1

University students' brand preference towards athletic footwear; Focusing

upon factors that influence their purchasing decision process

Matthew James Aylott

Janice Young

Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, UK.

___________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

University students are one of the most critical and important markets for companies, particularly athletic

footwear brands, to target due to its size and characteristics. By connecting to this specific demographic group,

there is the potential for many life-long buying patterns to be established. Despite this, there is a lack of

research that specifically investigates the factors that influence University students’ athletic footwear

purchasing patterns in the UK. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to assess the factors that influence

Plymouth University students’ decisions to purchase a specific brand of athletic footwear.

A quantitative positivist approach was used for this research paper. Subsequently, the research strategy

involved the deployment of an online questionnaire which established the demographic profile of respondents,

identified Plymouth University students’ athletic footwear brand preferences, and finally, uncovered the factors

that influenced their purchasing decision the most.

The key findings of this research study found that Plymouth University students had two very strong athletic

footwear brand preferences, Nike ahead of Adidas. The most influential factors that affected Plymouth

University students’ athletic footwear purchasing decisions were found to be information sources, such as their

friends, salespeople and family, product features, including comfort and fit, quality and suitability of function.

Additionally, the study found many positive correlations between several positively related belief elements, such

as positive previous brand experience, and brand loyalty. As a result, it was concluded that a positive brand

image, perception and association appear to positively correlate with increased brand loyalty. The value of this

research paper will be of significant benefit to sports brand companies, marketers and educators as it will help

further the understanding of a key market segments buying behaviour and the factors that influence their

decisions most.

Keywords

Athletic Footwear, Buying Behaviour, Brand Preferences, Brand Loyalty, Plymouth University Students

___________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The athletic footwear industry is incredibly lucrative and continuously growing every year. In 2013, athletic

footwear sales reached $17.1 billion in the global market (National Sporting Goods Association, 2014).

Moreover, according to Transparency Market Research (2012), in 2011 the global athletic footwear market was

valued at $74.7 billion. With a projected compound annual growth rate of 1.8% between 2012 and 2018, the

global athletic footwear market is estimated to be worth approximately $84.4 billion by 2018 (Transparency

Market Research, 2012).

In terms of demand, the Asia Pacific market dominates the global athletic footwear industry and is predicted to

occupy 41.6% of it in 2018. However, the European market is expected to overtake the north American market

and become the second biggest market for athletic footwear sales by 2018 (Transparency Market Research,

2012). According to Goodman (2013), consumers in 2011 purchased over 372 million pairs of shoes in the UK.

2

More relevantly, 23% of the UK’s total footwear market was accounted for by athletic footwear. Therefore,

approximately 85.5 million pairs of athletic shoes were sold in the UK in 2011.

One of the major recent trends in the market is the emergence of lifestyle fashion athletic shoes. Many leading

sports brands, in light of this increasingly popular trend, have decided to start producing more fashionable

athletic footwear as well as the high-technical performance shoes they typically sell. In 2014, this trend became

increasingly more apparent. None more so than in the American athletic footwear market, where athletic

footwear sales were evenly distributed between lifestyle fashion athletic footwear and performance sport s shoes

for the first time ever.

Furthermore, in 2015 unit sales of fashion athletic footwear increased by 9.1 million to 49.8 million whilst

performance sports shoes fell 2.9 million to 38.3 million. Consequently, fashion athletic footwear claimed a

higher market share (56%) than performance sports shoes (44%) for the first time ever (Germano, 2015).

Consequently, fitness is seen to be increasingly blurring more with fashion. As a result, it has promoted the

ideology that looking like you go running or performing an athletic activity is more popular than actually going

running or doing that activity.

Wong and Smith (2002) argue that university students are one of the most critical and important markets for

companies, particularly athletic footwear brands, to target due to its size and characteristics. Additionally, White

(2001) contributes that this is a critical segment for marketers to focus on because university students are faced

with many first time life decisions on their own, in particular first time purchase decisions. Furthermore, Miller

(1998) suggests that connecting to this specific demographic group is critical for marketers due to the potential

brand loyalty and life-long buying patterns that could be established. Henceforth, understanding consumer

behaviour is an area of strong interest for sports brand companies. This is because there are many choices and

influences that can impact consumer behaviour (Kotler, 1994) which heavily impacts brand loyalty.

Including undergraduates and postgraduates, there were approximately 2.26 million students who attended

university in the UK during the 2014/15 academic year (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2015), which

accounts for 3.5% of the population in the UK. Meanwhile, there were approximately 12 million graduates in

the UK labour market in 2013 (18.7% of the total UK population) who held a degree. Therefore, a meaningful

representation of the UK population have attended university in which they will have made these first time

purchasing decisions and established brand loyalty.

Jenkings (2014) estimates the total UK student spending power is approximately £19.7 billion, making them a

very lucrative and appealing target market for companies, including athletic footwear brands. With the

emergence of fashion athletic footwear and increasing participation in sport and exercise, there is reason to

believe that there will be an increase in demand for athletic footwear amongst university students.

Nike are currently the biggest athletic footwear brand in the world, dominating the sports shoes market with

33.6% of the global market share ahead of their closest rivals Adidas, who hold 19.1% (Statista, 2011). Yet,

despite Nike and Adidas owning just over half of the global market share, there are numerous other competitors

fiercely competing over that other half. These brands include Asics, Puma, Skechers, New Balance, Reebok, K-

Swiss, Dunlop, Jordan, Umbro and more recently, Under Armour. However, despite such fierce rivalry amongst

several major brands in the global market, Nike and Adidas both appear to be significantly much more popular

and successful than their competitors. Thus, there is reason to believe that they benefit much more from factors

such as increased brand awareness and brand loyalty.

Purpose of the study

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to try and ascertain a better knowledge of Plymouth University students’

buying behaviour towards purchasing athletic footwear. In order to develop a better understanding, the aim of

the study is to determine the factors that influence Plymouth University students’ athletic footwear purchasing

3

decisions the most. The findings of this study will be of significant benefit to sports brand companies, marketers

and educators as it will help further the understanding of a key market segments buying behaviour and the

factors that influence their decisions most.

Literature Review

This section will provide the premise for this research project. To begin with, the literature review will highlight

some key influential factors that are believed to affect university students’ athletic footwear purchasing

decisions. Moreover, as this research project is investigating buyer behaviour, it is important to consider the

associated theoretical frameworks and models.

Information sources and socialization agents

Mangleburg et al (1997) found that when seeking information about products, consumers relied upon key

information sources. These sources mirrored consumer-related attitudes, behaviours, motivations and values

(Shim, 1996). According to the literature, socialization agents are one of the most important information sources

and factors that influence a university student’s brand preference for athletic footwear. Agents such as peers,

family, salespeople and celebrity endorsement were deemed the most influential information sources (Hsu and

Chang, 2008; Keillor et al, 1996; Yoh, 2001).

One socialization agent that appears to have the most influence on university students’ brand preference, in

regards to purchasing athletic footwear, is their peers (Lachance et al, 2003; Moschis, 1987; Yoh, 2001).

Solomon (2007) suggests an individual is heavily influenced by their reference group, which for many students

will be their friends. This is a theory that is supported by many studies which have found a strong correlation

between peer influence and student consumer’s purchase behaviour (Hsu and Chang, 2008; Mascarenhas and

Higby, 1993).

Yoh (2001), after conducting a survey amongst American college students, discovered that peers were the most

influential factor in the purchasing decision process for athletic footwear. However, only 418 students

responded to the survey which, considering the total American college student population may not be truly

representative. Yet, Yoh’s (2001) conclusion was reinforced by Lachance et al (2003) who, after conducting a

survey of 1034 Canadian university students, similarly found that peers were the most important influence.

Interestingly, Feltham (1998) also found there to be a positive correlation between peer influence and the time

spent at university.

According to the literature, family were a much less influential factor in comparison to peers. However, parental

influences are still considered to be an important information source for students in regards to their purchasing

behaviour (Mascarenhas and Higby, 1993; Shim and Koh, 1996). Moschis and Churchill (1987) claimed that

there was a positive correlation between students who communicated with their parents more frequently, in

regard to their consumption behaviour, and higher economically prudent purchasing decisions.

Conversely, Feltham (1998) found that 37.3% of students most frequently mentioned peers as an information

source whereas only 8.4% mentioned family. As a result, Feltham (1998) argued that students became

increasingly independent from their family when they go to university. This theory is supported by Yoh (2001)

who concluded that parental influence significantly decreases whilst peer influence significantly increases as an

information source when students attend university.

Another influential socialization agent that appears to have significant importance is that of salespeople. It is

argued that student purchasing behaviour can be affected by salespeople as they are seen to be a reliable and

informative source for advice (Grewal and Sharma, 1991; Oliver and Swan, 1989). This theory is supported by

Hsu and Chang (2008) who, after surveying 578 university students in Taiwan, discovered that salespeople were

the second most influential factor behind their friend’s suggestions in their athletic footwear purchasing decision

4

process. Similarly, Yoh (2001) identified salespeople as a primary factor in their survey of American college

students.

Interestingly, Feltham (1998) identified that survey respondents considered salespeople an important

information source, were a more reliable source than that of the mass media and thought of as more important

than peers but less so in comparison to their parents. Therefore, there is a popular consensus amongst previous

studies that salespeople can significantly influence a student’s purchasing decision process on athletic footwear.

Yet, there seems to be some ambiguity as to in what order the influence of peers, family and salespeople appear

in, especially when comparing Feltham’s (1998) study to that of others.

One final key socialization factor that was determined amongst the literature was the influence of celebrity

endorsement. Hsu and Chang (2008) discovered from their research that sports celebrities did have an impact on

student’s behaviour and intension to purchase a particular brand.

Furthermore, Dix Phau and Pougnet (2010) conducted a survey among 207 university students in Australia

where the results were consistent with Hsu and Chang’s (2008). Additionally, the study found that there was a

positive influence between both a male and female student’s perception of celebrity endorsers and brand loyalty.

However, it must be noted that these conclusions were generalised from small population samples and may not

be completely reflective of the whole population.

Brand awareness, image and loyalty

Alongside socialization agents, a very significant factor that influences university student’s decisions to

purchase athletic footwear is the beliefs and attitudes associated with brands. Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000)

surveyed 569 American college students, using athletic footwear as the product stimuli, in order to explore the

relationships between marketing elements and the creation of brand loyalty. Their conclusions similarly

mirrored that of Taipei and Liou (2004), with both studies finding that brand awareness and brand image both

entailed a positive correlation towards brand loyalty. This was due to several positively related belief elements,

including perceived product quality and attitudes towards branded product prices.

Similarly to both Yoo et al (2000) and Taipei and Liou (2004), Esch et al (2006) came to the conclusion that

brand image is heavily affected by brand awareness and that both determinants play a key role in the influence

of a student’s athletic footwear purchasing behaviour. Additionally, Tsiotsou (2006) put forward a very valid

argument that, after surveying 197 American college students, consumer involvement, overall satisfaction and

perceived product quality can be perceived as very influential purchasing predictors. Henceforth, the literature

suggests that brand image is heavily affected by brand awareness whilst a strong brand image can significantly

improve brand loyalty. Thus, enhancing these factors is critical to improving the likelihood of more students

buying a particular type and brand of athletic footwear.

Companies spend millions every year on marketing campaigns, especially towards the young adult market, in

order to increase brand awareness, enhance their brand image and ultimately to build and sustain brand loyalty

(Evans et al, 2009; Gorn, 1985; Solomon, 2010). Through extensive mass media advertising, particularly

through social media platforms and television, consumers become increasingly more familiar with major sports

brands (Davidson, 2003). Consequently, both Walgren et al (1995) and Hite and Hite (1995) argue that such

extensive exposure to advertising significantly affects student’s brand awareness and heavily influences their

brand selection. As a result, Newman (2009) claims that the two most popular brands amongst American college

students, in regards to athletic shoes, are Nike and Adidas due to their larger advertising campaigns in

comparison to their competitors.

Furthermore, Belk (2003) put forward the idea that young adults, especially students, express a desire to create

their own unique style. By establishing an awareness of this need, Nike were the first major sports brand to

develop a successful response by launching an innovative new marketing campaign (Keller, 2008). Nike

enabled consumers to become more involved with their products by introducing ‘NikeiD’, allowing consumers

5

to create and design their own unique pair of athletic shoes, both online through their website and via tools in

stores (Jana, 2007). Therefore, innovation in addition to extensive advertising can significantly boost brand

awareness, enhance brand image and lead to higher levels of brand loyalty which could heavily affect a

student’s purchasing behaviour towards athletic footwear.

Product related variables

Another significant factor that many previous studies have indicated influences a university student’s athletic

footwear purchasing behaviour is product-related variables. According to Solomon (2007), people’s purchasing

decisions can be influenced by different aspects of a product, such as colour, quality and appearance. This

theory is supported by Fowler (1999) who, in a study of American university students, found that when buying

athletic sports shoes, students were mostly influenced by quality, style, comfort and durability. Moreover, the

comfort of the shoe was ranked as a more important variable for female respondents in comparison to male

respondents.

In a survey of university students, Mintel (2008) claimed that participation in sports is a notable predictor for

purchasing behaviour. The main conclusion of the report suggested that respondents were much more likely to

buy athletic footwear for a specific sport. Additionally, Tsiotsou (2006), who conducted a survey amongst 197

university students, found that the more students participated in sports, the more important variables such as

product quality, comfort and style became. Henceforth, it is reasonable to infer that product-related variables

play a major role in the decision making process for students purchasing athletic footwear.

One of the most recent and prominent trends in the athletic footwear industry is the increasing popularity of

lifestyle fashion athletic shoes. Consumers, in particular university students, are becoming much more

influenced by variables such as style and price (Mintel, 2008). Chiu et al (2004) found supporting evidence of

this where, in a study of university students, style and price were ranked as the most influential factors in the

decision making process when buying athletic footwear. However, the study failed to distinguish between the

affect style and price entailed on students who actively participated in sports from those who did not. Thus, to

add value to these findings, it would be beneficial to find out to what extent style and fashion has on influencing

a student’s purchasing decision process from those who participate in sports from those who do not.

Theoretical frameworks and models

Many key factors that could influence a University students’ athletic footwear purchasing behaviour were

established from the literature. Nevertheless, it is beneficial to consider the appropriate theoretical frameworks

and models alongside them to gain a deeper understanding.

Both Kotler (2004) and Peter and Olson (1993) define consumer buying behaviour as individuals purchasing

goods and/or services for personal use. In early studies of consumer buying behaviour, the emphasis was heavily

linked to the concept of rational choice. Irrational purchasing needs were focused upon in classical decision

theory in microeconomics whilst logical flow models of bounded rationality, such as the information processing

model, revolved around the belief that consumers use logical thinking to make rational purchasing decisions

(Bettman, 1979; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Howard and Sheth, 1969).

Yet, Kotler (1994) proposes that there are four steps that contribute to influencing consumers purchasing

decision process. These steps include types of consumer purchasing decision behaviour, complex buying

behaviour, dissonance and variety. The influence of each step is dependent upon how many decisions there are

to make, how involved a consumer is and how different brands are perceived in the market. Henceforth, as

students have a relatively wide range of choice of branded athletic footwear and decisions to make on price,

comfort and style, this framework is to some extent applicable in identifying what influences their purchasing

decisions.

Alternatively, Hawkins and Coney (1998) proposed that, during the purchasing decision process, consumers

pass through four different stages in comparison to Kotler’s (1994) framework. These stages include an

6

information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision and post-purchase behaviour. The process

starts when a consumer recognises a need. Once need recognition is realised, consumers rely on internal and

external stimuli to reach a buying decision. This is achieved through a consumer’s information search from

various sources, such as friends, salespeople and mass media advertising (Hawkins et al, 1998). Therefore, this

first step in the process is highly reliant on a consumers information sources and is heavily affected by

socialization agents and brand association.

Evaluating alternatives is the second step, where consumers evaluate the different brand choices available to

them. According to Kotler (2004), consumers will view a product as a set of attributes which maintain different

elements that satisfy their requirements. Plus, consumers will maintain certain beliefs about different brands.

Therefore, a consumer will evaluate each brand they believe holds the best set of attributes in relation to their

requirements. The purchase decision is the third stage after having ranked all of the brands. Most commonly,

consumers will then purchase the highest ranked brand. Nonetheless, unexpected factors and attitudes of others

can still affect the final purchasing decision (Kotler, 2004). Post-purchase behaviour is the final step in the

process. Gilly and Gelb (1986) advocate that depending on whether or not a consumer is satisfied with the

product, in relation to their expectation, depends on whether or not the process has to start all over again in order

to buy a different pair of athletic shoes.

Another theoretical framework that can be used to help understand consumers buying behaviour is the consumer

involvement theory. Both Barry (1987) and Gill, Grossbart and Laczniak (1988) suggest that there are two

forces that affect an individual’s purchasing decision. One is the amount to which reason and emotion influence

the buying decision whilst the other is the time and energy a consumer dedicates to making that decision. Ray

(1973) argues that consumer involvement is dependent on how expensive the product is whilst Debruicker

(1979) claims the level of involvement depends on the importance of a product to a consumer. In regards to

university students buying athletic footwear, this framework is arguably highly dependent on how important

each individual feels this purchase is to them. Krugman (2007) suggests there are three levels of involvement,

habitual decisions, simple decisions and lengthy decisions. Yet, students may have varying opinions on how

important purchasing athletic shoes are to them. Therefore, depending on how important this decision is to a

student determines which decision category they fall into and whether they put minimal thought into the

purchase or spend a lot of time and effort deliberating over different brands.

Furthermore, there are three consumer behaviour models that try to explain consumer’s motivation behind their

purchasing behaviour. Firstly, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs consumer behaviour model suggests that there are

five levels of needs that consumers are influenced and motivated by (Maslow, 1943). These include

physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs and self-actualization needs, as shown in Figure 1

(Simons, Irwin and Drinnien, 1987). In regards to consumers purchasing athletic footwear, at least one, if not all

of these levels can be deemed to have an influence towards their purchasing motivation. Shoes can be deemed a

physiological need in general. When playing team sports they can fulfil a safety requirement. The willingness to

belong and fit in with a certain group of people can lead a consumer to purchasing athletic shoes. Most notably,

buying expensive athletic footwear can fulfil an esteem need as a consumer looks for respect and recognition

amongst others. Plus, it could lead consumers to potentially fulfilling their self-actualization by allowing them to

compete to their best of their ability in a sporting activity. However, Tay and Diener (2011) propose a valid

critique of the model by arguing that lower needs of the model do not have to be satisfied before an individual

can move up the pyramid. Thus, the model is arguably still valid in terms of each level being applied

individually, just not in levels of hierarchy.

7

Figure 1: Hierarchy of needs Model (Maslow, 1943)

Secondly, the consumer behaviour model advocates that every consumer thinks differently and their motivations

for purchasing a product, such as athletic footwear, may differ which leads to people potentially buying different

branded shoes to one another (Mitchell, 1982). As there are many brands in the athletic footwear market, there is

strong competition between them to introduce more stylish, better quality and more innovative sports shoes to

attract consumers. Henceforth, Mitchell (1982) suggests that companies, when designing their products, heavily

rely on consumer feedback to improve these features.

Thirdly, the lens model, somewhat similarly to the consumer behaviour model, suggests that product features

and consumer perceptions are dependent upon one another (Brunswick, 1955). A products features, as well as

psycho-social cues, form the basis of a consumer’s perception of that product. From this, consumers will

distinguish between brand and product perceptions and develop a preference which leads to a purchasing choice

(Urban and Hauser, 1993). However, this choice can only be implemented if the product is available to buy and

falls into a consumer’s price range, as shown in Figure 2. Henceforth, this model strongly relates to the concepts

of socialization agents, information sources, brand awareness and product features. Nevertheless, both Deane et

al (1972) and Ward (1974) argue that the model is not applicable to every consumer as some may not take into

consideration every step or skip a step when making a purchasing decision. Yet, the model does provide a good

basis for what may influence consumer’s motivation to purchase a product, and in particular athletic footwear.

Figure 2: Lens Model (Brunswick, 1956)

Similarly to the three consumer behaviour models, Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of planned behaviour

model was formulated to estimate and predict the difference between consumer attitudes and their planned

behaviour. However, it is arguably the most suited theoretical model for this project, in comparison to the other

models, based on the most common predictors and influences found in the literature. The model, as shown in

Figure 3, suggests that there are three types of beliefs that influence consumers, behavioural beliefs, normative

beliefs and control beliefs. In turn, each belief influences whether or not a consumer has a positive or negative

attitude towards behaviour, subjective norms and the perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991). When

combined, all three of these factors influence a consumer’s intention which ultimately determines their

8

purchasing behaviour. Additionally, this model accepts that behaviour could be affected by external influences

(Ajzen, 1991).

However, the model is based on consumers making rational choices, yet in reality this is not always the case.

Henceforth, the most common critique of the model is that it fails to take into account other important variables,

most notably past experience (Armitage and Connor, 2001; Staats, 2003; Stern, 2000). Despite this, the model is

seemingly somewhat able to predict and anticipate consumer behaviour. Therefore, providing a good theoretical

framework to adopt in when trying to ascertain what factors influence a consumer to buy a certain brand of

athletic footwear over another.

Figure 3: Theory of Planned Behaviour Model (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980)

Research Aims and Objectives

One noticeable gap in the literature was the lack of studies carried out in the European market, in particular the

UK. Therefore, this project will aim to fill a part of that gap and assess the factors that influence Plymouth

University students’ decisions to purchase a specific brand of athletic footwear.

Henceforth, in order to fulfil this aim, the research objectives for this project are:

To ascertain the top three most preferred athletic footwear brands amongst Plymouth University

students.

To identify the factors that influence Plymouth University students’ decisions to purchase a particular

brand of athletic footwear.

To assess Plymouth University students’ athletic footwear purchasing decision processes.

Methodology

To achieve the aim and objectives of this research paper, which were derived from the literature review, this

segment considers and justifies the most suitable research methodology to be used. Thus, this section focuses on

the methodological philosophy, the research strategy, scope and scale of the project, ethical considerations and

the limitations of the research.

Research philosophy

As the aim of this study is to explain why university students may favour certain brands and to ascertain a better

understanding of the factors that influence their decision to purchase a certain brand over another, this study will

adopt a positivist approach. Positivism, according to Graham and Thomas (2008) is focused on trying to explain

human behaviour whilst Saunders et al (2009) suggest it’s the adoption of a scientific philosophical stance. Gill

9

and Johnson (2010) propose that positivism revolves around the concept of looking for causal relationships and

regularities from the collected data which can lead to generalisations being formed.

As this study required several opinions to be measured objectively, it would be easier to effectively analyse

those opinions by converting them into numerical form. For that reason, the most appropriate research approach

is that of a quantitative positivist. This is because Saunders et al (2012) proclaims that quantitative research

analyses the relationships between different variables, which are examined numerically and investigated through

a variety of statistical techniques. Therefore, making it easier to compare and contrast different variables against

each other.

Research Strategy

To effectively measure the frequency of Plymouth University student’s opinions, in relation to the aim and

objectives of the project, a large number of responses were required in order to increase the validity of the

generalisability to the results of the sample population. Additionally, as the aim and objectives sought to identify

trends which could be correlated, opinions needed to be converted into numerical form in order to be efficiently

analysed. Moreover, as a solitary researcher with restrictions on both capital and time, Nulty (2008) advocates

that focus groups and face to face interviews are impractical methods to adopt when large numbers of data are

required in a short period of time.

Furthermore, Corbetta (2003) proposes that deploying a questionnaire allows the researcher to standardize the

data, enabling easier comparison between responses. Therefore, a quantitative approach in the form of an online

questionnaire was deemed the most efficient and inexpensive way to collect primary data for this study.

Population and Sampling

In order to improve the validity of the generalisations of those opinions being made to better represent the total

Plymouth University student population, which was 26,955 in the 2013/2014 academic year (Plymouth

University, 2016), Pellisier (2008) strongly advocates gathering a large amount of data that represents a

significant proportion of the total group under investigation. Hussey and Hussey (1997), advocate that this is

most achievable through a quantitative positivist approach in the form of a questionnaire.

However, Neelankavil (2008) argues that conclusions can be drawn about a large population based on a selected

sample of that population. In support of this, Gupta (2004 suggests that sampling is required due to the

impracticality and uneconomic ability to gather research from the whole population in question. As the research

aim and objectives focus upon Plymouth University students, it is impractical to collect all the data as the whole

population is far too large to gather every student’s response in the required timeframe. Therefore, the sample

population will consist of students currently enrolled on an International Business course at Plymouth

University. These students will be used as a microcosm of the total Plymouth University student population

from which the resulting conclusions will be generalised to.

Although probability sampling is deemed more preferable for more generalizable and representative

assumptions about a population, a non-probability sampling technique was used for practicality in the form of

snowball sampling. Snowball sampling requires the researcher to initially identify a small number of relevant

members of the population in question, who then agree to distribute the survey to other relevant members of that

population in their network (Bryman, 2011).Consequently, the major advantage of deploying this technique is

that the researcher can gain access to and responses from members of the target population that they were

previously unable to (Connoway, 2010).

However, Lee (1993) points out that a major problem with this method is that it is subject to bias due to

respondents potentially identifying respondents who are similar to themselves, which could result in a

homogenous sample. Subsequently, in order to mitigate this risk, the survey was initially distributed to 10

International Business students from each academic year, with the intention that they would distribute the

10

survey on to other International Business students at Plymouth University that the researcher didn’t have access

to.

Research Design

Qualtrics was the online platform used to build the questionnaire before being administered to Plymouth

University students electronically via social media platform Facebook to gather quantitative primary data. Initial

stages of the survey focused upon several demographic questions to ascertain whether respondents were

representative of the required population for the study. If respondents were found not to be suitable, they were

directed to exit the questionnaire in order to maximise the validity of the results. For those who were suitable,

the subsequent questions focused upon athletic footwear brand preference, the factors that influenced their

decision to purchase a specific brand and the possible factors that affected their decision process when

purchasing athletic footwear. The designs of the questions were made in anticipation of the outcomes suggesting

conclusive patterns and relationships upon which strong correlations could be perceived.

Pilot Survey

Before administering the questionnaire, Bell (2005) advises that it should be pilot tested. This is because it

enables the researcher to identify and fix any problems before it goes live. Accordingly, Gideon (2012)

highlights its importance as it enables the researcher to identify any grammatical errors, to assess the clarity of

the questions and whether there is a clear and logical flow throughout. Furthermore, Fink (2003) states how it

enables the researcher to test how long the survey would take to complete, which for this particular survey was

aimed at five minutes. The final questions that were used in the questionnaire can be located in Appendix A.

Data Analysis

Rank order questions and Likert scales were the two main methods used in the questionnaire to gain opinion

based variables. By using rank order questions, in which respondents were asked to rank variables in order

based on their opinion, those variables could be ranked in accordance to their average order of rank. In addition,

a 7-point Likert scale, in which the variable continuum ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree,

produced ordinal data, allowing the data to be ranked (Curwin and Slater, 2007).

As stated and justified previously, quantitative data analysis was used in the research. This enabled the evidence

to be articulated in numerical form, from which the data could be summarised. Thus, based upon the sample

population, generalised inferences could be established about the whole population. Consequently, in order to

achieve these inferred generalisations from the data, the study implemented a two stage process.

Firstly, the shape of the data will be displayed graphically. The most effective methods for exhibiting the shape

of the results for the demographic questions gathered from the survey, were bar and pie charts. Tables will then

be used to present the results of the rank order and Likert scale questions, from which the measures of location

will be displayed.

The second stage of the process involved identifying the measures of location. According to Curwin and Slater

(2007), the three most used measures of location are the mean, median and the mode. Moreover, in order to

establish a more accurate representation of the averages present, Buglear (2007) suggests that all three measures

must be calculated. Although this was achievable for the rank order questions, the mean was not calculated for

the results of the Likert scale questions. This is because the Likert scales will be coded as:

Strongly Agree (1), Agree (2), Somewhat Agree (3), Neither Agree or Disagree (4), Somewhat Disagree (5),

Disagree (6), Strongly Disagree (7)

Therefore, due to the coding of the variables, the measure of location is unable to be effectively interpreted.

Thus, only the median and the mode were calculated for the results of the Likert scale questions.

11

Ethical considerations

When conducting research, it’s vitally important that the research methodology is carried out in a responsible,

ethical and moral way (Saunders et al, 2009). As questionnaires require willing participants to disclose personal

information about themselves which is not openly accessible, Babbie (2009) suggests that a consideration of

ethics is paramount so that they do not feel mistreated or misled in any way.

With this in mind, the research process was carried out in accordance to the code of ethical principles of the

Plymouth Business School as human participants were involved (UOP Research Policy Committee, 1995).

Henceforth, Plymouth university students who participated in the survey were firstly informed about the exact

purpose of the study and what the results of it would be used for. Secondly, before any participants started the

survey, they were informed that they would be able to withdraw from the study at any point. Additionally

participants were told before they started the survey that they would be protected from any harm as all recorded

data was completely anonymised, ensuring their confidentiality. Plus, if participants had any queries or

problems with this survey, they were informed of how to contact the researcher via email.

Limitations

According to Saunders et al (2012), limitations are the inadequacies or potential shortcomings of the study

which Brace (2013) suggests many research projects, if not all, are affected by. This research project was no

exception as the following methodological limitations were identified.

Firstly, Holden (2004) advocates that data is considered more beneficial to an industry if it is truly

representative of a demographic, which in this study refers to university students in the UK and the athletic

footwear industry. However, only students from Plymouth University were targeted for the study. Moreover,

only a small sample of the target population responded to the survey which needs to be taken into account when

generalising the opinions that were expressed. Thus, it’s important to recognise that the results cannot be

assumed completely representative of Plymouth University or the entire university student population across the

UK.

Secondly, one very significant problem associated with questionnaires is that the design of the survey can

heavily impact response rates, reliability and validity (Fink, 2003). For example, long questionnaires can lead to

participant boredom which may see respondents choose random answers in order to complete it quickly or fail

to complete the survey at all. Consequently, this can lead to some irrelevant data being produced, reducing the

validity of the results. Therefore, the questionnaire was pilot-tested before being fully distributed in order to

ensure more reliable responses were produced.

Similarly, online questionnaires offer no control as to how truthful participants who complete the survey choose

to be. Plus, as Likert-scales were used within the survey, they are vulnerable to certain limitations. One is

central tendency bias, where participants may opt to avoid choosing extreme answers, such as strongly disagree

of strongly agree (Bertram, 2007). Another is social desirability bias, which refers to respondents answering in a

way that they feel is more socially favourable, rather than providing their honest opinion. Yet, an attempt to

mitigate this particular limitation was made by anonymising participants. However, Hewson et al (2003)

suggests that how respondents actually choose to act is invariably not in the control of the researcher.

Lastly, another major limitation that is often associated with the distribution of online questionnaires is that

response rates are typically very low (Coomber, 1997). There were 26,955 students enrolled at Plymouth

University in 2014/5 (Plymouth University, 2016), yet the survey only managed to receive 110 respondents.

However, as previously pointed out, conclusions can be drawn about a large population based on a sample of

that population (Neelankavil, 2008).

12

Research Findings, Analysis and Discussion

This section of the report presents the research findings, analysis and discussion that derive from the data which

was collected through the online questionnaire. The research aim and objectives were the main focus for the

analysis and discussion of the research findings, which was split into four subsections. Firstly, the general

demographic profile of the survey respondents was established. Secondly, the top three most preferred athletic

shoe brands amongst Plymouth University students was ascertained. Thirdly, factors that influence Plymouth

University students’ decisions to purchase a particular brand of athletic footwear were identified. Lastly,

Plymouth University students’ athletic footwear purchasing decision processes were assessed.

Demographics

A total of 139 responses were collected through the distribution of the online survey. As highlighted in Figure 4,

54% of the respondents were male whilst 46% were female. Therefore, there was a very even representation

from both genders established from the sample population, enabling more balanced views to be expressed.

Additionally, the majority (88.5%) of respondents were aged between 18-24 years old, which was to be

expected as this survey was aimed at the University student demographic. There were no respondents (0%) from

anyone aged 17 or under whilst 11.5% were mature students aged 25 or older.

Figure 4: Gender and age profile of survey respondents

100% of the 139 survey respondents were currently studying International Business at Plymouth University.

Plus, there was a fairly even distribution between the years in which respondents were currently studying, with a

good representation from first years (19%), second years (23%) and fourth years (23%), as shown in Figure 5.

Therefore, a wide and well represented range of opinions from each university academic year of study were

expressed through the results of the questionnaire.

54%

46%

0%

88.5%

11.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Male Female 17 or under 18-24 25 or older

Gender Age

13

Figure 5: Survey respondents’ current year of study at Plymouth University

Additionally, there was a wide range of sporting activities that respondents had participated in during the period

they had been studying at Plymouth University, as presented in Figure 6. Therefore, the validity of the results

from the survey was improved as many different opinions from a varied range of sporting activities were

represented, ensuring there was no bias towards one particular sporting activity. Interestingly, the top three

most popular sporting activities that respondents have participated in were going to the gym (30%), football

(13%) and going running or jogging (11%).

Figure 6: Sporting Activities students have participated in whilst at Plymouth University

19%

23%

17%

5%

23%

5% 5%

2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Year of Study

30.3%

12.8%

10.8%

9.2%

5.6%

4.4%

4.4%

4%

3.6%

3.2%

2.8%

2.4%

1.6%

1.6%

1.2%

1.2%

1.2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Gym

Football

Running/Jogging

Tennis

No participation

Rugby

Other

Netball

Squash

Rock Climbing

Athletics

Hockey

Cycling

Basketball

Rowing

Cricket

Golf

14

7.3%

21.2%

24.8%

29.2%

9.5%

8%

None

1

2

3

4

5+

Key:

(10)

(29)

(34)

(41)

(13)

(11)

Plymouth University students’ most preferred brands of athletic footwear

In order to ascertain the importance of brand preference amongst athletic footwear in the University student

market sector, it’s important to firstly consider how many pairs of sports shoes students have owned and/or

bought whilst attending Plymouth University. As shown in Figure 7, the most common amount of athletic

footwear that students have owned and/or bought since attending Plymouth University is 3 pairs (29.2%).

Moreover, the majority of students (75.2%) have owned and/or bought between 1 and 3 pairs of athletic

footwear.

Figure 7: Number of pairs of athletic footwear students have bought and/or owned

As the average Plymouth University student only owns and/or has bought between 1-3 pairs of athletic shoes, it

signifies that such a purchase occurs very infrequently. This is validated in Figure 8, which implies that such a

purchase most commonly happens only once every year (38.7%). Therefore, due to the infrequency of such a

purchase, there is a case to arguably presume that this could positively affect the significance of having a brand

preference. Consequently, when students purchase athletic footwear, they are arguably more likely to buy a

well-known and popular brand. Moreover, if they gain positive experiences from using a particular brand of

athletic footwear, they are arguably more likely to purchase from that same brand again, developing brand

loyalty.

Figure 8: How often Plymouth University students purchase athletic footwear

This theory is supported by the results shown in Figure 9, where a very clear athletic footwear brand preference

amongst Plymouth University students can be seen. Nike is by far the most popular brand of athletic footwear,

with over half of the survey respondents (56.1%) claiming to own and/or have bought at least one pair of their

footwear. Adidas are Nike’s closest competitor at 40.3% and have the second highest market share by some

considerable distance ahead of both Asics (19.4%) and New Balance (15.8%) in third and fourth respectively.

0%

0.7%

5.8%

19%

38.7%

14.6%

15.3%

2.9%

2.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Weekly

Monthly

Every 3 months

Every 6 months

Yearly

Every 2 years

Every 2-5 years

Every 5 years

Every 5+ years

15

Figure 9: Brands of athletic footwear owned and/or bought

Furthermore, Table 1 shows that the next pair of athletic footwear Plymouth University students would purchase

next is most likely to be Nike, with 48.1% of respondents ranking Nike in first position. More interestingly, the

resulting rank order of brands that students would buy next is highly reflective to Figure 9 and to the results of

which brands students currently own and/or have bought. This suggests that brand preference plays a significant

factor in a university student’s athletic footwear purchasing decision. More significantly, this suggests that

university students have strong brand loyalty towards their preferred athletic footwear brand. Therefore, it

appears critically important for athletic footwear brands to connect to this demographic group as the resulting

evidence supports Miller’s (2008) theory that many life-long buying patterns are established during this stage of

their lives.

Rank

Brand of

Athletic

Footwear

Mean

Median

Mode

Highest

Ranking

Lowest

Ranking

1 Nike 2.2 2 1 (48.1%) 1 (48.1%) 9 (0.8%)

2 Adidas 2.3 2 2 (41.9%) 1 (25.9%) 9 (0.8%)

3 Asics 5.1 4 3 (19.1%) 1 (7.6%) 12 (4.6%)

4 New Balance 6.2 6 3 (14.5%) 1 (4.6%) 13 (1.5%)

5 Puma 5.9 6 5 (17.6%) 1 (2.3%) 13 (0.8%)

6 Reebok 6.6 7 4/5/9

(14.5%)

1 (1.5%) 12 (1.5%)

7 Dunlop 7.7 8 7 (12.2%) 2 (2.3%) 13 (2.3%)

8 K-Swiss 7.8 8 8 (19.9%) 1 (2.3%) 12 (8.4%)

9 Jordan 8.2 7 7 (20.6%) 2 (1.5%) 13 (3%)

10 Skechers 9.1 10 11 (22.9%) 1 (3.8%) 13 (4.6%)

11 Under Armour 9.1 10 12 (32.8%) 3 (7.6%) 13 (6.9%)

12 Umbro 9.3 11 11 (25.2%) 2 (0.8%) 13 (3.8%)

13 Other 11.3 13 13 (77.1%) 1 (3.8%) 13 (77.1%) Table 1: Rank order, mean, median and mode of athletic brands Plymouth Student’s would purchase next

56.1%

40.3%

19.4%

15.8%

10.1%

7.9%

4.3%

3.6%

2.9%

2.9%

1.4%

0.7%

0.7%

0.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Nike

Adidas

Asics

New Balance

Puma

Reebok

Karrimor

K-Swiss

Skechers

Mizuno

Dunlop

Jordan

Umbro

Under Armour

16

It’s clear to see that both Nike and Adidas are Plymouth University students’ most preferred brands of athletic

footwear. Considering that these two brands dominate the global athletic footwear market with 52.7% of the

market share between them (Statista, 2011), perhaps it comes as no surprise that the results of this study only

reflect this. More surprisingly was the lack of interest shown in Under Armour. They were tipped by many

market forecasters to be one of Nike and Adidas’ fiercest global rivals in the near future, yet not one respondent

claimed to have owned or bought a pair of their footwear. Moreover, students ranked them as one of the last

brands of athletic footwear they would buy next. Therefore, in actual fact, they are currently one of Nike and

Adidas’ least fierce competitors in the Plymouth University market sector.

Factors that influence Plymouth University student’s athletic footwear purchasing decision

The most influential socialization agent that appears to affect Plymouth University students’ athletic footwear

purchasing decision was found to be their friends, based on the averages presented in Table 2. In Store

salespeople were the second most influential information source, ahead of family, mass media advertisement

and celebrity endorsement. Interestingly, despite being ranked as the least influential information source, the

most common responses that were stated under ‘other’ were personal preference, reviews and brand reputation.

Perhaps if stated in the survey as variables of their own, those variables could potentially have had much more

of a significant impact to students’ responses.

Rank

Information

Source

Mean

Median

Mode

Highest

Ranking

Lowest

Ranking

1 Friends

2.2 2 2 (40.8%) 1 (28%) 6 (0.8%)

2

In Store

Salesperson

3.1 3 1 (22.4%) 1 (22.4%) 6 (2.4%)

3 Family

3.1 3 4 (30.4%) 1 (18.4%) 6 (0.8%)

4 Mass Media

Advertisement

3.5 4 5 (26.4%) 1 (11.2%) 6 (4%)

5 Celebrity

Endorsement

4.2 5 5 (36%) 1 (6.4%) 6 (16.8%)

6 Other

4.9 6 6 (75.2%) 1 (18.4%) 6 (75.2%)

Table 2: Information sources - rank order, mean, median and mode

Based on the findings of Table 4, there is a justifiable case to suggest that there is a strong positive correlation

between positive brand association and brand loyalty. In particular, 91% of respondents agreed to some extent

that they associated the brand of athletic footwear that they would most likely buy with high quality, 68% were

in agreement that they believed that particular brand to be more prestigious than other rival brands whilst 58%

agreed to some extent that they rarely switched from purchasing athletic shoes from which brand they prefer

most.

17

# Statement

1 This brand’s sports shoes are expensive

2 This brand is trendy and stylish

3 I associate this brand with high quality

4 I am influenced by celebrity endorsement

5 My friends have sports shoes from this brand

6 My family have sports shoes from this brand

7 This brand is more prestigious than their rival brands

8 Wearing this brand of sports shoes helps me express my personality

9 I have had positive previous experiences with this brand

10 This brand’s sports shoes are durable, dependable and reliable

11 More stores sell this brand of sports shoe in comparison to rival brands

12 When purchasing sports shoes, I rarely switch from this brand

Table 3: Statements relating to a respondents most preferred athletic footwear brand

# SA A SWA N SWD D SD Mode Median

1 21% 39% 29% 6% 3% 2% 0% Agree Agree

2 20% 50% 21% 6% 2% 1% 0% Agree Agree

3 34% 49% 12% 4% 0% 1% 0% Agree Agree

4 8% 15% 17% 17% 6% 18% 20% Disagree Neither

5 18% 44% 14% 13% 3% 6% 2% Agree Agree

6 17% 27% 15% 14% 9% 14% 5% Agree Somewhat Agree

7 10% 43% 15% 22% 4% 6% 0% Agree Agree

8 6% 15% 12% 33% 10% 16% 9% Neither Neither

9 33% 46% 9% 12% 0% 1% 0% Agree Agree

10 35% 45% 13% 6% 1% 0% 0% Agree Agree

11 18% 36% 16% 21% 4% 4% 2% Agree Agree

12 9% 36% 13% 17% 11% 11% 4% Agree Somewhat Agree Table 4: Results to statements from Table 3

Product features were found to be another very significant influencing factor in a Plymouth University students’

athletic footwear purchasing decision. The comfort and fit of the footwear was deemed the most influential

factor as 75% of respondents strongly agreed that it influences their purchasing decision, as shown in Table 5.

Furthermore, more than half of the respondents strongly agreed that both product quality (60%) and suitability

of function (52%) were very important influencing factors. However, just over half of the respondents (51%)

disagreed to some extent that the ability to customise athletic footwear influenced their purchasing decision.

Taking into consideration that on average, respondents didn’t feel that their choice of athletic footwear

expressed their personality (as presented in Table 4), it would appear that these two findings suggest that the

majority of the student population are much happier to purchase standard athletic footwear designs. Perhaps, as

95% agreed to some extent that price is an influential factor, the ability to customise athletic footwear may be

seen as a cost too far and therefore unimportant.

18

Feature SA A SWA N SWD D SD Mode Median

Brand 14% 33% 24% 10% 3% 10% 6% Agree Somewhat Agree

Comfort/Fit 75% 22% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Strongly Agree Strongly Agree

Customisation 4% 9% 20% 17% 15% 22% 14% Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Durability 47% 47% 4% 1% 0% 0% 2% Agree Agree

Price 32% 41% 22% 4% 1% 1% 0% Agree Agree

Product Quality 60% 34% 5% 1% 1% 0% 0% Strongly Agree Strongly Agree

Style 25% 37% 19% 10% 2% 4% 2% Agree Agree

Suitability of

Function 52% 40% 6% 1% 1% 0% 1% Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Table 5: How product features influence purchasing decisions

Feltham (1998) argued that students become increasingly independent from their family when they go to

university whilst Lachance et at (2003), Moschis (1987) and Yoh (2001) all advocated from their studies that

peers became one of the most influential factors on a university students brand preference towards purchasing

athletic shoes. The results of this study have reflected both assertions as Plymouth University students’ friends

were found to have the most influence on their purchasing decision. Meanwhile, family members can still be

considered an influential information source but less so than that of a salesperson. Perhaps students perceive a

salesperson to be more knowledgeable than their family members in regards to athletic footwear, especially if

none or very few of their family members actually participate in any sporting activities. Therefore, very

similarly to what was found by Yoh (2001), Hsu and Chang (2008) and Grewal and Sharma (1991), salespeople

are one the most significant factors that influence University students’ athletic footwear purchasing decisions.

Additionally, mass media advertisement and celebrity endorsement were found to be much less influential

factors. Therefore, although students claim that these two factors directly have less influence on their purchasing

decision, it may indirectly have more influence than they believe it to. This is because sports brands, such as

Nike and Adidas, spend millions on advertisements and sponsorship which ultimately increases their brand

awareness and brand association. Thus, as the study found that Nike and Adidas were Plymouth University

students’ two most preferred brands and that students perceived them to be more prestigious, of better quality

and more stylish than other brands, it is likely due to their increased brand awareness and positive brand

association which derives from mass media advertisements and celebrity endorsements.

In accordance with Tsiotsou (2006), Fowler (1999) and Solomon (2007), product factors were found to have a

significant influence on University students’ purchasing decision. Most notably, Plymouth University students

ranked comfort and fit as the most important product feature, mirroring the findings of Fowler (1999).

Moreover, the study found many positive correlations between several positively related belief elements, such as

previous positive experience with a brand, and brand loyalty. Therefore, just as Taipei and Liou (2004)

advocated, a positive brand image and association appears to positively correlate towards increased brand

loyalty.

Assessing the purchasing decision process of Plymouth University students when buying

athletic footwear

The first step in assessing Plymouth University students’ athletic footwear purchasing decision process is to

identify their primary purpose for use. Interestingly, the most common purpose, with 85% of respondents

agreeing to some extent, is for general use across several sporting activities, as shown in Table 7. This was

closely followed by the purpose of playing a specific sport, with 78% of respondents in agreement to some

extent. Perhaps this is because certain sporting activities, such as football and rugby, require specific product

features, such as studs, to their footwear.

19

Furthermore, over half of the respondents (58%) agreed to some extent that they would wear athletic footwear

for general purposes outside of sporting activities in addition to wearing them for sporting activities. However,

55% disagreed to some extent that they would not purchase athletic footwear without the intention of wearing

them for any sporting activity. Thus, there was a mixed response as to whether University students would

choose to wear athletic footwear as a lifestyle fashion choice or not. Therefore, despite an increasing trend in the

American market for lifestyle fashion athletic footwear, it appears that this trend has not yet taken off as much

in the UK, in particular Plymouth.

# Purpose

1 For playing a specific sport

2 For general use across different sporting activities

3 To go running or jogging

4 Going to the gym (Including all related fitness classes)

5 To wear for general use, in addition to wearing them for sporting activities

6 To wear them for general use and not for any sporting activity Table 6: Athletic footwear purposes for buying athletic footwear

# SA A SWA N SWD D SD Mode Median

1 29% 32% 17% 8% 6% 5% 5% Agree Agree

2 20% 50% 15% 7% 2% 3% 3% Agree Agree

3 13% 36% 19% 9% 6% 8% 8% Agree Agree

4 22% 50% 10% 3% 3% 5% 7% Agree Agree

5 13% 28% 17% 5% 7% 19% 11% Agree Somewhat Agree

6 7% 14% 14% 14% 6% 26% 23% Disagree Somewhat Disagree Table 7: Results to statements from Table 6

Another very significant factor that appears to affect a student’s purchasing decision process is how often they

participate in sporting activities. Plymouth University students most commonly appear to participate in a

sporting activity a few times a week (58.8%), as shown in Figure 10. Moreover, 82.3% claim to participate at

least once a week in a sporting activity. Therefore, as the majority of Plymouth University students frequently

participate in a sporting activity, it’s reasonable to assume that they will develop behavioural, normative and

control beliefs about athletic footwear brands. Consequently, in accordance with Azjen and Fishbein’s (1980)

theory of planned behaviour, this could affect their buying intention and buying behaviour.

Figure 10: How often Plymouth University students particiapte in a sporting

12.5%

58.8%

11.0%

3.6%

5.9%

0%

0%

8.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Daily

A few times a week

Once a week

Once every 2 weeks

Once a month

Once e every 6 months

Once a year

Never

20

One more very significant determinant is how much Plymouth University students are willing to spend on a pair

of athletic footwear. Figure 11 suggests that the most common amount students are prepared to spend on a pair

of athletic shoes is between £40-60, followed by £60-80 (17.5%) and £20-40 (16.8%). This may come as no

surpise as the average retail price for athletic footwear in the UK is £47 (Statista, 2016). Yet, as presented in

Table 4, 89% of respondents agreed to some extent that a pair of their most preferred brand of athletic footwear

was expensive. Thus, there is reason to suggest that Plymouth University students are prepared to spend more

for premium brands. Plus, as a high degree of brand loyalty was found amongst Plymouth University students,

they are arguably much more likely to purchase either a pair of Nike or Adidas shoes between £40 and £60.

Figure 11: How much Plymouth University students are prepared to spend on athletic footwear

Participation in sports was found to be a very significant factor in a Plymouth University students purchasing

decision process for athletic footwear. Most significantly was that the majority of students purchased athletic

footwear for use across multiple sporting activities. This finding somewhat differed to the conclusion of a

Mintel report in 2008 where it was concluded that respondents were much more likely to buy athletic footwear

for a specific sport. Additionally, Plymouth University students were found to frequently participate in a

sporting activity, most commonly a few times a week. Consequently, this provides a plausible justification as to

why the comfort and fit, suitability and quality of athletic footwear were all deemed as the most important

product features in regards to purchasing athletic footwear. Thus, this conclusion mirrors that of Tsiotsou (2006)

who similarly concluded that the more students participated in sports, the more important variables such as

product quality and comfort became.

Conclusion

This final section will revisit each research objective and summarise the key findings of the study before

providing recommendations for further research.

The first research objective aimed to ascertain the top three most preferred athletic footwear brands amongst

Plymouth University students. It was found that Nike was the most preferred brand, ahead of Adidas and Asics.

Moreover, Nike and Adidas were deemed considerably more popular in comparison to every other rival brand.

However, considering that these two brands currently dominate the global athletic footwear market, it is hardly

surprising that the results of this study only reflected this. Furthermore, as the resulting rank order of brands that

students would purchase next was highly reflective of the results to which brands students currently owned

and/or had bought, there was a strong indication that brand preference and brand loyalty has a significant

influence on university students’ athletic footwear purchasing decisions.

5.1%

16.8%

39.4%

17.5%14.6%

6.6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

£0-20 £20-40 £40-60 £60-80 £80-100 £100+

21

The second research objective aimed to identify the factors that influence Plymouth University students’

decisions to purchase a particular brand of athletic footwear. The most influential information source was found

to be their friends, ahead of salespeople and family. In comparison, mass media advertisement and celebrity

endorsement were found to be much less influential factors. Furthermore, many product features were found to

be highly influential factors. Most notably, students ranked comfort and fit as the most influential product

feature, ahead of product quality and suitability of function. However, the ability to customise athletic footwear

had significantly little influence, most likely due to the associated added extra cost.

The third research objective aimed to assess Plymouth University students’ athletic footwear purchasing

process. One very significant factor was the frequency of which students participated in sporting activities. As

students were found to most commonly participate in a sporting activity twice a week, there is reason to believe

that they develop behavioural, normative and control beliefs about athletic footwear brands, affecting their

purchasing decision process. Additionally, the study found many positive correlations between several

positively related belief elements, such as positive previous brand experience, and brand loyalty. As a result, a

positive brand image, perception and association appear to positively correlate with increased brand loyalty.

Recommendations for further research

This study used a quantitative positivist approach, assessing the factors that influence Plymouth University

students’ decisions to purchase a specific brand of athletic footwear. One point for further research would be to

explore university students’ athletic footwear purchasing decision processes following a qualitative approach,

using in-depth interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the subject. Another point for further research would

be to investigate this subject with more students from other universities in the United Kingdom. Thus, by

considering a wider sample range of the total student population, it would greatly improve the validity and

reliability of any generalisations being made and add further value to this subject matter.

References Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British

Journal of Social Psychology. 40(4), p471-499.

Azjen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 50(2),

p179-211.

Azjen, I., & Fishbein, M (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Babbie, E. (2009). Essential Research Methods for Social Work. Belmont: Cengage Learning

Barry, T. E. (1987). The Development of the Hierarchy of Effects: An Historical Perspective. Current Issues and research

in Advertising. 10(2), p251-295.

Belk, R. W. (2003). Shoes and Self. Available at: http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-

proceedings.aspx?Id=8730. (Accessed: 10th February 2016).

Bell, J. (2005). Doing Your Research Project (4th Edn). Buckingham: Open University Press

Bertram, D. (2007). Likert Scales. Available at: http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf (Accessed: 9th

February 2016).

Bettman, J. R. (1979). An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Marketing. 43(3), p124-126.

Brace, I. (2013). Questionnaire Design: How to Plan, Structure and Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research.

London: Kogan Page Publishers

Brunswick, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review.

62(3), p193-217.

Buglear, J. (2007). Quantitative methods for business. Oxford: Elsevier

Bryman, A. (2011). Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Chiu, K. K., Chiu, K. P., Lee, P., Chang, T. Y., & Shan, J. P. . (2004).The role of psychographic approach in segmenting

young adults’ buying behaviour for athletic footwear. Available at:

http://tbi2006.atisr.org/CD/Papers/2006tbi2009.doc. (Accessed: 15th February 2016).

Connaway, L. S. (2010). Basic research methods for librarians. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited.

Coomber, R. (1997). Using the Internet for Survey Research. Sociological Research Online. 2(2), p1-7.

Corbetta, P. (2003). Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. London: Sage

Curwin, J. & Slater, R. (2007). Quantitative Methods for Business Decisions. 6th edn. London: South-Western Cengage

Learning

22

Davidson, P. (2003). Setting the reord straight on A History of Post Keynesian Economics. Journal of Post Keynesian

Economics. 26(2), p245-272.

Deane, D. H., Hammond, K. R., & Summers, D. A. (1972). Acquisition and application of knowledge in complex inference

tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 90(1), p20-26.

DeBruicker, F. S. (1979), "An Appraisal of Low-Involvement Consumer Information Processing," Cited in Maloney, J. C.,

& Silverman, B. (1979). Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Dix, S., Phau, I., & Pougnet, S. (2010). Bend it like Beckham: The influence of sports celebrities on young adult

consumers. Young Consumers. 11(1), p36-46.

Esch, F., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006) Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships

affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 15(2), p98 – 105.

Evans, M., Ahmad, J., & Foxall, G (2009). Consumer Behaviour. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

Feltham, T. (1998). Leaving Home: Brand Purchase Influences on Young Adults. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 15(4),

p372-385.

Fink, A. (2003). The Survey Handbook. London: Sage Publications

Fowler, D. (1999). The attributes sought in sports apparel: A ranking. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 7(4),

p81-88.

Gideon, L. (2012). Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. New York: Springer

Gill, J. D., Grossbart, S., & Laczniak, R. N. (1988). Influence of involvement, commitment and familiarity on brand beliefs

and attitudes of viewers exposed to alternative ad claim strategies. Journal of Advertising. 17(1), p33-43.

Gill, J. Johnson, P (2010). Research Methods for Managers. 4th ed. London: Sage

Gilly, M. C., & Gelb, B. D. (1986). Post -Purchase Consumer Processes and the Complaining Consumer. The Journal of

Consumer Research. 9(3), p323-328.

Germano, S. (2015). Sneaker Makers Train Their Eyes on Fashion. Available at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/sneaker-

makers-train-their-eyes-on-fashion-1429228188. (Accessed: 10th February 2016).

Goodman. (2013). UK Footwear & Shoe Market UK – November 2013. Available at:

http://www.goodmanassociates.co.uk/images/resources/UK%20Footwear%20and%20Shoe%20Market%20%20-

%20Nov%202013.pdf. (Accessed: 9th February 2016).

Gorn, G.J. (1985). The effect of music in advertising on choice behaviour: A classical conditioning approach. Journal of

Marketing. 6(1), p94-101.

Graham, B. & Thomas, K. (2008). Building Knowledge – Developing a Grounded Theory of Knowledge Management for

Construction. Available at: http://academic-conferences.org/pdfs/ECRM-booklet.pdf (Accessed: 8th February 2016).

Grewal, D., & Sharma, A. (1991). The effect of salesforce behaviour on customer satisfaction: An interactive

Framework. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. 11(2), p13-19.

Gupta, S. L. (2004). Marketing Research. Delhi: Excel Books

Hawkins, D. I., Best, R. J., & Coney, K. A (1998). Consumer Behaviour: Building Marketing Strategy. 7th ed. Boston:

McGraw Hill

Hewson, C., Yule, P., Laurent, D. & Vogel, C (2005). Internet Research Methods: A Practical Guide for the Social and

Behavioural Sciences. London: Sage

HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency). (2015). General Student Numbers. Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/stats.

(Accessed: 8th February 2016).

Hite, C. F., & Hite, R. E. (1995). Reliance on brand by young adults. Journal of the Market Research Society. 37(2), p185-

194.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and

Fun. Journal of Consumer Research. 9(9), p132-140.

Holden, M. (2004). Choosing the Appropriate Methodology: Understanding Research Philosophy. Available at:

http://repository.wit.ie/1466/1/Choosing_the_Appropriate_Methodology_Understanding_Research_Philosophy_%28

RI KON_Group%29.pdf (Accessed: 13th February 2016).

Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behaviour. New York: John Wiley & Sons

Hsu, J. L., & Chang, K. (2008). Purchase of clothing and its linkage to family communication and lifestyles among young

adults. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 12(2), p147-163.

Hussey, J. & Hussey, R. (1997). Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Jana, R. (2007). Nike's New Public Design Studio - Where Consumers Become Designers. Available at:

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2007-10-03/nikes-new-public-design-studio-where-consumers-become-

designers. (Accessed: 16th February 2016).

Jenkings, R. (2014). How much are students worth to local economies? Available at:

http://www.experian.co.uk/blogs/latest-thinking/students-local-economies/. (Accessed: 9th February 2016).

23

Keller, K. L (2008). Best practice cases in branding: Lessons from the world's strongest brands. New Jersey: Pearson

Education

Keillor, R. D., Parker, R. S., & Schaefer, A. (1996). Influences on adolescent brand preferences in the United States and

Mexico. Journal of Advertising Research. 36(3), p47-56.

Kotler, P (1994). Marketing Management Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control. 8th ed. New Jersey: Prentice

Hall

Kotler, P (2004). Principles of Marketing. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Krugman, E. P (2007). Consumer Behaviour and Advertising Involvement: Selected Works of Herbert E. Krugman.

London: Routledge

Lachance, M. J., Beaudoin, P., & Robitaille, J. (2003). Adolescents’ brand sensitivity in apparel: influence of three

socialization agents. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 27(1), p47.

Lee, R (1993). Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. London: Sage

Mangleburg, T. F., Grewal, D., & Bristol, T. (1997). Socialization, gender, and adolescent’s self-reports of the generalized

use of products labels. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 31(2), p255-278.

Mascarenhas, O. J., & Higby, M. A. (1993). Peer, parent, and media influences in teen apparel shopping. Journal of

Academy of Marketing Science. 21(1), p53-58.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review. 50(1), p370-396.

Miller, K. (1998). Direct response goes to college. Target Marketing. 21(9), p68-71.

Mintel. (2008). Athletic Shoes - US - June 2008. Available at: http://reports.mintel.com/display/295922/. (Accessed: 17th

February 2016).

Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review.

7(1), p80-88.

Moschis, G.P (1987). Consumer Socialization. New York: Lexington Books

Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1987). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of

Marketing Research. 15(1), p599-609.

National Sporting Goods Association. (2014). A statistical study of retail purchases in 2013 for representative categories

of sporting goods. Available at: https://www.nsga.org/globalassets/products/product-images/sporting-goods-market-

2014-edition---example.pdf. (Accessed: 12th February 2016).

Neelankavil, J. (2008). International Business Research. New York: M.E. Sharpe Incorporated

Newman, E. (2009). Meet the Millennials. Available at: http://footwearnews.com/2009/business/news/meet-the-

millennials-88157/. (Accessed: 11th February 2016).

Noble, S. M., Haytko, D. L., & Phillips, J. (2009). What drives college-age generation Y consumers?. Journal of Business

Research. 62(6), p617-628.

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?. Assessment &

Evaluation in Higher Education. 33(3), p301-314.

Office for National Statistics. (2013). Full Report - Graduates in the UK Labour Market 2013. Available at:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_337841.pdf. (Accessed: 9th February 2016).

Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchant and product

satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research. 16(1), p372-383.

Pellissier, R. (2008). Business Research Made Easy. Cape Town: Juta & Co.

Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C (2010). Consumer behaviour & marketing strategy. 9th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill

Plymouth University. (2016). Student enrolments 2009/10 to 2013/14 inclusive. Available:

https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/2/2118/1__Students_enrolments.pdf. Last accessed

15th February 2016.

Ray, M (1973). Marketing Communication and the Hierarchy of Effects. Los Angeles: Sage

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, P (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. 5th ed. London: Pearson

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students. Harlow, England: Financial

Times Prentice Hall

Shim, S.Y. (1996). Adolescent consumer decision-making styles: the socialization perspective. Psychology and Marketing.

13(6), p547-569.

Shim, S. Y., & Koh, A. (1996). Profiling adolescent consumer decision-making styles: effects of socialization agents and

social-structural variables. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 15(1), p50-59.

Simons, J. A., Irwin, D. B., & Drinnien, B. A (1987). Psychology: The Search for Understanding. Minnesota: West

Publishing Company

Solomon, M.R (2007). Consumer behaviour : a European perspective. 3rd ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall

Staats, A. W (2003). A Psychological Behaviourism Theory of Personality. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons

Statista. (2011). Athletic footwear vendors by global market share of athletic footwear revenue in 2011. Available at:

24

http://www.statista.com/statistics/246501/athletic-apparel-companies-ranked-by-global-market-share-in-footwear-

sales/. (Accessed: 11th February 2016).

Statista. (2016). Average retail price of jogging/running shoes in the U.S. from 2007 to 2014. Available at:

http://www.statista.com/statistics/244506/average-retail-price-of-jogging-running-shoes-in-the-us/. (Accessed: 11th

February 2016).

Stern, P. C. (2000). Psychology, Sustainability and the science of human-environment interactions. American

Psychologist . 55(1), p523-530.

Taipei, W. & Liou, Y. (2004). The study on the relationship among brand associations, brand loyalty and consumer

response: With sports shoes as an example. (Master Thesis). Retrieved from http://ethesys.library.ttu.edu.tw/ETD-

db/ETD-search/view_etd?URN=etd-08111 04-115426.

Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology. 101(2), p354.

Transparency Market Research. (2012). Athletic Footwear Market - Global Industry Size, Market Share, Trends, Analysis

And Forecast 2012 - 2018. Available at: http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/athletic-footwear-market.html.

(Accessed: 8th February 2016).

Tsiotsou, R. (2006). The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on purchase intentions. International

Journal of Consumer Studies. 30(2), p207-217.

UOP (University of Plymouth) (1995). The Research Process: Ethics, University of Plymouth. Available at:

http://www.pbs.plymouth.ac.uk/buseres/RPEintro.html (Accessed: 20th February 2016).

Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R (1993). Design and Marketing of New Products. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand Equity, brand preference, and purchase intent. Journal of

Advertising. 14(3), p25-40.

Ward, S. (1974). Consumer Socialization. Journal of Consumer Research . 1(2), p1-14.

White, D. (2001). US College Students Spend $50 Billion Annually .Available at: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-

releases/us-college-students-spend-50-billion-annually-according-to-latest-nationwide-online-study-72127042.html.

(Accessed: 10th February 2016).

Wong, N. & Smith, J. (2002). College students spend $200 billion per year. Available at:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/ allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=480. (Accessed: 8th February 2016).

Yoh, T. (2001). Influences on college students' brand preferences for athletic shoes: A consumer socialization perspective

(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

Yoo, W., Donthu, L., & Lee. Y. (2000). Consumer perceptions about price, quality and value: A means-end model and

synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing. 52(6), p2-22.

Appendix A: Questions used in online questionnaire

Thank you for choosing to participate in this survey, it should take approximately 5 minutes to complete.

The purpose of this survey is to investigate University students brand preference towards athletic

footwear and to find out what factors influence their purchasing decision behaviour.

Survey results will be used to support my final year project with Plymouth University.

Please note, all responses will be recorded anonymously and you have the right to withdraw from the

survey at any stage by closing the browser window.

If you have any queries, please email me at: matthew.aylott@students.plymouth.ac.uk

25

Part 1 – Demographics

26

27

Part 2 – Brand Preference

28

Adidas

ASICS

Dunlop

Jordan

K-Swiss

New Balance

Nike

Puma

Reebok

Skechers

Umbro

Under Armour

Other

29

Part 3 – Factors that influence the buying decision process

Celebrity Endorsement

Family

Friends

In Store Salesperson

Mass Media Advertisement

Other (Please Specify)

30