Retailers and apparel imports: variables associated with relative proportions of imports carried
Purposes of this exploratory study were: (i) to determine retailers' views toward imported apparel, (ii) to gain insight into retailers' reasons for carrying imported apparel, and (iii) to examine variables associated with relative proportions of imported apparel carried in stock. Interviewers surveyed 191 retailers in the eastern U.S.A., using a structured telephone interview. Data analysis included chi-square tests of association and frequency distributions. The proportion of stock retailers reported to be imported was cross-tabulated with a number of variables. Results gave insight into retailers' reasons for carrying imported apparel, although a majority appeared to favour domestic apparel; results also indicated some of the problems associated with carrying foreign-made goods. Results can be useful to manufacturers in their efforts to counter retailers' trend to carry increasing quantities of imported apparel and to educators preparing graduates for employment in this sensitive sector.
Categorization of the Quality Concept
The authors used categorization theory to guide research on apparel quality. Respondents were females, 150 students and 55 nonstudent adults, who wrote at least three sentences about the quality of (a) apparel and (b) a blouse. Using content analysis, four classifications were formed to describe the criteria attributes: aesthetic (e.g., stylish), usefulness (e.g., versatile), performance (e.g., does not shrink), and extrinsic criteria (e.g., brand name). Aesthetic and performance criteria accounted for 81% to 83% of criteria mentioned. When the data were pooled, respondents generated more criteria to classify blouse quality than to classify apparel quality. Furthermore, criteria for blouse quality were mentioned more often than criteria for apparel quality suggesting that, at the aggregate level, respondents used blouse quality as a basic level category. However when data were analyzed separately by consumer experience (e.g., age), differences in categorization schemes were found. These results have implications for merchandising strategies that focus on quality.
The Impact of EU Unfair Contract Terms Law on U.S. Business-to-Consumer Internet Merchants
When the Court of Appeals for Versailles issued its decision in AOL France v. UFC Que Choisir2 in September 2005, it sent the message to U.S. Internet businesses that even contractual boilerplate localized for European markets may be invalid in European consumer transactions. In that case, a French consumer advocacy group challenged the terms AOL offered its French customers after AOL had made extensive revisions to its standard form contracts to respond to the concerns regarding those terms expressed in an advisory opinion by a French consumer protection agency. In 2004, a trial court invalidated nearly every term in the revised agreement; the appeals court affirmed on all counts. Subsequently, in July 2006 following concerns raised by the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”), a United Kingdom government agency charged with “making sure markets work well for consumers,”3 Dell Corporation Limited changed its online terms and conditions to make them fairer to consumers.4 European consumer contract law had an impact in both cases. At issue for AOL France and Dell Corporation Limited was the application of France’s and the UK’s consumer contract law which is based on the Unfair Contract Terms Directive of 19945 and calls into question the validity of many of the terms that U.S. courts routinely enforce in transactions involving American consumers and merchants.