‘CAN AND SHOULD THE MARKTPLACE BE INCLUSIVE TO ALL CONSUMERS’

Introduction

In examine the inclusive of consumers in the marketplace we have to consider both the demand

side and the supply side. Marketplace is an area where interaction between the buyer (demand)

and the seller (supplier) take place base on their interest or willingness to make business with each

other. As the increasing of consumers’ preferences, the market segmentation appears again to

enterprises that whether the marketplace can or should be inclusive to all consumers. There is no

an absolute answer since the object is not identified. For the whole marketplace, it is sure to

consider the demand for all consumers. Nevertheless, for an independent actor in an industry, being

inclusive to all consumers would decentralize its energy which would be counterproductive.

In this essay, I choose fashion as the specific market to analysis the feasibility and necessity of

marketplace inclusivity and exclusivity. Firstly, this essay will discuss the existing academic

literature in fashion. Following this, it will explain the advantages and disadvantages of

marketplace inclusivity and why it should be concise. Finally, it will present an example of Coca

Cola to provide an advice of marketplace inclusivity.

In fashion retailing, image is important because the product expresses something about the wearer.

The old adage ‘we are what we wear’ still holds true for fashion clothing. Many consumers buy

brands that project their self-image or the image to which they aspire (Hite and Bellizzi, 1985);

they do not buy clothes just for the functional qualities they possess (Shin and Dickerson, 1999).

The individual selection of attire has been described as ‘a personal signature that symbolically

communicates the social identity that a person seeks store project and is a reflection of the
personality of the wearer’ (Thompson and Chen, 1998: 162). Hence, purchasing behavior is a

direct result of the comparison of the individual’s perception of store image with their own self-

or aspirational image. To increase sales turnover and profitability, retailers need to develop an

image based on the aspirational image of the targeted customer and then provide the range of

merchandise they seek this will help include all customer in a particular market to patronize.

Literature Review

Research on low-income or poorer consumers and the disadvantages that they encounter in the

marketplace (Hamilton, K.L. and Catterall, M. 2005) defined Low-income consumers as

individuals whose financial resources or income results in them being unable to obtain the goods

and services needed for an "adequate" and "socially acceptable" standard of living. This definition

adopts a relative perspective on poverty in that low- income consumers lack the resources

necessary to participate in what are perceived as the normal customs of their society. Within the

consumer society, normality is equated with the ability to consume. Consumers are expected to

respond to the temptations of the marketplace by having the latest and the best consumer goods

(Szmigin 2003). The poor, who are limited in their ability to respond to these temptations have

been marginalized from mainstream society and described as "unwanted," "abnormal," "non-

consumers" and "flawed consumers" (Bauman 1998). Constructing normality in this way focuses

only on larger societal influences. However, there will also be influences coming from the

consumer’s own narrow society, that is their own neighborhoods and peer groups which are likely

to consist of other low- income consumers. The importance attached to each of these sets of

influences will have an impact on the way in which poverty is constructed. The marginalization of

low-income consumers is accentuated by marketers’ disinterest in poorer consumers (Winnett and

Thomas 2003). A number of commonly held beliefs about low-income consumers need to be
challenged but since these consumers are not high priority as target markets (Curtis, 2000),

marketers invest little in the research that might go some way to challenge them.

According to Hill and Stephens’ (1997) model of impoverished consumer behavior identifies three

main areas of research interest on low- income consumers, namely exchange restrictions,

consequences of disadvantage and strategies for coping with disadvantage. Using this model, the

literature relating to each of these areas will be examined. Following this, some of the common

assumption’s marketers make about low-income consumers are discussed and challenged by

drawing together research from a wide range of disciplines. There are a lot of factors which account

for the inclusive and exclusive of customers in the marketplace. These factors are:

Exchange restrictions

The exchange relationship between marketers and low-income consumers is imbalanced in favor

of the marketers (Alwitt and Donley 1996). Exchange restrictions imposed by the supplier include

high prices, low quality goods and small assortments. The poor suffer price discrimination and

could face a consumer detriment factor of 11 per cent, meaning that poor families have to spend

11 per cent extra to get equivalent goods and services to average families (Aird 1977). Many

studies have investigated the price of food for low-income consumers and evidence has confirmed

that supermarket prices are often higher in poor neighborhoods, resulting in the poor paying more

for grocery products because the stores that charge the lowest prices are not located in areas

convenient to their homes (Chung and Myers 1999). Indirect price discrimination also occurs

because lack of capital equipment (Williams 1977) such as cars (for transport) or storage spaces,

limits low- income consumers from taking advantage of the range of offerings available to more

affluent consumers. An inability to take advantage of bulk buying denies the poor many

opportunities for getting good value for money and stocking up on items for future consumption.
Low-income consumers often have to suffice with lower quality goods and services. They may

have no choice but to purchase second hand goods, an option that is almost always viewed as

second-best (Williams and Windebank 2001). Gregson, Crewe and Brooks (2002) found that

charity shopping is a necessity for impoverished consumers, involving a lot of time and effort to

find adequate, good quality products. Limited product availability can be a problem for low-

income consumers (Hill and Stephens 1997).

Literatures have discussed the omittance in mainstream market. Daiane Scaraboto and Eileen

Fischer discussed the mobilization of plus-sized consumers to seek more choice from mainstream

market (Scaraboto & Fischer 2012). (Birtwistle & Tsim 2005) The demand aiming at consumers

with dissimilar preferences has been captured by merchants to develop on the Internet. (Choi &

Bell 2011) As the researches showed, there are many areas of consumers ignored by the merchants,

whatever they are poor or wealthy. However, the incompletion of the marketplace inclusivity is

just the potential opportunity of the companies towards consumer of different classes. (Robert et

al. 2003)

The nature of mature market

The age profile of consumers is changing with people living longer due to improved health care

(Dychtwald,1997) and more enjoying a higher standard of living (CarriganandSzmigin,1999). In

addition, the youth population is diminishing due to the decreasing fertility rate (Mintel, 1999) and

individual choice. Consequently, it would be expected for retailers to be interested in targeting

those fit, wealthy, mature customers (Anon, 2002). The generation of Baby Boomers is maturing

and, with ages ranging from late-30s to mid-50s, it represents a considerable economic force.

Examining the total female population, it is estimated that 48percent will be aged over 45 by the

year 2026. The fastest growing group is aged 55–59, comprising three million people in 1995 and
estimated to grow to four million by 2005, an increase of nearly 30percent (Mintel, 1997). This

has serious implications for the retail fashion market. As adults mature and move through the

different life stages, many experiences an increase in personal disposable income as their family

commitments reduce (Mintel, 1999). Jeremy Bull more, a non-executive director of WPP, the

global communication service company, states that ‘you absolutely cannot turn your back on

several million people with no responsibilities, great white spaces of discretionary time and a lot

of disposable cash’ (Henley Centre, 2001).

The feasibility and necessity of the marketplace inclusivity

It is a common phenomenon that consumers either find no clothes catering to their taste or all their

favorite. This is the inevitable result of market segmentation for the target groups of different

brands are not overlapped which leads to the difference. Everyone brand has its brand culture like

iPhone lays emphasis on quality and comfort while Samsung pays attention Smartness. Besides

this, the prices of these two brands are also in different level. Considering that the preferences of

consumers are various and unpredictable, it is impossible for one company to be inclusive to all

consumers. (Kotler & Philip 2000) Thus there is little feasibility of complete inclusivity of

marketplace. On the other hand, there is no need for manufacturers to cover all consumers since

that everyone has his own definition of taste which determines its preferences. A good brand must

have its core competitiveness and recognition. For example, if a brand’s staple aims at consumers

with high net worth, then it is not wise for it to develop new clients in middle class. The reason is

that sometimes the most valuable of a brand is not its new meaning or high quality but the status

it represents like the development of Parker pen (Schau et al. 2009).

From the perspective of economics, the production is a constraint especially in the area of fashion.

Not only the trend varies a lot but also the balance between supply and demand is hard to reach.
In addition, there is no possibility of the equilibrium price for it is not a certain type of goods.

(Mankiw, 2009)

The erroneous transformation of Coca Cola

There is a failure case of Coca Cola which can be applied to the guidance for the area of fashion.

Owing to the grow up of PepsiCo claiming new alternatives of a new generation, Coca Cola carried

out a large-scale Marketing action with completely substitution of the traditional taste. Although

this transformation had done market research before extension and gain good response, the post-

effect is far from satisfaction. From the press conference, the protest calls are not discontinuous.

End with the angry feelings among customers and falling sales, this three-year costly event failed.

The failure of Coca Cola attributes to the neglect of the regular customers but blindly appealing to

new customers. Coca Cola does not realize that a successful marketplace cannot be inclusive to all

consumers. Fortunately, Coca Cola changed back to the traditional taste in the end which guarantee

the competitiveness with PepsiCo.

Advices of the choice to market focus

From the failure case of Coca Cola, we can see the importance of targeted market. Certainly, more

inclusive marketplace is helpful for the long-term development of the company. However, this is

based on the well hold of the loyal customers. In other words, exploring new consumers on the

basis of existing customers. Using the example of Coca Cola, it uses different packages to attract

consumers with different preferences while reserves the traditional taste. This measure is

successful that it maintains its core value.

As for we listed in the literature review, there are still market areas need further development, like

the low-income people, mature women, plus-sized people or even consumers with dissimilar
preferences. These offer opportunities for emerging market or existing enterprises with enough

strength. Market cannot be perfect completely, it needs continuous improvement with the

development of fashion. (Mankiw, 2009)

Considering the consumption structure, fashion would still be the highlight. One developing

direction for the existing fashion brands is the emphasis on working women especially mature

women over 45 years. They have enough willingness to pay and have their preferences which

cannot be influenced easily. A misunderstanding of most manufacturers nowadays is that the

demand follows supply. Based on this, the supply is increasing while its quality is backward. The

inclusivity of marketplace reflects the satisfaction of demands of all consumers. Certainly,

sometimes consumers’ demands can de guided to a better direction (Sandicki et al. 2010). Thus

further researches on consumers preferences and demands are very necessary and would never be

out of date. This requires for the joint effort of the whole markets instead of one certain enterprise.

Conclusion

Too much inclusion will in fact create more exclusion as everyone will be different and so no one

will be included in some ways. In addition, from the angle of supply-demand and the production,

inclusive marketplace to all consumers is not realistic. Complete inclusion cannot be realized

whatever in view of feasibility or necessity. However, more inclusive market can be facilitated

with help of all markets and constantly exploration on consumers’ preferences and demands. This

the process of perfection of market for every classes. In the development of new area, existing

enterprises should pay attention to the feelings and tastes of loyal customers to avoid striving for

perfection.
Reference

Aird, T. J., & Rice, J. R. (1977). Systematic search in high dimensional sets. SIAM Journal on

Numerical Analysis, 14(2), 296-312.

Alwitt, L. F., & Donley, T. (1996). The low-income consumer: Adjusting the balance of exchange.

Sage Publications, Inc.

Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The human consequences. Columbia University Press.

Birtwistle, G., & Tsim, C. (2005). Consumer purchasing behaviour: an investigation of the UK

mature women's clothing market. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research

Review, 4(6), 453-464.

Carrigan, M., & Szmigin, I. (1999). In pursuit of youth: what’s wrong with the older

market?. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 17(5), 222-231.

Choi, J., & Bell, D. R. (2011). Preference minorities and the Internet. Journal of Marketing

Research, 48(4), 670-682.

Chung, C., & Myers Jr, S. L. (1999). Do the poor pay more for food? An analysis of grocery store

availability and food price disparities. Journal of consumer affairs, 33(2), 276-296.

Daiane Scaraboto & Eileen Fischer. (2012). ‘Frustrated Fashionistas: An Institutional Theory

Perspective on Consumer Quests for Greater Choice in Mainstream Markets’, Journal of Consumer

Research, vol.39.

Grete Birtwistle & Cayan Tsim. (2005). ‘Consumer purchasing behavior: An investagition of the

UK mature women’s clothing market’, Journal of Consumer Behavior, vol.4, no.6, pp.453-464,

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hamilton, K. L., & Catterall, M. (2005). Towards a better understanding of the low income

consumer. Advances in Consumer Research, 32(1), 627-632.

Hill, R. P., & Stephens, D. L. (1997). Impoverished consumers and consumer behavior: The case

of AFDC mothers. Journal of Macromarketing, 17(2), 32-48.

Hite, R. E., & Bellizzi, J. A. (1985). Differences in the importance of selling techniques between

consumer and industrial salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 5(2), 19-

30.

Hohlbein, D. J., & Mintel, T. E. (1999). U.S. Patent No. 5,946,758. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent

and Trademark Office.

Jeonghye Choi & R. Bell. (2011) ‘Preference Mionrities and the Internet’, Journal of Marketing

Research, vol. XLVII, pp.670-682.

Kathy Hamilton & Miriam Catterall. (2005). ‘Towards A Better Understanding of the Low-Income

Consumer’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol.32, pp.627-631.

Kent Dychtwald, M. (1997). Marketplace 2000: riding the wave of population change. Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 14(4), 271-275.

Kotler & Philip. (2000) Marketing Management, Millennium Edition, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Mankiw, N. G. (2009). It may be time for the fed to go negative. New York Times, 18, 2009.

N. Grgory Mankiw. (2009) Principles of Microeconomics, 5th edn, Cengage Learning.

Pan, L. G., Tomás, M. C., & Añón, M. C. (2002). Effect of sunflower lecithins on the stability of

water-in-oil and oil-in-water emulsions. Journal of surfactants and detergents, 5(2), 135-143.
Pan, L. G., Tomás, M. C., & Añón, M. C. (2002). Effect of sunflower lecithins on the stability of

water-in-oil and oil-in-water emulsions. Journal of surfactants and detergents, 5(2), 135-143.

Prabhudev Konana & Nirup M. Menon. (2003) ‘Customer Satisfaction in Virtual Environments:

A Study of Online Investing’, Management Science, vol.49, no.7, pp.871–89.

Sandicki, zlem, Özlem & Güliz Ger. (2010) ‘Veiling in Style: How Does a Stigmatized Practice

Become Fashionable?’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol.37, pp.15–36.

Scaraboto, D., & Fischer, E. (2012). Frustrated fatshionistas: An institutional theory perspective

on consumer quests for greater choice in mainstream markets. Journal of Consumer

Research, 39(6), 1234-1257.

Schau, Hope J., Albert M. Muñiz, & Eric J. Arnould. (2009) ‘How Brand Community Practices

Create Value’, Journal of Marketing, vol.73, no.5, pp.30–51.

Shin, S., & Dickerson, K. (1999). Personal and non-personal references used by South Korean

men in apparel purchase decisions. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An

International Journal, 3(1), 7-17.

Szmigin, I. (2003). Understanding the consumer. Sage.

Thompson, K. E., & Ling Chen, Y. (1998). Retail store image: a means-end approach. Journal of

Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 4(6), 161-173.

Williams, C. C., & Windebank, J. (2001). Acquiring goods and services in lower income

populations: an evaluation of consumer behaviour and preferences. International Journal of Retail

& Distribution Management, 29(1), 16-24.

Williams, H. C. W. L., & Ortúzar, J. D. D. (1982). Behavioural theories of dispersion and the mis-

specification of travel demand models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 16(3),

167-219.

Winnet, Robert & Zoe Thomas. (2003) ‘Are You a Second-Class Consumer?’, Sunday Times,

viewed 19 October.