Differing perceptions of category killers and discount stores

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to determine the responses of women college students to discount stores and category killers in terms of the importance of seven‐store characteristics as well as their expectations for these attributes. Another purpose was to determine differences, if any, between these two store formats. Further the moderating variables of shopping frequency and orientation were introduced to determine if they influenced the results.

Design/methodology/approach

Personal interviews were used to collect data from a random sample of women college students from one university through the administration of a structured survey instrument. Statistical analyses were employed to generate the results.

Findings

Differences were found in the respondents' perceptions for both importance and expectations for six of the seven‐store attributes. For one characteristic, continuity of supply, no differences emerged and this characteristic was deemed important for both store formats. Moderating variables did not alter the results.

Research limitations/implications

Given the limited nature of the sample, there is a need for replication of this research in other geographic regions, including international sites in order to corroborate these findings. Also, replication with men is needed.

Practical implications

This study provides guidance to both discount store and category killer executives on the types of strategies and tactics needed to better attract and retain women college students.

Originality/value

Attention was directed to women college students, a highly desired but often neglected market segment. Further, continuity of supply, an attribute not often indicated in most retailing texts emerged as very important and highly expected by respondents.

Citation

Gable, M., Topol, M.T., Lala, V. and Fiorito, S.S. (2008), "Differing perceptions of category killers and discount stores", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 780-811. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550810900991