学苑书店成功案例分析

    市场包括三个主要因素：有某种需要的人、为满足这种需要的购买欲望和购买力。市场的三个组成要素相互制约、缺一不可，只有这三个要素结合起来才能构成现实的市场，才能决定的规模与容量。

    人口是构成市场的基本要素，那里有人哪里就有消费，当人口聚集到一定程度，当消费者群发展到一定规模，就有形成市场的可能。我觉得我们学校的学苑书店正是看准了这一点，才果断决定开一家学校内部的书店。学校是什么地方，人口聚集的地点，虽然不能像大城市里的市场那样，但是对于一个学校里的书店来说，这里的一万多口人就足够。更何况这里是学校，学校里都是学生，学生考试什么的都会去买资料、买辅导书，所以别小看这区区一万口人，这可是实实在在的一万个客户啊。这就说到了市场营销的核心概念，人类的需要和欲望是市场营销活动的出发点。

每年学校都会迎来新生，刚进校的新生都会买一些课外书和一些小生活用品，他们第一时间想到的当然是学校内部的店了，比起外面的那些店学苑书店有两个优势，其一，路程比外面的那些店要进；其二，学苑书店的东西还比外面便宜一点。一般正常人想都不用想都会在这里买东西的。

与此同时大二大三的学生比大一的新生更了解这些情况，所以他们自然会更愿意光顾学苑书店了，再加上每年学校有那么都考研的学生，考研学生用的资料辅导书就更多了，根据安徽科技学院的具体情况，学校周边只有天桥底下有一个捷诚书店，除此之外，学生们要买辅导书只能去凤阳中学那里了，一去行程少说也有三四里路，没有人会傻到跑那么远去买书。自此学苑书店的优势就建立起来了。而相比与捷诚书店，学苑书店又有着价格上的优势，于是整个校园一万多位学生，想买书的几乎都去学苑书店里了。

所以我总结学苑书店成功几点因素如下：

第一、传递产品销售信息。在每学期开学之前，书店有及时向消费者传递有关的产品销售情报。通过各种渠道的传递，比如在路边的广告、发到学生手里的广告等。使学校里的学生们了解商店的销售的情况，从而建立起书店的良好声誉，引起学生的注意和好感，从而为书店的成功创造前提条件。

第二、创造需求，扩大销售。学苑书店抓住了学生们的心理动机，通过采取灵活有效的促销活动，诱导或激发学生某一方面的需求，扩大了商品的销售力。并且，通过书店的一些其他促销活动来创造需求，发现新的销售市场，从而使市场需求朝着有利于书店销售的方向发展。学苑书店不仅销售书籍，还卖一些生活用品，一些学生们非常喜爱、有非常实用的工具。

第三、突出产品特色，增强市场竞争力。书店通过促销活动，宣传本书店的产品比较竞争对手产品的不同特点，比如相同的产品价格比其他店便宜。以及给消费者带来的特殊利益，比如说降价，按原价的百分之多少来销售商品，使消费者充分了解本超市产品的特色，引起他们的注意和欲望，进而扩大商品的销售，提高书店的竞争能力。

第四、反馈信息，提高经济效益。通过有效的促销活动，使更多的消费者或用户了解、熟悉和信任本超市的产品，并通过消费者对促销活动的反馈，及时调整促销决策。学苑书店的几个老板平时都非常的平易近人，待人和善，很注意顾客信息的及时反馈。

市场营销环境是企业营销职能外部的不可控制的因素和力量，这些因素和力量是影响企业营销活动及其目标实现的外部条件。

从市场营销环境的角度入手，营销环境包括微观环境和宏观环境。微观环境指与企业紧密相联，直接影响企业营销能力的各种参与者，包括企业本身、市场营销渠道企业、顾客、竞争者以及社会公众。宏观环境指影响微观环境的一系列巨大的社会力量，主要是：人口、经济、政治法律、科学技术、社会文化及自然生态等因素。微观环境直接影响与制约企业的营销活动，多半与企业具有或多或少的经济联系，也称直接营销环境，又称作业环境。宏观环境一般以微观环境为媒介去影响和制约企业的营销活动，在特定场合，也可直接影响企业的营销活动。宏观环境被称作间接营销环境。宏观环境因素与微观环境因素共同构成多因素、多层次、多变的企业市场营销环境的综合体。

市场营销环境

营销环境按其对企业营销活动的影响，也可分为威胁环境与机会环境，前者指对企业市场营销不利的各项因素的总和，后者指对企业市场营销有利的各项因素的总和。营销环境按其对企业营销活动影响时间的长短，还可分为企业的长期环境与短期环境，前者持续时间较长或相当长，后者对企业市场营销的影响则比较短暂。

一般情况下，一个好的店址都有一些共同的特点，可以由上面的几个因考虑方面总结出来。这些特点有：

首先、商业活动频率高的地区

这种地区一般也是商业中心、闹市区，商业活动频繁频繁，则营业额必然较高。这样的店址就是所谓“寸金之地”。安徽科技学苑虽然不是闹事区，但对于学苑书店来说也能称得上是人口活动频率比较高的地点了。

其次、人口密度高的地区

人口比较集中，人口密度较高，则人们进店里的频率相对高，生意好做。都会有较多的顾客。学苑书店而且，由于人口的流动量一直都很大，容易了解每天的销售额，因此销售额不会骤起骤落，可以保证店铺稳定而丰厚的收入。每年学校都会迎来新生，刚进校的新生都会买一些课外书和一些小生活用品，他们第一时间想到的当然是学校内部的店了，比起外面的那些店学苑书店有两个优势，其一，路程比外面的那些店要进；其二，学苑书店的东西还比外面便宜一点。一般正常人想都不用想都会在这里买东西的。与此同时大二大三的学生比大一的新生更了解这些情况，所以他们自然会更愿意光顾学苑书店了，再加上每年学校有那么都考研的学生，考研学生用的资料辅导书就更多了。

再次、交通便利的地区

学苑书店是在学校内部的一个书店，可谓是占尽天时地利。根据安徽科技学院的具体情况，学校周边只有天桥底下有一个捷诚书店，除此之外，学生们要买辅导书只能去凤阳中学那里了，一去行程少说也有三四里路，没有人会傻到跑那么远去买书。自此学苑书店的优势就建立起来了。

最后、人们聚集或聚会的场所

学校虽然不是什么聚会的场所，但是怎么说也有一万多口人，对于一个学校里的书店来说，这里的一万多口人就足够。更何况这里是学校，学校里都是学生，学生考试什么的都会去买资料、买辅导书，所以别小看这区区一万口人，这可是实实在在的一万个客户啊。

因此，店址选得好，开店几乎成功了一半。面对激烈的竞争，商户满足消费者便利需求的能力，将成为商户保持常胜的核心竞争力，这种核心竞争力集中体现于商户正确选择店址。同时，也要选择有广告空间的店面。有的店面没有独立门面，店门前自然就失去了独立的广告空间，也使之失去了在店前“发挥”营销智慧的空间，这会给促销带来很大麻烦。特别是那些想自创品牌的经营者，一定要避免选择这样的店面。学苑书店这点做的很好，避免了这样的情况发生。

4P是市场营销过程中可以控制的因素，也是企业进行市场营销活动的主要手段，对它们的具体运用,形成了最基本的企业的市场营销战略。4P策略是这四种策略中最为基础的一种，4P也具有十分广泛的用处，同样可以运用到学苑书店里。

4P是市场营销过程中可以控制的因素，也是企业进行市场营销活动的主要手段，对它们的具体运用,形成了最基本的企业的市场营销战略。4P是指产品product,价格price,地点place,促销promotion。

⑴产品策略

产品策略包括产品发展、产品计划、产品设计、交货期等决策的内容。其影响因素包括产品的特性、质量、外观、附件、品牌、商标、包装、担保、服务等。

⑵价格策略

价格策略包括确定定价目标、制定产品价格原则与技巧等内容。其影响因素包括分销渠道、区域分布、中间商类型、运输方式、存储条件等。

⑶促销策略

促销策略是指主要研究如何促进顾客购买商品以实现扩大销售的策略。其影响因素包括广告、人员推销、宣传、营业推广、公共关系等。

⑷分销策略

分销策略主要研究使商品顺利到达消费者手中的途径和方式等方面的策略。其影响因素包括付款方式、信用条件、基本价格、折扣、批发价、零售价等。

企业必须在准确地分析、判断特定的市场营销环境、企业资源及目标市场需求特点的基础上，才能制定出最佳的营销组合。所以，最佳的市场营销组合的作用，决不是产品、价格、分销、促销四个营销要素的简单数字相加，即4Ps ≠ P + P + P + P，而是使他们产生一种整体协同作用。就像中医开出的重要处方，四种草药各有不同的效力，治疗效果不同，所治疗的病症也相异，而且这四种中药配合在一起的治疗，其作用大于原来每一种药物的作用之和。市场营销组合也是如此，只有他们的最佳组合，才能产生一种整体协同作用。正是从这个意义上讲，市场营销组合又是一种经营的艺术和技巧。

上述四个方面的策略组合起来总称为市场营销组合策略。市场营销组合策略的基本思想在于：从制定产品策略入手，同时制定价格、促销及分销渠道策略，组合成策略总体，以便达到以合适的商品、合适的价格、合适的促销方式，把产品送到合适地点的目的。企业经营的成败，在很大程度上取决于这些组合策略的选择和它们的综合运用效果。

学苑书店在我们的学校也有一段时间的历史的，它之所以存在时间那么长，有很大一部分是因为经营策略运用的非常灵活，这是致使它经久不衰的的主要原因，并且我们可与预见在未来很长的一段时间内学院书店都会很好的经营下去，我们希望它以后能发展的更好，也为我们学生服务的更多。

最后，总结一句，市场营销是一门复杂的学问，在经济增长过程中，市场营销能起很大作用。我们应该学好这门课程，并且要灵活运用4p策略，无论我们以后从事什么工作，都会运用到。感谢老师这段时间的幸苦付出。给我们最敬爱的老师致敬。

第二篇：市场营销(全英文论文)

The Use of Decision Making Styles as a Market Segmentation

Variable: A Study in Turkey

Dr. Duygu Firat, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey

ABSTRACT

In today’s world, consumers are faced with many messages. In the pile of these messages, the consumer decision-making process is getting more complicated than ever before. For this reason, this study attempts to define and segment consumers into sub-groups according to their decision-making styles. To realize the objective of study, the consumer decision-making style inventory developed by Sproles and Kendall (1986) was used. Factor and cluster analysis were used to test the data that was obtained after the survey. The study has shown that consumers are divided into three sub-groups: enjoy shopping consumers, undecided consumers, and non-conscious shopping consumers. The results of the study cannot be generalized to all real consumers in Turkey, but they can serve as a basis for future studies done for real consumers.

INTRODUCTION

Marketing management that analyzes consumer behavior with the aim of satisfying consumer demands and needs is faced with two fundamental challenges (Islamoglu, 2006). The first of these is determining the market or markets that will be activated. The second includes improving and applying appropriate marketing components to selected markets.

Determination of the market or markets to be activated is called the designation of the target market. Before this can occur, the market must be separated into segments. Market segmentation is defined as a marketing technique that segments customers into homogenous groups with specific characteristics like needs, wants, demographics, lifestyle, etc. There are many variables used to segment markets: demographic, psychographic, and behavioral. Decision-making style is another segmentation variable used in market segmentation.

There are two different opinions about whether it is necessary to segment the market. One group argued that it is not necessary to segment the market (Roostal, 1963; Buzzel, 1968; Levitt, 1983), while the other group suggested that it is important to segment the market according to a variety factors based on the fact that consumers who have different characteristics are satisfied by different market components (Smith, 1956; Blattberg & Senn, 1976; Green, 1977; Kotler, 1986; Islamo?lu, 1993; Hoek, Gendall, & Esslemont, 1996; Mooij, 2000; Dibb & Simkin, 2001; Altunisik, 2001; Bock & Uncles, 2002; Solomon, 2003; Bijmolt, Paas, & Vermunt, 2004; Palmer & Millier, 2004).There are many samples that support this position.

Consumers have to access all the information about products/services they want to buy. However, looking at products consumers have used shows that their choices differed from each other. Despite potential findings in the future, it is currently too early to say that it is not necessary to segment markets.

Consumers are faced with information that is transmitted by advertisements, the news media, and direct messages. At the same time, they are faced with increasing numbers of products, stores, services, etc. As a result of this combination, consumer decision-making has become more difficult and more important than in past. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to define and segment consumers into sub-groups in terms of decision-making styles.

CONSUMER DECISION – MAKING STYLES

Consumers are affected by many factors when they buy products; thus, there are a variety of decision-making styles like fashion oriented, impulsiveness, quality-oriented, brand-oriented, hedonism-oriented, etc. (Sproles & Kendall, 1986; Sproles, 1983; Darden & Reynolds, 1971; Stone, 1954; Lumpkin, 1985; Sinha 2003; Unal & Ercis, 2006(a)). Consumer literature suggests that there are three types of consumer style approaches:

1. Lifestyle approach 2. Consumer type approach 3. Consumer characteristics approach

The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 16 * Num. 2 * March 2011 223

The lifestyle approach is defined as a way of life that consists of people’s interests, activities, and opinions

(Plummer, 1971; Wells & Tigert, 1974). The consumer type approach is an approach that attempts to define general consumer styles (Stone, 1954; Sproles & Kendall, 1984). The consumer characteristics approach is focused on the cognitive and affective orientation of consumer decisions (Sproles, 1983; Sproles & Kendall, 1986).

Consumer decision-making style is defined as “a mental characterizing a consumer’s approach to making

choices” by Sproles & Kendall (1986). They have suggested that “it has cognitive and affective characteristics” (Sproles and Kendall, 1986). Quality consciousness is given as an example of cognitive characteristics and fashion consciousness is given as an example of affective characteristics. At the same time, they have expressed that consumer decision-making is equivalent to the concept of personality in psychology.

Much research related to consumer decision-making styles has been done, and many different groups have

emerged as a result of this research. Consumers have been divided into several groups by using decision-making styles.

Sproles and Kendall (1986) developed the Consumer Style Inventory (CSI) to segment consumers according to consumer decision-making styles. The CSI consists of eight dimensions. Eight dimensions in the CSI were listed below (Sproles & Kendall, 1986).

1. Perfectionism or high-quality consciousness

2. Brand consciousness

3. Novelty-fashion consciousness

4. Recreational, hedonistic shopping consciousness

5. Price and “value for money” shopping consciousness

6. Impulsiveness

7. Confusion from over choice

8. Habitual, brand-loyal orientation toward consumption

Features of CSI factors were identified in Table 2.

The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 16 * Num. 2 * March 2011 224

AN OVERVIEW OF STUDIES DONE ABOUT THE CSI

Gender

Some of these studies have investigated whether the dimensions of CSI differ by gender (Yang & Wu, 2007; Bakewell & Mitchell, 2004).

Nation and Validity Differences

Other research has examined the validity of the CSI for different nations and whether the dimensions of the CSI differ between nations (Hafstrom, Chae, & Chung, 1992; Durvasula, Lyonski, & Andrews, 1993; Fan & Xiao, 1998; Walsh, Mitchell, & Thurau, 2001; Hiu et al., 2001; Walsh et al., 2001; Canabal, 2002; Yeung & Au, 2004; Radder, Li, & Pietersen, 2004; Tai, 2005; Gonen & Ozmete, 2006; Hau & Lin, 2006; Kavas & Yesilada, 2007; Chan Hai Yee, 2007; Mokhlis, 2009).

Relationships between Factors

Some research has investigated the affects of written and visual media on CSI (Shim, 1996; Kamaruddin & Mohklis, 2003). Some of the research has examined the relationships between the CSI and online shopping for and purchasing of imported and exported products (Zeng, 2008; Wang, Siu, & Hiu, 2004; Cowart & Goldsmith, 2007).

Another study intended to investigate relationship between the CSI and mall shopping behavior (Wesley, Lehen, & Woodside, 2006). One study tried to explore Chinese consumer decision-making styles regarding casual wear and then tried to investigate the relationship between consumer decision-making styles and clothing choice criteria’s towards casual wear (Kwan, Yeung, & Au, 2004).

Other research investigated the impact of personal values on the CSI (Unal & Ercis, 2006 (b)).

Revision of the CSI

Some research tested the CSI’s reliability and validity. Researchers developed a new survey to determine consumer decision-making styles, then investigated the relationship between new decision-making styles and product involvement (Bauer, 2006).

Using the CSI as a Segmentation Variable

Some studies tried to segment consumers using the CSI (Chaissitthiraj, 2007; Walsh et al., 2001; Bakewell & Mitchell, 2004).

AN OVERVIEW OF STUDIES DONE IN TURKEY ON THE CSI

There are four studies that have been done focused on Sproles And Kendall’s (1986) CSI (Kavas & Yesilada, 2007; Unal & Ercis, 2006(a); Unal & Erci?, 2006(b); Gonen & Ozmete, 2006).

One of these studies intended to identify the decision-making styles of Turkish consumers and to test the reliability of the CSI for Turkish consumers. University students were used as a sample, and the sample area was in Izmir, which located in Turkey. The results of this study partially supported the CSI (Kavas & Yesilada, 2007).

A second study was done in Erzurum, and real consumers were used as a sample. This study tried to divide consumers in terms of their values and the CSI. The results showed that consumers are divided into five distinct and meaningful segments (Unal & Ercis, 2006(a)).

Another study aimed to investigate the effect of values on the CSI. The study was administered using real consumers who lived in Erzurum. The study’s results showed that values affected the CSI significantly (Unal & Erci?, 2006(b)).

The other study on consumer decision-making styles investigated the decision-making styles of young Turkish consumers using CSI. It determined that the CSI was partly supported and that only five factors (brand consciousness, time consciousness, high quality consciousness/ perfectionist, price consciousness, information utilization/ confusion by over choice) were important for young Turkish consumers (Gonen & Ozmete, 2006). The current study intends to segment consumers into sub-groups in terms of the CSI and to identify these groups.

The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 16 * Num. 2 * March 2011 225

METHODOLOGY

Model of Study

Decision-making styles were measured using the same 40-item scale used in Sproles and Kendall’s study

(1986). The items were in a Likert Scale anchored with “Always True (5)” and “Never True (1).” The items were adopted by Turkish people, and the final version of the survey was given to a small group.

Sampling

The questionnaire was administered using easy sampling to 200 subjects who were living at Kocaeli

located in Turkey. The subjects were given as much time as needed to complete to the questionnaire. Sixty percent of the respondents were male, the median family income was TL1500-2249, the majority of respondents had graduated from high school and university, and the majority of respondents were aged 25-44 age. Table 3 provides a general look at the subjects’ demographic characteristics.

ANALYSIS

The analysis was done in three stages. In the first stage, factor analysis was used to examine items that

constituted the CSI. In the second stage, a reliability analysis was applied to factors. In the third stage, cluster analysis was applied to factors for segmenting consumers according their decision-making styles.

Factor and Reliability Analysis

In the first stage, factor analysis was used to determine how many of the variables had been reduced to a

factor. Because of their value in the anti-image matrix and factor loadings, 12 variables were removed from analysis (The values in the anti-image matrix and factor loadings were 0.50 less than is recommended for removal from the analysis.). Then reliability analysis was then applied to factors. The findings of both the factor analysis and the reliability analysis are summarized in Table 4.

As seen Table 4, all factor loadings are above 0.50 and Cronbach α is above 0.70. This means data is

available for other analysis. The data also shows that the CSI differs from the original study (Sproles and Kendall, 1986). In Sproles and Kendall’s study (1986), eight factors emerged. In this study, seven factors emerged, and some items were loaded to different factors. These differences may have been caused by the different nations used in each study.

The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 16 * Num. 2 * March 2011 226

Cluster Analysis

At first, hierarchical cluster analysis was applied to the seven factors. Then, the percentage increase in the

agglomeration schedule was examined. This resulted in the conclusion that consumers can be divided into two or three groups. Discriminant analysis was applied to groups to decide between two or three clusters, and this showed that three groups discriminate with a maximum separation power of 85 %. Eventually, the cluster number was identified as three groups.

Then, K-means cluster analysis was applied to the data to determine the features of the groups. The final

clusters that emerged are shown in Table 5. The total number of clusters is shown in Table 6.

The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 16 * Num. 2 * March 2011 227

Enjoy Shopping Consumers: In this cluster, there were 77 respondents (38.5%). They are perfectionists. They make plans for shopping and see it as an entertainment. Their brand loyalty is high. The lower prices of products are not important to them. Any new information they learned about the products was not important to them, and their minds were not confused by new information. They gave importance to fashion and buying new items.

Undecided Consumers: There were 56 respondents (28%) in this cluster. Consumers in this cluster do not know what to do. They are undecided people. They had an average score on all the factors.

Non-Conscious Shopping Consumers: There are 67 respondents (33.5%) in this cluster. Consumers in this cluster do not care about shopping. They are not perfectionists, and they make unplanned shopping trips. Fashion is not important for them, and any new information about product confused their minds. They are not loyal to brands, and they are price-conscious people who try to buy lower-priced products. Shopping is not a funny for them.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The results of study show that the study’s respondents were 25-44 years olds who earned a TL1500–2249 average income. The majority of them had graduated from high school and college, and most of them were single males and also single. The findings of this study indicate that the CSI applied in this study differed from Sproles and Kendall’s (1986) original CSI. In that study, eight factors emerged, but in this study only seven factors emerged, and some items were loaded to different factors from the original study. This difference could derive from the different cultures, demographic features, values, and purchasing factors of countries than those originally applied to the CSI. This means the CSI needs some modifications for different nations before further use. It may be useful to add some additional factors to determine consumer decision-making styles.

As seen from the results of study, consumers are divided into three different market segments according to their decision-making styles. If the number of sample and segmentation factors increased, consumers could be divided into more market segments. The study has some limitations:

The complementarity of information obtained through research depends on more sampling and different variables for analysis. If the

number of samples increased, different and more reliable results could be obtained.

Because of the sampling method, results of the study may not be generalizable to all consumers in Turkey. Its results are valid only for

Kocaeli located in Turkey.

Consumers show different perceptions for different product categories. As a consequence, it can be said that the CSI and its variables

may differ for different product categories. This may produce different market segments for product categories.

However, it is possible to make comments in the light of findings.

Decision-making styles can be used for market segmentation when considering the numerous products and messages that consumers face in making decisions. Marketing managers can develop marketing strategies for these segments. This kind of segmentation leads to effective differentiated marketing programs. Thus, consumers’ behavior is evaluated more correctly. Segmentation may be more useful and accurate when different factors are used not only with one factor but also together. This study and its findings could guide enterprises and researchers who want to study decision-making styles and/or market segmentation.

REFERENCES

Altunisik, Remzi (2001), “Pazarlama Anlayisinda Degisim: Bireyselle?tirilmi? Pazarlama”, Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 55 – 67.

Bauer, Hans H., Nicola E. Sauer ve Christine Becker(2006), “Investigating the Relationship between Product Involvement and Consumer

Decision Making Styles”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5. 342 – 354.

Bakewell, Cathy ve Vincent Wayne – Mitchell(2003), “Generation Y Female Consumer Decision – Making Styles”, Journal of Retail &

Distribution Management, Vol. 31, No. 2., 95 – 106.

Bakewell, Cathy ve Vincent Wayne – Mitchell(2004), “Male Consumer Decision Making Styles”, International Review of Retail, Distribution

and Consumer Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, 223 – 240.

Bellenger, Danny N. and Pradeep Korgaonkar (1980), “Profiling the Recreational Shopper”, Journal of Retailing, Vol 56, No. 3., 77 – 92.

Bertha, Chan Hai Yee (2005), “Consumer Decision – Making Styles: Comparison between Shanghai and Hong Kong University Consumers: A

Consumer Style Inventory Approach”, China Business Studies Option, Hong Kong Baptist University.

Bijmolt, Tammo H. A., Leo J. Paas and Jeroen k. Vermunt (2004), “Country and Consumer Segmentation: Multi – Level Latent Class of Analysis

Financial Product Ownership”, International Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21, 323 – 340.

Blattberg, Robert C. and Subrata K. Sen (1977), “Market Segments and Stochastic Brand choice Models”Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 13, 34 – 45.

Bock, Timothy and Mark Uncles (2002), “A Taxonomy of Differences Between Consumers for Market Segmentation”, International Journal of

Research in Marketing, Vol. 19, 215 – 224.

Buzzel, Robert D. (1968), “Can You Standardize Multinational Marketing”, Harvard Business Review, (Nov. – Dec.), 102 – 113.

Canabal, Mar?a E.(2002), “Decision – Making Styles of Young Indian Consumers: an Exploratory Study”, College Student Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, 12 – 19.

Chaisitthiraj, Nussara (2007), “Thai Consumer Decision – Making Styles on Imported Cosmetic Brand Products”, MSc International Business

Dissertation, The University of Nottingham.

The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 16 * Num. 2 * March 2011 228

Cowart, Kelly O. and Ronald E. Goldsmith (2007), “The Influence of Consumer Decision – Making Styles on Online Apparel Consumption by

College Students”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31, 639 – 647.

Darden, William R. and Fred D. Reynolds (1971), “Shopping Orientations and Product Usage Rates”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, 505 – 508.

Dibb Sally and Lydon Simkin (2001), “Market Segmentation: Diagnosing and Treating the Barriers”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30, 609 – 625.

Durvasula, Steven Lyonski ve J. Craig Andrews(1993), “Cross – Cultural Generalizability of a Scale for Profiling Consumers’ Decision Making

Styles”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 27, No. 1, 55 – 65.

Fan, Jessie X. ve Jing J. Xiao(1998), “Consumer Decision – Making Styles of Young Adult Chinese”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 2, ss. 275 – 294. Gonen, Emine ve Emine ?zmete(2006), “Decision Making Styles of Young Turkish Consumers”, Journal of HEIA, Vol. 3. No. 1, 26 – 33. Green, paul E.(1977), “A New Approach to Market Segmentation”, Business Horizons, Vol. 20, 61 – 73.

Hafstrom, Jeanne, Jung Sook Chae ve Young Sook Chung(1992), “Consumer Decision – Making Styles: Comparison between United States and

Korean Young Consumer”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 1, 146 – 158.

Hiu, Alice S., Noel Y. M. Siu, Charlie L. L. Wang ve Ludwig M. K. Chang(2001), “an Investigation of Decision Making Styles of Consumer in

China”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35, No. 2, 326 – 345.

Hoek, Janet, Philip Gendall and Don Esslemont (1996), “Market Segmentation: A Search for the Holy Grail”, Journal of Marketing Practice:

Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, 25 – 34.

Islamoglu, Ahmet Hamdi (1993), “De?i?ik Otomobil Markalar?na Sahip Tüketicilerin Ki?ilik ?zellikleri Birbirinden Farkli mi?”, Pazarlama Dunyasi, Vol. 20, 2 – 9. ?slamoglu, Ahmet Hamdi (2006), Pazarlama Yonetimi, Third Ed., Beta Publishing, Istanbul. Kamaruddin, Abdul Razak ve Safiek Mokhlis(2003), “Consumer Socialization, Social Structural Factors and Decision Making Styles: a Case

Study of Adolescents in Malaysia”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, 145 – 156. Kavas, Alican ve Figen Ye?ilada(2007), “Decision Making Styles of Young Turkish Consumers”, European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, No. 9, 73 – 85.

Kotler, Philip (1986), “Global Standardization – Courting Danger”, the Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 3, No. 2, 13 – 15.

Kwan, C. Y., K. W. Yeung ve K. F. Au(2004), “Decision – Making Behaviour Towards Casual Wear Buying: a Study of Young Consumers in

Mainland”, Journal of Management & World Business Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1 – 10.

Levitt, Theodore (1983), “The Globalization of Markets”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61, (May – June), 92 – 102.

Li, Haifeng ve Jing J. Xiao(1999), “Chinese Consumer Types”, Journal Consumer Studies & Home Economics, Vol. 23, No. 3, 171 – 180.

Mokhlis, Safiek(2009), “An Investigation of Consumer Decision – Making Styles of Young – Adults in Malaysia”, International Journal of

Business and Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, 140 – 148.

Lumpkin, James R. (1985), “Shopping Orientation of the Elderly Consumers”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 13, No. 2., 271 – 289.

Lumpkin, James R., Jon M. Hawes and William R. Darden (1986), “Shopping Pettern of the rural Consumers: Exploring the Relationship

Between Shopping Orientations and Outshopping”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14, 63 – 81.

Mooij, Marieke de (2000), “The Future is Predictable for International Marketers: Converging Incomes Lead to Diverging Consumer Behaviour”,

International Marketing Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, 103 – 113.

Palmer, R. A. and P. Miller (2004), “Segmentation: Identification, Intuition and Implementation”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, 779 – 785.

Plummer, Joseph (1974), “The Concept and Application of Lifestyle Segmentation”, journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, 33 – 37.

Radder, Laetitia, Yuejin Li ve J. J. Pietersen(2004), “Decision – Making Styles of Young Chinese, Matswana and Caucasion Consumers in South

Africa: an Exploratory Study”, Journal of Family Ecology and consumer Sciences, Vol. 34, 20 – 31.

Roostal, Ilmar (1963), “Standardization of Advertising for Western Europe”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27, 15 – 20.

Shim, Sayaen(1996), “Adolescent Consumer – Decision Making Styles: the Consumer Socialization Perspective”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 6, 547 – 569. Shim, Sayaen, Kenneth C. Gehrt ve Simona HOLIKOVA(1999), “Shopping Orientation – Based Segmentation of US Grocery Shoppers”,

Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol 5, No. 2, 1 – 19.

Sinha, Piyush Kumar (2003), “Shopping Orientation in the Evolving Indian Market”, Vikalpa, Vol. 28, No. 2., 13 – 22.

Smith, Wendell R. (1956), “Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 20, 3 – 8.

Splores, George B. (1983), “Conceptualization and Measurement of Optimal Consumer Decision – Making”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 17, No. 2, 421 –

428.

Splores, George B. ve Elizabeth Kendall(1986), “a Methodology for Profilling Consumers’ Decision Making”, the Journal of Consumer Affairs,

Vol. 20, No. 2, 267 – 279.

Solomon, Michael R. (1996), Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being, Third Ed., Prentice Hill Inc., New Jersey.

Stone, Gregory(1954), “City Shoppers and Urban Identification: Observations on the Social Psychology of City Life”, The American Journal of

Sociology, Vol. 60, No. 1, 36 – 45.

Tai, Susan H. C.(2005), “Shopping Styles of Working Chinese Females”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 12, 191 – 203. Unal, Sevtap and Aysel Ercis (2006(a)), “Pazar?n Sat?n Alma Tarzlar?na ve Ki?isel De?erlere G?re B?lümlendirilmesi”, Marmara Universitesi I. I. B. F. Dergisi, Vol. 21, No. 1, 359 – 383. ünal, Sevtap and Aysel Ercis(2006(b)), “Tüketicilerin Ki?isel De?erlerinin Sat?n Alma Tarzlar? üzerine Etkisi”, Ticaret ve Turizm E?itim Fakültesi Dergisi, Say? 1, 23 – 48.

Yang, Chyan ve Chia – Chun Wu(2007), “Gender and Internet Consumers’ Decision – Making”, Cyber Psychology & Behavior, Vol. 10, No. 1, 86 – 91.

Walsh, Gianfranco, Vincent Wayne – Mitchell ve Thorsten Hennig – Thurau (2001), “German Consumer Decision – Making Styles”, The Journal

of Consumer Affaiirs, Vol. 35, No. 1, 73 – 95.

Walsh, Gianfranco, Thorsten Hennig – Thurau, Vincent Wayne – Mitchell ve Klaus Peter Wiedman(2001), “Consumers’ Decision – Making Styles as a Basis for

Market Segmentation” Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 2, 117 – 131.

Wang, Cheng – Lu, Noel Y. M. Siu ve Alice S. Y. Hui(2004), “Consumer Decision Making – Styles on Domestic and Imported Brand Clothing”,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, No. 2, 239 – 252.

Wells, William and Douglas J. Tigert (1971), “Activities, Interests and Opinions”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 11, 27 – 35.

Wesley, Scarlett, Melody Lehen ve Arch G. Woodside(2006), “Consumer Decision – Making Styles and Mall Shooping Behavior: Building theory

Using Exploratory Data Analysis and the Comparative method”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, 535 – 548.

Zeng, Yao (2008), an Investigation of Decision – Making Style of College Student Online Approval Shoppers, Dissertation, Louisiona State University.

The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 16 * Num. 2 * March 2011 229

Reproducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner.Furtherreproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.