Full Text 01

GENERATION Z’S
PERCEIVED VALUE OF
CUSTOMISED FASHION
- A Mixed Method Approach
2021.18.08
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to the participants for sharing your time and knowledge
with us. You have contributed valuable and insightful information for our Master’s thesis, and
without your cooperation the study would not have been feasible to perform.
We would also like to extend our appreciation to our supervisor Sandhiya Goolaup for her
guidance and support throughout the writing process. Finally, we would like to thank our peers
for providing constructive feedback.
Cornelia Flodemark & Rahel Zumbuehl

Borås, May 2021
Title: Generation Z’s Perceived Value of Customised Fashion – A Mixed Method Approach
Publication year: 2021
Author: Cornelia Flodemark & Rahel Zumbuehl
Supervisor: Sandhiya Goolaup
Abstract
Background: The standardised approach of producing fashion products in conjunction with
the fast fashion trend has triggered a throwaway culture where premature disposal of well-
functioning fashion products is a major problem. However, a shift has been revealed with the
emerging demand for personalised fashion, as opposed to standardised garments. Generation
Z is known for its urge to showcase personal identity, which makes this consumer group a
driver in the growing trend of customisation. The relevance of customisation in fashion is
further fuelled by its capability to enhance consumers’ emotional attachment towards the
customised product, which often results in the product being kept longer. The perceived
consumer value of customisation is acquired from the final product as well as the co-design
process.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate Generation Z’s perceived value of
customised fashion products and the co-design process. The underlying objective is to explore
if the concept of customisation has the potential of becoming more established in the future
fashion industry.
Method: The study follows an abductive reasoning and adopts a mixed method research with
the explanatory sequential design. This mixed method design is a two-phase approach starting
with the collection and analysis of quantitative data, followed by the compiling and analysis of
qualitative data. For the first phase, a self-administered online questionnaire was conducted.
The second phase entailed semi-structured interviews, which were designed to make up for
obscure results in the survey. The Consumer Perceived Value Tool (CPVT) served as a
theoretical lens for analysis and guided the construction of the data collection tools.
Findings: By means of the CPVT the study found that Generation Z particularly perceive value
in the utilitarian and creative-achievement benefits of customised fashion. Moreover, the
perceived self-expressiveness and hedonic value were deemed significant to the generation.
Generation Z showed little evidence of perceiving value in the uniqueness benefit of
customised fashion. Lastly, an additional perceived value of customisation was proposed and
is related to environmental sustainability, which is acquired from the benefit of acting more
responsibly.
Keywords: Perceived Consumer Value, Customisation, Customised Fashion, Generation Z
II
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Problem Discussion & Research Gap .............................................................. 3
1.3. Purpose & Research Question ......................................................................... 5
1.4. Implications of Research .................................................................................. 5
1.5. Delimitations ..................................................................................................... 5
1.6. Disposition ........................................................................................................ 6
2. Literature Review ............................................................................................... 7
2.1. The Concept of Customisation ......................................................................... 7

2.1.1. Mass Customisation .................................................................................. 8
2.1.2. Customisation in the Fashion Industry ...................................................... 9
2.1.3. Benefits & Risks of Customised Fashion ................................................ 10
2.2. Consumer Value Theory ................................................................................. 11
2.2.1. Perceived Consumer Value .................................................................... 12
2.2.2. The Nature of Consumer Value .............................................................. 13
2.2.3. Consumer Value & Customised Fashion ................................................ 14
2.3. Who is Generation Z? ..................................................................................... 15
2.3.1. Generation Z’s Consumption Patterns .................................................... 16
2.4. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................... 17
2.4.1. The Consumer Perceived Value Tool ..................................................... 17
3. Methodology ..................................................................................................... 21
3.1. Research Approach & Design ........................................................................ 21

3.2. Research Method ........................................................................................... 22
3.3. Self-administered Online Questionnaire ......................................................... 23
3.3.1. Data Collection ........................................................................................ 24
3.3.2. Questionnaire Design .............................................................................. 25
3.3.3. Measurement Issues and Scale .............................................................. 25
3.3.4. Sampling ................................................................................................. 27
3.3.5. Pre-testing ............................................................................................... 28
3.4. Interviews ....................................................................................................... 28
III
3.4.1. Data Collection ........................................................................................ 29
3.4.2. Interview Guide ....................................................................................... 30
3.4.3. Sampling ................................................................................................. 30
3.4.4. Pilot Testing ............................................................................................ 31
3.5. Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 31
3.5.1. Analysis of Survey Data .......................................................................... 32
3.5.2. Analysis of Interviews Data ..................................................................... 32
3.6. Trustworthiness of the Study .......................................................................... 34
3.6.1. Quality of Quantitative Data .................................................................... 34
3.6.2. Quality of Qualitative Data ...................................................................... 35
3.6.3. Source Criticism ...................................................................................... 35
3.7. Ethical Considerations .................................................................................... 36
4. Empirical Findings ........................................................................................... 37
4.1. Findings from Survey ...................................................................................... 37

4.2. Findings from Interviews ................................................................................. 47
5. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 53
5.1. General Perception of Customised Fashion ................................................... 53

5.2. Utilitarian Value .............................................................................................. 54
5.3. Uniqueness Value .......................................................................................... 54
5.4. Self-Expressiveness Value ............................................................................. 56
5.5. Hedonic Value ................................................................................................ 57
5.6. Creative-Achievement Value .......................................................................... 58
5.7. Other Value .................................................................................................... 59
6. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 61
6.1. Recommendations .......................................................................................... 63

6.2. Limitations & Future Research ....................................................................... 64
References ............................................................................................................... 66
Appendices .............................................................................................................. 74
IV
Tables
Table 1: The Consumer Perceived Value Tool (based on Merle et al., 2010) .......... 18
Table 2: 5-point Likert Scale ..................................................................................... 26
Table 3: Operationalisation of Questionnaire ............................................................ 26
Table 4: Characteristics of the Sample ..................................................................... 28
Table 5: Demographic Information Interviewees ....................................................... 31
Table 6: Section of Coding Guide (based on Mayring, 2015) ................................... 33
Table 7: Section of Data per Category (based on Mayring, 2015) ............................ 33
Table 8: Factors Utilitarian Value .............................................................................. 38
Table 9: Factors Uniqueness Value .......................................................................... 39
Table 10: Factors Self-Expressiveness Value .......................................................... 40
Table 11: Factors Hedonic Value .............................................................................. 41
Table 12: Factors Creative-Achievement Value ........................................................ 41
Table 13: Factors General Perception & Other Possible Value ................................ 43
Figures
Figure 1: Countries of origin of Participants .............................................................. 37
Figure 2: Results Survey Item 10 .............................................................................. 39
V
1. Introduction
This study will first introduce the background to customisation in the fashion context.
Subsequently, a problem discussion will briefly present what has previously been investigated
regarding customised fashion and a research gap will be highlighted. The purpose and the
research question will then clarify the objective of this research based on the identified research
gap. This is followed by a brief discussion of the implications of the research, then some
delimitations are addressed. Lastly, a disposition is provided to give an overview of the
remaining chapters and structure of this study.
1.1. Background
The Great Depression had a revolutionary impact on the fashion industry and brought about an
emergence of standardised fashion products, which ultimately caused a shift in the prevailing
nature of the industry from made to measure to ready to wear (Yukhnevich, 2020). This
standardised approach has had a detrimental environmental impact caused by increased
production of garments, widened product ranges, excess supply, overconsumption, and a large
number of fashion players competing for the scarce resources (Niinimäki & Hassi, 2011;
McFall-Johnsen, 2020; Brewer, 2019; Kant Hvass & Pedersen, 2019). However, another shift
is starting to reveal itself once more as the desire for personalised fashion, as opposed to
standardised ready to wear, has risen again with technological development and enhanced
common welfare (Yukhnevich, 2020). In line with this, customisation is a hot topic of
conversation within the fashion and apparel industry as personalisation has become an in-
demand fashion retail trend (Fiore & Lee, 2004).
What is more, the relevance of customisation is supported by the fashion industry’s ongoing
discourse of the severe environmental impact caused by the standardised approach and the need
of prolonging the life-time of garments to combat the standardised take-make-dispose model
(Niinimäki & Hassi, 2011). The standardised approach is central to the prevailing fast fashion
trend which has promoted an overconsumption and wasteful nature (Yunjeong & Kyung, 2020;
Kant Hvass & Pedersen, 2019). The fast fashion brand category revolves around speedy
standardised mass production, quick merchandise turnover, low prices, often poor quality and
intended obsolescence (Accenture & Fashion for Good, 2019; Birtwistle & Moore, 2007;
Niinimäki & Hassi, 2011). As a result, life cycles are reduced and the time spent wearing
1
garments has decreased with 40 percent between 2002 and 2017, and more than half of the
products are being disposed of within a year (Yunjeong & Kyung, 2020). In essence, the
throwaway culture of the fast fashion trend has deprived fashion products of their intrinsic
value and has led to highly wasteful consumption patterns as well as premature disposal of
garments (McFall-Johnsen, 2020; Accenture & Fashion for Good, 2019; Gwozdz, Nielsen &
Mueller, 2017; Kant Hvass & Pedersen, 2019; Kozlowski, Bardecki & Searcy, 2012; Birtwistle
& Moore, 2007). Indeed, customisable fashion is recognised as one possible solution which
can avoid the undesired outcome of large amounts of leftover stock, often existing from pre-
made collections (Global Fashion Agenda, 2021). That is, through customisable touches
fashion products can be made to order and thus decrease the risk of leftovers (ibid). Moreover,
it can enhance consumers’ emotional attachment to the co-created product and consequently
reduce the risk of premature disposal (Hirscher, Niinimäki & Armstrong, 2017; Franke,
Schreier & Kaiser, 2010).
Aside from the environmental concerns, and its support of customisation, another shift related
to the upcoming consumer segment of Generation Z’s behaviour and way of thinking has been
observed (Gomez, Mawhinney & Betts, 2020; Black, Asadorian & Dunnett, 2017). Priorities
of this cohort include authenticity, experience, values, social conscience, and individuality
(ibid). Therefore, Generation Z and its associated consumption preferences are big drivers for
the growing trend of customisation, particularly since they desire personalised offerings
(Chatikavanji, 2019; Trendhunter, 2021). This significant urge for showcasing personal
identity is fueled by Generation Z’s omnipresence of social media where they express their
personal brands (Trendhunter, 2021).
Luxury brands, such as Gucci, Burberry, and Louis Vuitton have integrated the concept of
customised fashion pieces by letting customers add their initials or other personal attributes on
designer bags (Chatikavanji, 2019). Furthermore, brands have started to expand on the concept
of customisation and turn to technology and artistry as means of offering truly unique apparel
(ibid). For instance, Gucci DIY allows customers to play around with their personal
interpretation of the brand’s aesthetic by adding various appliqués of Gucci symbols to jackets
or sneakers. Similarly, Nike by You lets consumers customise sneakers, bags, and accessories
to create an individual look (ibid), whilst Adidas turned to personalisation as a way to tackle
fast fashion (Business of Fashion, 2017). Meanwhile, fast fashion giant ZARA introduced pop-
up stores for customised denim with embroidery (Business of Fashion, 2019).
2
Research has shown that companies who include their customers in these processes, can
differentiate themselves and are able to respond faster to changing consumer demands, which
generates competitive advantage (Senanayake & Little, 2009; Yeung, Choi & Chiu, 2010). By
letting customers co-create products, brands deliver a unique value, get insight to customer
preferences, and are able to revise their traditional business models (Yeung et al., 2010).
Nonetheless, despite the recognised value of customisable fashion many brands and retailers
are yet to implement customisation to their offerings (Yukhnevich, 2020; Global Fashion
Agenda, 2021). For this personalised fashion approach, previously made to measure, to make
a comeback in the fashion sector further understanding of the prevailing Generation Z’s
perceived value associated with customisation is seemingly imperative. That is, this generation
constitutes a significant consumer segment for the fashion brands in the foreseeable future and
they have been noted to possess unique demands which align with customised fashion.
1.2. Problem Discussion & Research Gap
One approach which can facilitate the ambition of restoring the lost intrinsic value of garments
is to increase consumers’ emotional attachment towards products (Niinimäki & Hassi, 2011).
Research has shown that if customers co-create products using their skills, time, and effort, and
it turns out to be a success, deep emotional satisfaction arises (Hirscher et al., 2017; Frank et
al., 2010). This greater emotional attachment increases the likelihood of consumers keeping
the product for a longer time period (Niinimäki & Hassi, 2011; Franke et al., 2010). Through
customisation a co-design process between brands and customers occurs, which allows the
brands to meet individual needs of their customers (Piller, 2004; Tseng, Wang & Jiao, 2017).
Customisation can vary depending on the level of involvement by the customer, which
ultimately influences the perceived value of the final product (Yeung et al., 2010).
Value is at the core of all human interaction and the search for valuable objects underpins
consumers’ engagement in different kinds of consumption behaviour (Mittal & Sheth, 2001).
According to Niinimäki and Hassi (2011), material items are used by individuals due to deep
emotional, psychological, and socio-cultural reasons. Consumer value has been described as
interactive and relative in nature, as it is influenced by personal preferences and contextual
components (Holbrook, 1999; Yoo & Park, 2016). The concept of consumer perceived value
is vital for understanding consumer behaviour since it dictates whether consumers believe that
3
a product can satisfy their wants and needs (Yoo & Park, 2016). Therefore, it has been argued
that consumer value is one of the most important factors determining whether an organisation
is successful or not (Sánchez-Fernádez & Ángeles Iniesta-Bonillo, 2006).
Brands can detect unique perceived consumer value within a specific segment by categorising
it according to a particular generation, since they tend to share similar attitudes, behaviours,
values, preferences, and perceptions due to a common background (Johnson & Johnson, 2010;
Kupperschmidt, 2000). Generation Z is the latest investigated generation, born between 1995
and 2010, and counts for more than one-third of the world’s population (Gomez et al., 2020;
Francis & Hoefel, 2018). This generation has no boundary between on- and offline (Francis &
Hoefel, 2018), and social activism, diversity, and sustainability are generally important topics
to them (Gomez et al., 2020). Purchasing new goods should, according to Generation Z, be an
experience that is connected to memories and growth (Black et al., 2017). Moreover, accessing
instead of possessing, taking responsibility, and expressing one’s own individual identity is
important to this generation (ibid), which further advocates for the relevance of customised
fashion as a means for personalisation and promotion of longevity.
Although there are many benefits supporting the current relevance of customised fashion and
its seemingly natural agreement with Generation Z’s characteristics, there is a lack of research
examining this generation’s perceived value towards customisation. According to Gallarza, Gil
Saura, and Holbrook (2011), the majority of general consumer value research has focused on
the relationship between quality and price. Moreover, Ritch (2019) argues that there is much
to learn about how consumers perceive and experience value in a fashion context. Previous
research scrutinising customisation in the fashion sphere has focused on mass customisation
through different lenses (Peterson & Mattila, 2010; Choi & Guo, 2018; Ross, 2010), consumer
attitudes towards the concept (Matthews, Rothenberg & Gopalakrishnan., 2019; Fiore & Lee,
2004; Wang & Cho, 2012; Lee & Chang, 2011), and lately addressing technology by
scrutinising customisation in a digital context (Liang & Luo, 2019). Although, Yoo and Park
(2016) examined customisable fashion through the lens of perceived consumer value in an e-
commerce setting, there is seemingly a lack of research scrutinising this through Generation
Z’s perspective. Considering the addressed alignment between Generation Z’s inherent
characteristics and customised fashion, this calls for further investigation regarding Generation
Z’s perceived value associated with customisation.
4
1.3. Purpose & Research Question
The purpose of this research is to investigate Generation Z’s perceived value of customised
fashion products and the co-design process. The underlying objective is to explore if the
concept of customisation has the potential of becoming more established in the future fashion
industry, and if the personalised as opposed to the standardised offering can make a comeback.
Therefore, the following question and sub-question will guide the research:
» What perceived value does Generation Z associate with customised fashion products and the
co-design process of developing these goods?
» Does Generation Z have any perceived value of customised fashion products that
is specific to this generations’ characteristics, if so what kind of value(s)?
1.4. Implications of Research
The ambition is to gain insight to Generation Z’s unique stance and provide possible indications
of how this consumer segment would respond to a customisation service within the fashion
context. The investigation of Generation Z’s perceived value of customisation and the nature
of the value is beneficial, since it could provide insights to the fashion industry’s future
development of customised offerings. More specifically, these insights will be useful for both
researchers and practitioners as they aim to construct offerings that align with the preferences
and unique behaviours of Generation Z. Hence, the research could facilitate an understanding
of what this generation generally perceive as valuable in a customised fashion product and
consequently what they expect from the brands offering this. With such information at hand,
practitioners can anticipate likely consumer responses to the offering and strive to align
marketing activities with the predominant values. Lastly, this could have societal implications
since customisation can combat wasteful consumption behaviour due to its ability to enhance
the emotional attachment towards the product.
1.5. Delimitations
The study will focus specifically on mass customisation and the concept called customised
standardisation which encompasses the finalisation of an apparel product through a customer
(see chapter 2.1.), thus other forms and levels of customisation are excluded from this research.
5
To explore this phenomenon, the scope of this research will be limited to Generation Z which
means that other consumer segments will not be represented in the findings. Generation Z is
characterised by individuals born between 1995-2010, and thus represented by people between
the ages of 11-26 at the time of conducting this thesis. However, the youngest individuals of
this age-spam can not be considered independent consumers. Hence, for the purpose of this
study the group was narrowed down to individuals with the age between 16-26. Lastly, in the
scope of this study customisation will be scrutinised with no limitation to a particular brand
category, such as fast fashion or luxury fashion, since the main focus is to highlight a specific
generation’s take on the concept as a whole regardless of the product category.
1.6. Disposition
The research will first introduce a literature review that provides the reader with a theoretical
background highlighting the phenomenon of customisation and its relevance in the fashion
industry, consumer value theory, and an illustration of Generation Z and its unique
characteristics. The chapter will then present the study’s chosen theoretical framework of
perceived consumer value which will serve as the theoretical lens for analysis. The following
chapter describes the mixed method approach conducted to perform the research.
Subsequently, the empirical findings will be presented and these findings are then analysed and
discussed in the following chapter. Afterwards a conclusion is provided, and finally
recommendations for future research as well as limitations are highlighted.
6
2. Literature Review
The literature review will first provide a theoretical background on the three primary areas
underlying this study. This first section of the chapter will provide an overview of the concept
of customisation as well as its existence in the fashion industry, this is followed by a
presentation of consumer value theory, and lastly Generation Z and its characteristics will be
addressed. Subsequently, the theoretical framework which will be utilised as a lens for the
studied phenomenon of customisation will be presented. This framework will form the basis of
the chosen method as well as the analysis of the empirical findings.
2.1. The Concept of Customisation
Mass customisation emerged in the late 1980s in the context of computer integrated
manufacturing, namely robots, and is a well-known concept in many different industries such
as the automotive, computer, electronics, and fashion industry (Yeung et al., 2010). According
to Niinimäki and Hassi (2011), customisation occurs as soon as the customer takes an active
role in the design process of a product. Therefore, mass customisation is a popular marketing
tool to build long-lasting relationships with customers (Park & Yoo, 2018). Nevertheless,
according to Piller (2004) mass customisation remained a buzzword and the unclear definition
is problematic. That is, the term is often confused with co-creation, which Collins Dictionary
(2021) defines as: “When a company makes a product but you design or even finish the work;
you are participating in an act of co-creation”. However, co-creation can be part of different
levels of customisation and it is also termed co-design in customisation literature (Piller, 2004;
Fiore & Lee, 2004; Park & Yoo, 2018).
Customisation can be classified in different terms, as suggested by Lampel and Mintzberg

(1996) who divided customisation into five different categories namely pure standardisation,
segmented standardisation, customised standardisation, tailored customisation, and pure
customisation. The type of customisation is determined by the level of involvement from the
customer, and therefore also the degree of uniqueness in the product (Yeung et al., 2010). At
one extreme end, pure standardisation, or mass production, offers no customisation and
customers must either adapt their needs or switch to another product. Thus, the customers do
not influence the design and there is no distinction between different consumers (Lampel &
Mintzberg, 1996). At the other end of the spectrum, pure customisation involves the customer
7
in the entire design process and the relationship between buyers and sellers transforms into a
partnership (ibid). For the categories in between, the customer’s level of involvement varies
from taking part in fabrication, to assembly, to distribution (ibid). At the mid-level is
customised standardisation, involving the idea of modularisation, where a company offers
standardised components that customers can compose regarding their needs or desires.
Important to note is that buyers can not influence the components, and a typical example of
this strategy is Subway (Lampel & Mintzberg, 1996). This concept is similar to mass
customisation, and will be the focus of this study.
2.1.1. Mass Customisation
Mass customisation can be defined as a flexible process that uses information technology and
organisational structures that are able to offer a wide range of products that satisfies both the
manufacturers’ and individual customers’ needs (Senanayake & Little, 2009; Niinimäki &
Hassi, 2011). The ambition is to maintain the costs as close as possible to the ones associated
with mass production. Tseng et al. (2017) perceive mass customisation as a shift from “made
to stock” to “made to order”, and as a concept that provides customers with products and
services that meet their individual needs. Piller (2004) extends this and argues that mass
customisation has four basic elements namely; customer co-design, meeting the needs of each
individual customer, stable solution space, and adequate price and cost levels.
Firstly, the basic concept of mass customisation is to integrate the customers into the value
creation process through co-design (Piller, 2004). The customer takes an active role by means
of systems such as configurators, toolkits, co-design-platforms, or choice boards (Hirscher et
al., 2018; Piller, 2004). Customers are part of the design process by a list of predefined
components from which they can choose (Piller, 2004). Secondly, mass customisation strives
to meet the needs of each individual customer and can be deemed as a differentiation strategy
in terms of adjusting fit, style, and functionality (ibid). The fit refers to the adjustment of
individual measurements, such as body measure (Yeung et al., 2010). Style refers to the outer
appearance of a product and includes for instance colour, cuts, or applications (Niinimäki &
Hassi, 2011). Functionality refers to the attributes of an offering which are mostly technical
ones, such as speed, connectivity, or upgradeability (Piller, 2004). Thirdly, solution space can
be understood as “the pre-existing capability and degrees of freedom built into a given
8
manufacturer’s production system” (Goonetilleke, 2013:667). While digital goods can be
customised almost unlimitedly, physical goods are more limited (Tseng et al., 2017).
Furthermore, a mass customisation concept can only be successful, if it is stable and flexible
at the same time to ensure a responsive process with a dynamic product flow (Piller, 2004).
Lastly, pure customisation can be considered as premium goods, whereas mass customisation
should be affordable to the masses (ibid). In contrast to the assumption that customised
production increases the costs, it actually has the potential to decrease them. For instance,
through more specific customer demand planning, the inventory and waste can be kept at a
lower level (ibid). Additionally, customer loyalty and the knowledge about customers’ needs
can be improved (Yeung et al., 2010).
2.1.2. Customisation in the Fashion Industry
According to Fiore and Lee (2004) the economy has shifted from agrarian, to industrial, to
service, to an experience economy. Just before the turn of the millennium, the apparel
industry’s production stagnated in the Western world due to the lack of unique products,
novelty, and differentiation (Fiore & Lee, 2004). Consumers have become more demanding
beyond wanting low prices, resulting in mass customisation becoming a growing trend in the
fashion industry (ibid). That is, it provides an opportunity of offering memorable experiences
to the customers, causing more companies to pursue the integration of the co-design concept
(Fiore & Lee, 2004; Park & Yoo, 2018). Moreover, through mass customisation, companies
offer individual design solutions that meet customers’ needs and desires (Kent, 2017).
The apparel industry has mainly focused on fit and style/design as means for mass
customisation (Yeung et al., 2010). As stated earlier, the fit refers to body measurements which
can be individualised using body scanning machines or entering measurement data into a
company’s website (Fiore & Lee, 2004; Yeung et al., 2010). Even though research agrees that
this is one of the strongest arguments for mass customisation, it is the most difficult one to
implement as the 3D scanners are very expensive (Piller, 2004; Fiore & Lee, 2004; Yeung et
al., 2010). The style/design relates to different components influencing the outer appearance of
a product, and encompasses for instance changes in colours, trims, fabrics, or adding
embroideries and prints (Fiore & Lee, 2004; Kent, 2017). The Nike By You project offers such
9
style/design changes through standardised components where customers can adjust colours and
materials to individualise the given model of a shoe (Yeung et al., 2010). The customer turns
to the designer and the resulting shoe reflects the customer’s identity (Kent, 2017). Similarly,
some luxury fashion brands offer customers the ability to personalise their product by applying
initials and/or motifs on bags or accessories. Customers opting for customisation to personalise
their product have the ambition to differentiate themselves from the crowd (ibid).
For the purpose of this study “customised fashion products” are referring to the service offered
by fashion brands which allows consumers to take part in the design process and personalise
the product. Prior to purchasing the product, the consumer can thus adjust certain design
elements in the product. Customisable design elements are here including: adding embroidery,
prints, text or initials, adjusting the colour/style and/or the measurements/fit of the garment.
With fashion products, the study is referring to: garments, shoes, and bags. This aligns with the
concept of mass customisation.
2.1.3. Benefits & Risks of Customised Fashion
Through customisation of fashion products consumers are able to co-create value using their
own skills, time, and effort which has been recognised to enhance emotional satisfaction
(Niinimäki & Hassi, 2011; Hirscher et al., 2017). Moreover, through the user-involvement in
the design process an increased emotional attachment to the product occurs (Niinimäki &
Hassi, 2011). Consequently, this allows for facilitation of more responsible consumption
behaviour as the consumer tends to keep and value the product for longer due to heightened
personal value (Hirscher et al., 2017; Park & Yoo, 2018). Thus, customisation can contribute
to slowing down the consumption cycle of fashion and challenges consumers’ habits of low-
quality purchases and impulse buying (Hirscher et al., 2017). Moreover, the DIY (do it
yourself) and DIT (do it together) experience enables consumers to develop their creative skills
whilst learning new ones. In line with this, the emotional experience is perceived as longer-
lasting and can result in fulfilment of product craftsmanship, empowerment, and meeting
consumers’ need for uniqueness (Hirscher et al., 2017).
From the brand perspective, customisation programmes provide benefits in terms of consumer
insights as they can transfer the information to explicit knowledge (Piller, 2004). Ultimately,
10
such knowledge allows fashion firms to conduct more accurate forecasting of consumer
demands (ibid). This in turn reduces inventory associated risk, since it can combat the issue of
large amounts of leftover stock that often exist from pre-made collections (Global Fashion
Agenda, 2021; Matthews et al., 2019). Furthermore, by including the consumers in the design
process firms are able to differentiate themselves which can result in competitive advantage
(Senanayake & Little, 2009; Yeung et al., 2010). Consumers are also willing to pay a premium
price for customised fashion which offers economic benefits for firms (Piller, 2004; Merle et
al., 2010). Fashion firms also have the potential of building consumer loyalty in conjunction
with the emotional and entertaining co-design experience (Piller, 2004).
Nonetheless, there are certain risks associated with customisation schemes that are worth
mentioning. For instance, although consumers have been recognised as willing to pay a
premium price for a customised product, compared to its standard alternative, the monetary
cost must still be feasible or consumers will not engage in customisation (Piller, 2004). What
is more, consumers may experience cognitive costs due to the perceived risk of being involved
in the co-design process (ibid). This stems from the uncertainty of whether the resulting co-
designed product will generate a positive net value or not and perform as anticipated (Piller,
2004; Matthews et al., 2019). This perceived risk entails financial, performance, and social
risks, which all tend to intensify in an online setting and influence consumer attitudes
negatively towards customisation (Matthews et al., 2019). Another risk dimension is the
perceived burden of too many options which can cause consumers to feel overwhelmed and
confused (Piller, 2004; Merle et al., 2010). Humans have a limited capacity to process
information and due to the burden of choice, consumers may opt for a standard alternative as
the customisation process is deemed too time-consuming (Piller, 2004).
2.2. Consumer Value Theory
Value is at the core of all human interaction and the search for valuable objects underpins
consumers’ engagement in different kinds of consumption behaviour (Mittal & Sheth, 2001).
In the light of marketing, value can be understood as a “cognitive expression of the most basic
and fundamental desires and goals that consumers want to obtain” (Kim, Jung & Lee,
2021:1212). The concept of consumer value emerged in the 1990s and is one of the most
important factors that determines the success of an organisation (Sánchez-Fernádez & Ángeles
Iniesta-Bonillo, 2006). In line with this, it was argued by Holbrook (1999) that consumer value
11
is central to all marketing activities since a product only has value if the consumer says it does.
Furthermore, there is a notable relationship between consumer value and consumer responses
such as loyalty and satisfaction (Gallarza et al., 2011). Consumer value can serve as an
important predictor of various consumer behaviour as it is present throughout consumer
processes such as information evaluation, the purchase phase, and consumer attitudes
formation (Kim et al., 2021). When consumers develop positive attitudes towards a brand their
behavioural intentions towards the brand also increases, which finally can result in the
conversion of these intentions to actual behaviours (Yoo & Park, 2016). Delivery of consumer
value can thereby facilitate product acquisition and customer retention, since there is a value-
attitude-behaviour relation (Kautish & Sharma, 2018).
Previous research has noted that the concept of consumer value is complex and polysemic, thus
resulting in various perspectives and definitions (Yoo & Park, 2016; Kautish & Sharma, 2018;
Kim et al., 2021). Scholars have commonly emphasised an important aspect of the concept as
being the trade-off between benefits and sacrifices in various ways, and as a function of a
product’s contribution towards the customer’s utility or pleasure (Yoo & Park, 2016). Holbrook
(1999) addresses this complexity of consumer value through a relativistic view by arguing that
it is comparative, personal, and situational. In other words, consumer value is comparative
since a consumer’s preference for a specific product could exceed that over another, and the
experience is both personal and dependent on the particular situation (Yoo & Park, 2016).
Consumer value is interactive due to the interaction between subjects (customers) and objects
(products). Although the value is reliant on the characteristics of the object, it can not exist
without the appreciation of the subject (Holbrook, 1999).
2.2.1. Perceived Consumer Value
The concept of consumer value ultimately captures the consequence of consumers’ perceived
benefits and it is thereby central to understanding consumer behaviour (Yoo & Park, 2016). In
other words, consumer perceived value is the notion that the success of a product or service is
largely based on whether consumers believe it can satisfy their wants and needs (ibid).
Moreover, this consumer value is a result from the trade-off between costs and the consumer’s
perceived benefits (Merle, Chandon, Roux & Alizon, 2010). Worth mentioning here is the
distinction between value and values, as the former (singular) is often used to address the
outcome of an evaluative judgment whereas the latter (plural) generally refers to the basis of
12
which the evaluative judgement is made including individual aspects such as norms, goals,
ideals, rules, standards and so on (Holbrook, 1999).
Nonetheless perceived value can be deemed as a result of consumers’ perceived benefits, thus
stemming from the benefit theory which suggests that products convey basic and additional
benefits to consumers (Yoo & Park, 2016). The basic benefits encompass functional or
utilitarian product benefits, whilst the additional benefits relate to other aspects such as social
and psychological benefits acquired after or when using a product (ibid). Similarly, it has been
recognised that consumers seek value in the consumption experience not merely based on
functional attributes of the product but also in the co-created social exchange (Gupta, Gwozda
& Gentry, 2019). Overall, consumers perceive value when a product’s basic and additional
benefits align with their personal perception and the way of using it (ibid).
2.2.2. The Nature of Consumer Value
It has long been argued that there are two distinct manners in which consumers relate to product
offerings, with the first one being based on product’s inherent features and qualities and the
second referring to non-functional attributes such as how products can serve as means for self-
expression (Kautish & Sharma, 2018). This is in line with the aforementioned notion that
consumers’ perceived benefits of a product, and thus its value, is either related to
functional/utilitarian aspects or social/psychological benefits (Yoo & Park, 2016). Along these
lines, some scholars have emphasised utilitarian and hedonistic values arising from the
consumption experience (Chaney, Lunardo & Mencarelli, 2018; Holbrook, 1999). In essence,
the utilitarian value can be seen as a means to an end as it encompasses consumption done to
generate a desired result, goal, or objective and emphasises the functionality in achieving this
(Holbrook, 1999). Conversely, hedonic value refers to the immediate gratification that comes
from the consumption experience which nurtures value in its own right, and the object serves
as the means of the experiential outcome (ibid).
Another dimension of consumer value which is worth mentioning is the distinction between
self-orientation and other-orientation. Holbrook (1999) argued that self-oriented value occurs
when a product contributes to the consumption experience on a personal level for the consumer,
and it is done selfishly with the motive of which effect it has on that person alone. To illustrate,
a sweater keeps the consumer warm and thus provides self-oriented value although it could
also serve other values simultaneously. In contrast, other-oriented value goes beyond this self-
13
level and pertains to a consumption experience where the product creates value for others, or
is motivated by others (Holbrook, 1999). Others can refer to family or friends, a community or
country, or even Mother Nature (ibid). For instance, the primary source of value could be other-
oriented when purchasing a nice car in order to impress the neighbours and family, or when
buying organic alternatives to save the planet.
2.2.3. Consumer Value & Customised Fashion
The theory of symbolic self-completion and symbolic interaction has been utilised to explore
fashion products attributed meaning (Kim & Hall, 2014), and it suggests that individuals use
material possessions as socially recognised symbols to communicate their identity (Kautish &
Sharma, 2018). In the fashion landscape consumers are exposed to ample symbols and their
attributed meaning through marketing and the social environment. When these symbolic
meanings resonate with consumers’ value, the likelihood of a consumer response such as
purchasing the fashion product increases (Kautish & Sharma, 2018). Due to the importance of
symbolism in fashion consumption the nature of its associated value has been deemed as
complex. For instance, the value of fashion products can be both self-oriented and other-
oriented simultaneously (Holbrook, 1999). Similarly, it has been noted that the shopping
experience of these products can result in both utilitarian value and hedonic value (Jones,
Reynolds, & Arnold, 2006; Kang & Park-Poaps, 2010).
The utilitarian value has been emphasised in previous research on mass customisation, and has
thus highlighted the fit between individual preferences and the mass customised product (Merle
et al., 2010). However, it has been noted that mass customisation entails two sources of value,
namely the mass customised product and the co-design experience (Franke & Piller, 2004;
Fiore & Lee, 2004). The co-design experience may have a positive impact on the entire mass
customisation, as consumers become value-creators as opposed to mere value-users (Hirscher
et al., 2017). Consumers anticipate the value that they will derive from the mass customised
product prior to and during the co-design process (Merle et al., 2010). Due to the co-design
process, Franke and Schreier (2008) found that consumers are willing to pay a premium for a
mass customised product, and this is hence a result of the hedonic value. According to Schreier
(2006), there are four benefits of mass customisation which consumers experience that are
related to either utilitarian value or hedonic value: functional benefit, perceived uniqueness,
the process benefit of self-design, and pride of authorship. In line with this, it has been noted
that a significant driver for consumers intent of engaging in mass customisation is the desire of
14
obtaining a unique product (Fiore & Lee, 2004). It further has the ability of providing the
consumer with a sense of self-expressive value, which has its origin in the self-concept theory
that captures the benefit of owning a product that reflects one’s own image. Similarly, Yoo and
Park (2016) proposed that consumers opt for customised luxury fashion in order to express
their extended-self, to be conspicuous and to impress others. By taking part in the co-design
process a creative achievement value may also rise when the consumer feels proud that they
created something themselves (Merle et al., 2010).
In addition, Kang and Park-Poaps (2010) explain that consumers’ inherent fashion
innovativeness is correlated with hedonic shopping values and that fashion opinion leadership
is linked with utilitarian motivations. Fashion innovative consumers are driven by their need
for uniqueness in their apparel choices, which should make them more likely to value
customised products (Matthews et al., 2019). However, it was recently found that consumers
with low need for uniqueness had more positive attitudes toward mass customisation due to the
lack of novelty and innovativeness in the mass customisation schemes (ibid). Providing
consumers with many detailed style options in mass customisation fashion programmes can
facilitate the formation of perceived hedonic, creative achievement, and utilitarian values by
allowing consumers to design the unique product they are after (Yoo & Park, 2016). Fiore and
Lee (2004) agree with this and further suggest that fashion firms offering mass customisation
should emphasise both the resulting unique product (utilitarian value) as well as the experience
of the co-design process (hedonic value) to achieve effective marketing.
2.3. Who is Generation Z?
According to Johnson and Johnson (2010) and Fancis and Hoefel (2018), Generation Z include
individuals born between 1995 and 2010. It has been noted that members of a generation due
to their common background, have similar personalities which is reflected in their values,
beliefs, attitudes, behaviours, expectations, preferences, and perceptions (Kupperschmidt,
2000; Johnson & Johnson, 2010). Generation Z is the upcoming consumer group on the market,
and the main characteristic of this generation is that it does not know a world without the
internet and social networks, which is part of its daily life (Csobanka, 2016). Thus, research
refers to this cohort as “Digital Natives”, “iGeneration”, “Post-millennials”, “Facebook
Generation”, “Switchers”, as well as “C Generation”, “D Generation”, and “R Generation”.
The “C” symbolises connected, computerised, communicating, changing, community-oriented,
15
and content-centric, and “D” represents the digitalisation, whilst “R” expresses responsibility
which this generation values (Csobanka, 2016; Dolot, 2018).
Various studies highlight that Generation Z was born and raised in times where profound
changes happened (Dolot, 2018; Black et al., 2017; Gomez et al., 2020). For instance, political
and social turbulences occurred, and poverty, terrorism (for example 9/11), as well as social
inequalities are, due to global connectivity, more present than ever (Black et al., 2017). Many
members of this generation saw their parents struggle due to lasting conditions from the global
recession in 2008 (Williams, Page, Petrosky & Hernandez, 2010). Another present factor for
Generation Z is the climate crisis, which encourages their responsibility since it affects their
future (Williams & Hodges, 2020). Talking about responsibilities, not only environmental
aspects are important to this generation, social ones such as racism, equality, gender issues, and
feminism also matter (Francis & Hoefel, 2018).
To distinguish between right and wrong has become more challenging since Generation Z has
grown up during moral meltdowns, causing members of this generation to seek core values like
honesty and obedience (Williams et al., 2010). Due to all the turmoil, Generation Z is also
known as “the new silent generation” with conservative values (Özkan & Solmaz, 2019;
Williams et al., 2010). In other words, Generation Z is characterised as returning to old-school
values, by being restrained, trustworthy, and respectful (Williams et al., 2010). Furthermore,
members of this generation can be described as being structured, self-controlled, more
conforming, risk averse and less violent, optimistic, confident, independent, and they believe
that they can impact and change the world (Williams et al., 2010; Saavedra & Bautista, 2020).
2.3.1. Generation Z’s Consumption Patterns
Generation Z perceives consumption as a source to demonstrate its personal identity, it should

rather be accessible than possessed, and consumption is an expression of ethical concerns
(Francis & Hoefel, 2018). The purpose of consumption, to this generation, is to seek truth
where authenticity plays a major role (Black et al., 2017). Gomez et al. (2020) found that the
attention span of Generation Z is eight seconds and the focus lies in the authenticity of a brand.
Authenticity is given if a brand demonstrates consistency and provides them with new activities
16
and experiences (Black et al., 2017). While Black et al. (2017) mention that Generation Z wants
to experiment and is therefore not very loyal, Saavedra and Bautista (2020) describe this cohort
as brand-aware and loyal as long as it considers the brand as “cool”. What determines if a brand
is “cool” or not is discussed within the members’ belonging social group (Saavedra & Bautista,
2020). To feel the connection and the sense of belonging to such a peer group, the individual
reads about video and online games, music, electronic gadgets, and fashion trends (ibid).
Although Generation Z sees consumption as a means for self-expression and individual identity
is a core value, the members want to fit into the norm of a specific group, pointing out the
strong mutual influence of friends (Williams et al., 2010). Along these lines, consumers of this
cohort have been noted as willing to pay more for premium and personalised products to
express themselves, and they analyse a brand more precisely before purchasing the product or
service (Francis & Hoefel, 2018).
Brands must demonstrate values that members of Generation Z share, for instance having a
social conscience (Black et al., 2017). That is, this generation focuses on connecting with
brands that share their view on diversity, sustainability, and the community (ibid). Therefore,
companies need to rethink their business models and how they want to provide value to their
new customers of Generation Z (Francis & Hoefel, 2018). Moreover, brands must consider
how they can balance mass production and personalisation, and how they can demonstrate
corporate social responsibility (ibid). Gomez et al. (2020:12) stated: “Gen Z no longer forms
opinions of a company solely based on the quality of their products/services but also now on
their ethics, practices and social impact.”
2.4. Theoretical Framework
In this section the theoretical framework used to guide the analysis of the empirical findings
will be presented. This framework is also used to construct the instruments, procedures, and
questions for the method of data collection.
2.4.1. The Consumer Perceived Value Tool
The Consumer Perceived Value Tool (CPVT) is a market-oriented framework which was
developed by Merle, Chandon, Roux and Alizon (2010) to identify consumers’ perceived
17
benefits of mass customised products and the co-design process. Taking a consumer
perspective, the framework is constructed to capture value from the consumers’ point of view
and encompasses the two main criteria of importance and satisfaction (ibid). The CPVT
contains five perceived benefits of mass customisation that are based either on the perceived
value of the mass customised product or the mass customisation experience (ibid). The
framework was used by for instance Yoo and Park (2016) to scrutinise consumer perceived
value of e-mass customisation in the fashion sphere. The perceived benefits and consumer
value of the CPVT will be described below, starting with the mass customised product value
followed by the co-design process value.
The five perceived benefits of mass customisation from a consumer viewpoint:

Perceived Benefit: Definition:
Mass Customised Product Value:

Utilitarian Value Value acquired from the closeness of fit between
product characteristics and individual preferences.
Uniqueness Value Value acquired from the opportunity to assert

personal uniqueness using the customised product.
Self-Expressiveness Value Value derived from the opportunity to possess a

product that is a reflection of personality.
Co-Design Process Value*:

Hedonic Value Value acquired from the experience’s capacity to
meet needs related to enjoyment, fun, or pleasure.
Creative Achievement Value Value acquired from the feeling of accomplishment

related to the creative task of co-designing.
*For mass customisation strategies that imply an elicitation process using a configuration tool.
Table 1: The Consumer Perceived Value Tool (based on Merle et al., 2010)
Mass-Customised Product Value

The mass customised product value encompasses the perceived benefits which consumers
experience from the product itself. It consists of the three values; utilitarian value, uniqueness
value, and self-expressiveness value.
18
Utilitarian Value
The framework defines the utilitarian value as “value acquired from the closeness of fit between
product characteristics and individual preferences” (Merle et al., 2010:506). In other words,
this value is related to the alignment between a mass customised product and the consumer’s
personal preferences. Depending on the product category, this value may incorporate both an
aesthetic and functional fit.
Uniqueness Value
According to the framework, the uniqueness value is “value acquired from the opportunity to
assert personal uniqueness using the customised product” (Merle et al., 2010:506). This value
captures the consumer’s perceived benefit of being able to showcase individuality through the
mass customised product. This is done through desired adaptation of attributes in the product,
and the associated value of uniqueness is deemed as an important consumer driver for
engagement in mass customisation programmes.
Self-Expressiveness Value
The third value related to the mass customised product is defined as “value derived from the
opportunity to possess a product that is a reflection of personality” (Merle et al., 2010:506).
This value emerges when consumers experience the benefit of owning a product that reflects
their self-image. The value is independent of whether the consumer wishes to assert his/her
identity. However, an important distinction which must be addressed between this self-
expressive value and the uniqueness value is the nature of its orientation. The self-expressive
value refers to owning a product that mirrors one’s own self-image and is thus self-oriented. In
contrast, the uniqueness value is other-oriented since it arises when the consumer strives and
manages to (at least in his/her own perception) to differentiate him- or herself to others through
the product.
Co-Design Process Value

The customisation experience value captures the interaction between consumers and the co-
design process of the product. It involves the two values; hedonic value and creative
achievement value. These values are only apparent in mass-customisation when consumers are
actively involved in the co-design process, by means of a provided toolkit.
19
Hedonic Value
The framework defines the hedonic value as “value acquired from the experience’s capacity to
meet needs related to enjoyment, fun, or pleasure” (Merle et al., 2010:506). The hedonic value
occurs if consumers feel joy and entertainment while co-designing a product. In addition, this
value also influences the willingness to pay a premium for the mass customised product.
Creative Achievement Value

Lastly, the framework describes the creative achievement value as “value acquired from the
feeling of accomplishment related to the creative task of co-designing” (Merle et al., 2010:506).
Thus, the core of the second value lies in the sense of pride and authorship which emerges, or
in the “I designed it myself”-effect. When consumers take part in the design process, they
perceive it more as their own creation, despite toolkits offering a limited amount of
opportunities.
Since this study aims to investigate Generation Z’s perceived value of customised fashion
products and the co-design experience, this theoretical framework will be utilised to answer
the research questions. Themes and patterns in the empirical findings will be analysed in
accordance with the above presented consumer value and benefits of mass customisation. By
opting for the CPVT framework, which closely aligns with the nature of this study, the
perceived consumer value(s) that is unique to Generation Z will hopefully be identified.
20
3. Methodology
This chapter will address the methodology that was opted for in order to answer the research
questions. First an illustration of the mixed method research approach and design will be
presented, followed by the scientific research method. Subsequently, the first phase of the
mixed method encompassing the quantitative method will be presented. Afterwards the second
phase of the mixed method entailing qualitative procedures will be discussed. The next section
will address the trustworthiness and quality of the research, followed by the ethical
considerations.
3.1. Research Approach & Design
The purpose of the research is to gain insight to Generation Z’s perceived value of customised
fashion products in a broad sense to describe this phenomenon, whilst also gaining a deeper
understanding if any value(s) are particularly important to this generation. Thereby, a mixed
method approach was opted for in order to answer the research questions. The mixed method
research integrates quantitative and qualitative research within a single project and crosses the
two strategies (Bryman, 2012). This approach is beneficial when a combination of quantitative
and qualitative data is considered to provide a clearer understanding of the studied
phenomenon, since it allows for examination of two perspectives (Creswell, 2012; Wheeldon
& Åhlberg, 2012). That is, the quantitative research strategy enables the researchers to reach a
greater number of subjects (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Meanwhile, the qualitative research
strategy is advantageous for creating a deeper and nuanced understanding of a social reality
and the actors in it (Bell, Bryman & Harley, 2019). Since the study seeks to describe the
phenomenon as it is, studying a greater number of subjects was deemed necessary. However,
the sub-question adds the dimension and objective of exploring a deeper meaning behind the
phenomenon which called for the qualitative strategy component.
Based on the objective of the research the study adopted an explanatory sequential design,
which is a two-phase mixed method design starting with the collection and analysis of
quantitative data, followed by the compiling and analysis of qualitative data (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2007). The second phase comprising the qualitative data collection is designed with
connection to the results of the first quantitative phase (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006). The
rationale behind this design is that the numerical data provides a general picture of the
21
phenomenon, and the narrative data helps explain this general picture. In other words, the
follow-up qualitative data helps explain or expand on quantitative data (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2007). Thus, the researchers identify areas in the quantitative findings needing further
explanation such as unexpected results or extreme level scores (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006).
The subsequent qualitative data is then collected from participants who can best explain these
findings that need further examination (ibid). In the case of this study, these subjects were
deemed to be individuals from Generation Z since the study takes a consumer perspective of
customised fashion products. According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2006) the researchers
must decide whether the same individuals, from the same sample, will be used for both of the
phases or not. Since Generation Z constitutes the population of interest for this study,
individuals from the same sample were used for both of the phases.
This explanatory sequential design often emphasises the quantitative phase and can be very
time-consuming (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006). Due to time constraints, this study adopted
more of a concurrent collection of data since there were merely four days in between the two
phases. When data is collected roughly at the same time in mixed method research, it often
follows a triangulation or concurrent design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006). Important to
highlight is that this study follows the explanatory sequential design, however due to a limited
time frame to conduct the study the data for the two phases were conducted at roughly the same
time and the quantitative data is descriptive in its nature. Thereby, the researchers choose to
qualify quantitative results rather than the other way around. To qualify quantitative results or
to quantify qualitative results is a common occurrence for mixed method studies (ibid).
The mixed method approach relies on abductive reasoning and allows for multiple paths of
meaning to exist since it can be understood to value both deductive (often quantitative research)
and inductive (often qualitative research) approaches, whilst relying on the experience,
expertise and intuition of the researchers (Wheeldon & Åhlberg, 2012). In this sense, the
abductive reasoning escapes the stance of seeing research as an either-or choice between
quantitative and qualitative designs (ibid).
3.2. Research Method
Based on the explanatory sequential design and its two phases the research method initially
involved the implementation of a quantitative survey, and subsequently qualitative interviews
22
were carried out. The survey was conducted to gain a general picture of Generation Z’s
perceived value of customised fashion products, and the interviews were done to gain further
explanation of this general picture.
For the first phase, a non-experimental online quantitative survey was conducted since the
measurement of the variables was carried out as they appeared with no manipulations. Such
manipulation of variables is most often not possible in social research, which makes a cross-
sectional research design more popular in this context (Bryman, 2012). The cross-sectional
strategy entails collecting quantifiable data at a single point in time from large samples
(Bryman, 2012; Kumar, 2005). This study opted for a cross-sectional survey during the first
phase since it was not possible to collect data at more than one point in time due to time
constraints, and a larger sample from Generation Z was deemed imperative to answer the
research question and describe if some perceived value of customised fashion products is more
significant to Generation Z.
During the second phase, eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals
from Generation Z to explain and expand on obscure findings of the survey in phase one. The
qualitative interviews capture individuals’ perspective and perceptions, allowing for a deeper
understanding to be formed (Bell et al., 2019; Taylor, Bodgan & DeVault, 2015). In other
words, it allows for interpreting and viewing the phenomenon from the eyes of the studied
respondents (Bell et al., 2019), which essentially provided the point of orientation in this study.
Incorporating this qualitative method is thus relevant for building on the general picture
generated from the survey and to deepen the existing knowledge regarding Generation Z’s
perceived value of customised fashion products. Moreover, since the focus of this study has
been derived by identifying a research gap, the qualitative interviews of this mixed method
research help to make sense of the complexities in the studied context (Almeida, Faria &
Queirós, 2017).
3.3. Self-administered Online Questionnaire
This study adopted a self-administered online questionnaire during phase one. This technique
was considered beneficial as it allows the researchers to reach a great number of individuals
belonging to the chosen population, in a time and cost-efficient manner (Kent, 2001). A self-
administered questionnaire is completed by the respondents independent from the researchers
23
and is one of the primary instruments for gathering data through social survey design (Bryman,
2012). Thereby, the online questionnaire does not require any assistance from the researchers
whilst ensuring respondents’ anonymity which ultimately encourages valid and reliable
responses that are less influenced by researcher variability (Nardi, 2003; Bryman, 2012). To
ease the burden of the respondents, this self-completed questionnaire should have less complex,
open-ended, and shorter questions than those found in a structured interview to avoid
respondent fatigue or confusion (Bryman, 2012). Through the questionnaire the respondents
are able to show their opinions and feelings towards customised fashion products. Another
advantage of self-administered questionnaires is that they can be summarised easily via survey
analysis programmes to detect the patterns of relationship between variables (Kent, 2001).
3.3.1. Data Collection
The self-administered online questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data for the
research’ first phase. The response rate of these kinds of questionnaires tends to be low in
relation to the number of questionnaires that the researchers distribute (Nardi, 2003). To
overcome this potential problem, the survey was widely distributed virtually and the link was
posted on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram where it was further shared by others. In
addition, the survey link was sent out via email to students in Borås through the admissions
office at The Swedish School of Textiles, and shared in WhatsApp groups for the master’s
programme in which the researchers belong to. This virtual approach of sharing the
questionnaire was deemed as the most cost effective and prompt way of reaching Generation
Z, who is known to have no boundaries between the online and offline landscape (Francis &
Hoefel, 2018). With a cross-sectional research design the survey was only distributed at one
single point in time and the respondents were only able to participate once (Bryman & Bell,
2011; Nardi, 2003). It was therefore considered as an appropriate technique of collecting data
that provided a snapshot of the population of interest at this point in time.
The survey was named “Generation Z’s perceived consumer value of customised fashion
products”, and was designed by using Google Forms. The survey link was active between the
4th of May and the 10 of May 2021, and the collected data was processed in Google Forms as
well as Microsoft Excel. The self-administered questionnaire was designed in a way that
required all items to be answered before respondents were able to submit, which ensured that
no data would be missing.
24
3.3.2. Questionnaire Design
In order to design a good questionnaire, the researchers must be specific about the information
that should be conducted (Malhotra, 2010). With this in mind, the self-administrative online
questionnaire for this research was constructed based on the Consumer Perceived Value Tool
framework and consisted of 34 items divided into eight parts, including: demographic
information, general perception of customisation, the values of the framework (utilitarian,
uniqueness, self-expressive, hedonic, and creative achievement), and other possible values
which had items with the objective of capturing specific characteristics of Generation Z as
noted in the theory. The characteristics of Generation Z was also considered during the
construction of the survey by for instance recognising that there could be variation in the
participants’ level of English. Since the survey was distributed online with no geographical
boundaries, the language was formulated to be as clear and simple as possible. Moreover, the
survey comprised only closed-ended questions and statements to enable a quicker and easier
participation for the respondents.
All participants were presented with the same set of predetermined questions, and unnecessary
questions which could be deemed as sensitive to the respondents were avoided. According to
Malhotra (2010) this can be a cause for participants choosing to end their participation. With
such consideration in mind, participants had the option of choosing “other” on top of the given
“female” or “male” in the demographic section capturing the sex of the respondent.
Furthermore, Malhontra (2010) argues for the importance of accuracy regarding the order of
the questions. Therefore, the questions followed a logical order to avoid confusion and an
attempt was done to keep the questions interesting.
3.3.3. Measurement Issues and Scale
The first section of the survey provided the participants with crucial background information
such as the purpose of the survey, clarification of theoretical terms, ethical considerations, and
contact information to the researchers. The following section was constructed to capture the
necessary demographic information of the participants. Using both open-ended questions and
a nominal scale, this part collected the following information: year of birth, gender, country of
origin, and if the participant had any textile background. According to Bryman and Bell (2011),
demographic information about the respondents enhances the generalisability of the sample
size and the external validity of the study.
25
The next and remaining section of the self-administrative questionnaire inquired the
participants’ perception of customised fashion products and its associated consumer value. For
this main section of the survey all questions (and items) were individually constructed to the
research question, and the different perceived values in the theoretical framework (CPVT).
These were developed with inspiration from Merle et al.’s (2010) research who developed the
framework. For this main section of the self-administrative questionnaire a 5-point Likert scale
format was employed to measure the items with a symmetrical scale ranging from “strongly
agree” to “strongly disagree”, which indicates the extent of belief for a given statement. Hence,
the main part of the quantitative data encompassed an ordinal scale. This was also in line with
the method (survey) and measurement scale (ordinal) used by the authors who developed the
framework (Merle et al., 2010) as well as other authors who used the framework for a similar
study (Yoo & Park, 2016). The scale included a neutral midpoint, which allowed respondents
to rate the question according to their personal opinion. The following tables provide an
overview of the metric scale format (Table 2) and an overview of the final operationalisation
of the questionnaire (Table 3). The full version can be seen in appendix 1.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Table 2: 5-point Likert Scale
Demographic information
Item 1 What is your year of birth? (Note that you need to be born between
1995-2010 to participate.)
Answer option open text field
Purpose To ensure the respondent belongs to the sample.
Literature inapplicable
Item 2 Which gender do you identify with?
Answer option - Female

- Male
- Others
Purpose Elicitation of a characteristic to describe the sample.
Literature Inapplicable
Table 3: Operationalisation of Questionnaire
26
3.3.4. Sampling
The population of interest for this study is Generation Z which includes individuals born
between 1995-2010, and is thus represented by people between the ages of 11-26 at the time
of conducting this thesis. However, the youngest individuals of this age-spam can not be
considered independent consumers. Hence, for the purpose of this study the group was
narrowed down to individuals with the age between 16-26 (1995-2005). Since the self-
administered questionnaire was in a digital format, no geographical boundaries were set which
resulted in respondents from 33 different countries.
Due to time constraints, the sampling process was of non-probability nature and more
specifically entailed convenience sampling. This kind of sample is one that is available to the
researcher by virtue of accessibility (Bryman, 2012). As earlier mentioned (see 3.3.1. Data
Collection), the questionnaire link was shared across various social media channels, WhatsApp
groups, and sent out via email to students at the Swedish School of Textiles. That is, these
platforms were accessible to the researchers. However, since other individuals shared the link
with their online network the sampling process also encompassed snowball sampling.
According to Bryman (2012), this is also a form of convenience sample where the researchers
are able to reach other relevant subjects through the means of others known to the researchers.
During the time period that the survey was active (4th of May - 10 of May) 222 completed
answers were collected. However, out of these responses three had to be excluded due to invalid
generational cohorts. Thus, after the screening process a total of 219 responses were qualifying
for the research scope and this yielded an effective rate of 98,6 percent. Thereby, the sample
has a sample size (n) of 219. The table below provides an overview of the sample and the
characteristics of the respondents. They have been distinguished based on age, gender, and
whether they have a textile background or not. The Table 4 below provides a snapshot of the
final sample. The sample will be further presented in the empirical findings (see chapter 4.1.).
27
Characteristics Sectioning n = 219 n (%)
Year of Birth 1995-2005 219 100
Gender Female 158 72,1

Male 59 26,9
Other 2 0,9
Textile Background Yes 50 22,8

No 169 77,2
Table 4: Characteristics of the Sample
3.3.5. Pre-testing
A pre-test was conducted before activating the self-administrative questionnaire in order to

ensure participants’ understanding of the survey content and the items comprehensibility as
well as adequateness of scales. The pre-test was done with two individuals belonging to the
population of interest, to ensure they were representative of the sample (Bell et al., 2019). Their
feedback was thoroughly considered and consequently some survey questions were amended,
and thus enhancing the face validity was possible. It was also noted that the survey would take
approximately 7 minutes to complete, which was later communicated to respondents when they
were approached.
3.4. Interviews
The study carried out eight semi-structured interviews with individuals from Generation Z
during the second phase of the study to explain and expand on obscure findings of the survey
in phase one. This was done when the items in the quantitative data showed inconsistency in
the participants’ answers, or when ambiguities occurred due to a large number of participants’
opting for the neutral response option. Since the self-administered questionnaire is quantity-
oriented it does not allow for deepening existing knowledge nor creating nuanced
understanding of the individuals (Bell et al, 2019). Thus, the qualitative interviews were
conducted with the ambition of gaining such a deeper understanding of the studied
phenomenon, and to address the inconsistent or ambiguous data from the survey.
By using semi-structured interviews, a level of flexibility could be achieved, which allows the
participants’ perspective to be captured (Taylor et al., 2015). This interview form still provides
28
some structure and is partly controlled via an interview guide, which encompasses
predetermined subjects, themes, or questions that steer the interview (Bell et al., 2019; Taylor
et al., 2015). The interviews may still depart from this guide since they are dynamic by nature
and not completely structured, which should be considered by the interviewers and preparation
for relevant supplementary questions is beneficial (Bell et al., 2019). To produce comparable
results despite the desired level of flexibility, an interview guide was thus designed to lead the
sessions. The interview guide for this research will be further discussed in section 3.4.2.
Interview Guide.
3.4.1. Data Collection
The semi-structured interview form was opted for to enable the possibility of following up with
contextual sub-questions required to capture a comprehensive scope of participants’
perspective and ultimately create a beneficial foundation for the analysis (Bell et al., 2019).
This further allows respondents to elaborate aspects of particular interests to them which helps
in gaining a deeper understanding of the phenomenon (ibid). To facilitate a discussion centred
around what participants deemed significant, the interview questions were designed as open-
ended.
The interviews ranged between a time frame of approximately 30-40 minutes, which was
dependent on the level of elaboration by participants in their responses. Due to the current
Covid-19 pandemic and geographical disparities, all interviews were conducted digitally via
Zoom where the video function was on when allowed. It is important to mention that not
utilising the video function might result in some limitations as the interviewers are not able to
observe signs in participants’ body language or facial expressions which can be useful for the
analysis (Bell et al., 2019). With consent from the interviewees the sessions were audio
recorded to ensure a maintained focus throughout the interview. Subsequently, the recorded
data was transcribed and sent back to the respondents when requested to allow for any potential
adjustments and clarifications. The interviews were conducted in English and Swiss German
depending on the participants’ preferences. If an interview was conducted in Swiss German the
transcription was then translated to English for the analysis process. This can be problematic
as equivalent terms across languages might not have the same meaning in different contexts,
resulting in difficulties interpreting the meaning (Bell et al., 2019).
29
3.4.2. Interview Guide
To establish the interview guide, the main categories from the theoretical framework were
adopted and equipped with as many sub-questions as were needed to ensure the completeness
of data to answer the research question. Therefore, the quantitative research was first analysed
and in the case of ambiguities, in-depth questions were formulated to gain a deeper
understanding. First general questions about the perception of customisation and the interest in
fashion were asked, followed by questions about general values that are perceived or important
when purchasing a fashion product. These questions ensured an understanding for the
participant and her or his background. The interview continued with specific questions related
to the utilitarian, uniqueness, self-expressiveness, hedonic, and creative achievement value.
Furthermore, the interview included questions that could indicate or clarify consumption
patterns, emotional attachments towards fashion products, willingness to pay, and belonging
to a social group. These questions were mainly asked due to the factors of the literature review
about consumer values and Generation Z. The interview guide ends with demographic
questions such as nationality and year of birth. The interview guide can be seen in appendix 2.
3.4.3. Sampling
The main sampling criteria for choosing participants to the interviews was that they belonged
to Generation Z, and were born between 1995 and 2005. That is, the interviews were conducted
to expand on the ambiguous findings in the quantitative survey and Generation Z consumers
were deemed the most appropriate individuals in providing such insights. Thus, a purposive
sampling process was adopted in order to select the participants. This type of sampling refers
to when participants are chosen based on their relevance to the objective and research question
(Bell et al., 2019). In other words, the participants are chosen because they meet a desired
criterion by the researchers (ibid). Taylor et al. (2015) mention that a common approach for
finding and contacting participants is to utilise friends, relatives, or other personal contacts.
This process was adopted by the researchers in this study particularly due to time constraints.
The sample size should not be determined prior to conducting the interviews (Bryman, 2012;
Taylor et al., 2015). Instead, data saturation should serve as an indicator for when the sample
size is sufficient. Data saturation refers to the notion that sampling should continue until no
further information emerges and patterns can be clearly identified, which however can be
difficult to decide (Bell et al., 2019). Furthermore, less emphasis is on the size of the sampling
30
in qualitative methods as the objective is to gain a deep understanding of the interviewees’
perspective, rather than making generalisations (Slevitch, 2011). This study was deemed to
reach data saturation after eight interviews, as no new ground breaking information emerged
at this point and patterns had been clearly identified. A table with the interviewees and their
characteristics is presented below (Table 5).
Participants Gender Country of Year of Textile Date of Interview

Origin Birth Background
Participant 1 Female Switzerland 2001 No 14th of May 2021
Participant 3 Male Switzerland 1996 No 15th of May 2021
Participant 5 Male Sweden 1998 No 16th of May 2021
Participant 6 Female Sweden 1997 Yes 17th of May 2021
Participant 7 Female Sweden 2001 No 17th of May 2021
Participant 8 Female Sweden 1996 Yes 17th of May 2021

Table 5: Demographic Information Interviewees
3.4.4. Pilot Testing
One of the most common mistakes made by interviewers is to ask leading questions and thereby
steer the participants towards a specific outcome, which can skew the results (Bell et al., 2019).
A pilot study was conducted to ensure that the quality of the interview questions in the
interview guide was acceptable, and not confusing to the participants. By performing this pilot
study some adjustments were possible to avoid any misunderstandings. Yet, the outcome of the
pilot study was deemed plausible and only minor adjustments were done, it was thereby
included in the study.
3.5. Data Analysis
Following the explanatory sequential design, the data was compiled and analysed through two
phases, starting with the quantitative survey to then design the qualitative interviews based on
31
identified areas in the quantitative material needing further explanation. However, the
discussion (see chapter 5) of the final findings of the survey and the interviews will be done
concurrently.
3.5.1. Analysis of Survey Data
After the data was collected it was analysed descriptively using Microsoft Excel as well as
Google Forms to identify patterns, themes, and the mode value. The data is of ordinal nature,
which refers to data whose categories follow a rank order without distances between categories
that are equal across the ranges (Bryman, 2012). These variables are best presented using bar
or pie charts and include appropriate measures such as median and mode for central tendency,
and range or percent distribution for measure of dispersion (ibid). Pie charts will be used for
some of the items to illustrate the data, however since the quantitative data collection of this
study had the purpose of helping describe a phenomenon as it is, rather than exploring aspects
such as associations between variables, a descriptive analysis was deemed relevant and no
statistical analysis was performed. Therefore, basic measures were adopted to describe the data
through descriptive statistics by highlighting the mode in addition to absolute and relative
frequencies.
3.5.2. Analysis of Interviews Data
To analyse the qualitative interviews the method according to Mayring (2015) was consulted.
To structure the different categories, based on the interview guide, a coding guide consisting
of main and sub-categories, definitions, and examples was developed. Main categories are used
as topics consisting of particular sub-categories. The definition of the categories defines which
text components belong to which category (Mayring, 2015). The examples are used to clarify
the definition of a category and are typical statements arising from the interviews (Mayring,
2015). Table 6 shows a section of the coding guide. The complete coding guide can be found
in appendix 3.
32
CODE DEFINITION EXAMPLE
GENERAL PERCEPTION:
Perception of This code indicates how “I like it because it is very
Customisation Generation Z perceive personal to you and I really
customisation in general. like it if something is
meaningful.” (Participant 7)
Purchasing Habits Describes which factors “To be very honest, basically

are in general important just that it is cool and does not
for the participants while cost too much. In the end it is
buying a new fashion all about the price.”
product. (Participant 1)
Table 6: Section of Coding Guide (based on Mayring, 2015)
To analyse the conversations more precisely the interviews were first transcribed, then based
on the coding guide each statement was allocated to the belonging category. The statements of
each participant are listed under the particular category to ensure an overview (Mayring, 2015).
Table 7 illustrates the applied approach. The entire data per category can be extracted from
appendix 4.
MAIN CATEGORY 1: GENERAL PERCEPTION

SUBCATEGORY: PERCEPTION OF CUSTOMISATION
Participant 1: I actually think it’s nice, but often it’s like that you have to pay more
for it and you don’t know how it looks like in the end. So, due to
financial reasons and the current offer, I can’t imagine that I will do it
in the near future myself.
Participant 2: I think it’s really really cool and I am sure it will be more popular in
the future because I don’t think it’s very common for mainstream
brands or fast fashion to offer this service. Probably it is not possible
there due to the costs, but I am sure a lot of brands and especially
high-end labels will follow this trend.
Table 7: Section of Data per Category (based on Mayring, 2015)
33
3.6. Trustworthiness of the Study
3.6.1. Quality of Quantitative Data
To determine the quality of quantitative data collected from the survey the reliability
(consistency), validity (accuracy) should be considered (Bryman, 2012). Reliability refers to
the degree of which a measure of concept is stable (Kumar, 2005; Byrman, 2012), or in the
case of this study to which extent the questions used in the survey instrument would
consistently and repeatedly produce the same results each time in the same situation. In other
words, reliability is a measure of how reproducible the survey instrument’s data is (Bell et al.,
2019). Validity refers to the accuracy of the instrument and whether it actually measures the
concept it is intended to (ibid). According to Bryman and Bell (2011) it can be said that the
internal validity within cross-sectional research design is usually very low and the external
validity is often high due to randomisation of the sampling. However, non-random sampling
methods can result in questionable external validity as well (Bryman, 2012). The quantitative
data in this research is of descriptive nature and follows a mixed method approach, therefore
statistical testing of the validity and reliability was not done. A non-statistical test for reliability
is the test-retest, where the survey is administered to a group of respondents at one point in
time and then again at a later point in time (Bryman, 2012), which was not feasible due to time
constraints.
To ensure reliability the researchers aimed to design simplistic questions in the survey to
facilitate consistency by avoiding that respondents experience confusion about what is asked.
Moreover, to ensure validity the questions were designed in line with an established and
previously tested theoretical framework (Yoo & Park, 2016; Merle et al., 2010), that has been
constructed to capture perceived consumer value specific to customisation products. This helps
facilitate the content validity of the research (Bell et al., 2019). Moreover, a pre-test was
performed with respondents from Generation Z to ensure face validity. Another aspect of cross-
sectional research is that it often has replicability as procedures are spelt out (Bryman, 2012).
This study has provided a thorough description of the self-administered questionnaire as well
as the sampling, and using closed-ended questions and statements, which all contribute to the
replicability of the research. Lastly, by conducting a survey with 219 respondents from
Generation Z across 33 different countries the generalisability of the findings was enhanced.
Yet, not performing statistical testing in this regard results in some limitations of this argument.
34
3.6.2. Quality of Qualitative Data
To ensure the quality of the qualitative interviews in phase two, the researchers considered four
criteria presented by Bell et al. (2019): credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability. By audio recording the interviews and transcribing the material the credibility
criterion was considered, as this becomes a means of portraying accurate results. Furthermore,
respondents had access to the transcription and will receive the final thesis to ensure the data
is credible. To achieve transferability, the thesis has provided a thorough description of the
method and associated procedures. That is to allow for generalisations, which however can be
difficult due to contextual elements in the qualitative method (Bell et al., 2019). The
dependability criterion was adhered to by attending regular meetings with the supervisor and
peers to ensure the implementation of relevant procedures. Furthermore, by doing record
keeping throughout the process the researchers strived to safeguard the consistency and
replicability of the research. The final criterion of confirmability was adhered to by acting in
good faith and attempting to avoid personal bias to skew the interpretation of the results. If
failing to maintain such objectivity and neutrality the findings are likely to be swayed (Bell et
al., 2019). This was thus considered throughout the entire research process, albeit very difficult
to guarantee.
3.6.3. Source Criticism
To further ensure the trustworthiness of the research the primary sources underlying this study
was considered. The nature of the primary sources in this research mainly encompasses
scientific articles, however some industry or market reports have been utilised as a
complement. The primary sources were assessed through source criticism, which is an
evaluative process containing the four major principles of authenticity, time, dependability, and
objectivity (Alexanderson, 2012). The authenticity was deemed satisfactory as the chosen
scientific articles were published by acknowledged academic journals. Moreover, the
supporting non-scientific primary sources mainly stem from industry reports or market journals
that also are of recognised nature. To meet the time principle, an attempt to exclude outdated
sources addressing the phenomenon of customisation was done to a large extent. However, to
address the theory on consumer value, which is the lens used to study the phenomenon, more
dated sources were used as it is a long-standing concept. In addition, as there is a limitation in
research regarding the specific context of the explored phenomenon the research relies on some
older sources as well that were deemed applicable. The dependability assessment included
35
consideration of independence, which may be assessed through the frequent publicity and
citation of the sources. The sources’ level of independence is also relevant for objectivity,
where subjectivity has to be assessed. Especially for the supporting non-scientific sources, such
neutrality of the conveyed information was done as it may contain personal bias from the
organisation or author behind the report.
3.7. Ethical Considerations
To ensure that the research was performed ethically Bell et al.’s (2019) four ethical principles
for business research were considered, including: avoidance of harm, informed consent,
protection of privacy via confidentiality and prevention of deception. Prior to taking part in the
study, the participants were clearly informed about the purpose of the study. The participants
were presented with transparent information regarding their participation as well, to ensure
prevention of deception. The ethical considerations were communicated transparently in text
to each participant before conducting the survey or verbally, coupled with a consent form,
before the interview sessions. Moreover, they were informed and assured about their option to
refrain from answering any question should it be perceived as sensitive or intrusive to the
respondents. Respondents also had the ability to end their participation at any time. This was
all done to ensure avoidance of harm. Lastly, to protect the privacy of the participants,
confidentiality was promised as no personal data or information would be revealed in the thesis,
thus their participation would remain completely anonymous.
36
4. Empirical Findings
This chapter will first introduce the empirical findings derived from the self-administered
online questionnaire. Subsequently, the empirical findings from the semi-structured interviews
will be presented. For both phase one results (survey) and phase two results (interviews), the
findings will be presented in accordance with the different values in the Consumer Perceived
Value Tool, coupled with general perception of customisation and other possible value.
4.1. Findings from Survey
After excluding the three respondents that were invalid due to the generational cohort, the
remaining 219 respondents were all born between 1995 and 2005 and thus belong to Generation
Z. The average year of birth was 1998, resulting in the sample having an average age of 22/23.
With 72,1 percent of the respondents being female, 26,9 percent male, and 0,9 identifying with
“other”, the female respondents outweighed the male and others. Moreover, 77,2 percent of the
respondents did not have a textile background. Regarding country of origin, respondents
predominantly came from Sweden (29,7 percent) or Switzerland (22,8 percent). Other
countries of origin included the European countries: Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain,
The Netherlands, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. And the non-European countries: Brazil,
China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia,
USA, and Vietnam.
Figure 1: Countries of origin of Participants
37
The first three questions in the survey were of nominal nature, including yes or no answers,
and were designed to investigate the participants’ general interaction of customisation and their
perception of it. The survey showed that 81,3 percent have come across fashion brands offering
customised products, however, only 37,4 percent have ever purchased such a product, even
though 81,3 percent of all respondents would be interested in customisation.
Utilitarian Value
Factor Item Nr. Mode Absolute Relative

Frequency Frequency
Change the Design 8 Agree 116 53%
Change the Fit 9 Agree 111 50,7%
Change the Style 10 Agree 90 41,1%
Change the Colour 11 Agree 107 48,9%
Table 8: Factors Utilitarian Value
Items 8 to 11 were used to examine the preferences of this generation regarding characteristics
of fashion products. Item 8 “I often want to change something about the design of a fashion
product.” did not yield a clear result. About half of the participants (53 percent) agreed with
the need to change something, and this was the most common response. Meanwhile, 10,5
percent strongly agreed and 26,5 percent answered with being neutral in the matter. Lastly,
10,1 percent of the participants strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement.
Secondly, item 9 “I often want to change the fit (measurement) of a fashion product.” showed
a significant result, with 32 percent of the responses strongly agreeing and 50,7 percent
agreeing. There were 11,4 percent who chose the neutral option as their answer, 4,6 percent
disagreed, and 1,4 percent strongly disagreed. Again, the mode value was represented by the
participants who agreed with the statement.
Besides wanting to change the fit of a product, the participants also responded to Item 10 “I
often want to change the style of a fashion product.”. The result was equivocal, as 35,2 percent
answered with neutral. Yet, 41,1 percent of the participants agreed, which was the most
38
common value, and 5,9 percent strongly agreed. Comparatively, 15,5 percent disagreed and
2,3 percent strongly disagreed.
Figure 2: Results Survey Item 10
Lastly, the statement “I often want to change the colour of a fashion product.” was answered
more unambiguously again. Almost half of the participants (48,9 percent) agreed that they often
want to change the colour of a fashion product. Furthermore, 15,1 percent strongly agreed with
this item. However, 23,7 percent were neutral, 11,4 percent disagreed and 0,9 percent strongly
disagreed. The most frequent value was once more that participants agreed with the statement.
Uniqueness Value

Frequency Frequency
Showcase Uniqueness 12 Agree 93 42,5%
Unique Look 13 Agree 93 42,5%
Table 9: Factors Uniqueness Value
Regarding the uniqueness aspect, 19,2 percent strongly agreed and 42,5 percent agreed, which
represented the mode value, with the item “It is important for me to dress in a way that
showcases my uniqueness.”. The second largest share for this statement was the 23,3 percent
who were neutral. There were 12,3 percent who disagreed and 2,7 percent strongly disagreed,
constituting the minority of the answers.
Secondly, item 13 “I would choose a customised fashion product because it allows me to create
a unique look.” was underpinned with an agreement of 42,5 percent respectively a strong
agreement with 19,6 percent. The neutral option was chosen by 20,1 percent, whilst 16,9
39
percent chose to disagree, and 0,9 percent strongly disagreed with this statement. The most
frequent response was that participants agreed with the statement.

Frequency Frequency
Self-Image Reflection 14 Agree 114 52,1%
Influence Design 15 Agree 100 45,7%
Table 10: Factors Self-Expressiveness Value
The results of item 14 “It is important for me to dress in a way that reflects my self-image.”
was with 83,6 percent agreement, noteworthy. This value consisted of 52,1 percent who chose
to agree, and 31,5 percent who strongly agreed. Additionally, 12,8 percent chose to answer
with neutral, 3,2 percent disagreed and only 0,5 percent strongly disagreed. The mode value
was represented by the agree option.
As a means of reflecting self-image, 45,7 percent agreed, which was also the mode value, to
choose a customised fashion product and 16 percent strongly agreed. There were 26 percent
who assessed the statement “I would choose a customised fashion product to influence the
design so it fits my self-image.” with being neutral. Lastly, 10,5 percent disagreed with this
statement and 1,8 percent strongly disagreed.
40
Hedonic Value

Frequency Frequency
Enjoyment 16 Agree 103 47%
Time Investment 17 Agree 95 43,4%
Table 11: Factors Hedonic Value
According to the result, participants tended to be positive that they would enjoy the process of
choosing elements for their products. The minority of 1,8 percent strongly disagreed, 8,7
percent disagreed, and 13,2 percent were neutral with item 16 “I would enjoy taking part in the
process of choosing design elements in my fashion products.”. The remaining participants
agreed (47 percent) or strongly agreed (29,2 percent) to this statement, with the agreed value
once more representing the mode.
Although the majority of the participants would enjoy taking part in the process, they were less
likely to invest time in the process. The results found that 43,4 percent agreed, constituting the
mode value, to item 17 “I would like to invest some time in the process of choosing design
elements in my fashion products.”. Moreover, 16,9 percent strongly agreed to this, whereas
21,5 percent stayed neutral. There were 15,5 percent who would not like to invest time in the
process and chose to disagree, whilst 2,7 percent even strongly disagreed with statement 13.
Creative-Achievement Value

Frequency Frequency
Design Options 18 Agree 104 47,5%
Creative Process 19 Agree 94 42,9%
Accomplishment 20 Agree 109 49,8%
Expectations 21 Disagree 66 30,1%
Table 12: Factors Creative-Achievement Value
41
Item 18 “If I choose a customised fashion product I would want many different design options
(colours, embroidery, prints).” examined if participants prefer a lot of design options or not.
The results found that 24,2 percent had a strong desire to choose from many different design
options, whilst 47,5 percent agreed to this and thus represented the mode value in this regard.
There were 17,4 percent that remained neutral regarding this statement, 10,5 percent disagreed
and 0,5 percent strongly disagreed.
Secondly, the majority of the participants would choose a customised fashion product because
they can be creative during the process. This was found since 42,9 percent agreed and 21,9
percent strongly agreed with item 19 “I would choose a customised fashion product because it
offers me the opportunity to be creative.”. The number of participants who chose the neutral
option (23,7 percent) were greater than those who chose to disagree (10,5 percent). Lastly, only
0,9 percent strongly disagreed with this statement and would not choose a customised product
as a means of being creative. The agreed value was the most frequent option for this item.
As presented in figure 4, the majority of the participants showed agreement with item 20
“Knowing I have designed part of the fashion product myself would give me a sense of
accomplishment.”. That is, 49,8 percent agreed, which in this case was the mode value, and
22,8 percent strongly agreed. There were 18,7 percent who were neutral, 6,8 percent showed
disagreement, whereas 1,8 percent strongly disagreed.
Lastly, the results showed that participants tended to feel a sense of accomplishment through
customisation, but they would not necessarily feel uncreative if the end-product did not meet
their expectations. Therefore, 30,1 percent disagreed with item 21 “If the customised fashion
product does not meet my expectations in the end I would feel uncreative.”, whilst 6,8 percent
strongly disagreed with this. In contrast, 27,4 percent agreed and 6,4 percent strongly agreed
42
with this statement. Lastly, 29,2 percent remained neutral to this statement. The most frequent
response, and mode value, to this item was the option to disagree.
General Perception of Customisation & Other Possible Value

Frequency Frequency
Extended Use 22 Agree 98 44,7%
Extended lifetime 23 Agree 96 43,8%
Brand Attachment 24 Agree 101 46,1%
Product Attachment 25 Agree 94 42,9%
Sustainability 26 Strongly Agree 145 66,2%

Awareness
Sustainable 27 Agree 81 37%

Consumption
WTP* customised 28 Agree 107 48,9%

Fashion
WTP* Non-premium 29 Agree 95 43,4%

customised Fashion
WTP* premium 30 Agree 83 37,9%

customised Fashion
AA* Non-premium 31 1-20 EUR 140 64%

customised Fashion
AA* premium 32 51-100 EUR 72 32,9%

customised Fashion
Social Circle 33 Neutral 70 32%
Social Media 34 Agree 92 42%
Table 13: Factors General Perception & Other Possible Value
*WTP = Willingness to Pay / AA = Additional Amount
43
Being part of the design process showed, according to the results, to have an impact on the
usage of a fashion product. That is, 22,8 percent strongly agreed and 44,7 percent strongly
agreed with item 22 “Knowing I have designed part of the fashion product myself would make
me wear the garment more often.”. The mode was represented by the agree option. The results
also showed that 25,6 percent were neutral, followed by 6,8 percent who disagreed. No
participant strongly disagreed with this statement.
However, item 23 “Knowing I have designed part of the fashion product myself I would keep
the product for longer.” was answered unambiguously. No participant strongly disagreed, yet
1,8 percent disagreed, and 17,8 percent stayed neutral. It was found that 43,8 percent agreed
with keeping the customised product longer, and 36,5 percent strongly agreed. Once more, the
agree option represented the mode value.
The participants tended to feel more emotionally attached to brands if they design part of their
products themselves. This was outlined by 46,1 percent, the mode value, agreeing with the
statement “Knowing I have designed part of the fashion product myself would increase my
emotional attachment towards the brand.”. Moreover, 18,7 percent strongly agreed, whilst
20,5 percent classified themselves as neutral towards this statement. Meanwhile, 12,8 percent
and 1,8 percent disagreed and strongly disagreed with this statement.
What is more, the results showed that the emotional attachment towards the product was higher
than the attachment towards the brand according to item 25 “Knowing I have designed part of
the fashion product myself would increase my emotional attachment towards the product.”.
That is, 10,5 percent were neutral, 3,2 percent disagreed, and 0,9 percent strongly disagreed.
The remaining participants showed agreement (85,4 percent), with 42,9 percent who agreed
44
and 42,5 percent who strongly agreed to this item. With little margin, the option of agreeing
represented the mode.
The results showed that almost all participants were aware of contributing to an unsustainable
fashion industry if they dispose of their products only after a short time. That is, 66,2 percent
strongly agreed and 22,8 percent agreed to item 26 “I am aware that I contribute to an
unsustainable fashion industry if I dispose of a fashion product after only using it for a short
period of time.”. There were 8,7 percent who chose the option neutral, and 2,3 percent chose
to disagree with the statement. However, no one strongly disagreed in this context. The mode
value of this item was the option of strongly agreeing.
Item 27 “It is important for me to be sustainable in my fashion consumption.” yielded less

clear results. To this statement, 35,2 percent strongly agreed and 37 percent agreed, while 22,4
percent chose to be neutral. There were 5 percent who disagreed whilst only 0,5 percent
strongly disagreed. The mode value was in this case the choice to agree.
In general, the participants would pay more for a customised fashion product compared to a
non-customised one. This was found from the result to item 28 “I would pay more for a
customised fashion product than a non-customised fashion product.”. Almost half of the
45
participants (48,9 percent) agreed to this and thus represented the mean value, whilst 22,4
percent strongly agreed. However, 15,1 percent chose to stay neutral, 10,5 percent disagreed
and 3,2 percent strongly disagreed.
The results of item 29 “I would pay more for a customised fashion product of a non-premium
brand (e.g. H&M, ZARA), compared to a non-customised fashion product of such brand.”
showed that 5 percent strongly disagreed, 15,1 percent disagreed, and 23,7 percent were
neutral. However, 43,4 percent agreed to pay more, this response represented the mean, and
12,8 percent strongly agreed.
Similar results were found for item 30 “I would pay more for a customised product of a
premium brand (e.g. Gucci, Louis Vuitton), compared to a non-customised fashion product of
such brand.”. Here 6,4 percent strongly disagreed, whereas 17,4 percent disagreed, and 21
percent stayed neutral. Moreover, 17,4 percent strongly agreed and 37,9 percent agreed to the
willingness to pay more for a customised fashion product from a premium brand. The most
frequent response amongst the participants was to agree with this statement.
Items 31 and 32 investigated how much participants would pay additionally for a customised
fashion product. Item 31 “If a non-premium fashion brand (e.g. H&M, ZARA) offered the
option to customise its fashion products, I would pay the following additional amount to do
so:” resulted in the responses of “Nothing” (9,1 percent), “1-20 EUR” (64 percent), “21-40
EUR” (19,2 percent), “41-60 EUR” (6,4 percent), and “More” (1,4 percent). The most common
value amongst the participants was that they would be willing to pay 1-20 EUR more for a
customised fashion product offered by a non-premium brand.
Item 32 “If a premium fashion brand (e.g. Gucci, Louis Vuitton) offered the option to customise
its fashion products, I would pay the following additional amount to do so:” was answered
with “Nothing” (22,4 percent), “1-50 EUR” (28,8 percent), “51-100 EUR” (32,9 percent),
“101-150 EUR” (11,9 percent), or “More” (4,1 percent). Thereby, the mode value for this item
was represented by 51-100 EUR.
46
Items 33 and 34 referred to the importance of belonging to a social group. Item 33 “I would be
more likely to purchase a customised fashion product if it was popular amongst my social
circle.” was answered with the majority of participants being neutral (32 percent), thus this
represented the mode value of this item. The results showed that 28,8 percent agreed, and 2,7
percent strongly agreed to this statement. In contrast, 27,9 percent disagreed and 8,7 percent
strongly disagreed.
Item 34 “If I saw someone using customised fashion products on social media I would be more
likely to purchase it too.” had the largest share of participants agreeing to the statement (42
percent). There were 26,9 percent who chose to be neutral, while 19,6 percent disagreed and
7,3 percent strongly disagreed. Only 4,1 percent strongly agreed to item 34.
4.2. Findings from Interviews
The interviews were conducted to further explain and understand obscure findings of the survey
data in phase one. Thereby, the questions were designed to address these ambiguous results
associated with the values from the quantitative data which needed further explanation. Note
that only those findings from the survey which were obscure due to inconsistent responses, or
where a large number of participants chose the neutral option, were further explored in this
second phase through the interviews.
Utilitarian Value
Overall, five key aspects of consideration when choosing a new fashion product were identified
and included the quality, material, fit, price, and the style. Half of the participants (2,6,7,8)
mentioned “quality” as an important factor, and “material” and “fit” was recognised by
47
participants 2,3,5,6 and 8. The “price” aspect was brought up by half of the participants as an
important factor of consideration (1,4,5,7), and several participants brought up the distinction
of different brand categories as well as the willingness to pay more for better products
(1,2,4,5,7). Half of the participants expressed the aspect of “style” and terms like “statement
pieces”, “cool”, and “wow-effect” were used (1,2,4,8). Lastly, only three participants
mentioned the importance of some kind of sustainability consideration (1,4,6).
Half of the respondents expressed that they often do not know exactly what they are after when
they purchase fashion products, and that impulse buying can be a common occurrence (1,2,3,4).
Amongst these participants, two stated that they are often inspired by friends or social media
(1,4). In contrast, the other half of the participants explained that they most of the time have a
clear agenda and know what they are after beforehand (5,6,7,8). Participants 6 and 7 mentioned
that they spend quite some time on evaluation before purchasing a product.
All participants, except participant 2, had the perception that the market often has a broad
spectrum of fashion products and that it can even be overwhelming. Half of the participants
expressed that the market has almost everything when considering the e-commerce channel
(1,2,3,4). At the same time, the majority of the participants explained that the market at times
fails to meet their personal needs and wants (1,2,4,5,6,8).
I think probably that something is missing because I'm not completely happy all
the time with what is on the market. And I feel like you often have to compromise
with your purchases. Often there is a problem I think in the design of the
garment.
Participant 8
Uniqueness Value
Half of the participants described uniqueness as having something that others do not have
(1,2,5,8), or something that is not mass-produced (5). Participants 2 and 7 suggested that
uniqueness to them is also connected to customisation, or the possibility to personalise
something. Moreover, half of the participants stressed the importance of being unique (1,2,7,8),
whereas three participants said it was not important to them (3,5,6). Worth mentioning is also
the indecisive participants who were unsure about if being unique was important to them
(2,4,6).
48
It’s actually hard to say, I don’t want to be mainstream but I also don’t want to
stand out from the mass and be that paradise bird. I think it’s cool if you can
bring in some uniqueness in some pieces like shoes or bags but in general it’s
not super important to me.
Participant 2
Overall, it was found that the participants would make adjustments regarding the cut, colour,
pattern, or font and prints of a product for it to better reflect their self-image. All participants,
except participant 1, would make colour changes for the product to align with their identity
better. Moreover, all participants, except for participant 7, mentioned the desire to change the
cut or style of products for the same purpose. Meanwhile, everyone except participants 2 and
4 stated that they would express themselves through prints, fonts or patterns.
Hedonic Value
Majority of the participants, except for participant 1, would be willing to spend quite some
time, even hours, to customise a fashion product according to their preferences (2,3,4,5,6,7,8).
However, both participants 3 and 8 mentioned the importance of the interface, and that it must
be “easy” and “fun” to design your own garment.
For me personally, because what I do is creative in its nature, I sit a lot with
photoshop and such, I don’t mind playing around for like an hour or two.
Participant 5
Yeah like that would be no limit, if I can have my own choice and design them,
and then have them how I want them. I think I would spend a lot of hours, I don’t
know.
Participant 6
All participants, except participant 5, expressed that they would be disappointed and
angry if the final customised product did not meet their expectations. Participants 5 and
8 expressed that the feeling would be related to the amount of money they had spent. Only
two participants (2,8) stated that they would be disappointed in themselves if such an
occurrence happened, whereas five participants voiced that they would be disappointed
in the brand (2,4,5,6,8).
49
I mean if it wouldn’t look like the company ensured, I would never buy
something there again.
Participant 4
But of course, if you choose a pastel green and it doesn’t look like that in the
end, then you might also be disappointed in the brand.
Participant 2
General Perception of Customisation & Other Possible Value

All participants had a positive perception towards customisation in general, for instance
participant 1, 3 and 6 stated that it seemed “nice” whilst participant 2 and 4 used the term
“cool”. It was also highlighted by all participants that the ability to design your own product,
make it personal, and demonstrate something unique was appealing about customisation.
Participant 2 expressed that she thought it was important to be unique in our society and that
customised fashion could even serve as a status symbol.
I mean I think it’s cool that you can design your own, and get your own style of
the product, and make it your version.
Participant 6
It’s not only a material thing but personal, so I just like the whole concept of it,
because you can make it your own.
Participant 7
I think it’s a fun way to make garments more unique and personalised.
Participant 8
Moreover, participants 1 and 4 voiced their concern about the end results and quality, which
they argued was not in line with the often expensive service in their perception. Lastly,
participants 4 and 8 mentioned the added value of the customisation experience as a positive
aspect, which also could form a stronger emotional bond to the garment.
Most of the participants (3,4,5,6,7,8) expressed that they would wear a customised fashion
piece more than a non-customised one, whereby participants explained that this is due to the
product meeting their specific needs (3,5,6,7,8), or creates feelings such as “I did this” (P5) or
“I designed this” (P6). All participants, except participant 3, also stated that they would take
better care of a customised fashion product. Four participants explained that this is due to
greater emotional attachment or personal involvement with the product (1,4,5,7), whereas two
50
participants mentioned the higher price as a driver for this (2,3). Three participants said that
their consumption would not change in general (1,2,3), whilst three participants expressed that
they would consume less (4,6,8).
I think my consumption wouldn’t change that much but I am also not someone
that buys a lot of fashion products.
Participant 3
And yeah, let's take the trousers for example, I often get very sick of trousers
because I don’t like the fit. They are either too long, or too short, or too tight at
the bum but not at the waste, you know. So I am always looking for the perfect
fit in another pair of trousers, instead of in the ones I already have.
Participant 8
Regarding if their perception towards a brand would change if it offered customised fashion
products the participants did not entirely agree. Participants 3,6, and 8 stated that it would not
change their perception of the brand, although it would be a cool offering. In contrast, three
participants (1,2,7) explained that their brand perception would change in a positive way,
whereby participants 1 and 2 mentioned that this would be a demonstration of “something new”
and “innovative”.
All participants stated that they would pay more for a customised fashion product compared to
a non-customised fashion product, with one exception for participant 1 who explained she
would justify this at a later stage in life. In order for the participants to invest financially in
customised fashion they primarily wanted the ability to adjust colour (2,3,4,6,7) and the cut/fit
of the product (3,4,5,6,8). Four participants also mentioned adding other design features such
as embroidery or text (5,6,7,8), whilst only three participants deemed it important to have the
option of changing the material (2,3,6).
Four of the participants expressed that it was not important to them that they belong to a specific
social group (1,2,3,5), and two participants conversely said that it was important (7,8).
Moreover, three participants were indecisive in their answers and explained that it was
important in general and subconsciously they did belong to a social group, yet it was not
deemed important to them (2,4,6).
51
[...] I think everyone wants to belong somewhere somehow. So yes, but I also
think if you are not completely out from space, you automatically belong to a
group or society puts you in a basket. I also think you somehow want this
recognition, so it would be weird for me to not belong to a group. But it’s not
super important to me.
Participant 2
Like no, I don’t think it is super important. No, I mean it is important to some
aspect but no it’s not really that important no.
Participant 6
The majority of the participants (1,2,3,4,7,8) mentioned that their social group, friends, or
social media influenced their fashion consumption. However, participants 5 and 6 stated that
they were not influenced by trends or social groups in their fashion consumption, and instead
stressed the importance of “my own identity” (5) or “personal identity” (6).
52
5. Discussion
In this chapter a discussion of the findings from the survey and interviews will be carried out
in relation to the theoretical framework (CPVT) as well as other previous research on the
studied phenomenon of Generation Z. The objective is to make assumptions about Generation
Z’s perceived value of customised fashion and if any other value exists to this generation due
to their inherent characteristics. The discussion first highlights Generation Z’s general
perception of customised fashion, then it follows the structure of the CPVT framework by
discussing each value separately. Lastly, an additional perceived value specific to Generation
Z will be discussed.
5.1. General Perception of Customised Fashion
The survey results illustrated that Generation Z is seemingly interested in customised fashion,
and the positive attitude towards customising a fashion product was also confirmed in the
interviews, where the participants described it as a “nice” or “cool” service. According to some
participants, the positivism towards customisation comes from the experience within the
process, the opportunity to differentiate themselves from others, or the stronger emotional
attachment towards a customised fashion product.
Similarly, some participants, albeit less consistent, demonstrated a tendency of enhancing their
emotional attachment towards the fashion brand if it offered customisation. However, the
empirical findings showed less evidence of Generation Z changing their perception towards
the fashion brand if it offered customisation, although it was perceived as cool and innovative.
These findings can be interpreted not to correspond with previous research arguing that
consumer loyalty can be improved as a result of the co-design process (Piller, 2004; Yeung et
al., 2010). That is, the perceived value can nurture positive brand attitudes which in turn can
result in enhanced brand loyalty (Yoo & Park, 2016; Kautish & Sharma, 2018). However, such
assumptions and anticipations can not be concluded in this case since the findings indicate a
primary change in Generation Z’s attachment towards the product, and not the brand itself.
This may be explained by previous research stating that Generation Z tend to not develop brand
loyalty as they wish to experiment (Black et al., 2017), whilst disagreeing with the notion that
they are loyal when the brand is deemed cool (Saavedra & Bautista, 2020). However, the
emotional attachment and changed perception towards the brand is not enough to make a solid
53
assumption regarding Generation Z’s tendency of becoming more loyal when a fashion brand
offers customisation.
5.2. Utilitarian Value
According to Merle et al. (2010), the utilitarian value refers to the harmonisation between a
customised product and the individual preferences of a consumer. The survey showed that
participants would mainly want to change the fit and the colour of a fashion product. Over 80
percent agreed or strongly agreed to the need of changing the fit of a garment. They also agreed
with the want to change the style and design of a product but with less percentage than to the
former ones. These results indicate that the functional fit adds more value than the aesthetic
one. This can also be confirmed with the consumer value theory, which states that value is
perceived when a product or service can satisfy a customer’s needs (Yoo & Park, 2016). Yoo
and Park (2016) call the want of changing the fit or the colour as a basic benefit of perceived
consumer value. The gap between the offered products and the personal needs was also
underpinned in the interviews. Even though the participants agreed on the broad market offer
of fashion products, seven out of eight participants also agreed that the market does not exactly
meet their personal wants. Participant 8 called this phenomenon “compromising with your
purchases”.
As the theory stated, the utilitarian value can be seen as a means to generate a desired result,
goal, or objective (Holbrook, 1999). Furthermore, mass customised products can increase the
utilitarian value, since consumers are allowed to design the product they are after (Yoo & Park,
2016). Based on the findings of this study, it can be said that mass customisation increases the
perceived value of fashion products to Generation Z, as they can better meet the personal needs
of the consumer. Especially the functional or basic benefits, such as the fit, enhance the want
for customised fashion.
5.3. Uniqueness Value
Fiore and Lee (2004) mentioned in their study that acquiring a unique product is a significant
driver for engaging in mass customisation. Furthermore, Merle et al. (2010) describe the
uniqueness value as a benefit of being able to showcase individuality through mass customised
54
products. The literature further says that Generation Z wants to express their own identity
through consumption (Williams et al., 2010). The assumptions of the theory could not fully be
confirmed by the hand of the survey. Both statements “It is important for me to dress in a way
that showcases my uniqueness.” and “I would choose a customised fashion product because it
allows me to create a unique look.” had a share of over 20 percent being neutral. The majority
still agreed on both of the statements but an in-depth understanding was missing, which called
for expansion of the results through the interviews. Since the line between uniqueness and self-
expression is vague and confusing, during the interview the participants were first asked to
define their perception of the term. Four out of eight participants thought uniqueness is
possessing something that others do not have. Only two participants connected uniqueness to
customised fashion products, which indicates that this generation does not necessarily see an
outstanding added value regarding customisation and being unique. Also, the question about
the importance of being unique did not bring any additional clarity to this, as half of the
participants agreed on the importance and the other half disagreed. The answer lies somewhere
in between having characteristics of uniqueness but not standing out of the masses. This is
aligned with the theory of the social circle, which according to Williams et al. (2010) says that
Generation Z wants to be individual, yet they still want to be part of a specific group and fit in.
However, this theoretical assumption was not confirmed regarding customised fashion
products as in the survey the agreement to the statements “I would be more likely to purchase
a customised fashion product if it was popular amongst my social circle.” and “If I saw
someone using customised fashion products on social media I would be more likely to purchase
it too.” was a minority. The share of neutral answers was 32 percent respectively 26,9 percent,
which was high compared to other statements, and called for a deeper understanding. The
interviews did not confirm that belonging to a social group is extremely important since only
two participants agreed to the importance. In general, the participants had a tendency to
disagree or felt that they automatically belonged to a certain group. The theory about
Generation Z further says that they strongly influence their friends interchangeably (Williams
et al. 2010). This was confirmed during the interviews as six participants approved being
influenced by friends or influencers on social media.
55
Thereby, there is not a clear indication of whether the unique aspect of customised fashion
products adds additional perceived value or not for this generation. It might be a question of
the definition of the term uniqueness, however it is also possible that uniqueness is just not as
important in the context of customised fashion products as it is in other areas.
5.4. Self-Expressiveness Value
The definition of self-expressiveness value is according to Merle et al. (2010:506) “value

derived from the opportunity to possess a product that is a reflection of personality”. The
theory of self-concept outlines the benefits of owning a product to demonstrate one’s own
image (Fiore & Lee, 2004). Especially Generation Z is described as wanting to express their
personal identity through consumption (Francis & Hoefel, 2018). This was confirmed by the
results of the conducted survey with over 80 percent of all participants agreeing or strongly
agreeing with the statement “It is important for me to dress in a way that reflects my self-
image.”. Only one person strongly disagreed. Less unequivocal was the connection to
customised fashion products. Only around 60 percent agreed or strongly agreed to the statement
“I would choose a customised fashion product to influence the design so it fits my self-image.”,
while 26 percent answered with “Neutral”. The in-depth interviews showed that, except for one
person, all participants would make adjustments on fashion products so it reflects their self-
image. What leaves room for interpretation is if participants would choose a customised fashion
product over a non-customised one to express their self-image. The perceived added value is
therefore not clearly given regarding the context of customised fashion products and self-
expressiveness, although there was evidence of the generation perceiving value in self-
expressiveness.
Another factor that has been noticed is the willingness to pay more for a customised fashion
product, which could be related to the self-expressiveness value. The theory explains the
willingness to pay as a result of the hedonic value (Merle et al., 2010), however the empirical
data indicates that Generation Z’s driver for paying a premium is related to the perceived added
value in the final product being personalised, rather than the enjoyment stemming from the co-
design process. This is in accordance with Francis and Hoefel’s (2018) argument that
56
Generation Z is happy to pay a premium for customised fashion with the underlying reason
being that they are able to express themselves.
Having the factor of willingness to pay in mind, the perceived added value of self-
expressiveness through customised products can be interpreted as apparent for Generation Z.
That is, the generation seemingly perceives this benefit as an underlying driver which would
justify their willingness to pay more for a customised fashion product. Thus, it seems plausible
to assume that Generation Z value customised fashion’s ability to facilitate self-expression.
The underpinned importance of self-expressiveness in the consisted literature therefore seems
to be confirmed.
5.5. Hedonic Value
The empirical findings suggest that Generation Z would perceive value in the co-design
experience itself when opting for customised fashion. With 76,2 percent of the participants
from the survey being positive that they would enjoy the co-design process, it was not further
examined during the interviews. However, indications of such stance appeared in the
interviews as well, where participants mentioned that customisation of fashion is a fun way of
making garments and that it offers added value to the consumer. Thereby, it could be argued
that Generation Z appreciate the benefits of the customisation experience as it brings them
some kind of enjoyment through the fun experience. These findings seemingly align with Merle
et al.’s (2010) framework of Consumer Perceived Value in mass customisation, which suggests
that hedonic value is acquired when the experience provides pleasure and enjoyment.
Moreover, with the basis of these findings it could be speculated that Generation Z perceive
added value in the actual consumption experience and not merely in the functional attributes
of the product. Along these lines, the qualitative data suggested that the generation recognises
the benefits of brands providing something new and innovative through the customisation
experience. Ultimately, this would all support the notion that Generation Z seeks brands who
are able to offer them a unique experience through new activities (Black et al., 2017).
However, the findings from the survey portrayed some inconsistency regarding Generation Z’s
tendency to actually spend time on the co-design process necessary to attain the customised
fashion product. Although 60,3 percent of the participants would, 18,2 percent would not, and
57
21,5 percent remained neutral in the matter. This called for further investigation, whereby the
findings from the interviews suggested that Generation Z would indeed invest time in the co-
design process. However, this latter empirical data revealed indications of contextual factors
as important determinants for the generation’s willingness to invest time in the process, which
could explain the inconsistency in the survey where such an aspect was not captured. For
instance, the complexity of the interface is seemingly essential to Generation Z as they wish for
the co-design process to be fun and easy. This finding supports the argument that simplicity is
required to avoid consumers from feeling overwhelmed or confused, which can ruin the
perceived value stemming from the co-design experience (Piller, 2004; Merle et al., 2010).
Although the findings arguably support the notion that Generation Z is willing to pay more for
a product which they have personalised, little evidence suggested that this had anything to do
with the hedonic value, as explained by the authors of the framework (Merle et al., 2010).
5.6. Creative-Achievement Value
When comparing the empirical findings to the creative-achievement value of mass

customisation, the feeling of accomplishment stemming from the creative co-design task is
seemingly valued by Generation Z. That is, the ability and opportunity to be creative in the
process was deemed a driver for choosing a customised fashion product amongst the majority
of participants. Moreover, most participants wished for many different design options in the
customisation scheme, which arguably indicates that Generation Z would value a co-design
process that allows for creativity. Other findings of the survey further support this assumption
as it pointed out that the generation would develop a sense of accomplishment by knowing they
have designed part of the fashion product. Similarly, it was addressed by participants during
the interview that feelings such as “I designed this” and “I did this” would emerge and cause
them to wear the customised product more. Thus, it could be assumed that Generation Z would
develop a sense of pride due to the creative-achievement value since they are wanting to
demonstrate what they have created. This complies with the notion of the perceived authorship
emerging from the “I designed it myself”-effect, which is central to this value (Merle et al.,
2010). Furthermore, the findings align with previous researches’ arguments that providing
consumers with many options when customising fashion products can facilitate the creative-
achievement formation (Yoo & Park, 2016), and the DIY (do it yourself) or DIT (do it together)
experience nurture the fulfilment of craftsmanship and empowerment (Hirscher et al., 2017).
58
The empirical findings from the interviews simultaneously highlighted Generation Z’s concern
regarding the final co-designed product not meeting their expectations, and that this can even
be expected. In literature this has been mentioned as a factor which can influence consumer
attitudes negatively towards customisation (Matthews et al., 2019; Piller, 2004). Such
performance risk is seemingly perceived by Generation Z, and this potentially strengthens the
premise that the creative-achievement is important to this generation. Generation Z would feel
disappointed in such occurrence, yet the survey findings illustrated inconsistency in whether
this would influence their own sense of creative-achievement. Through further exploration, the
interviews suggested that the blame would lay with the brand and thus would not impact
Generation Z’s sense of creative-achievement.
5.7. Other Value
In line with previous research (Francis & Hoefel, 2018; Black et al., 2017; Gomez et al., 2020;
Williams & Hodges, 2020), the empirical findings present evidence that Generation Z consist
of individuals who generally consider sustainability in their consumption. That is, the majority
of the participants were aware that premature disposal of fashion products contributes to an
unsustainable industry. Most participants also deemed it important to be sustainable in their
own fashion consumption. However, the interviews revealed a potential behaviour gap as
participants were often prone to opt for cheaper alternatives, such as fast fashion brands, whilst
also having the tendency towards impulse shopping and being influenced by fashion trends.
Nonetheless, the findings showed that Generation Z would often keep a customised fashion
product longer than a non-customised one, due to the co-creation dimension. In addition, the
findings consistently confirmed that Generation Z would form a stronger emotional attachment
towards the co-designed fashion product. According to the findings, the generation also has an
anticipated tendency to wear the customised fashion product more since it meets their specific
needs and/or because of the sense of accomplishment and pride which emerges from the co-
design process. As captured by the interview data, Generation Z would take better care of the
customised product in terms of example washing aspects due to the enhanced emotional
product attachment. From these findings, it seems plausible to assume that the notion of
customisation enhancing consumers’ emotional product attachment and leading to products
being kept longer due to personal value (Hirscher et al., 2017; Park & Yoo, 2018; Franke et al.,
2010), also applies to Generation Z.
59
Due to Generation Z’s sustainability consideration, and with these findings in mind, it could
be argued that an additional perceived value, that is not addressed in the CPVT framework,
associated with customisation is apparent for this generation. That is a sustainability value
which would emerge from the perceived benefit of taking responsibility and contributing
towards a more sustainable fashion industry. This is in line with previous research stating that
fashion consumption can be other-oriented, as well as self-oriented, where others can refer to
Mother Nature (Holbrook, 1999). It also aligns well with the identified characteristics of
Generation Z in this study, as well as previous research.
60
6. Conclusion
The aim of this research was to investigate Generation Z’s perceived value associated with
customised fashion products and co-design process. The underlying objective was to explore
if the concept of customisation has the potential to become more established in the future
fashion industry. Through Merle et al.’s (2010) Consumer Perceived Value Tool (CPVT),
which captures consumers’ perceived benefit and value of mass customisation, the study
identified the nature of Generation Z’s perceived value of customised fashion. The study
proposed two research questions, which will be answered in the first part of this chapter.
Subsequently, brand recommendations will be addressed based on the conclusion. Lastly,
limitations and suggestions for future research will be discussed.
Based on the CPVT framework, the study identified two primary perceived values which
Generation Z particularly associate with customised fashion, namely the utilitarian value and
the creative-achievement value. The utilitarian value is related to the final customised product
and its ability to facilitate a closeness of fit between the product characteristics and individual
preferences. It was evident that Generation Z perceived such value since they often wish to
change some aspects of their fashion products. Although the generation believes that the
fashion market’s offerings are abundant, they frequently feel like something is missing and that
they have to compromise with their purchases. In this sense, Generation Z predominantly
recognises limitations in functional aspects of garments such as the fit or style, and wishing to
change the colour was next in line. Thereby, it can be understood as the ability to adjust the
functional and basic aspects through customisation provides significant value to Generation Z,
and with the aesthetic aspect as a close runner-up. That is, the generation perceives value in
acquiring fashion that better meets their personal needs. Secondly, the creative-achievement
value that is acquired from the co-design process itself was greatly noticeable amongst
Generation Z, who perceived value in the feeling of accomplishment stemming from co-
creating the product. The generation would want many design options in a customisation
scheme, which speaks for their willingness to be creative. Moreover, generation Z would be
likely to develop a feeling of pride and authorship knowing they have designed part of the
product, causing them to wear the customised product more to show off their creation.
The study also identified two perceived values from the CPVT framework which were
apparent, yet somewhat less pronounced than the aforementioned ones. These two values
61
include the self-expressiveness value derived from the product’s ability to reflect the
consumer’s personality, and the hedonic value acquired from the experience’s capacity to meet
needs of enjoyment and pleasure. The self-expressiveness value was found to be of importance
to Generation Z overall, and they appreciate the benefit of being able to customise fashion so
that it better reflects their self-image. Moreover, the ability to personalise fashion products to
be more self-expressive was a significant driver for Generation Z’s willingness to pay more for
a customised fashion product, speaking for the generation’s perceived self-expressive value of
customisation. However, the study did not identify whether Generation Z would opt for a
customised fashion product over a non-customised one to express their self-image which makes
the findings of this perceived value slightly vaguer. Secondly, Generation Z also perceived
value from the co-design process itself, and thus the benefits of the hedonic value. As the
generation seeks for an experience in their consumption, and perceives value in more than just
the product attributes, they value the co-design process as it brings them enjoyment and
something new. Nevertheless, Generation Z is not as convinced they would invest time in this
co-design process which was partly explained with the dependence of contextual factors such
as the customisation schemes’ interface and complexity.
The final perceived value in the CPVT framework, the uniqueness value, was not identified as
very significant to Generation Z. This value is acquired when personal uniqueness can be
asserted from the customised product. Although Generation Z perceives value in expressing
themselves and having something different, they do not necessarily want to stand out from the
crowd or their social circle. Furthermore, some confusion regarding the term uniqueness was
identified amongst Generation Z, and its proximity to other terms such as self-expression and
personal identity may contribute to the finding’s inconsistency of this perceived value. Along
these lines, the generation did not seem to perceive additional value in customised fashion with
the premise of it facilitating their uniqueness, and it remains unclear if uniqueness is important
to them or not in the context of customised fashion.
Lastly, the study identified and proposed a potential additional perceived value of customised
fashion, not existing in the CPVT framework, that could be specifically significant to
Generation Z. That is a perceived value related to environmental sustainability which could be
acquired from the feeling and benefits of acting more responsibly, and thus contributing to a
more sustainable fashion industry. Generation Z commonly deem it important to be sustainable
in their fashion consumption and they are generally aware of the non-sustainable act of
62
disposing of garments prematurely. When compared to a non-customised fashion product, the
generation would tend to keep a customised fashion product longer, wear it more often, and
care for it better. This is due to Generation Z’s perception of forming a stronger emotional
attachment towards the product and the sense of pride which emerges, both as a result of taking
part in the design process.
Considering all of the above, the main research question “What perceived value does
Generation Z associate with customised fashion products and the co-design process of
developing these goods?” can be answered as follows. Generation Z perceive value in the
customised fashion product mainly through the utilitarian value, yet also in the self-
expressiveness value. In addition, Generation Z perceive value in the co-design process
primarily through the creative- achievement value, yet also due to the hedonic value.
The sub-question “Does Generation Z have any perceived value of customised fashion
products that is specific to this generations’ characteristics, if so what kind of value(s)?” can
be answered as follows. Generation Z may perceive value in customised fashion products as it
enables them to act more responsibly and contribute to a more sustainable fashion industry.
This aligns with the generation’s specific characteristic of wanting to behave and consume
sustainably, although these findings are merely based on this generation’s perception and not
their actual behaviour.
6.1. Recommendations
Through customisation programmes fashion brands have the ability to cater for Generation Z’s
desires and demands. By implementing customisation programmes, fashion brands could
provide Generation Z with a unique and fun experience encompassing innovative activities,
which is something this generation values in brands. In their customisation schemes, brands
should strive to particularly facilitate adjustments of utilitarian or functional character, whilst
offering many different aesthetic design options so that the generation can feel creative.
Moreover, the customisation schemes should not be too complex as Generation Z would lose
interest if they felt overwhelmed. In line with this, investing in an appealing, simple, and fun
interface would enhance the generation’s tendency of spending time on the co-design process.
63
Fashion brands could also benefit from communicating more loudly the positive environmental
effects of keeping garments longer, and its connection to customised fashion. This could help
the generation in perceiving this value more clearly, and potentially attract the many Generation
Z consumers who strive to be sustainably responsible in their fashion consumption. In addition,
it could be advantageous to emphasise both the utilitarian and creative-achievement benefits in
the marketing of customised fashion offerings, since Generation Z deem them particularly
important.
6.2. Limitations & Future Research
Considering the novelty of the researched phenomenon of how Generation Z perceives value
in customised fashion, there are some limitations stemming from the difficulty in validating
the results with ample previous sources. Specifically, there is limited research scrutinising
Generation Z which adds to the difficulty of determining if these findings are truly specific to
Generation Z. Similarly, the adopted CPVT framework was specifically developed for mass
customisation and has therefore not been widely utilised, although it has been tested in similar
research to this one and was thus considered relevant. Due to this novelty of the topic, a general
insight to the phenomenon was initially desired, whilst a deeper understanding was deemed
imperative because of the limitation in previous research. Thereby, the mixed method approach
and the explanatory sequential design model was chosen, which provided a good combination
of quantitative and qualitative data, relevant to answer the research questions. Nevertheless,
the adopted method had some limitations which must be mentioned.
Firstly, the quantitative analysis was purely descriptive which could, due to no statistical
calculations, impede the quality of the data. What is more, the answering option “Neutral” in
the online survey was challenging to interpret and it could have brought more clarity if the
participants had the option of choosing “Tend to agree” and “Tend to disagree”. In addition,
with the survey being a self-administered questionnaire it naturally became hard to appreciate
the context under which participants completed it, and to determine how truthful they were.
Although the survey was filled by over 200 respondents from over 30 countries, it is not
possible to make generalisations from the results as representative for the entire Generation Z,
who comprises one-third of the world’s population. Similarly, although the eight interviews
contributed to a deeper understanding of obscure survey answers, they were only conducted
with Swedish and Swiss individuals, thus further limiting the generalisability of the data.
64
As stated earlier, there is a limitation in previous research scrutinising the specific
phenomenon, hence it invites for opportunities of future research. It is suggested that future
research collects data from a broader sample to allow for better generalisation of the results,
and employs statistical analysis to generate more reliable quantitative data. Furthermore, it
could be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study, as opposed to the chosen cross-sectional
one, since the participants’ perception may change over time. Additionally, it could be
interesting to examine if there is any relationship between the values associated with mass
customisation, although the framework does not address this. Along these lines, a deeper
investigation of the single values might bring clarity to which aspects and factors within a value
adds effective perceived value. This refers primarily to this study’s unclear results of the
uniqueness value. Lastly, an observed phenomenon that needs further investigation to
understand customised fashion’s future potential in the fashion industry, and how it is valued
by Generation Z, is the possible behaviour gap identified amongst Generation Z. For instance,
this generation desires to be unique or express personal image, yet controversially it still feels
that it is important to belong to a social group. This behaviour gap is also apparent in Generation
Z’s sustainability concerns, since this cohort deem it important to be sustainable in its fashion
consumption whilst simultaneously portraying evidence of adhering to fashion trends and often
opting for cheaper products as well as impulse buying. While this study deals with Generation
Z’s perception, future research should explore actual behaviour to see if it aligns with the
generation’s perception or if there indeed is a behaviour gap.
65
References
Accenture & Fashion for Good. (2019) The Future of Circular Fashion: Assessing the Viability
of Circular Business Models. Available at: https://fashionforgood.com/our_news/driving-
circular-business-models-in-fashion/ Accessed [2021-04-08].
Alexanderson, K. (2012) Källkritik på Internet, SE:s Internetguider. Stockholm: SE.
Almeida, F., Faria, D., & Queirós, A. (2017) ‘Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and
Quantitative Research Methods’, European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9), pp. 369-387.
Argyriou, E., & Melewar, T.C. (2011) ‘Consumer Attitudes Revisited: A Review of Attitude
Theory in Marketing Research’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, pp. 431-
451.
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2019) Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Birtwistle G., & Moore C.M. (2007) ‘Fashion clothing – where does it all end up?’,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 3, pp. 210-216.
Black, A., Asadorian, D., & Dunnett, H. (2017) ‘8 Key Truths about Generation Z’, Research
World, 67, pp. 12-14.
Brewer, M. K. (2019) ‘Slow Fashion in a Fast Fashion World: Promoting Sustainability and
Responsibility’, Laws, 8(4), pp. 1-9.
Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Business of Fashion. (2017) Adidas trials customer personalisation in bid to tackle fast fashion.
Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/technology/adidas-trials-customer-
personalisation-in-bid-to-tackle-fast-fashion Accessed [2021-04-12].
Business of Fashion. (2019) Zara to Roll out Denim Customisation Pop-Up. Available at:
https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/retail/zara-to-open-denim-customisation-pop-
ups-in-three-stores Accessed [2021-04-12].
66
Chaney, D., Lunardo, R., & Mencarelli, R. (2018) ‘Consumption experience: past, present and
future’, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 21(4), pp. 402-420.
Chatikavanji, K. (2019) The Luxury Brands taking personalisation to a new level. Available
at:https://www.lifestyleasia.com/bk/style/fashion/the-luxury-brands-taking-personalisation-
to-a-new-level/ Accessed [2021-04-12].
Choi, T.-M., & Guo, S. (2018) ‘Responsive supply in fashion mass customisation systems with
consumer returns’, International Journal of Production Research, 56(10), pp.3409-3422.
Collins Dictionary. (2021) Co-creation. Available at:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/8364/Co-creation Accessed [2021-05-06].
Creswell, J. W. (2012) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2006) Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
London: Sage Publications.
Csobanka, Z.E. (2016) ‘The Z Generation’, Acta Technologica Dubnica, 6(2), pp. 63-76.
Dolot, A. (2018) ‘The characteristics of Generation Z’, E-mentor, 2(74), pp. 44-50.
Fiore, A., & Lee, S.E. (2004) ‘Individual differences, motivations, and willingness to use a
mass customization option for fashion products’, European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), pp.
835-849.
Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018) ‘True Gen’: Generation Z and its implications for
companies. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-
goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies Accessed
[2021-04-10].
Franke, N., & Piller, E.T. (2004) ‘Value creation by toolkits for user innovation and design:
The case of the watch market’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(6), pp. 401-
415.
67
Franke N., & Schreier, M. (2008) ‘Product uniqueness as a driver of customer utility in mass
customization’, Marketing Letters, 19(2), pp.93-107.
Franke, N., Schreier, M., & Kaiser, U. (2010) ‘The “I Designed It Myself” Effect in Mass
Customization.’ Management Science, 56(1), pp. 125-140.
Gallarza, M.G., Gil Saura, I., & Holbrook, M.B. (2011) ‘The value of value: Further excursions
on the meaning and role of customer value’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, pp. 179-191.
Global Fashion Agenda. (2021) Engage with your customers through customisation.
Available at: https://designforlongevity.com/articles/engage-with-your-customers-through-
customisation Accessed [2021-04-12].
Gomez, K., Mawhinney, T., & Betts, K. (2020) Welcome to generation Z. Available at:
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/consumer-business/welcome-
to-gen-z.pdf Accessed [2021-04-09].
Goonetilleke, R. S. (2013) The Science of Footwear. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Gupta, S., Gwozda, W., & Gentry, J. (2019) ‘The role of style versus fashion orientation on
sustainable apparel consumption’, Journal of Macromarketing, 39(2), pp. 108-207.
Gwozdz, W., Nielsen, K. S., & Mueller, T. (2017) ‘An Environmental Perspective on Clothing
Consumption: Consumer Segments and Their Behavioral Patterns’, Sustainability, 9(5), pp.
762-789.
Hirscher, A.L., Niinimäki, K., & Armstrong, C. M. (2017) ‘Social manufacturing in the fashion
sector: New value creation through alternative design strategies?’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 172(2018), pp. 4544-4554.
Holbrook, M. B. (1999) Consumer Value – A framework for analysis and research. London:
Routledge.
Johnson, M., & Johnson, L. (2010). Generations, Inc.: From Boomers to Linksters- Managing
the Friction Between Generations at Work. New York: AMACOM.
68
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., & Arnold, M.J. (2006) ‘Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value:
Investigating differential effects on retail outcomes’, Journal of Business Research, 59, pp.
974-981.
Kang, J., & Park-Poaps, H. (2010) ‘Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations of fashion
leadership’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 29(4), pp.331-347.
Kant Hvass, K. & Pedersen, E. (2019) ‘Toward circular economy of fashion’, Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 23(3), pp. 345-365.
Kautish, P., & Sharma, R. (2018) ‘Consumer values, fashion consciousness and behavioural
intentions in the online fashion retail sector’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 46(10), pp. 894-914.
Kent, R. A. (2001) Data construction and data analysis for survey research. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kent, T. (2017) ‘Personalisation and fashion design.’ in Kuksa, I., & Fisher, T. (Ed.), Design
for Personalisation. New York: Routledge, pp. 17-34.
Kim, I., Jung, H.J., & Lee, Y. (2021) ‘Consumers’ Value and Risk Perceptions of Circular
Fashion: Comparison between Secondhand, Upcycled, and Recycled Clothing’, Sustainability,
13, pp. 1208-1231.
Kim, H.S. & Hall, M.L. (2014) ‘Fashion brand personality and advertisement response:
incorporating a symbolic interactionist perspective’, in Choi, T.M. (Ed.), Fashion Branding
and Consumer Behaviors, International Series on Consumer Science. New York: Springer, pp.
29-45.
Kozlowski, A., Bardecki, M., & Searcy, C. (2012) ‘Environmental Impacts in the Fashion
Industry: A Life-cycle and Stakeholder Framework’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 45, pp,
17-36.
Kumar, R. (2005) Research Methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners. London: Sage
Publications.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000) ‘Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective

management’, The Health Care Manager, 19(1), pp. 65-76.
69
Lampel, J., & Mintzberg, H. (1996) ‘Customizing Customization’, Sloan Management Review,
Fall 1996, pp. 21-30.
Lee, H.H., & Chang, E. (2011) ‘Consumer Attitudes Toward Online Mass Customization: An
Application of Extended Technology Acceptance Model’, Journal of computer-mediated
communication, 16(2), pp. 171-200.
Liang, Y., & Liu, C. (2019) ‘Comparison of consumers’ acceptance of online apparel mass
customization across web and mobile channels’, Journal of global fashion marketing, 10(3),
pp. 228-245.
Malhotra, H. (2010). Marketing Research: an applied orientation. New York: Pearson

Education Inc.
Matthews, D., Rothenberg, L., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2019) ‘The impact of mass customization
on fashion-innovative students: an assessment of need for uniqueness, self-identity, and
perceived performance risk’, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education, 12(3), pp. 293-300.
Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.
McFall-Johnsen, M. (2020) These facts show how unsustainable the fashion industry is.
Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/fashion-industry-carbon-
unsustainable-environment-pollution/ Accessed [2021-04-08].
Merle, A., Chandon, J.L., Roux, E., & Alizon, F. (2010) ‘Perceived Value of the Mass-
Customized Product and Mass Customization Experience for Individual Consumers’,
Production and Operations Management, 19(5), pp.503-514.
Mittal, B., & Sheth, J.N. (2001) ValueSpace: Winning the Battle for Market Leadership. New
York: McGraw Hill Professional.
Nardi, P. (2003). Doing Survey Research - A Guide to Quantitative Methods. New York: Taylor
and Francis.
Niinimäki, K., & Hassi, L. (2011) ‘Emerging design strategies in sustainable production and
consumption of textiles and clothing’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, pp. 1876-1883.
70
Özkan, M., & Solmaz, B. (2019) ‘Generation Z - The global Market’s New Consumers - And
Their Consumption Habits: Generation Z Consumption Scale’, European Journal of
Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(5), pp. 150-157.
Park, M., & Yoo, J. (2018) ‘Benefits of mass customized products: moderating role of product
involvement and fashion innovativeness,’ Heliyon, 4, pp. 2-19.
Piller, F.T. (2004) ‘Mass Customization: Reflections on the State of the Concept’, The
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 16, pp. 313-334.
Peterson, J., & Mattila, H. (2010) ‘Mass customisation of knitted fashion garments: Factory
Boutique Shima - a case study’, International Journal of Mass Customisation, 3(3), pp. 247-
258.
Ritch, E.L. (2019) ‘Experiencing fashion: the interplay between consumer value and
sustainability’, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 23(2), pp. 265-285.
Ross, F. (2010) ‘Leveraging Niche Fashion Markets through Mass Customization, Co-design,
Style Advice, and New Technology: A Study of Gay Aesthetics and Website Design’, Fashion
practice, 2(2), pp. 175-197.
Sánchez-Fernádez, R., & Ángeles Iniesta-Bonillo, M. (2006) ‘Consumer perception of value:

Literature review and a new conceptual framework’, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 2006(19), pp. 40-58.
Saavedra, C.M.C., & Bautista, R.A. (2020) ‘Are you “in” or are you “out”?: Impact of FoMO
(Fear of Missing Out) on Generation Z’s Masstige-brand Apparel Consumption’, Asia-Pacific
Social Science Review, 20(2), pp. 106-118.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016) Research methods for business students. New
York: Pearson.
Schreier, M. (2006). ‘The value increment of mass-customized products: An empirical as-

sessment’ Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(4), pp. 317-327.
Senanayake, M., & Little, J.T. (2009) ‘Mass customization: points and extent of apparel
customization’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 14(2), pp. 282-299.
71
Slevitch, L. (2011) ‘Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies Compared: Ontological and
Epistemological Perspectives’, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 12(1),
pp. 73-81.
Taylor, S.J., Bodgan, R., & DeVault, M.L. (2015) Introduction to Qualitative Research
Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Trendhunter. (2021) Luxury Customization. Available at:

https://www.trendhunter.com/protrends/luxury-customization Accessed [2021-04-12].
Tseng, M.M., Wang, Y., & Jiao, R.J. (2017) ‘Mass Customization.’ in Laperrière, L., &
Reinhart, G. (ed.) CIRP Encyclopedia of Production Engineering. Berlin: Springer, pp. 2-14.
Wang, Y., & Cho, H. (2012) ‘The Effect of Fashion Innovativeness on Consumer’s Online
Apparel Customization’, International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 5(2), pp. 263-
283.
Wheeldon, J., & Åhlberg, M.K. (2012) Mapping mixed-methods research: theories, models,
and measures. In Visualizing social science research: Maps, methods, & meaning, Sage
Publications, Inc., pp. 113-148.
Williams, A., & Hodges, N. (2020) ‘Generation Z and Socially Responsible Fashion
Consumption: Exploring the Value-Action Gap’, International Textile and Apparel
Association Annual Conference Proceedings, 77(1).
Williams, K.C., Page, R.A., Petrosky, A.R., & Hernandez, E.H. (2010) ‘Multi-Generational
Marketing: Descriptions, Characteristics, Lifestyles, and Attitudes’, Journal of Applied
Business and Economics, 11(2).
Yeung, H.-T., Choi, T.-M., & Chiu, C.-H. (2010) ‘Innovative Mass Customization in the
Fashion Industry’, Innovative Quick Response Programs in Logistics and Supply Chain
Management, Berlin: Springer, pp. 423-454.
Yoo, J., & Park, M. (2016) ‘The effects of e-mass customization on consumer perceived value,
satisfaction, and loyalty toward luxury brands’, Journal of Business Research, 69, pp. 5775-
5784.
72
Yukhnevich, A. (2020) Personalization and Customization Trends in Fashion Retail.
Available at: https://texel.graphics/news/personalization-fashion-retail/ Accessed [2021-04-
12].
Yunjeong, K., & Kyung, W.O. (2020) ‘Which Consumer Associations Can Build a Sustainable
Fashion Brand Image? Evidence from Fast Fashion Brands’, Sustainability, 12, pp. 1703-1719.
73
Appendices
Appendix 1: Items Survey
Demographic information
Item 1 What is your year of birth? (Note that you need to be born between
1995-2010 to participate.)
Purpose To ensure respondent belongs to sample.
Literature inapplicable
Item 2 Which gender do you identify with?

Answer option - Female
- Male
- Others
Item 3 What is your country of origin? (Please answer in English.)

Item 4 Do you have a background in fashion or textiles?

Answer option - Yes
- No
General Perception of Customisation

Item 5 Have you ever come across fashion brands offering customised
products?
Answer option - Yes
- No
Item 6 Have you ever purchased a customised fashion product?

Answer option - Yes
- No
74
Item 7 Would you be interested in a customised fashion product?

Answer option - Yes
- No
Mass Customised Product Value

Utilitarian Value
Item 8 I often want to change something about the design of a fashion
product.
Answer option - Strongly Agree
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of general perception towards product characteristics and
individual preferences.
Literature Merle et al., 2010
Item 9 I often want to change the fit (measurement) of a fashion product.

- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of perception towards the product fit and individual
preferences.
Item 10 I often want to change the style of a fashion product.

- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of perception towards the product aesthetics and
75
Item 11 I often want to change the colour of a fashion product.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of perception towards the product aesthetics and
Uniqueness Value
Item 12 It is important for me to dress in a way that showcases my
uniqueness.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the importance of personal uniqueness.
Literature Merle et al., 2010; Francis & Hoefel, 2018
Item 13 I would choose a customised fashion product because it allows me

to create a unique look.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the importance of personal uniqueness.
Literature Merle et al., 2010; Francis & Hoefel, 2018
Item 14 It is important for me to dress in a way that reflects my self-image.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the importance of reflecting one’s own
personality/self-image.
Literature Merle et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2010
76
Item 15 I would choose a customised fashion product to influence the design
so it fits my self-image.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the importance of reflecting one’s own
personality/self-image.
Literature Merle et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2010
Co-Design Process Value

Hedonic Value
Item 16 I would enjoy taking part in the process of choosing design elements
in my fashion products.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the enjoyment of the co-designing experience.
Literature Merle et al., 2010; Black et al., 2017
Item 17 I would like to invest some time in the process of choosing design
elements in my fashion products.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the enjoyment of the co-designing experience and its
related effort.
Literature Merle et al., 2010; Black et al., 2017
Item 18 If I choose a customised fashion product, I would want many
different design options (colours, embroidery, prints).
- Agree
- Neutral
77
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the extend of the desired involvement in the co-
designing process. (Creative achievement value)
Item 19 I would choose a customised fashion product because it offers me

the opportunity to be creative.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the enjoyment, fun, or pleasure regarding the
involvement in a co-designing process.
Literature Merle et al., 2010; 2010; Black et al., 2017
Item 20 Knowing I have designed part of the fashion product myself would
give me a sense of accomplishment.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the feeling of pride of authorship or the “I designed it
myself”-effect.
Literature Merle et al., 2010; Franke et al., 2010
Item 21 If the customised fashion product does not meet my expectations in

the end, I would feel uncreative.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the feeling of pride of authorship or the “I designed it
myself”-effect.
Literature Merle et al., 2010; Franke et al., 2010
Other Possible Value

make me wear the garment more often.
78
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the possible extension of the product life cycle of
apparel products.
Literature Niniimäki & Hassi, 2011; Hirscher et al., 2017; Franke et al., 2010
Item 23 Knowing I have designed part of the fashion product myself I would
keep the product for longer.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the possible extension of the product life cycle of
apparel products.
Literature Niniimäki & Hassi, 2011; Hirscher et al., 2017; Franke et al., 2010
increase my emotional attachment towards the brand.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the loyalty towards a brand.
Literature Black et al., 2017; Niniimäki & Hassi, 2011; Franke et al., 2010;
Park & Yoo, 2018
increase my emotional attachment towards the product.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the possible extension of the life cycle of apparel
products.
Literature Niinimäki & Hassi, 2011; Black et al., 2017
79
Item 26 I am aware that I contribute to an unsustainable fashion industry if I
dispose of a fashion product after only using it for a short period of
time.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the awareness about the fashion industry’s pollution.
Literature Niinimäki & Hassi, 2011; McFall-Johnsen, 2020; Black et al., 2017
Item 27 It is important for me to be sustainable in my fashion consumption.

- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the importance of consuming in a sustainable way.
Literature Black et al., 2017; Francis & Hoefel, 2018
Item 28 I would pay more for a customised fashion product than a non-
customised fashion product.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the willingness to pay for a customised fashion
product.
Literature Merle et al., 2010; Franke et al., 2010; Francis & Hoefel, 2018
Item 29 I would pay more for a customised fashion product of a non-

premium brand (e.g. H&M, ZARA), compared to a non-customised
fashion product of such brand.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the willingness to pay for a non-premium customised
fashion product.
80
Item 30 I would pay more for a customised fashion product of a premium
brand (e.g. Gucci, Louis Vuitton), compared to a non-customised
fashion product of such brand.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the willingness to pay for a premium customised
fashion product.
Item 31 If a non-premium fashion brand (e.g. H&M, ZARA) offered the

option to customise its fashion products, I would pay the following
additional amount to do so:
Answer option - Nothing
- 1-20 EUR
- 21-40 EUR
- 41-60 EUR
- More
Purpose Elicitation of the additional amount of willingness to pay for a non-
premium customised fashion product.
Item 32 If a premium fashion brand (e.g. Gucci, Louis Vuitton) offered the
option to customise its fashion products, I would pay the following
additional amount to do so:
Answer option - Nothing
- 1-50 EUR
- 51-100 EUR
- 101-150 EUR
- More
Purpose Elicitation of the willingness to pay for a premium customised
fashion product.
Literature Merle et al., 2010; Franke et al., 2010; Francis & Hoefel, 2018;
Item 33 I would be more likely to purchase a customised fashion product if

it was popular amongst my social circle.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
81
Purpose Elicitation of the importance of belonging to a social group.
Literature Saavedra & Bautista, 2020; Williams et al., 2010
Item 34 If I saw someone using customised fashion products on social media,

I would be more likely to purchase it too.
- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
Purpose Elicitation of the importance of belonging to a social group.
Literature Saavedra & Bautista, 2020; Williams et al., 2010
82
Appendix 2: Interview Guide
QUESTIONS: PURPOSE:
1. Introduction:
Are you interested in fashion? General perception and experience of
Have you ever bought a customised fashion customisation.
product?
Have you ever come across a customised
fashion product or do you know of a brand
who offers this?
What do you think about customised fashion
products in general?
(Depending on the answer ask about “the
why.”)
2. Generation Perception:
What aspects do you consider when you To capture which value seems to be the most
choose a fashion product? important for this generation regarding a
Is there something that is particularly fashion product. (Does not need to be
important to you? customised, maybe we can draw a
conclusion, that customisation would
contribute to these values.)
3. Utilitarian Value:
If you want to buy a new fashion product: Do To get a better understanding, if this
you usually have something specific in Generation has a clear idea of its personal
mind? preferences.
How do you perceive the offerings of fashion Item 8, 10, and 11 (Appendix 1) in the survey
products? have not been answered clearly, therefore
Does the market offer what you are looking this question should bring more clarification
for? If not, what do you miss the most? on the individual preferences and product
characteristics.
4. Uniqueness Value:
What does uniqueness mean to you when it To get a deeper understanding in what
comes to fashion products? Generation Z actually perceives as
How important is it for you to be unique? uniqueness. (The result of item 12 was not as
clear as expected.) (Theory: Importance of
being unique.)
5. Self-Expressiveness Value:
83
How would you influence the design of a The result of item 15 was not as clear as
customised fashion product to make sure it expected. (Theory: Importance of
reflects your self-image? showcasing personal identity.)
6. Hedonic Value:
How much effort and time would be worth The quantitative survey indicates that
spending for you to create your customised Generation Z would enjoy taking part in the
fashion product? design process of fashion products but are
less likely to take the time of doing so.
(Appendix 1) (Theory: Importance of having
an experience when consuming.)
7. Creative-Achievement Value:
How would you feel if the result of your Controversially to the theory the survey
customised product would not meet your showed that Generation Z would not mainly
expectations? feel uncreative if the end product would not
meet their expectations. (Appendix1) This
calls for more investigation on this value.
8. Other Possible Value:
How would customised fashion products Try to get a deeper understanding for the
influence your consumption? connection of consumption, emotional
Would you use/wear the customised fashion attachment, wearing the garment more often,
product in any different way to your non- and sustainability.
customised fashion products? If so, how?
(For example, more often, less often, special
occasions etc.) Can you please explain why
you think that is?
Do you think you would take better care of a
customised fashion product? If so, how?
If a brand offered a customised fashion To investigate tendency of brand loyalty and
product, would this change your perception brand perception.
towards the brand? If so, how?
Would you pay more for a customised To investigate if it has something to do with
fashion product? Why yes? / Why not? the hedonic value or not (experience).
In case of yes, what additional offered Finding additional offers from companies
adjustment features would be important for that could be missing so far.
you to be willing to pay more for a
customised fashion product?
How important is it for you that you belong The theory says it is very important for
to a social group and why? Generation Z to belong to a social group. The
survey does not support this regarding
84
How does this influence your fashion fashion products. This question asks for a
consumption? deeper understanding if it is in general not
important or just regarding fashion products.
9. Information about person:
What is your year of birth? Where are you Demographic Data to get background
from? Do you have a textile background or information about the person.
not?
85
Appendix 3: Coding Guide
CODE DEFINITION EXAMPLE
1. GENERAL PERCEPTION:
Perception of This code indicates how “I like it because it is very
Customisation Generation Z perceive personal to you and I
customisation in general. really like it if something
is meaningful.”
(Participant 7)
Purchasing Habits Describes which factors “To be very honest,

are in general important basically just that it is cool
for the participants while and does not cost too
buying a new fashion much. In the end it is all
product. about the price.”
(Participant 1)
2. UTILITARIAN VALUE:
Personal Preferences To investigate Generation “I think so most of the
Z’s purchasing behaviour time I know what I want.
and its awareness of Especially now since I’m
personal preferences. only buying second hand
or vintage, then I try to
plan my purchases more.”
(Participant 8)
Fashion Offerings Indicates if the “Hm in general I would

offering/characteristics of say the market offers a
fashion products meet the lot!“ (Participant 4)
needs/preferences of
Generation Z.
3. UNIQUENESS VALUE:
Perception of Describes what does “Well, I wouldn’t buy a
Uniqueness uniqueness means to piece of which I know half
Generation Z and how of my school would run
important it is for it. around with it too. I would
NEVER do that no matter
how cool I think the piece
is.” (Participant 1)
4. SELF-EXPRESSIVENESS VALUE:
Self-Image Reflection This code brings “I would probably change

clarification on how like the design,
86
Generation Z would embellishment or shoe
influence fashion products laces. I would probably
to reflect its personal add something, if the
identity. design of the model of the
shoe is nice I would keep it
but add these things.”
(Participant 6)
5. HEDONIC VALUE:
Time & Effort Clarifies if Generation Z is “Hm I think you obviously
Investment willing to invest time and will pay more for that
effort to customise a customisation so I think
product. it’s reasonable to also
invest some time so you
will like it in the end.”
(Participant 2)
6. CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT VALUE:
Expectations Describes the feeling of “Maybe I would think that

not achieving the was shit but I wouldn’t
individual expectations. start questioning my life
because of that.”
(Participant 3)
7. OTHER POSSIBLE VALUES:
Consumption & General indication if “Hm, I think I would buy
Behaviour customised fashion less because you have this
products would change the time invested to create the
consumption and product and you feel more
behaviour pattern. attached to it.” (Participant
4)
Brand Perception This code clarifies if “Yes, it would definitely

customised fashion influence my purchasing
products would increase behaviour towards them.
Generation Z’s loyalty So, it would have a
towards a brand. positive impact.”
(Participant 7)
Willingness to Pay Indicates if and why “Yes, cause I can express

Generation Z would pay myself. So if I could make
more for a customised it fit better I would be
fashion product. willing to pay a bunched
up price.” (Participant 5)
87
Social Group Brings clarification on the “I also think you somehow
importance of belonging to want this recognition, so it
a social group and its would be weird for me to
influence on the not belong to a group. But
individuals. it’s not super important to
me.” (Participant 2)
88
Appendix 4: Data per Category
MAIN CATEGORY 1: GENERAL PERCEPTION
SUBCATEGORY: PERCEPTION OF CUSTOMISATION
Participant 1: I actually think it’s nice, but often it’s like that you have to pay more for it
and you don’t know how it looks like in the end. So, due to financial
reasons and the current offer, I can’t imagine that I will do it in the near
future myself.
Participant 2: I think it’s really really cool and I am sure it will be more popular in the
future because I don’t think it’s very common for mainstream brands or
fast fashion to offer this service. Probably it is not possible there due to the
costs, but I am sure a lot of brands and especially high-end labels will
follow this trend. Because I think it’s important in society to be unique and
maybe it has also to do with somehow like a status symbol if you have your
personalised luxury bag instead of a mainstream Prada bag that everyone
has. I think at some point the fashion industry needs something new
because we already know everything.
Participant 3: Nice to have. I think it’s a good idea in general, that you could determine
the fit, the colour. You just have more possibilities. But I think the offer is
very limited, I don’t see that service often.
Participant 4: Hmm I think it was the uniqueness factor because you have something that
not everyone else has as well and also you are more emotionally attached
to the things. May sounds stupid but that’s how it is. Because you have
contributed something, it belongs to you so it is more special than if you
just buy something standardised.
I think it’s very cool. Because of the reasons I’ve mentioned before. Like
the uniqueness because not everyone has it and if so, it’s still not exactly
the same product and second you are more involved in the process which
makes you feel more attached.
Participant 5: I kind of like it cause I can express myself a bit more, but for me usually
these are pretty shitty, or like the quality of the product often goes down,
at least from the places I have bought it. Because they are mass-produced
to do it as cheaply as possible. But I do like that I can customise, and I
guess I kind of know what I am getting. So I would like it, if I at least got
the equal amount of quality.
Participant 6: I mean I think it’s cool that you can design your own, and get your own
style of the product, and make it your version. So I think it’s a good option,
and probably you would be more satisfied with the product since you can
actually do it as you want it. And since you can change colours or like add
something, it would be nice.
Participant 7: I like it because it is very personal to you and I really like it if something
is meaningful. And I also think it’s a great present that you can gift
someone. It’s not only a material thing but personal, so I just like the whole
concept of it, because you can make it to your own.
89
Participant 8: I think it’s a fun way to ehm, make garments more unique and personalised.
And also a fun way to create greater value for the customer.
SUBCATEGORY: PURCHASING PROCESS
Participant 1: Hmm, well basically the first thing I look at is if I like it, if I feel
comfortable in it, and that it looks cool, and maybe that not every freak has
it. That is primarily. And secondarily, from which shop is it, how was it
produced, and I noticed that I started to prefer products that are tagged with
sustainability. But I can’t say I am doing that always, because it’s still the
case, that these products are more expensive. And also, meanwhile even
Zara has sustainable tags on their products and I can’t imagine that these
products are produced in a fair way. I just don’t believe that, because it’s
still so cheap and they also want to have a profit on it. I often think this is
only about marketing.
To be very honest, basically just that it is cool and does not cost too much.
In the end it is all about the price. Of course, I could say I only buy every
half a year a new pair of jeans for like CHF 200.-, instead of buying like
every month something for CHF 20.- or CHF 30.-.
Participant 2: I think you have to distinguish between fast fashion like Zara or H&M,
which is obviously cheap or if you look for expensive shoes or a Prada bag
or whatever. So, when it comes to fast fashion, I just make sure that I like
it, if it fits me, and if I think it’s stylish. And for more expensive things it’s
definitely also about the quality. I don’t want to buy something for like
CHF 1’000.- and then get crap. And I also think if you buy something from
a more expensive brand you buy it from a brand with which you can
identify yourself. So, with my budget I wouldn’t buy a very expensive bag
from a brand I barely know because then I don’t feel a connection to it.
Other than that, I think the basics like the colours, the material, that the
product is comfortable and so on are important.
Participant 3: The fit, with that I mean the cut, the colour, yeah, I think that’s it.
Participant 4: Hmm it really depends on the price category. In general, it’s really
important to me that it’s somehow universal, so I can wear it for a long
time and for many different occasions, but also that it has this “wow”-
effect. If it doesn’t blow me away, I won’t buy it. That’s my kind of
sustainability. No matter if it’s Zara or Chanel if it hasn’t this “wow”-effect
I won’t buy it and therefore, I buy a lot less.
Participant 5: Comfortability mainly, or the price and comfortability. If I see something
that does not feel right or sits weirdly I am not gonna buy it. But if I see
something expensive that fits really nice, I am more likely to buy that than
something that feels cheaper. So mainly, how it feels when I wear it. So
the material and the fit of the product. Yes, the material and the fit of the
product.
Participant 6: Ehm I always, for me I look at the quality and usually I don’t want to buy
anything with animals but it’s very hard sometimes to find good products.
90
Yeah, the fibers in it and the materials. And also the garment’s model, like
if it will fit my body type and so on that is very important. I think.
Participant 7: Of course, the price, but also, I would turn more towards companies I
already know because then I know what to expect, their price range, their
quality. Quality is also something that is very important. I would rather pay
more for good quality than less and then have something that is not good
in quality. So, price and quality go hand in hand, so if the quality is good,
I would pay more for it.
Participant 8: I think mostly the fit maybe, because I find that quite hard. But also I'm
looking for two part, like great pieces that have good quality but also some
statement pieces. So it can be, I mean it depends on what you are looking
for I would say. But mostly quality and fit.
MAIN CATEGORY 2: UTILITARIAN VALUE
SUBCATEGORY: PERSONAL PREFERENCES
Participant 1: It depends. Sometimes I am looking for something specific but then often
this is not offered. I often go on Pinterest or so before I go to a shop and
look for inspiration and then will search for something similar in the shop.
But often it’s just that my best friend and I have some time after school and
then we just go to like Zara and stroll around and if you see something you
like, you just buy it.
Participant 2: Hehe, well I think mostly I buy things when I don’t have something in
mind, like for example if I do on a Friday evening a little online shopping,
then it’s aimless. I can’t really answer this question straight forward. I often
think it’s impulse buying like for example if we are in the city and go to a
shop and then you see something that you like, and then it might be even
on sale and then you just buy it. Not that I would need it, I mean we never
really need it, right? So, to answer your question, in general I don’t have a
specific imagination of what I want to buy but of course if I need like new
trousers for work or so, I look for that specific piece.
Participant 3: It depends. For example, if I want to go for a run, I am looking for a sneaker
and not for a flip-flop but if you refer it to fashion it happened that I was
looking for something specific but then also saw something that I wasn’t
looking for but I liked it, so you buy both.
Participant 4: I think it depends if I buy online or in person – 50/50. Sometimes I think
“oh yes, that’s exactly what is missing in my wardrobe” but then I mostly
have the inspiration from elsewhere and that could be friends, Instagram
or whatever. Or then I just pass by a window or browse around and think
“oh that’s nice”.
Participant 5: Ehm, yeah. If I go into a store anywhere I know what kind of thing I am
gonna buy, I am not big on impulse purchases so if I am gonna buy a pair
of pants I will go to the pants aisle. So I just go there, and then I kind of
know what fit I like and usually I like cotton for example. But yeah I go
straight to where I wanna buy it.
91
Yeah, and I mean no one is immune to, when you like go to a store and
then in the checkout you see socks for like 50 SEK, then you are gonna
grab a few.
Participant 6: Mmm yeah, I always check, like it depends if I want something as soon as
possible like socks then I don’t really look that carefully but if it’s like a
dress or a hoodie or something I know I want to have for special occasions
or to have for a long time, then I will look for it for a long time before. Or
even like compare it, mostly in store with other models like the colour, the
feel, the style and yeah.
Participant 7: I think I am in between. Probably I think more about it before and then buy
it, especially if it’s a big purchase. For instance, it took me like half a year
to be convinced that this is the bag I want. Because I also once wanted to
buy shoes and waited a bit and my mind changed regarding the colour. So,
I think about it before I buy it.
Participant 8: Ehm, yeah I think so most of the time I know what I want. Especially now
since I’m only buying second hand or vintage, then I try to plan my
purchases more. Yeah.
SUBCATEGORY: FASHION OFFERINGS
Participant 1: Eeehm, completely overwhelming. I feel like if you walk in a shop you
don’t even know where to start looking, Zara is okay but H&M is crazy. I
stopped going there because I can’t go to a shop where I can’t see the actual
offer because there are just too many clothes. And online is actually the
same but it’s perfect if it’s boring during a school lesson or so, and it is
very easy to just send it back if you don’t like it. But I stopped ordering at
Zalando because I’ve heard that they throw away clothes that have been
sent back because it’s more effort for them to repack it and to dispose of it.
Hmm, I think jackets and dresses are really really hard to find. In general:
at my age I don’t care about quality to be honest. It shouldn’t look cheap
and it shouldn’t fall apart but I really don’t care about the rest because it is
ok for the money I pay. But in general, it is mostly the cut I don’t like.
Participant 2: Well, if I look for something specific, I often feel like that I can’t find it
exactly that way. For example, if I see something on Insta and I have this
picture in mind, it’s really hard to find something that is close to the one I
want. And if you refer it to Zurich, the shops are very limited. So, then you
have a look online, because then you can look internationally.
Participant 3: The offer is big especially because of the online shops as well.
Yes, I think so.
Participant 4: Hm in general I would say the market offers a lot! Especially now with the
whole internet and online offer. So, I think you could find almost
everything, but I think everything that is not day-to-day wear it is difficult.
For example, a special dress, where I would go to tailor if I had the money.
Most often it’s the cut I don’t like. A perfect cut is so important, it looks
so much better if it really fits you. Then I often return it. But yeah,
92
sometimes it’s also the colour. That’s hard when it comes to all these trend
colours like orange or pink.
Participant 5: I perceive a lot of the things as, I don’t know how to describe it but “too
fancy”, like they are too pricy but just for the purpose of flexing your
money. Like I see a lot of designer brand stuff that is not that good looking
but it has an expensive price tag, so that people will buy it. Like if it is one
of a kind then I understand it, but if I see a t-shirt, say from Kayne West
and JC’s t-shirt that has like holes in them and cost like 200 euros or
something. I see that kind of high end fashion as preposterous.
As far as I know the market often has everything. They mostly have
everything, but hats are lacking I would say. There are mostly sports hats
as far as I know, at least for guys. Like baseball hats and so on. But other
than that not that many options, if you want good quality at least. It is
always the same it feels like.
Participant 6: I mean I think it’s good, I am not super picky except for the aspects I told
you about, like the quality. But yeah, I think it’s good but it can always be
better. Like sometimes there is something that I want to change with the
garment or like add, of course it can be like that. And I’m not very good at
like sewing and that, so it’s hard if I want to change something with the
garment because I can’t do it by myself.
I think like for me, the market often has what I’m looking for. I always find
something and usually what I’m looking for is there. But like for me, the
sneakers is like, I would like to customise sneakers, like I would like to add
something. That’s the issue for me, because I love sneakers, and I know on
the market for example only, I know only one brand, Nike has this where
you can go to their factory and change their shoes. But I don’t want to this
at Nike and it costs a lot, so I would like to have the normal sneaker brands
like Axel Arigato, Guess and you know these shoes I would like to change.
And even Adidas, that’s yeah, but I don’t think they’re offering this. So
that’s what is missing for me I would say.
Participant 7: Well, I have all my fashion inspiration from the influencer I follow and
usually they have tagged all the products, so I often times find the products
I am looking for thanks to them. But if I don’t find it or if they don’t tag it,
I go to shops like H&M or Zara and try to find a similar one.
Participant 8: Ehm I think it’s quite volatile, especially now during the pandemic. I find
it quite boring to be honest. LIke the market is a bit more basic and boring
in general, which is a good thing in terms of sustainability of course. But I
think they also have a lot of a broad spectrum of stuff as well, and a lot of
things you don’t think you need.
I think, hmm, probably that something is missing because I'm not
completely happy all the time with what is on the market. And I feel like
you often have to compromise with your purchases. Often there is a
problem I think in the design of the garment.
93
MAIN CATEGORY 3: UNIQUENESS VALUE
SUBCATEGORY: UNIQUENESS
Participant 1: Hmm not sure if I got it right, but I think in general every one runs after
the same trends and if you have something that is different from a second-
hand shop or so, you know you are the only one with that thing.
Well, I wouldn’t buy a piece of which I know half of my school would run
around with it too. I would NEVER do that no matter how cool I think the
piece is.
Participant 2: Well, that the product is unique because there is no one else with exactly
that product. So, it’s something special to me because I have done or
designed it the way I wanted.
Hmm, I would say it’s getting more and more important to me, because
you also develop your own style but then again of course a lot of people
have a similar style, that might be also because everyone buys at the same
shops. It’s actually hard to say, I don’t want to be mainstream but I also
don’t want to stand out from the mass and be that paradise bird. I think it’s
cool if you can bring in some uniqueness in some pieces like shoes or bags
but in general it’s not super important to me.
Participant 3: That is not so important to me. There is all the time some kind of hypes,
where everyone wears the same shoes or watch or whatever. Well, if I like
the hype, yes. Like for example these Veja sneakers. But I would have
bought the shoe as well if it wouldn’t have been a hype.
Participant 4: To be myself and to wear outfits with a personal touch, like I would never
wear an outfit out of a shop window. But yeah, if you buy from a fast
fashion shop like Zara and every second girl wears it, it’s not cool. That’s
why I always loved to shop on holiday because then no one else has it.
Especially summer clothes like dresses and so on.
Hmm, I don’t even think about that to be honest. I do what I want, I wear
what I want, and I say what I want. So, I think I am on my own path
anyhow. So, yeah it is important to me but I think I do that subconsciously.
Participant 5: Something that makes you stand out a bit, or a specific ehm print on them.
I remember there was one store I think my dad and brother took me to and
they were talking about jeans that were quite expensive but they were made
by like one woman, and they were smudged by beans, so they were not that
nice looking haha.. but at least they were unique. So I guess specific taste
and not mass-produced I would say, like it has its own quirks and it does
not have to be perfect. It could be missing something or have added
something.
Not at all haha. I wear mostly dark colours and dark blue, and black. I do
like accessorising a bit, I have watches and rings, and some bracelets. But
more than that, I don’t really like standing out when I go out. I’m more like
a, wear dark colours and blend in kind of guy. But when I am at home I
can wear a yellow hoodie or something that stands out a bit more, so I kind
94
of like it for myself but I guess I don’t like flaunting it when I am out. Then
I would wear comfortable clothes that do not scream out with any colours.
Participant 6: I don’t know, but I would say something that would last for more than 10
years like that’s uniqueness. But maybe we are talking style and so on, so
how it is, how it will fit on me. But I don’t know, for me it’s just like
uniqueness is a garment that feels good, fits good, and looks good. And
you know it’s just good for me, and the environment of course. Like
something that has a super perfect fit for me, like something I can wear
every day, that’s uniqueness.
No for me it’s not really super important, cause I don’t feel like I am a
person who expresses a lot with fashion for example. I am pretty basic, you
know this classical style. So for me I guess then, it would be important to
be unique in my classical style, cuts and so on. Because I don’t want to
wear these super strong patterns with orange and stuff. Yeah that kind of
uniqueness is then important to me. That I have my own style.
Participant 7: Good question. Basically, everyone is unique because no one has exactly
the same style or how they portrait themselves to others. But as soon as
you said the word unique, I thought about customisation or personalisation
because if I have such an item I know, no one else has it and that’s what
makes me unique and what differentiate myself from others.
Hmm, quite important since I have so many personalised jewelleries, so I
tend towards this emotional connection.
Participant 8: Maybe like unique colors or patterns of something like that. Yeah
something that stands out, like a puff sleeve or something like that. And
something that not everyone is having.
Quite important.
MAIN CATEGORY 4: SELF-EXPRESSIVENESS VALUE
SUBCATEGORY: SELF-IMAGE REFLECTION
Participant 1: Mhh, for example on a hoodie I think I would like to have a cool print, or
maybe change the cut of a jeans or so. But in general, I prefer basic stuff
and then combine it with a nice bag or so, or maybe wear a hat. But I am
not keen to look like a Gucci-Model.
Participant 2: If we refer it to clothes, I would say the cut. For example, I don’t like it if
things are waisted, so I would change that. And otherwise, I would say the
colours. I like these natural tones like beige, white, black, whatever and if
something is pink, then I wouldn’t buy it. Maybe the material I would also
like to change, like the fabric.
Participant 3: I think the cut would be good if you could have a word. And maybe the
colour and the sayings on the shirts. Maybe you could choose the font type.
Participant 4: Hmm I think the style, which is connected to the cut, but then also the
colour and little details that can make a huge difference.
Participant 5: Ehm, a lot of how it fits mostly because I have long arms and broad
shoulders. I have to almost always wear baggy, because my arms are too
95
long so I have to get a size up. So I would probably like to adjust this and
type in my measures so that the garment can be made for me. And ehm
depending on the design, prints and such would also be nice. There’s a lot
of screamy prints and patterns as well. Yeah, I can have some not too stand-
outish design but some nice low-key patterns or designs or text or
something maybe.
Participant 6: Yeah, then I would probably, as I told you with the sneakers, I would
change a lot of like, because when it comes to sneakers I like to, not go
crazy but I like to have different embellishments, or designs, or colours. So
I would probably change like the design, embellishment or shoe laces. I
would probably add something, if the design of the model of the shoe is
nice I would keep it but add these things. Or if they had the option, like say
for Adidas, then I would change the shoe design if I could, the colours and
so on.
Participant 7: I like everything that’s minimal and very clean, and so when I have the
option to choose the font or colours, I would go for light ones because that
reflects my style, I would say – very clean, very simplistic.
Participant 8: Firstly I would say the fit, like cut the trousers off, make the sleeves fit my
arms, I have short arms. But also maybe some design bits, I love the puff
sleeves for example and maybe I would like to have that a bit more in my
clothes. And also small details, like a belt or embroidery or something like
that. Oh, and colours, yeah colours.
MAIN CATEGORY 5: HEDONIC VALUE
SUBCATEGORY: TIME & EFFORT INVESTMENT
Participant 1: Well, time doesn’t really play a major role. But the price should be freaking
low. But even about the time I am not sure. I already think it’s a waste of
time to go to a manicure so I can’t imagine I would invest time to create
my customised piece.
Participant 2: Hm I think you obviously will pay more for that customisation so I think
it’s reasonable to also invest some time so you will like it in the end. I think
it also depends on how much you can influence the product, like if it’s only
choosing the colour or start from scratch, like NIKEiD. So, then you have
at least half an hour and yes, I would invest that time. You can lose yourself
in it and sometimes I think there are almost too many possibilities to
change things.
Participant 3: I think basically it shouldn’t take too much time. Like if I sit there for three
hours to create my shirt and then you have to pay CHF 600.- then it
wouldn’t be worth it for me. But if it’s easy like five minutes, then I would
invest it. But for sure you could spend much more time if you could choose
everything. It should be as easy as possible. But I mean if I scroll on
Zalando it is also possible that scroll for like an hour and I can’t find
anything, so I could also invest that time in creating my own thing.
96
Participant 4: Hm I think it’s a long process because you have to think about if you really
want it and how you want it, so the whole decision process is much longer
until I really buy the product because I want to be sure about it.
Participant 5: For me personally, because of what I do is creative in its nature, I sit a lot
with photoshop and such, I don’t mind playing around for like an hour or
two. That seems very long, but if I can have my own design and bring in
my own kind of thing from photoshop and change the design and such I
am more inclined to sit for a longer time, I guess.
Participant 6: Yeah like that would be no limit, if I can have my own choose and design
them, and then have them how I want them. I think I would spend a lot of
hours, I don’t know. Like I would not mind spending a lot of time. Even
days, if I change my mind about something.
Participant 7: I think I would spend a lot of time but maybe not start from scratch but
build on a product that’s already there.
Participant 8: Oh this is difficult, because I fix my trousers myself and 20 minutes is a
long time, so I always procrastinate that. But yeah maybe something like
that, 30 minutes per piece.
Yeah I think that depends on the interface as well. If it is a fun way of
designing or, and fun way of changing the designs then maybe I would be
able to spend more time on it.
MAIN CATEGORY 6: CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT VALUE
SUBCATEGORY: EXPECTATIONS
Participant 1: Like shit. I mean, you invest time and money and then you not even get
what you want. It would really fuck me up. I am already annoyed if I order
something online and it doesn’t look the way I expected it!
Participant 2: Well, because you pay more and you invested time, I would feel shit, but
then again, I think it’s your own responsibility. Because you can customise
it so I think it’s your turn to design it the way you like it. But of course, if
you choose a pastel green and it doesn’t look like that in the end, then you
might also be disappointed in the brand. But in the end, I think you need to
distinguish between what is self-inflicted and what is the brand’s fault. So,
if the end product doesn’t look like the way it was expected it could also
have a negative impact on the brand.
Participant 3: Then I would want to send it back. But I wouldn’t start doubting myself. I
mean if you book a hotel it also looks super nice on the website but when
you are there, it may not look as expected. Maybe I would think that was
shit but I wouldn’t start questioning my life because of that.
Participant 4: I think because you deal with it so intensely it’s not the problem of the end
product. But I would have a problem if the colour for example would look
different than on the website and if the quality is bad. Because if I use a
customisation service, I expect to receive good quality. But you can see the
end result on the page so I think the chance is little that I wouldn’t like it
97
in the end. I mean if it wouldn’t look like the company ensured, I would
never buy something there again.
Participant 5: It will depend on the amount of cash that I spend, for me. Because if I do
like a design of something classical, I don’t know say for fun like Sponge
Bob, and then it arrives and it looks weird I would almost like it more. But
I mean if I spent like 80 euros on it I would be mad, but if I spent a really
low amount I would be like “it’s unique now, even more unique than what
I designed”. So for the time invested I don't really care, because it can be a
fun twist. But if it takes a long time to arrive, and then it’s bad quality when
I spent a lot of money then I would be pretty mad at the manufacturer.
Participant 6: Then it would be pretty weird, if I like see all the changes that I have done
and then it comes and there is like nothing at all of what I did or it looked
different. I would feel like tricked, or as if it was a scam you know. And
even if it was for like a big brand like Adidas, I would be like confused and
irritated.
Participant 7: Very frustrated because it is something, I put time and effort in and then
you wait a long time till you receive it, so you are excited to receive that
thing you have personalised and if it doesn’t meet my expectations of
course I am disappointed.
Participant 8: I think it would feel like a waste of time and money maybe, but also you
have to sort of expect that as well that it can’t be 100 percent up to your
expectations. But it would be disappointing. If I were the one who got to
decide on all the changes then I would probably be a bit more disappointed
in myself. But if it was the brand who made it bad, or didn’t fulfil my
expectations or follows my instructions then I would be disappointed in the
brand.
MAIN CATEGORY 7: OTHERS
SUBCATEGORY: CONSUMPTION & BEHAVIOUR
Participant 1: Not at all because it is probably too expensive anyway. If there would be a
cheap option, I would probably still buy fast fashion but would adjust some
parts after I bought it.
Yes, because you invest in it and first of all you really think about what
you want, so it’s like buying a more expensive product, you just treat it
better. Because you have a personal relationship to that piece, you invest
more than just go to a shop, take the piece, pay, and leave again, and it is
just your piece then. Like no one else has it.
Yes. Maybe I would take better care for example if I go out to a club
because I don’t want to lose it or so but in general, I take care of all my
things no matter how expensive they were.
Participant 2: Difficult to say because I haven’t really used the service of customisation.
But to be honest, I don’t think it would influence my consumption. I think
it would stay the same but this is just an assumption.
98
I think I would use it the same way or wear it as often as a non-customised,
but for sure depending on the price I would probably take better care if it’s
a more expensive piece. For me personally there is a difference if I pay
CHF 500.- or just CHF 30.-.
Yes, I think so but it’s strongly connected to the price.
Participant 3: I think my consumption wouldn’t change that much but I am also not
someone that buys a lot of fashion products.
I think I would wear it more often. Because what you design meets
hopefully your imagination or expectations so you should like it more than
a standardised product.
I think that’s a question of the price. If you could buy the exact same thing
again for the same price it is not that bad if it gets damaged or something.
Participant 4: Hm, I think I would buy less because you have this time invested to create
the product and you feel more attached to it. I also think you might buy
less but if the service was good you will be a loyal customer that will buy
there again.
Yes, I think I would wear or use it more.
Yes definitely. Just because of the emotional involvement.
Participant 5: I already don’t spend a lot of money or time on my fashion, I think this t-
shirt I had for three years. I only update my wardrobe when someone gives
me a gift for birthdays for example. Otherwise I only buy new products
when mine break, I don’t like having too much stuff circling around. I have
like my favourite pairs of hoodies, and I just go throw them. So my
consumption might increase if I wanted to express myself more this would
be nice for a t-shirt cause I have a lot of stupid ideas for designs to be
honest. But I don’t consume that much when it comes to clothes.
Depending on the design, like for what I want more low-key designer stuff
then I would probably wear it a lot until it wears out. And also if I feel like
“I did this” kind of and if I want people to “see me” and think like “ah cool
design” or “cool t-shirt or something” that is not just a black t-shirt. So I
think I would love it more than my basic H&M t-shirt, maybe haha.
Ehm, I would probably wash it right away, like for me personally the
laundry always gets piled up but say I spilt something or I fall and get some
kind of stain, I would probably wash it straight away before it sits on the
fabric. I would still wear it pretty care-free, but as soon as I got a stain or
something on it I would fix it immediately.
Participant 6: I think, I don’t know, in some ways maybe it would decrease the amount
of products that I buy. But like I still buy now less products than I ever
have in my entire life. But like, when it comes to shoes, what is interesting
to me when it comes to shoes it must be durable, because I often wear them
out super easily. So if they are shoes that I have designed, and they have
good quality then I wouldn’t have to buy more, I can have those for like
the whole summer if they are easy to clean and all that. I don’t know, I
99
would decrease probably the purchases of new shoes or sneakers then.
Ehm, I think I would wear it like kind of every day if I can, yeah definitely.
I mean for the case of the sneakers then. But yeah, I think I would wear it
more because I feel like I designed it like I wanted it to be.
I don’t know. That is really hard to say since I haven’t done it. But if I
really really like something, and I really love the design and it looks
awesome. Then I would take more care of it, so I would be more cautious
I think and take more care. But it is hard to say, since I haven’t really
bought anything that I have done. So I would just like put it in my glass
cabinet and have it there (participant laughs). And not use it at all, no I’m
kidding. I would take care of it more I think.
Participant 7: Very much, very much. Because most of the time I would probably
customise it if the possibility would exist.
I would wear it more. For example, I have this hoodie with a saying on the
back from my last high school year and whenever I wear it, it brings me
back to that time and memories. So, I wear it quite often because it’s mine,
you know, I have a story with that hoodie.
Yes. Sounds a bit stupid but like washing. Making sure that I wash it
properly because clothes can get ruined so easily and I cannot afford losing
something that is so personal to me just because of that. I would get more
frustrated if I ruin something that is personalised than if it’s just a black T-
shirt.
Participant 8: I would hope that I would consume less, because I would probably love
the garments more. And yeah, let's take the trousers for example, I often
get very sick of trousers because I don’t like the fit. They are either too
long, or too short, or too tight at the bum but not at the waste, you know.
So I am always looking for the perfect fit in another pair of trousers, instead
of in the ones I already have.
Ehm, probably I would wear them more often because I feel like they are
more comfortable or reflect my style more. Or something like that, and
yeah I would probably wear them more often because I would like the
garment more.
Ehm, I think that depends on what type of the garment it is as well. But I
generally take good care of my garments. But comparing a white t-shirt to
a tailored dress or something like that, I obviously take more care of the
tailored dress. So probably, I would take better care of the customised
garment as well. But it has to be convenient, I have to be able to clean it or
something like that.
SUBCATEGORY: LOYALTY
Participant 1: Somehow yes, because it shows that they thought about something new or
that they could reduce the fast fashion consumption in a way.
100
Participant 2: Yes, I think so. Because it’s something new or newer, which also means
that the brand is innovative in a way and can differentiate itself. So, it
would have a positive impact towards the brand, I guess.
Participant 3: No, not really. I think the brand in general would be more popular because
it’s a concept that not everyone offers and that could have a positive
impact.
I think in general companies would offer a total new experience. I mean it
could also be fun to be part of the process.
Participant 4: It depends. Zara is still Zara even if the embroider my initials on a bag. I
think if a high-end brand offers this service it’s cool but if a low-end brand
does it, it is more sort of a “me-too”-strategy so that they also can gain
profit.
Participant 5: I would probably view them as more consumer friendly in the sense that
they actually wanna offer the consumers more options to express
themselves.
Participant 6: I would be like, I don’t know. It would be a cool option I think, but then
again because I know it would cost a lot, I always think of Nike, even if
you have a few hours I don’t, it would still cost a lot to design something.
And if they have the option to do something like that, I would think it’s
cool but nothing more.
Participant 7: Yes, it would definitely influence my purchasing behaviour towards them.
So, it would have a positive impact.
Participant 8: I actually don’t think it would change my perception. Just that it is a fun
way to integrate the consumers to the design process.
SUBCATEGORY: WILLINGNESS TO PAY
Participant 1: If I am older, I would pay more because now it’s too expensive for me or
not worth investing the money in it. So, it’s actually for the same reasons
why I also don’t buy sustainable labels or luxury brands. If I would pay
more, being able to change the cut would be the most important to me.
Participant 2: Yes, but that’s also because to me it’s obvious that you pay more for a
customised product. Because the variable costs are higher than if you have
a standardised product where costs can be reduced.
The basics, like that you can change the colours, depending on the product
maybe also the material, for example, that you can choose what kind of
leather you want for a bag, or what I also noticed many times, is that
everything is gold or silver when it comes to bags. And it would be nice if
you could choose that. That really bothers me because if I wear gold, I
don’t want a silver bag. But in general, I don’t think you should have too
many options because in the end it should still be the bag from that specific
brand. Otherwise, I could go to a tailor and do it by myself.
Participant 3: Yes, because it is more costly for a company to produce individually, so I
think it’s given that you have to pay more.
101
I would actually say should be able to choose everything. Like from the
fabrics, over the cut, colours etc.
Yes, but it would be much easier to just do it at home online. And also,
there are not that many tailors anymore and if so, you have to wait for ages
until you get your item back.
Participant 4: Yes. Because it’s specific for you. It also depends on what it is. But I mean
the company has also more effort to do.
Colour, and size because I am too tall and too skinny. And in general, I
think the length of arms or legs are always too long or too short not only
for me, so that would be the most important for me.
Participant 5: Yes, cause I can express myself. And it all depends on the quality and the
price I guess. If there’s a lot of reviews for example saying “this did not
come out as expected” then I would be less inclined to.
Ehm, I would pay like an additional 50% if I could actually change the
seams and the fit and also the design for that is fair. But if it is an expensive
product then I wouldn’t pay that much more, maybe say like 20-30 % more,
it depends on the quality I guess. 20-30 euros maybe.
Cause I imagine just adding like a print or something would be less
expensive for the manufacturer than changing the seams and the style. So
if I could make it fit better I would be willing to pay a bunched up price. I
would be inclined to pay less for this, because it was less time-consuming
as well I assume. So maybe 20 euros extra, if it was embroidery maybe 25-
30 euros extra. Also depending on the brand of course.
Participant 6: Yeah I would do that. Because if there is a design of the product and then
I can change something then yes I would pay more for that. But say,
without any design changes or the ordinary retail price is 2000 SEK and
then I have to add extra to do exactly the same kind of, then it would be I
would pay. But say it was like a plain white shoe and it said “add your own
embellishment” and pay extra, then I would do that. Yeah if the brand is
nice and it’s good quality.
Yeah more than the colours then, so like embellishments and design.
Maybe also the design of the shoe, like the model. And changing the
colours, but also the material. Say if I want something that is more matt or
shiny, or like suede or something. I would pay for that.
Participant 7: Yes, I would pay more for it for sure. Because it so meaningful and
personal to you that no one else has, so, yes, I would invest more.
Of course, initials or to write something but also the colour, the font. Yeah,
I think that’s it.
Participant 8: Ehm, I would because I know sort of the process behind that. So I know it
would be more expensive and require some time for the brand.
The fit, again. Very much the fit, and maybe also some ehm, embroidery
or other design details. Then I would feel like it’s a fun way to splash my
money around. I would be like “here take it” (participant laughs).
102
SUBCATEGORY: SOCIAL GROUP
Participant 1: I don’t care at all. I hang out with the people I want to and if I don’t like it
anymore, I just move on.
Yes, for sure. I think it doesn’t matter what we are doing in this world, we
are always influenced by our environment. So, yeah, my friends but also
social media influences me.
Participant 2: Hm, yeah, I think everyone wants to belong to somewhere somehow. So
yes, but I also think if you are not completely out from space, you
automatically belong to a group or society puts you in a basket. I also think
you somehow want this recognition, so it would be weird for me to not
belong to a group. But it’s not super important to me.
Yes of course. Especially my friends, I think. Sometimes I like a jacket or
whatever, or you go to shops you haven’t been before.
Participant 3: To me it’s not important to be part of a specific circle or to that one group.
Yes, of course that has an influence. Like if I see a friend with a cool
sneaker, I would want to have that one too. But they don’t influence me
regarding of how much I buy.
Participant 4: Zero. But I think somehow it is always important. But to me the product is
more important than the brand, so I don’t identify myself with a social
group of a certain brand or so.
Hmm, I think in this social group that I am in, it’s not so important of what
I wear, like other values are more important than my consumption pattern.
I think in my group it’s more important to wear good quality than to have
big brands on a shirt or whatever.
Participant 5: Not that important, I don’t really like associating myself with a specific
kind of group. I like to mingle with everyone. So not that important, I still
have like my own identity. I’m a nerd through and through, but I am not
gonna have it like printed on a t-shirt. I say that but I probably have some
things reflecting this, so I guess it is a bit contradictory.
It doesn’t really influence my fashion consumption choices.
Participant 6: I don’t know if it is really really important. I mean I like to have nice things
but I would not say that it is a social group thing. I would like to wear
things that I feel comfortable in. Like no, I don’t think it is super
important. No, I mean it is important to some aspect but no it’s not really
that important no.
I would say it doesn’t. Like I don’t really get influenced by trends. If you
asked me five years ago I would have said yes. But now, I’m really not. I
buy things because I feel good in them and not because they are accepted
by so many people, more because I have my particular style and for how I
am as a person. I would say it’s more important to have my own personal
identity, like classic, simple, and a little edgy with my sneakers.
Participant 7: I think you naturally unconsciously dress like everyone else. For example,
I get so influenced by these influencers on Instagram, I see something and
103
I think “oh I like this” so I go and buy it. When I lived abroad, I never liked
these flared jeans but here I like them because you get so easily influenced
by not even knowing. So yes, it is important to me to belong to a social
group.
I buy a lot more, it’s bad! It affects me very bad!
Participant 8: Yeah, I don’t know hmm. I probably do identify with a social group
without being aware of it. I think it’s overall an important thing, since you
do have to have company and feel like you're not alone.
Yeah I think it does influence my consumption. Because I think the trends
are that way, that you get very influenced by the trends. You feel like you
wanna be fashionable, and trendy. Then you might buy something that you
didn’t want. Like a few years back, the knitted vest (participant laughs). So
I would say that it does influence, yeah in that way it does.
104
Visiting address: Allégatan 1 · Postal address: 501 90 Borås · Phone: 033-435 40 00 · E-mail: registrator@hb.se · Web: www.hb.se

Full Text 01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Text 01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Text 01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GENERATION Z’S

Cornelia Flodemark & Rahel Zumbuehl

Keywords: Perceived Consumer Value, Customisation, Customised Fashion, Generation Z

1.1. Background ...................................................................................................... 1

2. Literature Review ............................................................................................... 7

2.1. The Concept of Customisation ......................................................................... 7

3.1. Research Approach & Design ........................................................................ 21

4. Empirical Findings ........................................................................................... 37

4.1. Findings from Survey ...................................................................................... 37

5.1. General Perception of Customised Fashion ................................................... 53

6.1. Recommendations .......................................................................................... 63

1.2. Problem Discussion & Research Gap

1.4. Implications of Research

2.1. The Concept of Customisation

Customisation can be classified in different terms, as suggested by Lampel and Mintzberg

2.1.1. Mass Customisation

2.1.2. Customisation in the Fashion Industry

2.1.3. Benefits & Risks of Customised Fashion

2.2. Consumer Value Theory

2.2.1. Perceived Consumer Value

2.2.2. The Nature of Consumer Value

2.2.3. Consumer Value & Customised Fashion

2.3. Who is Generation Z?

2.3.1. Generation Z’s Consumption Patterns

Generation Z perceives consumption as a source to demonstrate its personal identity, it should

2.4. Theoretical Framework

2.4.1. The Consumer Perceived Value Tool

The five perceived benefits of mass customisation from a consumer viewpoint:

Mass Customised Product Value:

Uniqueness Value Value acquired from the opportunity to assert

Self-Expressiveness Value Value derived from the opportunity to possess a

Co-Design Process Value*:

Creative Achievement Value Value acquired from the feeling of accomplishment

Mass-Customised Product Value

Co-Design Process Value

Creative Achievement Value

3.1. Research Approach & Design

3.2. Research Method

3.3. Self-administered Online Questionnaire

3.3.1. Data Collection

3.3.3. Measurement Issues and Scale

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Answer option open text field

Purpose To ensure the respondent belongs to the sample.

Item 2 Which gender do you identify with?

Answer option - Female

Purpose Elicitation of a characteristic to describe the sample.

Year of Birth 1995-2005 219 100

Gender Female 158 72,1

Textile Background Yes 50 22,8

A pre-test was conducted before activating the self-administrative questionnaire in order to

3.4.1. Data Collection

Participants Gender Country of Year of Textile Date of Interview

Participant 1 Female Switzerland 2001 No 14th of May 2021

Participant 2 Female Switzerland 1997 No 15th of May 2021

Participant 3 Male Switzerland 1996 No 15th of May 2021

Participant 4 Female Switzerland 1996 No 15th of May 2021

Participant 5 Male Sweden 1998 No 16th of May 2021

Participant 6 Female Sweden 1997 Yes 17th of May 2021

Participant 7 Female Sweden 2001 No 17th of May 2021