Fashion Marketing
Fashion Marketing
Fashion Marketing
Textile Progress
Vol. 45, Nos. 2-3, 2013, 182207
Fashion marketing
Liz Barnes*
This issue of Textile Progress provides a critical literature review and reflection relating to
academic research in the field of fashion marketing. As the topic has not been reviewed
before in Textile Progress, the paper takes the concepts of marketing and fashion in turn,
exploring the literature from its origins to the present day and then considers how and why
these two concepts have become merged to form a discrete academic research theme.
The exploration of marketing includes a discussion of the origins of the marketing
concept which emerged in the 1950s alongside the growth in mass consumerism. The
paper discusses the ubiquitous marketing mix theory and explains how research in
marketing shifted its focus in the 1980s and 1990s as new paradigms developed, and
their applicability to the marketing concept were debated.
The concept of fashion is considered in terms of the context of historical research on
fashion, for example, from the sociological or psychological perspective, and how the
concept of fashion can be considered both academically and commercially.
The review then goes on to evaluate the concept of fashion marketing as a discrete area
for academic research, arguing that it has distinct theoretical perspectives from those
of pure marketing or fashion theory, and culminating in a review of contemporary
research in the field of fashion marketing, specifically that relating to fast fashion and
digital fashion marketing.
Keywords: marketing; fashion marketing; fashion; fast fashion; digital fashion
1. Introduction
This paper responds to the need for an exploration into the role of fashion marketing in
the context of textiles research. Textiles as an academic subject has a long history in the
UK, born from the thriving textiles industry of the industrial revolution, and textiles
research has contributed to huge innovations in science and technology. As a result of the
shift in the manufacturing of garments to developing economies as well as the growth in
wealth and consumerism witnessed in the 1980s, the emphasis of the textiles industry in
the UK changed, with increased focus on the fashion, design and branding elements of
garment production. This shift in the industry was reflected in universities, as courses in
textiles marketing grew in popularity through the 1980s and 1990s, with increasing
emphasis on the fashion aspects of textiles. As the number of courses in fashion market-
ing has grown, so too has fashion marketing as an academic subject. Indeed, Richard
Jones, founding editor of the Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, introduced
the journal in the 1980s (initially titled the Hollings Apparel Industry Review, an internal
*Email: [email protected]
journal produced by the Department of Clothing Design and Technology at what is now
the Manchester Metropolitan University) in direct response for the need to plug the gap
and develop a base of research literature on which to underpin courses related to market-
ing in textiles and clothing [1]. Of course, the Journal of Fashion Marketing and Manage-
ment is not the only journal to publish research in the field of fashion marketing. Since the
1990s, papers on fashion marketing have increasingly been found in textiles journals as
well as in pure marketing journals and beyond, in publications on retailing, geography,
psychology and sociology. Now that publications in the subject have reached a critical
mass, it seems an opportune time to reflect on research in the field of fashion marketing,
particularly within the context of where it sits in the broader textiles research agenda.
This conceptual paper explores research in fashion marketing for the wider textiles
research community. Searches using the term fashion on Google will return more than
335 million results including, amongst other topics, clothing, retail, television, media,
education, art, music and culture; however, clothing and footwear are what most people
accept as being intrinsic to the fashion industry [2], and for the purposes of this article,
the terms fashion and fashion marketing are used in relation to the marketing of garments.
The fashion industry is therefore a hugely important sector for textiles, since all aspects of
textiles and garment production account for a huge proportion of the overall textiles
industry. Thus fashion marketing is a significant component of the broad study of textiles.
Fashion marketing has evolved as an academic subject over the last 20 years; yet, its defi-
nition as a concept has not been explored widely. In its simplest terms, fashion marketing
is an extension or more focused application of generic marketing. The first part of this
paper explores marketing and fashion in turn.
The term fashion marketing is then introduced and is followed by a deeper discussion
about research in marketing and fashion. The paper then evaluates fashion marketing as a
research field, evaluating the meaning of fashion marketing as a concept, identifying the
key research themes in fashion marketing and exploring the future research agenda within
the context of the subject and beyond.
2. Marketing
Marketing as an academic subject in its own right has been seriously studied for around
six decades, garnering much attention and popularity as an academic subject following
Theodore Levitts seminal paper Marketing Myopia published in the Harvard Business
Review in 1960 in which he introduced the concept that firms would be more successful
if they focused on identifying and satisfying customer needs [3].
184 L. Barnes
product planning,
pricing,
branding,
channels of distribution,
personal selling,
advertising,
promotions,
packaging,
display,
servicing,
physical handling,
fact finding and analysis,
all of which would be subject to a series of forces including consumer behaviour, industry
behaviour, competitors and regulation. Borden [6] suggested that the marketing mix con-
cept would provide a useful tool to enable a clearer understanding of what marketing is
and the interrelated nature of its activities. Over time, many academics developed and
simplified the idea of the marketing mix, and indeed the idea of the marketing mix
remains today and is used prolifically in marketing academia. The most enduring model
of the marketing mix is that which was first proposed by McCarthy (1960, cited in Water-
schoot and van den Bulte [7]) who organised the ingredients of the mix into four classes:
product, price, place and promotion, describing this formula as the 4Ps. Early research
into the concept of the marketing mix focused on the mix as a series of policies and proce-
dures, but a more modern interpretation of the marketing mix is focused on its use as a
strategic tool for businesses to achieve their marketing objectives [8]. Despite new and
arguably more sophisticated perspectives and angles on marketing, the 4Ps (comprising
product, place, price and promotion) of the marketing mix have remained an indisputable
paradigm [9] in marketing research for nearly 60 years.
the marketing mix concept, to industrial marketing and services marketing. The interac-
tion/network approach to industrial marketing dominated much of the academic research
into marketing in the 1970s and 1980s. Much of this work originated from a group of aca-
demics from the Uppsala University in Sweden who argued that in industrial marketing,
businesses operate in a network of organisations that interact with each other, usually
over a long period of time, with organisations working together and adapting over time to
facilitate mutually beneficial exchanges. The interaction approach developed by the
Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group (IMP Group) in the late 1970s focused on
organisational marketing, not as a dyadic relationship between two organisations, but as a
pre-existing network of relationships, available for organisations to exploit however they
wish. This developed into what was termed an interaction approach [10]. Easton [11]
suggests that this new approach worked outside the traditional marketing arena. It focused
more on the space between organisations, and so, in other words, looked at the totality
of relationships between organisations involved in production, distribution and use of
goods and services in an entire industrial system [11].
The interaction approach is based on a number of other factors [12]:
The buyer and seller are both active participants in the market.
There is a close, complex, long-term interaction between the buyer and seller. Mar-
keters and buyers need to be more involved in maintaining the relationship, than
just with making the purchase.
Links between buyers and sellers become institutionalised whereby each party will
perform the roles expected.
Previous purchases, mutual evaluation and the associated relationship, especially
between companies in the case of infrequently purchased products.
However, Ford [10] argued that there were several issues raised by this interaction
approach:
186 L. Barnes
relationship marketing and the network theory had little in common; Mattsson [16]
suggested that the IMP approach focused on relationships as they are, rather than as they
should be, whereas the relationship marketing approach tended to focus on the manage-
ment of relationship life cycles. Relationship marketing had a more strategic and proac-
tive role than the network approach. In other words, in relationship marketing, the
organisation makes an active decision to make relationship marketing a strategy of the
organisation. However, Blois [17] disputed this and suggests that many organisations
have been involved in relationship marketing for years, having never realised or necessar-
ily employed it as a strategy.
So it can be seen that relationship marketing had moved the marketing paradigm from
basic transactions between organisations to an emphasis on the importance of long-term
customer retention. In addition, as discussed earlier, relationship marketing superseded
the IMP approach. Relationship marketing theory suggests that there must be a definite
strategy to exploit the relationship for long-term benefit and competitive advantage. This
occurred because, although the IMP approach included an element of relationship man-
agement, the IMP Group tended to assume that relationships just exist, whereas relation-
ship marketing acknowledges that they must be viewed strategically to gain competitive
benefit. Gummesson [18] explained that in his relationship marketing theory, the 30Rs
approach is a gradual extension to work undertaken by the IMP Group. The 30Rs incor-
porated relationships, networks and interaction [18]. In addition to the natural develop-
ment of research in this field, relationship marketing was considered to have significant
economic benefits because it was about maintaining existing customers by providing
added value to the core product, for example, in terms of technological benefit, knowl-
edge-related benefit, informational benefit or social benefit [9]. The crux of this argument
was supported by Buttle [13] who suggested that it costs organisations more resource to
attract a new customer, rather than maintain an existing customer, and the longer the rela-
tionship the more profitable it would be. The concept was neatly summarised by Gordon
[19, p. 9]:
Relationship marketing is the on-going process of identifying and creating new value with
individual customers and then sharing the benefits from this over a lifetime of association. It
involves the understanding, focusing and management of on-going collaboration between
suppliers and selected customers for mutual value creation and sharing through interdepen-
dence and organisational alignment.
Mattsson [16] stressed that relationship marketing was more than just a marketing
strategy aimed at increasing customer loyalty, satisfaction and retention. Relationship
marketing really meant a true interaction, over time, between parties, with a relatively
high mutual dependence and a primary consideration for how individual relationships are
interconnected in networks. Gummesson [20, p. 24] provided a more complex definition
for relationship marketing in his total relationship marketing theory. He defined it as:
3. Fashion
Fashion is defined as being something with short-term popularity applied to product cate-
gories (clothing, cars, food, technology, etc.), lifestyles and business sectors, and can be
used in describing the characteristics of an individual; for example, a person described as
being fashionable would be someone who embraces all aspects of what is considered
popular at any given time. Fashion as an academic subject has its foundation in sociology
and humanities, for example, dress and culture, historical trends in dress and costume and
in the context of dress and self-identity and so on. In the context of commercial and busi-
ness-oriented research, fashion has only recently been considered as an academic subject,
in line with the growth in post-war consumerism. For the purposes of this paper, fashion
is examined from the point of view of fashion business rather than in the broader socio-
logical context, and with emphasis on fashion clothing.
188 L. Barnes
By contrast, product life cycle (PLC) theory is a separate theoretical concept grounded
in marketing theory, which models the sales of a product through its lifetime. It is repre-
sented, mirroring the behaviour of Rogers adopter categories, by a normal distribution
TTPR_A_868677.3d (TTPR) 14-02-2014 17:33
curve, representing an initial slow growth of sales as consumers become aware of the
product, followed by rapid growth and then a maturity phase whereby the product has
achieved sustained sales which finally proceed to decline [28]. This profile follows the
pattern of a fashion trend. By linking the life cycle of a fashion trend to Rogers classifi-
cation [24] of adopters categories, it is possible to gain some understanding of the types
of consumers buying in to a new fashion, and the stages at which they do it. The catego-
ries of adoption were based on a normal distribution curve; therefore, the early majority
and late majority categories might represent a typical mass market fashion response.
The preliminary stage in initiating a trend is that of the creation or design stage in
which a new fashion style is invented and introduced to the consumer. Freathy [29] notes
that in fashion, designers, celebrities and sub-cultural factors typically lead this first phase
and may therefore be classified as the innovator adopter. As those most interested in
fashion look to the designers and celebrities, the fashion is adopted by leading consumers,
often referred to as fashion leaders, fashion innovators or fashion-conscious consumers.
They initiate progression of the fashion by being the first to adopt and exhibit a new style
within their social group, a parallel to Rogers early adopter. As increasing numbers of
consumers (fashion followers) buy into a trend, there is an increase in adoption, endowing
the fashion with wider social awareness. The style is, however, is still considered new by
the mainstream consumer. The early majority adopter embraces the fashion before the
average consumer but there is maintenance of extensive attention and interest among
others. By the time the fashion gains a larger amount of social acceptance and is adopted
by varying social groups, the new fashion is well established and conventional; it has
been accepted by the majority and can therefore be linked to the late majority adopter
category. It is now a mass market fashion trend. By this point in the PLC (or trend life
cycle), those who are fashion innovators and early adopters have already moved onto the
next fashion and the cycle has started again. The final phase is decline and obsolescence
in which the fashion has lost its appeal. Decline in use occurs as new styles are introduced
and the fashion is then accepted as an addition to socially saturated fashions. It may be at
this moment that the laggard buys into the fashion, and arguably represents the point at
which the fashion is no longer fashionable! The length of time and speed with which a
fashion will move from introduction through to maturity phase will depend on a whole
variety of issues such as wearability of the trend, mass appeal, who the early adopters
were and the extent to which retailers were able to source and distribute the trend in
response to changing consumer demand. Some fashions, for example, the fashion for
denim, last for years or decades, and in the fashion sector are referred to as classics,
whilst other fashions move through the cycle very quickly and may only last a matter of
weeks before reaching decline. This pattern of high-speed progression through the life
cycle tends to be referred to as a fashion fad, for example, the underwear as outerwear
style.
Although studies into the typologies of adopter categories remain inconclusive [30],
traditional characteristics of adopter categories suggest that opinion leaders are important
in the diffusion and adoption of fashion [24]. There have been mixed findings about the
characteristics of adopter categories; findings have tended to suggest that fashion innova-
tors and early adopters are young, outgoing and have status in social networks (Katz &
Lazerfeld, 1955; Midgley & Wills, 1979, both cited in Evans [24]). Furthermore, young
consumers are considered to be more fashion-oriented than older consumers [24]. How-
ever, trends in the marketplace suggest that consumers are increasingly remaining inter-
ested in fashion for longer, meaning age is becoming less relevant, although orientation to
fashion may change. In the context of diffusion of a fashion trend, Cholachatpinyo et al.
TTPR_A_868677.3d (TTPR) 14-02-2014 17:33
190 L. Barnes
[31] consider two groups of fashion consumers: innovators and followers. Fashion innova-
tors tend to be confident about fashion, uninfluenced by social groups or marketing activi-
ties and like to wear new trends but do not like wearing the same as others. Fashion
followers on the other hand are radically influenced by others, by marketing strategies
and by the media, and are less confident in their fashion choices and styling and are likely
to adopt a fashion only once it has been around for a while or when many others have
adopted it [31]. However, these characteristics imply that there are two distinct types of
consumers those that are interested/confident in fashion and those that are not, although
increasingly these stereotypes could be challenged. For example, the expansion of fash-
ion-associated media has potentially provided women of all adopter categories with
increasing interest and confidence in fashion and styling.
structures would only allow for versions of these fashions to be available to consumers at
least 12 months later. However, it can be argued that the trickle-down model lacks reso-
nance in the contemporary market where high street, mass market and value players have
been so successful in providing low-price, high fashion and react very quickly to the latest
designs, getting them into store in a matter of weeks.
The trickle-across theory is a mass-market-oriented theory which has emerged along
with the growth in consumerism and democratisation of fashion; it argues that as consum-
ers have gained access to multiple channels of information relating to fashion and style
available simultaneously to all socio-economic groups, fashion diffusion can occur at the
same time regardless of the class of the consumer [32]. The trickle-across theory argued
that fashion leaders were not necessarily distant (economically or socially) but were typi-
cally from within a consumers own social class and peer group [32]. The trickle-across
theory held much resonance in academic circles for many years as a persuasive model for
fashion leadership and diffusion and it continues to have some resonance today, particu-
larly with the advent of social media and the emergence of fashion bloggers as key opin-
ion leaders. This, alongside the changes in supply chain structures which have paved the
way for fast fashion, which is discussed later, means the latest fashion, looks and styles
are available for all to see and all to buy almost instantaneously.
The trickle-up theory is a theory of fashion leadership that has emerged most recently,
which explains the phenomena of street fashions and avant-garde consumer groups, as
opposed to designers or product developers, creating new fashions [33]. Although this
interpretation of the fashion theory is highly relevant to the modern fashion sector, the
theory was first purported in the 1970s by Blumberg [35] and Field [36] who identified
the emergence of new fashions being initiated by sub-cultures in the USA [32]. An obvi-
ous example of the trickle-up theory in action was witnessed in the UK in the 1980s with
the emergence of the punk era.
Fashion is an expression of belonging to various social and cultural groups, and fash-
ion, dress and clothing are forms of communication about our self-identity. What we
wear defines our perceived attractiveness and status [37]. Much of the sociological fash-
ion theory focuses on the concept of fashion, clothing and dress as a cultural phenome-
non; the idea is that the clothes you wear make a statement about who you are. Such a
cultural association can be seen in the rise in popularity of the so-called hip hop fashion,
very closely associated with young, black American street culture. The book by Chuck
D [38], Fight the Power: Rap, Race & Reality, charts the social, political, economic and
ethnic background to hip hop and rap and this cultural association can be linked to fash-
ions worn by early rappers and hip hop artists in the USA; for example, RUN DMC wore
unlaced Adidas trainers as a reference to the way shoelaces were routinely removed from
prisoners in American jails. The style of oversized baggy trousers showing the top of
underwear was also a reference to jail, where belts were removed for safety reasons. A
similar style was worn by this sub-culture to show solidarity with incarcerated brothers.
Similarly, wearing thick gold chains with padlocks was a fashion reference to slavery.
This fashion style was described by Wilbekin [39] as an interpretation of neo-black power
creating its own urban-street style. However, these fashions were quickly incorporated
into mass popular culture, into the world of middle-class fashion; for example, the Calvin
Klein (CK) brand used the acceptable face of rap Marky Mark in their campaigns; Ralph
Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger used popular mainstream rap and stars Sean Coombs and
Coolio for their catwalk shows [37]. This fashion street-style, generated from an under-
ground sub-culture quickly moved into mainstream fashion and its popularity meant it
was commercially attractive, so much so that Sean Coombs launched his own clothing
TTPR_A_868677.3d (TTPR) 14-02-2014 17:33
192 L. Barnes
line in 1998 called Sean John and this is now one of the biggest selling menswear brands
in the USA. This trickle-up generation of fashion style gave rise to the concept of the
cool hunter and brands such as Nike recognised the importance of street-, youth- and
sub-culture for generating mainstream fashion styles, employing the so-called cool hunt-
ers to seek out these street styles; this is now typical of the type of activity that fashion
houses and brands engage in as part of their range-planning strategy.
The new model is characterised by pronounced emphasis on tight style deadlines, order-proc-
essing mechanisms which differ from those adopted for seasonal orders and an overall drive
towards the flexibility and speed of response.
4. Fashion marketing
Given what is known about marketing and fashion, the question is whether fashion mar-
keting can be considered to be significantly different from our understanding of generic
marketing. One of the first textbooks to be published on fashion marketing was Mike Easeys
text in which he argues that fashion marketing is different from other areas of marketing
because of the changing nature of fashion and the role that design plays in the sector in terms
of both leading and reflecting customer needs [44]. Whilst the subject as a discrete area of
study has gathered momentum, there has been little in the way of developing this definition,
although Jackson and Shaw [45] provide a useful analysis of the general subject of marketing
in comparison with marketing as a functional business operation within the specific focus on
the fashion industry. In this debate, Jackson and Shaw [45] suggest that, operationally, the
fashion marketing function of a business focuses on the promotion and communications
aspect of the business, leaving strategic decisions, for example, relating to design or brand
concept, to other functions within the business, for example, design, buying and merchandis-
ing; there is evidence, therefore, from within the fashion business environment, in support of
the idea that fashion marketing is unique, because the specific demands of fashion require a
substantially greater focus of attention on these particular matters than would be the case for
the marketing function more generally.
194 L. Barnes
customer needs because the customers do not know what they need. The challenge for
marketers of fashion products is therefore about how to achieve the right balance of being
fashionable or creative enough with products to maintain consumer interest and be
regarded as innovative whilst producing collections that are commercially viable. As
Easey [44] articulates, At the centre of the debate over the role of fashion marketing
within firms resides a tension between design and marketing imperatives [44, p. 7].
Fashion marketing is concerned with understanding the complex needs and wants of consum-
ers of fashion and with orienting both strategic and operational business activities to satisfy
those demands; fashion marketings particular complexity as a business philosophy arises
from the diversity of fashion-related influences which shape consumer needs combined with
the fast-moving pace of fashion-product life-cycles.
. . .anything that can be offered to a market to satisfy a want or need and is made up of a core
benefit i.e. what is the key benefit the customer is buying, bundled with a set of additional
values including the expected product i.e. what the customer expects to get with a product,
the augmented product i.e how the marketer exceeds expectations (the level at which compe-
tition normally takes place), and the potential product i.e. future direction of the product. [8]
The expected and augmented levels of a product are where marketing typically plays a
part, for example, through branding, sales promotion and retail offerings. This generic
theory of product marketing can be applied to fashion products, and perhaps like no other
category, the fashion marketing activity adding value to the core product is really the
aspect of the product that satisfies the consumer need. For example, the core benefit or
function of clothing is to provide protection and for modesty purposes. For fashion con-
sumers the need goes beyond that, and is also related to design, style and brand, i.e. all
the attributes that are operating at expected and augmented levels. A good example of the
applicability of this theory is to consider a pair of jeans. Levis takes the credit for invent-
ing the first pair of denim jeans back in the nineteenth century, having designed a new
highly-durable garment for cowboys in the American west. Today Levis and other denim
brands typically retail their jeans well above cost price, for example, in excess of $100. In
some cases consumers are buying these high-priced garments for particular aspects of the
TTPR_A_868677.3d (TTPR) 14-02-2014 17:33
design and style detail, but fundamentally the brand plays a huge part in determining
which jeans consumers purchase; this is closely connected to the theme of fashion dis-
cussed in the previous section, whereby fashion and what individuals wear is a key part of
how individuals communicate, portray themselves and connect with others the brand
they wear is an important part of this process.
Typically, fashion products are divided into a set of categories not usually found in
other sectors of marketing, inseparably connected to the concept of fashion having a lim-
ited life cycle. In the earlier discussion about fashion, the PLC theory, diffusion theory
and seasonal structure of fashion were presented, explaining that the life expectancy of a
particular fashion could be a matter of a few weeks, one season or through many years. In
fashion, the expected lifecycles of various fashion products are used to categorise the
products into what are termed fads, fashions or classic products. The fad products are
those with a very short life cycle. These might typically be based on more extreme or
unusual designs which appeal to only a limited group of consumers [33], for example, the
bandage dress first introduced by the designer Herve Leger. Fashion products are typically
those which run through their PLC in one distinct season whereas a classic fashion is one
which remains fashionable enduringly; a typical example is the Chanel-style, five-pocket
jacket [33].
196 L. Barnes
distribution channels, retail structure, retail location and store design. One of the key fea-
tures of fashion-place marketing has been the growth in importance of the retailer-owned
fashion brands such as Top Shop, The Gap, Zara and H&M. These own-brand fashion
retailers dominate mass market fashion and have adapted their supply chain structures to
offer high fashion in season at value prices. The value of the retailer own-brand is as pow-
erful in terms of its fashion credentials as the designer- or wholesale-brands such as Ralph
Lauren, Levis and Lacoste. What we have witnessed in the fashion sector over the last
few years is a merging and blurring of the distinction between brand and retailer. For
example, many designer brands have significantly increased their portfolio of owned or
managed stores as a way of taking strategic control of their retail experience and
environment.
exploring and conceptualising the issues [49]. When fast fashion was first considered in
the academic literature it was defined by Barnes and Lea-Greenwood [46] as a consumer-
driven strategy, giving rise to a new model of supply chain management featuring a con-
tinuous consumer influence on the entire pipeline. Fast fashion has subsequently
become a key feature in the UK fashion industry over the last decade. Although it was ini-
tially regarded as a niche concept offered by a few key players such as Zara and H&M,
versions of the concept have now been implemented by all the major own-label retailers
in the UK fashion market [50,51], using enhanced and more effective supply chains to be
quicker in responding to changing fashion and consumer demand.
Fast fashion is a business strategy which aims to reduce the processes involved in the buy-
ing cycle and lead-times for getting new fashion product into stores, in order to satisfy con-
sumer demand at its peak. [46, p. 259]
198 L. Barnes
consumers look to magazines for ideas about the latest trends and then actively search for
these key pieces. Weekly glossy magazines in particular have been identified as key infor-
mation providers and, increasingly television shows have also developed a strong fashion
focus. Indeed fashion pervades all aspects of the media from broadsheets to tabloid news-
papers, and from popular television shows to serious documentaries, and is a particular
feature of the twenty-first century zeitgeist [47]. Catwalks have traditionally been the
drivers of fashion and Zaras fast fashion proposition has been based on the interpreta-
tion of catwalk trends [52,59]; however, celebrity-driven trends are also very important at
high-street level, as fashion consumers look to celebrities (usually through the weekly
magazines) as style advisers [60]. This interest in fashion means that consumers are shop-
ping more frequently as demand is driven by weekly magazines and daily television
shows; so they expect to see new looks and the latest pieces every time they shop [57].
Therefore, it can be concluded that fast fashion is motivated by catwalk styles, celebrity
looks and the desire for newness, particularly in the case of those items identified in the
media which create interest and drive high levels of consumer demand [47].
Just-in-time (JIT) Bruce et al. [63] addressed JIT in a fashion context considering
it to be the delivery of finished goods just enough to meet consumer demand rather
than producing large quantities in advance and holding expensive inventory.
Agile supply chains these have been addressed by Christopher et al. [42] and
Bruce et al. [63], describing shorter, more flexible, demand-driven supply chains.
The key difference in agile supply chains, according to Christopher et al. [42], is
that they are driven by information such as market data and information sharing
between businesses in the supply chain. To fulfil consumer demand for fast fash-
ion, attention has to be paid to the ability to respond to dynamic fashion consumer
demand. Bergvall-Forsberg and Towers [64] address this and suggest that sourcing
garments closer to consumer markets, particularly in Continental Europe, creates
the required agile supply networks.
Quick response it is synonymous with processes adopted to improve the adapt-
ability of the textile and apparel supply chain, more recently applied to fashion-for-
ward garments [42,65]. Fernie and Azuma [66] focused on the notion of integration
and collaboration in quick response to improve supply chain efficiency.
Demand chains in a study outside the fashion industry, the concept of having cus-
tomer-focused supply chains was defined by de Treville et al. [67] as efficient
physical supply of the product.
Much of the early research into fast fashion focused on the concept as a supply chain
strategy [40,41,46, 6875]; however, now that fast fashion has been firmly established in
TTPR_A_868677.3d (TTPR) 14-02-2014 17:33
the fashion industry, academic research has moved on to consider fast fashion in differ-
ent ways. More recent research in the field of fast fashion has considered fast fashion
as a marketing strategy and visual merchandising strategy [47]. Such is the continuing
interest in fast fashion; the Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management ran an addi-
tional special issue on fast fashion in 2013. In their editorial, Barnes and Lea-Green-
wood [76] noted that the content of the research papers in the special edition had moved
on from simply considering the supply chain aspects of the concept to exploring con-
sumer behaviour, social responsibility and internationalisation issues in relation to fast
fashion.
200 L. Barnes
way that website design was researched in depth because the retail environment of a web-
site is different to that of an in-store experience [80,85,92,93], the design of the commer-
cial content for a mobile device also has to be considered [89]. Retailers are looking to
develop content specifically for the mobile environment [94]. Magrath and McCormick
[89] have to date produced the only research on mobile marketing design for fashion
retailers, explaining that there are three content options for a mobile commerce retailer:
mobile website the same as the retailers online/desktop website viewed via a
mobile device;
web app the retailers online/desktop website optimised for viewing on a mobile
device;
mobile app content designed specifically for use on a mobile device taking into
account the format and functionality of the mobile device.
The mobile app (mobile application software) is the channel of most interest since the
use of apps is increasing significantly and mobile apps could soon become the most
important sales channels in fashion marketing [89]. In their research into mobile design
for fashion retailers, Magrath and McCormick [89] developed a framework organising
mobile marketing design elements into four categories:
The research into mobile content design remains very much in its infancy and there
are a number of interesting avenues for the research agenda in fashion marketing terms;
for example, one of the key problems for online fashion retail has always been the diffi-
culty of how to present the true look, feel, colour and texture of a garment [80,92]. The
problems remain the same for mobile commerce; yet, the interactive nature of browsing
on mobile devices, which are usually touchscreen, offers opportunity for development of
the interface to compensate for some of these issues. However, whilst academic research
has tried to catch up with developments in mobile commerce, research may already
have superseded the concept, as retailers are now moving towards an omni-channel
concept.
average of 56 times between inspiration and transaction. These touchpoints can include
traditional retail channels including window shopping or going online to view a television
advertisement, or hearing a radio spot promoting a local sale and, increasingly, new media
touchpoints such as social networking, blogs, communities, video and location-based
services are becoming an integral part of the consumer shopping journey [100]. Research
suggests that multi-channel shoppers spend, on average, 15%30% more than shoppers
who use only one channel and estimates that omni-channel shoppers will spend 20%
more than multi-channel shoppers [101]. This has given rise to interest, both in the indus-
try and in academia, in the concept of omni-channel retailing whereby all the channels
are considered together in a more integrated way. Omni-channel retailing can be defined
as a customer experience integrated across stores, websites, direct mail and catalogues,
mobile platforms, social networks, home shopping and gaming [102]. Omni-channel
retail is an integrated shopping experience [103] that blends the advantages of physical
stores with the information-rich merits of online shopping [104]. Despite widespread
industry reporting on omni-channel as the success strategy for the future of retail, as well
as some very early academic research on the topic, many retailers are finding it difficult
to implement a successful omni-channel strategy; thus future fashion marketing research
in the area of omni-channel is likely to be highly valued by practitioners.
202 L. Barnes
fashion is intrinsically linked with PLC and diffusion of innovation theory; indeed this
link has been established by the work of Midgley and Willis (1979, cited in Evans [24]).
PLC theory represents the sales of a product through its lifetime, as is the case for Rogers
adopter categories, by a normal distribution curve representing an initial slow growth of
sales as consumers become aware of the product, followed by rapid growth and into a
maturity phase whereby the product has achieved sustained sales which finally decline
[28]. The paper by Barnes [57] argued that PLC theory follows the pattern of a fashion
trend; thus, by linking the life cycle of a fashion trend to Rogers [26] classification of
adopters categories, it is possible to gain an understanding of the types of consumers
buying in to a trend and the stages at which they buy in. In terms of how this relates to
social media in fashion marketing, the present review argues that we are witnessing a
fashion revolution. The preliminary stage of the classifications of adopters/PLC model is
that of the creation or design stage in which a new style is invented and introduced to the
consumer. Freathy [29] notes that designers, celebrities and sub-cultural factors typically
lead this phase and may therefore be classified as the innovator adopter. As those most
interested in fashion look to the designers and celebrities, the fashion is adopted by lead-
ing consumers, often referred to as fashion leaders, fashion innovators or fashion-con-
scious consumers. They initiate progression of the fashion by being the first to adopt and
exhibit a new style within their social group, a parallel to Rogers early adopter, as dis-
cussed earlier in this paper. The literature then tells us that as increasing numbers of con-
sumers (fashion followers) buy into a trend, there is an increase in adoption, giving the
fashion social awareness and then as more consumers buy into the trend, so the fashion
moves through the PLC. So the literature identified the fashion leaders such as designers
and celebrities [57] and as Crewe [94] describes:
This elite group of influencers maintained tight control at the front end of the PLC and
shaped the trickle-down of fashion trends. However, social media has fundamentally
changed this stranglehold of control and the balance of power has shifted to consumers.
As Crewe [94] argues, social media offers a shift in power towards huge and diverse con-
sumer groups, many of whom had no status of authority or persuasion under the estab-
lished hierarchical fashion system with its high barriers to entry and exclusionary
practices. This shift in power and authority has been driven through social media in
two ways: the fashion blog and consumer-generated content (CGC).
Fashion blogging has become a hugely influential and important sector of the fashion
industry. According to Lea-Greenwood [108], Blogging has become the fashion com-
mentary of the moment. . . . Bloggers are the new influential fashion journalists of today.
A blog (a shortened form of the term web log) is essentially a website which consists of
a sequence of posts or entries placed on the site by the author, containing thoughts,
images, ideas, visuals, videos and other forms of information considered to be of interest
or relevance by the author (or blogger) [108,109]. Blogs can be interactive and blog-
gers normally attempt to develop groups of followers and encourage interactions with
their followers [108]. Indeed, fashion bloggers have become so important and influential
TTPR_A_868677.3d (TTPR) 14-02-2014 17:33
that businesses send them products to review (hopefully favourably) on their blogs; they
contribute in the wider media such as television and magazines; they style celebrities
and they secure front-row seats at the major fashion shows [94,108110]. The so-called
superblogger has become a key feature of the fashion industry, displacing the tradi-
tional power factions of the industry (such as print media, magazine editors and design-
ers) as they now wield substantial commercial influence. Such is their success that they
are able to make a very effective and lucrative living from their blogs. Garance Dore
(www.garancedore.fr/en/) [108], Suzi Lau (stylebubble.typepad.com) [94,109] and Tavi
Gevinson (www.thestylerookie.com) [94] are reported to be some of the top fashion
bloggers, making full-time careers from blogging and featuring extensively throughout
the fashion media. For example, Suzi Lau was recently featured on the front page of one
of the major fashion magazine titles in the UK, Company Magazine. Fashion bloggers
are also credited with informing street trends, in other words, developing trends in their
own right [111]. The phenomenal success of fashion bloggers has been attributed to the
speed at which they can report on the latest trend and fashion information [94,110]. Of
course, this relates very clearly to the early discussion on fast fashion and consumers
increasing desire for newness and the latest look or trend; fashion bloggers can reach
their audience with the latest fashion insight via the medium of internet far quicker than
other communications can achieve via print media [94,110], and furthermore become
part of the whole fast fashion phenomenon by driving trends to which retailers may
then react.
The second aspect of social media which represents a shift in power away from the
traditional influencers of the fashion industry is the rise of CGC. Arguably a blog could
be considered CGC, but typically CGC is considered to be content generated by consum-
ers in the form of product reviews and recommendations, for example, through Face-
book. In many ways there are parallels with blogs, for example, a consumer
recommending a product via Facebook to their friends demonstrates many similarities to
a blog. However, CGC tends to be written by consumers in a more ad hoc way than
communications via blogs. Some fashion businesses have embedded CGC into their
own websites, for example, www.very.co.uk has product reviews on their own website,
offering consumers who have made a purchase the opportunity to write a review which
can be read by other consumers prior to making their purchase. It is difficult to capture
the benefit for the brand by giving profile to this type of information over which the
brand management organisation might have little control. However, such is the increas-
ing impact that this CGC can have on consumers that there are stories of brands offering
consumers who have written poor reviews compensation in return for them agreeing to
remove their negative review.
It appears from this review of published research that the use of social media in fash-
ion can change who the influencers are in fashion and demonstrates how social media is
democratising fashion. In terms of the research agenda for fashion marketing, the new
model of fashion marketing communications is yet to be explored, for example, by
incorporating the rise in importance of fashion blogs and the contraction of the fashion
print media sector [110]. There is a dearth of literature on fashion blogs and CGC in the
fashion sector and that which currently exists is already out of date as the formats and
technologies through which consumers access blogs and CGC sites continually innovate
and change. However, such is the fundamental change in the influencers of the fashion
industry and the extent of the influence that social media can wield on fashion consumers,
that there is an imperative to include the use and impacts of fashion blogging and CGC in
the research agenda for fashion marketing.
TTPR_A_868677.3d (TTPR) 14-02-2014 17:33
204 L. Barnes
It is clear from the research literature and current thinking on fashion marketing that
whilst there have been fruitful connections between ideas from, for example,
links between fashion marketing research and research in textiles science and technology
have been hard to identify. With the emergence of mobile devices, however, as tools for fash-
ion marketing communication, and given their outstanding attractiveness to consumers, there
should be new opportunities for the development of shared research interests related to:
For example, it would be of great benefit to both research agendas if textile scientists and
fabric technologists were to work hand in hand with digital fashion marketers in investi-
gations into how the mobile interface could be improved so as to enhance the garment
descriptions it can offer.
TTPR_A_868677.3d (TTPR) 14-02-2014 17:33
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the intellectual debate amongst fellow fashion marketing
academics in the design and fashion business subject group in the School of Materials at the Univer-
sity of Manchester, Gaynor Lea-Greenwood of Manchester Metropolitan University, who helped to
shape the ideas for this paper, and also the work of Samantha Lynch, PhD student in the School of
Materials.
References
[1] I.M. Taplin, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 12(1) (2008).
[2] T. Hines, Globalization: global markets and global supplies chapter in Hines, T. and Bruce,
M. (2007) Fashion Marketing Contemporary Issues 2nd edition, Butterworth Heinemann,
Oxford.
[3] T. Levitt, Harv. Bus. Rev. 38 (7-8) (1960) p. 24.
[4] H.C. Barksdale and B. Darden. Marketers attitudes toward the marketing concept. The J. of
Mark 35(4) (1971) p. 29.
[5] L.W. McGee and R.L. Spiro, Bus. Horiz. 31.3 (1988) p. 40.
[6] N.H. Borden, J. Advertising Res. 4.2 (1964) p. 2.
[7] W. Walter van Waterschoot and C. van den Bulte, J. Mark. 56(4) (1992) p. 83.
[8] P. Kotler, Marketing Management, 11th ed., Pearson Education, New Jersey, 2003.
[9] C. Gronroos, Manag. Decis. 35(4) (1997) p. 322.
[10] D. Ford, Understanding Business Markets, 2nd ed., The Dryden Press, London, 1997.
[11] G. Easton, Industrial networks: A review, in Understanding Business Markets, 2nd ed.,
D. Ford, ed., The Dryden Press, London, 1992 (1997).
[12] IMP Group, An interaction approach, in Understanding Business Markets, 2nd ed., D. Ford,
ed., The Dryden Press, London, 1982 (1997).
[13] F. Buttle, Relationship Marketing: Theory and Practice, Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd., Lon-
don, 1996.
[14] M.J. Baker, One more time what is marketing? in The Marketing Book, 4th ed., M.J. Baker,
ed., Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, 1999.
[15] P. Turnbull, Business-to-business marketing: organisational buying behaviour, relationships
and networks, in The Marketing Book, 4th ed., M.J. Baker, ed., Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, 1999.
[16] L.G. Mattsson, J. Mark. Manag. 13 (1997) p. 447.
[17] K. Blois, J. Mark. Manag. 13 (1997) p. 367.
[18] E. Gummesson, Manag. Decis. 35(4) (1997) p. 267.
[19] I. Gordon, Relationship Marketing, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1998.
[20] E. Gummesson, Total Relationship Marketing, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, 1999.
[21] P. Oburai and M.J. Baker, Empirical Research into Collaborative Alliances in Industrial
Markets: A Case for a Balanced Approach to Theory Building paper, European Marketing
Academy Conference, Berlin, May 1999.
[22] Chartered Institute of Marketing, CIM Glossary (website) Available at http://www.cim.co.
uk/Resources/JargonBuster.aspx, 2013.
[23] American Marketing Association, Definition of Marketing (website) Available at http://www.
marketingpower.com/AboutAMA/Pages/DefinitionofMarketing.aspx, 2013.
[24] M. Evans, Eur. J. Mark. 23(7) (1989) p. 7.
[25] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, 1962.
[26] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Simon & Schuster, London, 2003.
[27] J.P. Lundblad, Organ. Dev. J. 21(4) (2003) p. 50.
[28] M. Bruce and L. Barnes, Definitions, in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management: Mar-
keting, D. Littler, ed., Blackwell, Oxford, 2005.
[29] P. Freathy, The Retailing Book: Principles and Applications, FT Prentice Hall, 2003.
[30] D. Littler, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management: Marketing, Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford, 2005.
[31] A. Cholachatpinyo, I. Padgett, M. Crocker and B. Fletcher, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 6(1)
(2002) p. 24.
[32] G.B. Sproles, J. Mark. 45(4) (1981) p. 116.
TTPR_A_868677.3d (TTPR) 14-02-2014 17:33
206 L. Barnes
[33] S.J. Keiser and M.B. Garner, Beyond Design: the synergy of apparel product development,
3rd edition, Fairchild Books, 2012.
[34] T. Aage and F. Belussi, Ind. Innov. 15(5) (2008) p. 475.
[35] P. Blumberg, Social Problems, 21(4) (1974), p. 480.
[36] G.A. Field, Bus. Horiz. 13 (1970), p. 45.
[37] M. Barnard, Fashion as Communication, Routledge, New York, 2002.
[38] Chuck D. and Y. Jah, Fight the Power: Rap, Race, and Reality, Canongate Books, Edinburgh,
1999.
[39] E. Wilbekin, in The Vibe History of Hip Hop (1999), A. Light (ed). p. 418.
[40] G. Birtwistle, N. Siddiqui and S.S. Fiorito, J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 31(2) (2003) p. 118.
[41] S. Guercini, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 5(1) (2001) p. 69.
[42] M. Christopher, R. Lowson and H. Peck, Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 32(8) (2004) p. 367.
[43] H. Alexander, Stylish in an instant. The Daily Telegraph (9 June 2003).
[44] M. Easey (ed.), Fashion Marketing, 3rd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 2009.
[45] T. Jackson and D. Shaw, Mastering Fashion Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke,
2009.
[46] L. Barnes and G. Lea-Greenwood, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 10(3) (2006) p. 259.
[47] L. Barnes and G. Lea-Greenwood, Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 38(10) (2010) p. 760.
[48] ABS, Academic Journals Quality Guide Version 4, The Association of Business Schools,
London, 2010.
[49] L. Barnes and G. Lea-Greenwood, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 10(3) (2006).
[50] R. Baker, In-Store (2008) p. 37.
[51] Just-Style, Just-Style (2009) p. 7.
[52] D. Sull and S. Turconi, Bus. Strategy Rev. 19(2) (2008) p. 4.
[53] S.A. Doyle, C.M. Moore and L. Morgan, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 10(3) (2006) p. 272.
[54] L. Barnes, G. Lea-Greenwood, S.G. Hayes and C. Wraeg, The impact of fast fashion on pro-
motion in the UK apparel market, Proceedings from the Textile Institute World Conference,
The Textile Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, March (CD-ROM ), 2007.
[55] M. Bruce and L. Daly, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 10(3) (2006) p. 329.
[56] Mintel, Womens Fashion Lifestyles UK, Mintel International Group Limited, London,
2009.
[57] L. Barnes, Fast consumers, Proceedings from the 86th Textile Institute World Conference,
The Textile Institute, Hong Kong, 1821 November (CD-ROM ), 2008.
[58] Mintel, Clothing Retailing UK, Mintel International Group Limited, London, 2007.
[59] P. Doeringer and S. Crean, Socio-Econ. Rev. 4(3) (2006) p. 353.
[60] E. Crompton, The influence of fame and celebrity in fashion: The trends to watch, Proceed-
ings from Drapers Fashion Summit High Performance Fashion, London, UK, 910 Novem-
ber 2004.
[61] S.G. Hayes and N. Jones, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 10(3) (2006) p. 282.
[62] M. Sheridan, C. Moore and C. Nobbs, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 10(3) (2006) p. 301.
[63] M. Bruce, L. Daly and N. Towers, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 24(2) (2004) p. 151.
[64] J. Bergvall-Forsberg and N. Towers, J. Textile Inst. 98(4) (2007) p. 377.
[65] L.C. Giunipero, S.S. Fiorito, D.H. Pearcy and L. Dandeo, Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consumer
Res. 11(4) (2001) p. 359.
[66] J. Fernie and N. Azuma, Eur. J. Mark. 38(7) (2004) p. 790.
[67] S. de Treville, R.D. Shapiro and A.-P. Hameri, J. Oper Manag. 21 (2004) p. 613.
[68] E. Ko and D.H. Kincade, Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 25(2) (1997), p. 90.
[69] S.S. Fiorito, E.G. May and K. Straughn, Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 23(5) (1995) p. 12.
[70] S.S. Fiorito, L.C. Giunipero and H. Yan, Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 26(6) (1998) p. 237.
[71] A.S. Sohal, M. Perry and T. Pratt, Technovation 18(4) (1998) p. 245.
[72] M. Perry and A.S. Sohal, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 30(7/8) (2000) p. 627.
[73] N. Azuma, J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 30(3) (2002) p. 137.
[74] H. Mattila, R. King and N. Ojala, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 6(4) (2002) p. 340.
[75] Y. Lee and D.H. Kincade, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 7(1) (2003) p. 31.
[76] L. Barnes and G. Lea-Greenwood J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 17(2) (2013).
[77] Mintel, Fashion Online UK March 2011, Mintel Group Ltd, London, 2012.
[78] IMRG, E-retail Sales Index, Interactive Media in Retail Group, London, 2011.
TTPR_A_868677.3d (TTPR) 14-02-2014 17:33
[79] Centre for Retail Research, Online Retailing: Britain and Europe 2012 (website) Available at
http://www.retailresearch.org/onlineretailing.php, 2013.
[80] N. Siddiqui, A. OMalley, J.C. McColl and G. Birtwistle, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 7(4)
(2003) p. 345.
[81] C.J. Ashworth, R.A. Schmidt, E.A. Pioch and A. Hallsworth, Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 34
(6) (2006) p. 497.
[82] R.E. Goldsmith and L.R. Flynn, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 8(1) (2004) p. 84.
[83] J. Park and L. Stoel, Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 33(2) (2005) p. 148.
[84] J. Rowley, Internet Res. 19(3) (2009) p. 348.
[85] H. McCormick and C. Livett, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 16(1) (2012) p. 21.
[86] A.J. Kim and E. Ko, J. Bus. Res. 65(10) (2012) p. 1480.
[87] M. Kim, J.-H. Kim and S.J. Lennon, Managing Serv. Qual. 21(1) (2011) p. 25.
[88] Kurt Salmon, UK Retailer Oasis Makes it Into the Top Five in the First Global Omni-Chan-
nel Fashion Survey (website) Available at http://www.kurtsalmon.com/UK/about-news-item/
UK-retailer-Oasis-makes-it-into-the-top-five-in-the-first-global-omni-channel-fashion-
survey?id=189&language=en-uk#.UXe8UKXZjww, 2012.
[89] V. Magrath and H. McCormick, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 17(1) (2013) p. 98.
[90] P. Mahatanankoon, Int. J. Electron. Commerce 12(1) (2007) p. 7.
[91] H. Alfahl, L. Sanzogni and L. Houghton, J. Electron.Commerce Organ. 10(2) (2012) p. 61.
[92] Y. Ha and S.J. Lennon, Psychol. Mark. 27(2) (2010) p. 141.
[93] L.C. Harris and M. Goode, J. Serv. Mark. 24(3) (2010) p. 230.
[94] L. Crewe, Environ. Plann. A 45(4) (2013) p. 760. ISSN 0308-518X.
[95] J. Rowley, J. Mark. Manag. 24(5-6) (2008) p. 517.
[96] M. Nicholson, I. Clarke and M. Blakemore, Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consumer Res. 12(2)
(2002) p. 131.
[97] R. Marciniak and M. Bruce, Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 32(8) (2004) p. 386.
[98] S. Cho and J. Workman, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 15(3) (2011) p. 363.
[99] S. Balasubramanian, R. Raghunathan and V. Mahajan, J. Interac. Mark. 19(2) (2005) p. 12.
[100] Cisco, The Future of Retail Touchpoints: Extending Your Reach in the Consumer Shopping
Journey (website) Available at http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/pov/Futureof
RetailTouchpoints_FINAL.pdf, 2010.
[101] A. Bodhani, Eng. Technol . 7(5) (2012) p. 46.
[102] S. Elliott, B. Twynam, and S. Connell. Building for breakthroughs. The Korn/Ferry
Institute (2012).
[103] C. Aubrey and D. Judge, J. Brand Strategy 1(1) (2012) p. 31.
[104] D. Rigby, Harv. Bus. Rev. 89(12) (2011) p. 65.
[105] A.M. Kaplan and M. Haenlein, Bus. Horiz. 53(1) (2010) p. 59.
[106] Z. Huang and M. Benyoucef, Electron. Commerce Res. Appl. 12(4) (2012) p. 246.
[107] A.J. Kim and E. Ko, J. Glob. Fashion Mark. 1(3) (2010) p. 164.
[108] G. Lea-Greenwood, Fashion Marketing Communications, Wiley, Chichester, 2013.
[109] A. Rocamora, Fashion Theory: J. Dress, Body Cult. 15(4) (2011) p. 407.
[110] A. Rocamora, Journalism Pract. 6(1) (2012) p. 92.
[111] T.A. Rickman and R.M. Cosenza, J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 11(4) (2007) p. 604.
Copyright of Textile Progress is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.