2014 © EJRSS published by IASSR ISSN: 2148-6018 European Journal of Research on Social Sciences 2014, 1(2), 12-18.
Targeting millennials in an emerging market: A qualitative study on the value systems of Generation Y in Turkey Ipek Altınbaşak-Farina
Associate Prof. Dr. at Department of Business Administration Bahçeşehir University, Turkey
[email protected]
Özlem Ayaz-Arda
Bilge Biçer Abstract Scholars have long recognized the importance of values and underlined how values and beliefs of young adults today differ from those of previous generations (Twenge et al. 2012; Krahn & Galambos, 2014; Nusair et al. 2011). Values signify an important part of human’s cognitive system and influence attitudes and behaviors, (Chryssohoidis & Krystallis, 2005). Value structure also shapes consumption behavior and impacts product and brand choice criteria while defining lifestyles (Beatty et al. 1985). Generation Y (people born in between 1977 and 1994) form approximately the 25 % of the world society (Puybaraud et al. 2010) and they represent around 35 % of the Turkish population (Özcelik-Sözer, 2014, August 31, p.10). Generation Y is a very significant consumer group in Turkish market and in the world in terms of purchasing power and setting the trends. This paper aims to examine the value system of Generation Y focusing on the individuals between 20-24 years old (8 % of Turkish Population) in Turkey, in order to provide strategic insights to marketers who are targeting them. After a thorough literature review, in depth and focus group interviews are carried out with 39 university students in line with a structured discussion outline. The foundation and public universities’ students have been interviewed in order to investigate the values that are important to affect their lives and consumption behavior. The results are analyzed and classified through content analysis and are expected to form the basis for a future quantitative study.
Introduction Values are outcomes of evaluative judgment and used for standards, norms, goals and ideals (Rintamaki et al. 2006). Values determine human cognition and behavior, and they influence attitude and behavior. So, examining values may provide powerful explanations and large capture of central cognitive structure of individuals. Additionally values are more stable over time in comparison with attitudes in terms of more centrally connected to cognitive system and serving as standards of conduct (Chryssohoidis & Krystallis, 2005). Consumer values are consequences and attributes that shape their purchasing behavior, goals and ideals for shopping (Rintamaki et al. 2006). Generation theorists state that macro-environmental changes influence people that cause sharing specific and common consumption behavior (Gurau, 2012). Therefore, value studies are very crucial for Turkey where rapid social and economic changes along with urbanization and different viewpoints take place (Cukur et al. 2004). Generation Y encountered sufficiently large-scale social and economic change and share relative understanding of common destiny, memory, culture, life experiences which cause to develop similar attitudes and beliefs (Krahn & Galambos, 2014; Lazarevic, 2012). They lead 12
ushering the end of traditional marketing strategies and rules (Barton et al. 2014). In business life, especially marketers and advertisers try to find best ways to capture and retain a piece of the mind and heart of those customers because they have powerful aggregate spending (Cui et al. 2003) and they represent a powerful and profitable market segment (Noble et al. 2009). Managers aim to understand the needs and expectations of Generation Y in order to satisfy them and to produce the desired response. Individuals belonging to Generation Y are observed to be more social, independent and with a high self esteem, are technology savvy and furthermore they want more freedom, fun and collaboration (Atkin & Thach, 2012; PrincetonOne-Whitepaper) They have more human-like characteristics such as daydreaming about pleasurable adventures, emotional consumptions and liking products that have playful activities (Holbrook, 2000; Gurau, 2012; Lazarevic, 2012). They are known for those traits that affect their decision making process (Nowak et al. 2006). Shopping behavior of Generation Y includes factors such as enjoyment, brand consciousness, price consciousness, shopping confidence, convenience/time-consciousness, in-home shopping tendency, brand/store loyalty and self-image (Bhang et al. 2013). Generation Ys spend more but they have lower brand loyalty than previous generations. It is stated that the reasons of this low loyalty can be to exposure more price promotions. Also they look for products and brands that match their personality, lifestyle, social and community values. They use brands to create image, to represent personality and to communicate their values. The crucial point is that they have great brand awareness and have tendency to share their experiences via social networks. Peer recommendation is very important for they and they mostly learn new brands from social media contents. It is observed that they don’t have any tolerance for brands, which cause loss of trust and patronage (Gurau, 2012). Generation Ys prefer getting information from their friends/family and reading shelf talkers more than elders, and using social media for searching, sharing and delivering messages (Atkin & Thach, 2012). Thus, brands that have authenticity, integrity and ability to represent essential elements of target groups will have potential for long-term customer-brand relationships (Gurau, 2012). Individuals belonging to Generation Y have different ways to communicate with brands, which are more extensive, personal and emotional. They look for two-way communication with brands both offline and online. They also have power to influence other customers’ decision and even to define brand itself. The Internet, social media and mobile devices increase their effect on others by accelerating delivery of messages (Barton et al. 2014). Values of millennials are also delineated one of the three needs, which are defined by McClelland (1967). One of these three needs -need for achievement, need for affiliation and need for power- is usually dominant. Thus the dominant need drives people’s behaviors such as some people are achievers, some are social relations oriented and some are power oriented. Achiever person seeks for attainment of realistic but challenging goals and pursues progression in the job. Need for social relations is a need for friendly relationships and these people are motivated by interaction with other people. Power oriented people have tendency to be influential, effective and to make an impact (McClelland, 1967). Examining Generation Ys values require more intense and deeper research, so marketers need to use qualitative research methods in addition to quantitative methods in order to discover their ideas, experiences and deeper thoughts. Millenials need to be examined case-bycase basis to understand consumer behavior pattern and identify the segmentation criteria (Gurau, 2012). Therefore, examining the value system of Generation Y in Turkey becomes very important and precious to provide meaningful information about their behaviors. Consumers’ age intervals require significant interest from marketers especially age plays an important role related to brand choice and loyalty (Kumar and Lim, 2008). That’s why in this study the youngsters of Y Generation have been examined. Methodology Since the Generation Y in the world may shape the future trends with their preferences, these individuals will play even a greater role in the long-term success of all type of industries. In this paper, it is intended to examine values of younger Generation Ys and gain in-depth knowledge from a sample of university students belonging to Generation Y. The objective of the study is to explore the values of university students between 20-24 years old -belonging to Y generation- and investigate their attitudes towards brands. The 13
research contributes to extant marketing literature in a number of ways. First, it addresses the values of Y Generation in a key emerging country, namely Turkey. Examining the values of the Turkish Y Generation youngsters is expected to lead to the comparison with other countries’ millennial populations. The qualitative methods used in this study are expected to provide deep insight on the values of Y Generation in Turkey. As pointed out by many scholars (Wilkie & Moore, 2003; Levy, 2005) qualitative research is able to provide rich information or insight to guide right strategy and may generate information belonging to consumers’ inner world, their mind and thoughts beyond quantitative functions. Furthermore, qualitative research provides fresh insight and objective interpretation from subjective data, which are, produced both researchers and respondents that help to interpret the complexity of human being and make inferences (Levy, 2005). Thus, this study has an explorative nature and in-depth interviews and focus groups methods were used in order to reach triangulation. Four focus group meetings (each consisting of seven or eight participants) and eight indepth face-to-face interviews were conducted. The participants have been selected from two state and one foundation universities in İstanbul (see Appendix 1 for the characteristics of the participants). In total 39 university students have been interviewed. A structured protocol has been followed (see Appendix 2 for the discussion outline) in focus group and in-depth interviews. Each focus group meetings continued around two hours and was audio taped with the permission of the respondents. Clear and consistent information was achieved in the first four focus groups. The in-depth interviews were conducted with the same predefined questions and the respondents are encouraged to talk freely and extensively about their values and the underlying motives and reasons on forming their value systems. Afterwards, the data is analyzed through content analysis in order to make valid inferences from the scripted text (Weber, 1990). The three researchers have decoded the interviews and listed the themes discussed. After the detailed decoding process of focus group and in-depth interviews, two independent sorters who have sociology and marketing backgrounds analyzed the list of the themes. The sorters grouped the themes under independent meta-themes. Later, the sorters and the researchers discussed the analysis and agreed on a final list. In total 38 themes have been classified under 10 meta-themes. Subsequently, two independent judges who have a marketing background placed these themes under these agreed meta-themes. The reliability of the classification was measured by calculating the agreement level between the judges (Zimmer & Golden, 1988). The agreement level was found to be statistically significant with 83.1% reliability for the themes (see Appendix 3 for the reliability figures). Results and discussion The findings of the study suggest that the interpersonal relationships and trust are very important subjects for Generation Yers. It is worth noticing that the family is the most important institution indicated by all of the respondents in terms of unconditional love and support that it provides. Although Generation Y youngsters respect and are deeply attached to their family, they still express themselves to be independent in their decision making another prominent finding is that the respondents are very success and power oriented. As many aspire to create an impact in the world, they see power as a positive value to be used for helping others, and trigger change. They define success in line with perfectionism, self-discipline and hard-working values Desire of dynamism and change are among other leading values that motivate the respondents. They also expressed that they don’t have long –term unconditional loyalty and may switch to another option quickly when they see a better opportunity. The Generation Y youngsters care a lot about their personal development and look for independence in every means. The respondents’ indicated that they prefer brands, which are in line with their values and personality. Their preferences in terms of brand selection formed on one side around functionality and quality, on the other side around design and aesthetics although functionality is found to be important, aesthetical aspects also are mentioned among important factors affecting the brand choice. As also supported by other research (Atkin & Thach, 2012; Princeton One-Whitepaper), Generation Yers express themselves to be highly independent and with a strong self-esteem. Those individuals are technology savvy and are looking for more 14
customized offers. They expect brands to be more creative, attentive and respectful to their lives. The authenticity of a brand has also received substantial attention from the respondents. As supported by Gurau’s study (2012), Generation Yers participating to that study has also been looking for products/services that match their personality, lifestyle, social and community values. They want to be different from others and authenticity and customization are very effective tools to attract the attention of them. Additionally, Gen Y had great brand awareness and have tendency to share their experiences with their peers. In terms of communication, the respondents demanded brands to be more accurate, direct and clear. They stated that they preferred customized communication styles rather than mass-communication. For example they significantly mentioned that they disliked generic promotion or messages that they have been receiving via telephones or e-mails. Likewise, they prefer to reach the brands easily whenever they need or want to. Furthermore, they like interactive channels, which permit them to communicate their preferences. Respondents stated that they had little confidence to social media where they think the brands are promoting themselves loudly. Instead, they tended to rely on their acquaintances and choose to take advice from the users of a product or service. Last but not least, of the communication message styles, the respondents stated they mainly preferred brands to emphasize humor. They also pointed out that they prefer to receive web based relevant messages and rely on in-store events in terms of marketing communication activities. The findings of the study show that the value system of Generation Y is complex and different than that of previous generations. The participants indicate that they have passion for their lives to have, feel, experience and learn. Consequently, meeting and satisfying those consumers’ needs will require different tools and methods. According to the findings, customization is an effective way to engage in a strong relationship with Generation Yers. As also supported by previous research a successful brand management in this era requires proactive strategies helping the customer feel special and unique. The interactivity and giving the possibility of two way communication is expected to motivate that group of consumers to start and to continue a relationship with brands. In order to attract Generation Y, brands need to comprehend driving forces behind their decision making taking into consideration the above-mentioned points. Although many findings are supported by previous research in other countries, the Turkish Generation Y youngsters are found to be more attached to their family but still independent in their decision making, they have desire to create an impact in the world, they are eager for self- development and have a strong desire for independence and uniqueness. Limitations and suggestions for further research As the study is of exploratory nature the results cannot be generalized. Furthermore, the study is concentrated on one country, namely Turkey. Therefore, it may be valuable to compare and contrast the values of Y Generation –of the same age bracket - in different nations through further research. Accordingly, it is important to note that the Generation Y profile in Turkey may be different from other cultures and countries. The results of the studies, which include 20-24 age group university students, should be compared with individuals of same age and same social group within other cultures and countries. Consequently, the coverage of the results is limited with university students and they may be different from the working individuals belonging to Generation Y. Further research with Generation Y’s older groups needs to be conducted. It is also suggested that the meta-themes and the themes underlined in this study be empirically tested through future research. Vigorous replications with a broader range of participants may well be helpful in designing a quantitative research which will support to demonstrate the results with an empirical stance. References Atkin, T. & Thach, L. (2012). Millennial wine consumers: risk perception and information search. Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 1(2012), 54–62. Bahng, Y., Kincade, D. H., & Yang, J. (2013). College students’ apparel shopping orientation and brand/product preferences. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,Vol, 17 (3), 367384. Barton, C., Koslow, L. & Beauchamp, C. (2014). The reciprocity principle: how millennials are changing the face of marketing forever,” in “the go-to-market revolution a growth zealot’s 15
guide to commercial transformation. The Boston Consulting Group, Inc., Boston, USA.https://www.bcgperspectives.com/Images/Go-toMarket_Revolution_May_2014_tcm80-159858.pdf Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., Homer, P. & Misra, Shekhar, (1985). Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: the list of values and the rokeach values survey. Psychology and Marketing, Vol 2(Fall), 181-200. Chryssohoidis, G. M. & Krystallis, A. (2005). Organic consumers’ personal values research/ Testing and validating the list of values (LOV) scale and implementing a value-based segmentation task.Food Quality and Preference,16, 585–599. Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M. & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause-related marketing: how generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6), 310-320. Cukur, C. S., de Guzman, M. R. & Carlo, G. (2004). Religiosity, values, and horizontal and vertical individualism-collectivism: a study of turkey, the united states, and the philippines. TheJournal of Social Psychology, 144(6), 613-634. Gobé, M. (2001).Emotional Branding. AllworthPress, NY. Gurau, C. (2012). A life-stage analysis of consumer loyalty profile: comparing Generation X and Millennial consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 103-113. Holbrook, M. B. (2000).The Millennial consumer in the texts of our times: experience and entertainment. Journal of Macromarketing, 20(2), 178- 192. Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management- building, measuring and managing brand equity. Pearson, NJ. Krahn, H. J. & Galambos, N. L. (2014). Work values and beliefs of ‘Generation X’ and ‘Generation Y. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(1), 92-112. Kumar, A. & Lim, H. (2008). Age differences in mobile service perceptions: comparison of Generation Y and baby boomers. Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 22(7), 568 – 577. Lazarevic, V. (2012).Encouraging brand loyalty in fickle generation Y consumers. Young consumers: insight and ideas for responsible marketers, 13(1), 45-61. Levy, S. (2005). The evolution of qualitative research in consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, Vol.58, 341-347. McClelland, D. (1967). The achieving society. New York: The Free Press. Noble, S. M., Haytko, D. L. & Phillips, J. (2009). What drives college-age Generation Y consumers. Journal of Business Research, 62(2009), 617-628. Nowak, L., Thach, L. & Olsen, J. E. (2006). Wowing the millennials: creating brand equity in the wine industry.Journal of Product & Brand Management.15(5), 316-323. Nusair, K., Parsa, H. G. & Cobanoglu, C. (2011). Building a model of commitment for Generation Y: An empirical study on e-travel retailers. Tourism Management, 32 (2011), 833-843. Özçelik-Sözer, B. (2014, August 31). İK (Human Resources). Hürriyet Newspaper,Turkey. Puybaraud, M., Russel, S., Mcewan, A. M., Leussink E. & Beck, L. (2010). Gen Y and the workplace annual report 2010. Johnson Controls. Rintamaki, T., Kanto, A., Kuusela, H. & Spence, M. T. (2006).Decomposing the value of department store shopping into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 34(1), 6-24. Twenge, J. M., Freeman, E. C. & Campbell, W. K. (2012). generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 102(5), 1045–1062. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed), SageUniversityPapers, no. 49, Sage Publications. Zimmer, M. R. & Golden, L. (1988). Impressions of retail stores: a content analysis of consumer ımages. Journal of Retailing, 64(3): 280-293. Wilkie, W. L. & Moore E. S. (2003). Scholarly research in marketing: exploringthe '4eras' of thought development. Journal of PublicPolicy and Marketing, 22 (Fall), 116-146. PrincetonOne, White Paper- In collaboration with Buddy Hobart, Solutions 21 http://www.princetonone.com/news/PrincetonOne%20White%20Paper2.pdf (03.06.2014) Appendix 1: Characteristics of the participants FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS FOCUS GROUP 1 FOCUS GROUP 2 FOCUS GROUP 3 FOCUS GROUP 4
INSTITUTION
AGES BTW GENDER GRADES BTW
Bahcesehir University Bahcesehir University Yildiz Technical University Bogazici Unniversity
16
23-24 21-24 21-24 21-24
3F-5M 4 F - 4M 5F-2M 3F-5M
4th 2nd and 4th 3rd and 4th 1st and 4th
DEPTH INTERVIEWS PARTICIPANT 1 PARTICIPANT 2 PARTICIPANT 3 PARTICIPANT 4 PARTICIPANT 5 PARTICIPANT 6 PARTICIPANT 7 PARTICIPANT 8
INSTITUTION Koç University Istanbul Technical University Marmara University Sabancı University Bahcesehir University Bilgi University Doguş University Bahçeşehir University
AGE 21 21 20 21 22 23 22 21
GENDER F M F M F M M M
GRADE 3rd 3rd 2nd 3rd 4th 4th 3rd 3rd
Appendix 2: Discussion outline I would like to thank you for your participation. Your personal opinion, comments and ideas are very important for our research project. Please share your ideas freely and openly. There are no right or wrong answers. The results will only be used for academic purposes and your names will not be revealed. According to you, what are the essential issues and values in life? How would you define the most important values shaping your life and major decisions? With which values would you like to be described by other poeple? What are the institutions that affect you to form your values? When you find yourself in a conflict, which institutions’ values play the most active role in influencing your decisions? Need for affiliation, need for success, need for power: when you think about these motivator factors, which one is the most influential in your decisions? Do you expect a brand to have values in line with yours’? Are you loyal to any brand that you appreciate? To attract your attention, what kind of qualities/ values should a brand have? What should be the tone of the messages given by a brand? Which information sources do you generally use for gathering information about brands? Which media is more credible according to you? Why? Whom do you trust in your consumption decisions? What are the most important factors while you make choices among brands: aesthetics, emotional or functional benefits? In your opinion, how should be the world that we live in? What values our humanity should have or should not have? Appendix 3: Methodology of content and reliability analysis Content analysis usually yields numerical descriptions of the data. The main idea is that many words of a text are summarized and classified into fewer content categories. This method requires the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the content of communication (Zimmer and Golden, 1988). Following the requirements, an analysis of the texts obtained from depth interviews and focus groups is performed and the stages are as follows: 1. The researchers code the participants’ answers into a list of themes (n), 2. The researchers group the themes into exclusive and comprehensive categories, 3. Two independent sorters (N) group the themes under certain categories, 4. The researchers and the sorters discuss the reasoning behind the classification and come up with an agreed categorization 17
5.
Different from the sorters, two people from the field are assigned as judges and grouped the themes under the agreed categories. 27 (k) out of 38 themes matched and the reliability and the z-score was calculated to assess the statistical significance of the match between judges (Holsti, 1969). z=
!!! !"(!!!)
E: expected number of matches p: probability that two judges assign a theme to the same category k: items matched n: total number of items evaluated, the themes The percent agreement between the judges was found to be statistically significant (z=12.6 which exceeds z-score of 2.33 corresponding to α = 0.01) with 83.1% reliability related to the value themes. The reliability figure was calculated by the following formula: R=
!∗!"#$%&# !"#$$%$&' !! !!! ∗!"#$!"# !"#$$%$&'
N: number of judges
Appendix 4: Themes and metathemes
18
