The Relationship between Low-rise Denim Jeans and Consumers’ Aspirations: The Study of Symbolic Value and Emotional Attribute Osmud Rahman, School of Fashion, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada ABSTRACT The emergence of low-rise hip hugger or hipster jeans has been a trend in the youth market over the last few years in North America (Spar, 2001). Despite high-waist jeans promoted by runway designers such as Prada, Balenciaga and Marc Jacob, the trend of low-rise jeans is still as strong as ever in mainstream youth markets (Lee, 2004). They are widely accepted by college students ranged from 17 to 25 years of age (Cotton Incorporated Lifestyle Monitor, 2001). However, the correlation between this specific type of jeans model and consumers’ behaviors and aspirations has not been widely investigated or assessed quantitatively. In today’s consumer culture, young people are often influenced by and connected with a variety of outside elements, rather than the product attributes alone. Consumption-related behaviors have been evolving rapidly over recent years. In fact, consumer culture is no longer the same as the immediate previous generation. In order to understand this complicated and diverged consumer culture in Canada, low-rise denim jeans have been used as a vehicle to investigate how young people develop their consumption patterns and what variables or factors influence their purchasing decisions. To this end, a questionnaire survey was used to explore the functional attributes, symbolic meanings (Levy, 1959; Elliott, 1999), and emotional connections of low-rise jeans. This paper attempts to identify research opportunities for the future, and offer insights and recommendations in marketing and design strategies for Canadian denim jeans manufacturers. INTRODUCTION Consumer culture has been transformed rapidly over the last 10 years, and the meaning of denim jeans is no longer the same. Young people are not merely looking for utilitarian values (Csikszentmihalyi et al. 1981) as they shop for a consumer product. They often decide whether to purchase or reject products based on a number of intangible factors such as psychological values (Kaiser 1990) and symbolic values (Elliott and Wattanasuwan 1998). In fact, fashion commodities have always been used as symbols to convey the consumer’s identity (Davis, 1994, Goffman, 1973), status (Davis, 1994), and image to the public. In this era of globalization, where consumers are enthusiastically embracing these symbols and images (Ewen, 1984), the process of re-signification (Baudrillard, 1981) is well pronounced in the denim jeans market. Ubiquitous and Homogenous Denim jeans have virtually become a ubiquitous commodity, widely accepted by any age group and almost every culture. Young people, especially, wear denim jeans almost everyday and everywhere. Denim jeans are also often considered a homogenous product (Kotler & Armstrong, 2001), yet this item seems to have taken on a new dimension in the twenty-first century. We are living in a fragmented society (Firat & Shultz II, 1997), - “hypersegmentation” (Crane, 2000) or “image tribes” (Turow, 1997) as many scholars manifested early on, and the consumer market is no longer dictated by only one fashion trend. As asserted by Firat and Shultz II, “The market is, itself, fragmented, since it appears to have no central, unified agenda”. In this divergent and complicated consumer market, even within the same demographic group, consumers do not necessary pursue the same lifestyle and consume the same products. For example, in North America some young consumers may prefer urban or hip-hop brands (e.g. Ecko, Phat Farm, RocaWear, Sean John), some may prefer preppy/collegiate lifestyle (e.g. Abercrombie & Fitch, American Eagle), and some people may even embrace multiple lifestyles and preferences simultaneously. Young people are constantly shopping for new products inspired by perceptions of their own identities and on the lifestyles with which they want to be affiliated (Crane, 2000). Cool and Hip Words such as “cool” or “hip” have re-entered the language of popular discourse in today’s consumer culture. Young people are using those words to express their views through various objects as well as using them as criteria for consumption. If they find something “cool” or “hip” in a store, they are willing to pay a premium for the products that are tailored to their aspirations and needs. Thus, it is not surprising that premium denim jeans brands (e.g. Seven of all Mankind, Citizens of Humanity, Chip and Pepper, Evisu, Frankie B., Paper Denim & Cloth) have grown tremendously in the youth market over the last few years. Even haute couture houses have introduced denim jeans into their clothing lines. For example, Karl Lagerfeld recently teamed up with Diesel (an Italian jeanswear company) to create a collection of faded blue jeans with the new higher waistline. All these designers’ or high-end branded denim jeans lines are selling with a premium-price tag ranging from approximately US$100 (WWD, 2004) up to US$3,134 (Guinness World Record: the most expensive jeans by Gucci in 1998) a pair. Motives and Objectives In order to understand such a diverse youth market and complicated consumer culture, this research study will explore the relationship between consumers’ aspirations and product attributes, and the link between theory and practice through a quantitative study of low-rise jeans. However, this paper does not suggest that denim jeans are more important than any other item of fashion apparel. There are at least three reasons why low-rise denim jeans were deliberately selected for this study. First, denim jeans are one of the major fashion staples in many countries. In fact, many young people have more than one pair of denim jeans in their wardrobe. According to the research findings from Cotton Incorporation Lifestyle Monitor (1998), on average young females (16-24 years old) in North America own 7 or 8 pairs of denim jeans. Denim jeans will probably remain strong and significant in North America for the next few years or even for decades. As Max Azria, owner and designer of BCBG asked playfully in Women’s Wear Daily (DeCarlo, 2005), “Can we survive in America without denim?” and he continued, “It’s like being an Italian and not eating spaghetti.” His statement says it all. Second, the Canadian denim jeans market has been growing steadily over the last decade. Third, low-rise jeans have transformed denim jeans culture and introduced new meaning into the youth market since Tom Ford promoted his sexy jeans model in the early 90s. Young people’s purchases of low-rise jeans are not necessarily based on the product attributes or performance benefits alone. Favorite consumer products may go beyond comfort and function and may be elevated to “sacred” status (Belk et al., 1989). It could be the sexy image that is attached to low-rise jeans rather than more functional attributes. According to the above observations of low-rise denim jeans, it seems worthwhile and meaningful to investigate this particular fashion product. The objectives of this paper are three-fold: (1) To analyze the product attributes of low-rise jeans based on their utilitarian values. (2) To explore and investigate the symbolic meaning of low-rise jeans in today’s consumer culture. (3) To identify the tangible and intangible factors that influence consumers in their purchase decision regarding low-rise jeans. BACKGROUND OF TODAY’S CONSUMPTION CULTURE One practical problem in this investigation is that consumer culture is a huge crossdisciplinary topic that involves many aspects. Since the cultural meaning of consumer goods is constantly evolving, it is impossible to present one single analytic framework for this study. Fashion consumption is more than satisfying physical needs for warmth and protection (Rouse, 1989). Consumer products carry a multitude of meanings (McCracken, 1989). They could be used to establish social status as asserted by Bourdieu (1984) in his “A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste”. Weber’s “Protestant ethnic” (1958) viewed consumption as hedonism; and Campbell (1983) expressed, “the self is built through consumption [and that] consumption express the self”. Thus, the meaning of consumer products can be viewed quite differently from different perspectives. The meanings of consumer products could vary from culture to culture. Each society and culture has their own values, ideas, experiences, and activities; and the standards of one culture cannot be used to judge the others (Malcolm, 2002). For example, low-rise jeans may be considered trendy, sexy or even ‘cool’ in North America when a woman wear them with underwear or back cleavage exposed, however, it may not be perceived the same way in some Asian societies. Some people may view this type of jeans as indecent, obscene and even immoral. Most of the time the meaning of an artifact cannot be successfully communicated or transmitted across cultures because the symbolism is not socially recognized in the other culture. Many similar examples can be easily found throughout our history to support this argument such as the corset (Steele, 2003), the geisha’s kimono (Dalby, 2001) and foot binding (Jackson, 1998). Trendy, sexy, ‘hip’ and ‘cool’ can be interpreted differently from person to person, from culture to culture, from time to time, and from place to place. Meanings may be objective or symbolic, shared or personal, and generate a high or low emotional response (Fournier, 1991). To summarize, this study attempts to investigate ‘person-clothing relations’ through three different aspects including utilitarian values, symbolic meaning (Kaiser, 1990; Dittmar, 1992; Horn, M. & Gurel, L., 1981). This paper will not focus merely on the product attributes and evaluation criteria (price, style, quality, size/fit, color, fabric, brand name and country of origin) because those areas have been examined extensively by many researchers (Cassill & Drake, 1987; Davis, 1987; Eckman, et al, 1990; Martin, 1971-72; Workman, 1990) in various ways. Utilitarian/Functional Dimensions Functions are often associated with tangible factors or physical characteristics of a product, whereas, symbolic values are associated with intangible attributes or images added to the product. Consumers’ needs are both functional and symbolic as well. Functional needs are related to specific, physical and practical consumption problems, and symbolic needs are related to selfimage, pride, self-esteem, status and social identity. Therefore, low-rise jeans can be evaluated by functional values (style, comfort, fit, color, quality, etc.) as well as symbolic values (image, identity, status). In regards to functional values or product attributes, color is considered the most appealing feature of an object (Bevlin, 1997); style or styling is defined as a key feature to create a distinctive appearance (Kunz, 1998). Unquestionably, this type of data and findings could be valuable for apparel manufacturers to develop and design their products according to their customer’s aspirations and needs. However, utilitarian value is not the only determinant to influence consumer’s purchasing decision as mentioned in this paper earlier. Social values and culturally symbolic images could play a more important role in the consumer’s mind than functional attributes (McCracken, 1989). The Chinese custom of foot binding in the Qing Dynasty, therefore, can be used as a metaphor to illuminate this point since there were several reasons for foot binding (Jackson, 1998): (1) marriage and tradition (2) social status (3) aesthetics (4) religion According to Jackson’s view, foot binding originated for symbolic reasons, rather than functional purposes, such as comfort. The practice of foot binding symbolized the beauty of a woman, the civilization of a nation, and patriarchal power. It was a cultural custom, that every girl would have her feet bound by strips of linen when as young as three or four years old (Turner, 1997). Although foot binding was horribly painful and detrimental, women still practiced the custom. As Andrea Dworkin stated in her essay Gynocide: Chinese Foot binding (1974), “The pain, of course, teaches an important lesson: no price is too great, no process too repulsive, no operation too painful for the woman who would be beautiful. The tolerance of pain and the romanticization of that tolerance begins ….”. Symbolic Dimensions Young people consume clothing for many reasons. First, some consumers may use clothing to create and develop their personal identity (Elliott and Wattanasuwan, 1998). Second, some of them may use clothing to express their self-concept to society (Elliott, 1999). Third, some of them may use clothing to seek or enhance their social status. In other words, fashion has always been used as a communication tool to encode and decode messages among people. As Fiske (1990) points out, there are two models of communication. The first model is the ‘process” model which defines communication as the medium or channel to send and receive messages. The second model is the ‘semiotic’ or ‘structuralist’ model which defines communication as “the production and exchange of meanings”. Therefore, fashion, clothing and dress could be used as non-verbal ways to produce and exchange meanings and values (Malcolm, 2002). Designers construct and encode meaning through an object, and a user will reconstruct and decode the meaning according to their private experiences. In a sense, the symbolic meaning is always attached to an object. People view an object in more personal, intimate and multidimensional terms rather than on the surface level such as price, quality, colour and so on. As Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi explained, “Objects take on symbolic value with reference to one’s personal history”. METHODS AND SUBJECTS This pilot study attempts to investigate the relationship between low-rise denim jeans and consumers’ aspirations from two different cosmopolitan cities in Canada, Toronto and Montreal. These two cities were selected for this study for several reasons. Ontario and Quebec, which account for the majority of the population as well as hosting a significant share of industrial and manufacturing operations, have the highest retail sales figures with an estimated dollar volume of $7.2 billion and $5.1 billion respectively (NDP Apparel Research, 2005). The two provinces together claimed over 60% of retail sales in 2003 (Statistics Canada, 2004). Through this research study, data and findings were gathered and analyzed by using two sets of questionnaires. The first questionnaire was developed for 17 to 24 year-old women - Generation Y. All the respondents were chosen from this group because they are fashion conscious and innovative in many ways. Young people tend to spend more money on denim jeans than other age groups. They are often considered fashion leaders (Goldsmith et al., 1991, Gutman & Mills, 1982). They generally influence other groups of consumers to adopt and consume the latest fashion trend (Beaudoin, 1998, Polegato & Wall, 1980, Schrank & Guilmore, 1973). In order to explore the similarities and differences of consumer decision-making toward low-rise jeans, selfadministered questionnaires including visual stimuli (denim jeans pictures) were sent out to female subjects via e-mail. Eight-point Likert –type questions and open-ended questions were used to measure the importance of product attributes, consumer aspirations, and emotional connections (Gobe & Zyman, 2001) toward shopping decision. The second questionnaire was developed to interview professionals from the denim jeans industry in order to understand the link between manufacturers, products and customers. The grounded theory method was used for this study, and personal interviews were conducted with six denim jeans companies in Montreal. In the interviews, participants were asked to respond to open-ended questions including (1) “What is the perception of low-rise jeans among young people in Canada?” (2) “What is the most successful jeans model for your company over the last 5 years?” (3) “What are the most important factors that drive the sales of low-rise jeans (if lowrise is one of their best sellers)?” (4) “How can you connect your product with your customer?” MAJOR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS In the first set of questionnaires which represents the results of a pilot survey of 374 women ranged from 17 to 24 years old - 249 participants were full-time students and 123 were full-time employees. It is not suggested that this sample group can entirely represent all 17 to 24 year-old consumers, however, they may share many common characteristics. The study’s findings indicated that each respondent owns on average 7.5 pairs of denim jeans. One respondent even indicated that she has 35 pairs of denim jeans in her wardrobe. In order to understand how the respondents see themselves in the context of today’s consumer culture. Diffusion of innovation model was used as a guide to categorize the female respondents into five different types according to their response. They were asked to describe themselves by choosing one of the following categories. 1. Innovator: I am always the first to try new products and styles. 2. Early Adopter: I catch on to trends very quickly although I am not the first to try things. 3. Early Majority: I tend to wait until a product or style has become quite popular before I buy it. 4. Late Majority: I am one of the last people to try products or trends. 5. Laggard: I don’t usually buy products or styles until they are no longer popular or out of style. As indicated in Table 1, the percentage of ‘innovator’, ‘early adopter’ and “Early Majority” were 17.9%, 43.6% and 25.7% respectively. In other words, young people are more open- minded and willing to try out new products and styles. They are not afraid to wear anything new, trendy and/or sexy, such as low-rise or ultra low-rise jeans. Table 1: Survey of Consumers’ Diffusion of Innovation For this age group, it seems price wasn’t an issue for most of the respondents as long as the product was right. As shown in table 2, 38.5% of the respondents spent more than $100 for a pair of denim jeans. Only 17.9% spent less than $50 on a pair of jeans. Young people are willing to pay a high price for a pair of premium denim jeans. When compared with the findings collected from the denim jeans manufacturers, all of them agreed if they come up with an innovative product with proper fit, new washing treatment, interesting fabric, and creative advertising campaign, they should be able to command a high price. Young people somehow can afford to pay $100 or even higher for a pair of jeans as long as it satisfies their aspirations and needs. Table 2: Average dollar spent on a pair of denim jeans This study also identified and examined other product attributes by using eight-point Likert– type questions (most important to least important continuum). According to the study’s findings in Table 3, the fit was the most important attribute, whereas, the country of origin and brand name were ranked lower than other attributes. Table 3: Relative importance of denim jeans attributes (SD: Standard Deviation) In this questionnaire, additional questions including open-ended questions were used in order to find out the consumers’ aspirations of denim jeans. For examples, “What is your favorite waistline?” provided with three choices, “What is your favorite fit model?” with three choices also, “Do you prefer stretch denim jeans? Why or Why not?” and “Are you loyal to certain denim jeans brand? Why or Why not?” Table 4: Respondent’s preferences of denim jeans According to their response (table 4), over 65% of the respondents prefer the same kind of denim jeans which was low-rise slim fit with stretch. 35.4% of the respondents indicated they were loyal to denim jeans brand and 64.6% indicated they were not. However, it seems the issue of brand loyalty is confused with the outcome of brand name attribute. Most of the respondents ranked the importance of brand name quite low (table 3), but then, 35.4% of the respondents indicated they are loyal to certain denim jeans brand when they answered the open-ended question. Does it make sense with these results? Is the brand name important or not important to the young people? If we look at this scenario from the manufacturers’ perspective as shown in table 5, most of the denim jeans manufacturers ranked the fit and brand name the most important. According to the manufacturers’ response, if the brand name is not cool or hip, it will be very difficult for retailers to attract customers and generate more sales. Table 5: Importance of denim jeans attributes from the perspective of Canadian manufacturers The brand name and other attributes are always inter-related (Nevid, 1981). Brand names do play an important role in today’s youth market (Forsythe, 1991), however, it wasn’t a significant factor compared to other attributes as reflected in this survey’s results. People identified with certain denim jeans brands because they like the quality, the product, the price, the image, and so on. Most people are loyal to a certain brand not because of the name or logo but more because of the product and image. Once consumers are content with the product and connected with the image, then trust and loyalty will follow. It is important to understand how these functional qualities, psychological attributes and symbolic meanings are embedded in the consumers’ mind. This research study shows many interesting findings and a lot of them are directly or indirectly related to the symbolic value of low-rise denim jeans. PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES AND SYMBOLIC VALUES 1. Fit and Brand Name Most of the participants indicated fit was the most important criterion. Some of them are loyal to certain brand(s) because they like the fit. It fitted their body type and made them look good and feel good. On the other hand, some respondents were not loyal to any brand at all because they haven’t found a perfect fit model for their body type. They purchased whatever brands in the stores as long as they fitted them well. 2. Fit and Style Over 70% preferred the same type of denim jeans – low-rise, slim fit and stretch. Many respondents indicated that this type of denim jeans fitted their hip and buttock better than any other models. It also made them look sexier. In other words, they were not seeking merely utilitarian values. They were also looking for symbolic benefits (sexual attractiveness) as well. As Malcolm (2002) points out that a lot of clothing and fashion are intended to display and enhance the sexual or social attractiveness of the wearer. 3. Fit and Fabric According to the participant’s response, 71% preferred stretch denim, only 6% preferred nonstretch denim, and 23% didn’t have any particular preference. Some respondents even indicated the reasons why they preferred stretch denim jeans. First, the stretch denim made them look sexier and thinner. Second, they felt more comfortable with stretch denim instead of non-stretch. Third, it hugged their body well. 4. Fit and comfort Do low-rise hip hugger jeans offer the wearers more comfort than other type of fit models? As indicated in Table 2, more than 50% of the respondents agreed with this statement. However, their responses could be quite subjective. According to Dr Malvinder Parmar (medical director at the Timmins and District Hospital in Timmins, Ontario), stated in a letter to the Canadian Medical Association Journal, “All (three women who were suffering from the condition after wearing hip-huggers for between six and eight months) had symptoms of tingling or a burning sensation ... and mild local tenderness”. 5. Fit and Price As mentioned earlier in this paper, young people have no problem paying a premium price for a pair of denim jeans that fits their body type and their aspirations. Many respondents are willing to pay more than $100 (Canadian) for a low-rise denim jeans with added-psychological and symbolic benefits such as self-image, esteem, social status, and prestige that could associate them with exclusive elite social groups. OTHERS In addition to the above findings, some other interesting data collected from six different denim jeans manufacturers are also worthwhile noting. Four denim jeans manufacturers suggested that product and brand image could be used to connect with their customers emotionally. People make emotional connections with object/product based on their internal and external perceptions. They always keep touch with their customers in order to understand their aspirations, and investigate what is ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ in the youth market. They try to build an image and story around their product in order to create a link with their customer. It could be a sexy image like Britney Spear or Paris Hilton. CONSUMERS THINK EMOTIONALLY AND IRRATIONALLY Buying behaviors are driven by reason and emotion. The neurologist Donald Calne asserted, “The essential difference between emotion and reason is that emotion leads to action while reason leads to conclusion.” (Roberts, 2004: 42). In fact, according to the survey’s findings, some respondents do go by their emotions when it comes to shopping. For example, they like low-rise denim jeans because: They are flattering and hot. / Fit great; look hot. / They look cool. I love them. / I love the fit. My bum looks good. / My buttock looks swell and nice. They look and feel amazing. / They make me feel good in them. I feel sexier. / They make me sexier and thinner. Figuratively speaking, they don’t judge and evaluate a pair of jeans by every single attribute, such as style, color, quality, country of origin, and fabric. Consumers experience a pair of jeans as a whole (Liu & Rahman, 2005). It is our unconscious mind that acts in and shapes our purchasing decision regarding a particular object such as low-rise jeans. George Lowenstein has suggested that the conscious mind explains actions produced by unconscious processes (Lowenstein, 2001). This unconscious process is emotional or seemingly irrational. Elliott (1998) has contended that our emotional purchase today is formed holistically and instantly, and followed by post-hoc rationalization. In post-hoc rationalization (Elliott, 1998; Zajonc & Markus, 1982), people provide a rational judgment for their irrational acts. To explain, in our daily fashion consumption, we shop emotionally, sometimes even with “passion, love, anxiety, excitement, regret ….”, we always have some reasons to justify our purchasing act (Liu & Rahman, 2005). CONCLUSION Today’s complexities, subtleties and ambiguities are highlighted in the context of fashion marketing. Re-introspection is needed to both extant theory and method in fashion marketing; re-signification of goods filled with images and symbols are salient across cultures and throughout history. This research study attempts to offer a newer understanding and insight into the consumption of low-rise denim jeans from different perspectives, as well as to potentially reveal the omnipresence of a consumer culture that serves as the connecting thread of our globalize world. REFERENCE Baudrillard, J. (1981). For a Critique of the Political Economy of Sign. St Louis: Telo Press Ltd. Beaudoin, P., Moore, M.A., Goldsmith, R. E. (1998). Young fashion leaders’ and followers’ attitudes toward American and imported apparel. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7, 3, 193-207. Belk, R.W., Wallendorf, M., Sherry, J.F., 1989. The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: Theodice on the Odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 1, 1-38. Bevlin, M. E. (1997). Design Through Discovery, 6th ed., Harcourt Brace & Company, Orlando, FL. Bourdieu, P. (1984). A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Campbell, C. (1983). Romanticism and the Consumer Ethnic: Intimations of a Weber-Style Thesis. Sociological Analysis, 44 (4), 279-295. Cassill, N. L., & Drake, M. F. (1987). Apparel selection criteria related to female consumers’ lifestyle. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 6(1), 20-28. Cotton Incorporated Lifestyle Monitor (2001). Back to School in Style: Denim and Miniskirts Top Fashion Choices for Fall. Cotton Incorporated Lifestyle Monitor (1998). Denim: Thinking outside the box. Crane, D. (2000). Fashion and its Social Agendas. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1981). The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Rep edition , Perennial. Dalby, L. (2001). Kimono. University of Washington Press. Davis, F. (1994). Fashion, Culture, and Identity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Davis, L. L. (1987). Consumer use of label information in ratings of clothing quality and clothing fashionability. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 6(1), 8-14. Dworkin, A. (1974). Woman Hating. NY: New American Library. DeCarlo, L. (2005). For BCBG, it’s all in the jeans. Women’s Wear Daily, New York: Vol. 189, Iss. 73; pp.10. Dittmar, H. (1992). The Social Psychology of Material Possessions, Havester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead. Eckman, M., Damhorst, M. L., & Kadolph S. J. (1990). Toward a model of the in-store purchase decision process: Consumer use of criteria for evaluating women’s apparel. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(2), 13-22. Elliott, R. (1999) 'Symbolic meaning and postmodern consumer culture', in Rethinking Marketing, Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R. (eds) Sage Publications, London, UK. Elliott, R. & Kritsadarat W. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17 (2), 131-44. Elliott, R. (1998). A Model of Emotion-Driven Choice. Journal of Marketing Management. 14: p. 95-108. Ewen, S. (1984). Consuming Images: The Politics of Style in Contemporary Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press. Firat, A. Fuat, Shultz II, Clifford J. (1997). From segmentation to fragmentation. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 31, 3,4, pp. 183-207. Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to Communication Studies. Routledge; 2nd edition. Forsythe, S.M. (1991). Effect of private, designer, and national brand names on shoppers’ perception of apparel quality and price. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9, 2, 1-6. Fourier, S. (1999). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research. 24:343-74. Jackson, B. (1998). Splendid Slippers: A Thousand Years of an Erotic Tradition. Ten Speed Press. Guinness World Records. www.guinnessworldrecords.com Gobe, M., & Zyman, S. (2001). Emotional Branding: The New Paradigm for Connecting Brands to People. Watson-Guptill. Goffman, Erving (1973), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Woodstock, New York: The Overlook Press. Goldsmith, R.E., Heitmeyer, J.R., Frieden, J.B. (1991). Social values and fashion leadership. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10, 1, 37-45. Gutman, J., Mills, M. (1982). Fashion life style, self-concept, shopping orientation, and store patronage: an integrative analysis. Journal of Retailing, 58, 2, 64-86. Horn, M. and Gurel, L. (1981). The Second Skin, Houghton, Boston, MA. Howard, D. J., & Gengler, C. (2001). Emotional contagion effects on product attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.28, 9. Kaiser, Susan. (1990). The Social Pyschology of Clothing: Symbolic Appearances in Context. (2nd Edition) New York: Macmillan. Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2001). Principles of Marketing (9 ed. Vol. 2001). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Krippendorff, K. (1984). An Epistemological Foundation for Communication. Journal of Communication. 34, 3: 21-36. Kunz, G. I. (1998). Merchandising: Theory, Principles, and Practice. Fairchild, New York, NY. Lee, Georgia (2004). The great waist debate. Women’s Wear Daily, October 14,2004. Levy, S. (1959). 'Symbols for sale'. Harvard Business Review, 37, July/August, 117-124. Liu, W.S., & Rahman, O. (2005). Fashion Consumption in the Wake of Postmodernity. Advances in Textiles Technology, Management and Applications. Conference Proceedings. Lowenstein, G. (2001). The Creative Destruction of Decision Research. Journal of Consumer Research. 28(3): p. 499-505. Malcolm, B. (2002). Fashion as Communication. 2nd edition, Routledge. McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.13. McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and Consumption. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Martin, C. R. Jr. (1971-71). What consumers of fashion want to know. Journal of Retailing, 47(4), 65-71; 94. Nevid, J.S. (1981). Effects of brand labeling on ratings of product quality. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 2, 407-10. NDP Apparel Research. (2005). Canadian Boomers Drive Blue Jean Sales. January, www.ndpcanada.ca Polegato, R., and Wall, M. (1980). Information seeking by fashion opinion leaders and followers. Home Economics Research Journal, 8, 5, 327-38. Roberts, K. (2004). The Future Beyond Brands: Lovemarks. powerHouse Books. New York: NY. Rouse, E. (1989). Understanding Fashion. Blackwell Science Ltd. Schrank, H.L., Guilmore, L. (1973). Correlates of fashion leadership: implications for fashion process theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 14, 4, 534-43. Spar, A. N. (2001). Trends at retail, understanding 2001. STS Market Research, 14th EFS System Conference. Statistics Canada, (2004). CANISM, table 080-0014 and Catalogue no. 63-005-XIB. Steele, V. (2003). The Corset: A Cultural History. Yale University Press. Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethnic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Transi. T Parsons. New York: Scribner. Turner, Christena L. (1997). Locating Footbinding: Variations across Class and Space in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century China. Journal of Historical Sociology. Volume 10, Issue (4), 444-479. Turow, J. (1997). Breaking Up America: Advertisers and the New Media World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Workman, J. E. (1990). Effects of fiber content labeling on perception of apparel characteristics. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8(3), 19-24. Women’s Wear Daily, (2004). The WWD list: Designer jean capitals; index pf places with the greatest propensity for spending $100 or more on designer jeans (100 equals the national average). New York: Vol. 188, Iss. 123; pp. 76S. Zajonc, R.B. & Markus H. (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences. Journal of Consumer Research. 9: p. 123-131.