evaluate

buyer–seller relationships. European Journal of Marketing 28, 32–48.Wrigley, N., Dunn, R., 1984. Stochastic panel-data models of urban shopping

behaviour: the interaction of store choice and brand choice. Environment andPlanning 16, 1221–1 236.

Zemke, R., Raines, C., Filipczak, B., 2000. Generations at Work: Managing the Clashof Veterans, Boomers, Xwers and Nexters in Your Workplace. AMA Publica-tions, New York.

rs: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications fordx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.001i