Two Or Three Line City'S "Non-Toxic" Clothing Brand Market Space

The number of participants in the survey was 200, of which 100 were from Beijing, Shenzhen and other first tier cities. The other 100 came from two or three cities in Jilin, Liaoning, Hebei, Henan, Xinjiang, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Anhui, Anhui, Anhui, Shanxi, Qi, Qi, and so on.

The occupations of the respondents include civil servants, media practitioners, foreign white-collar workers, company staff, students, etc., aged between 20 and 40 years old, and belong to the group of strong clothing consumption.

Clothing consumption is rigid consumption, so all consumers will be concerned about whether their own and family health will be threatened.

By comparing the data of first tier cities and two or three line cities, we can see that the daily information acquisition has a guiding effect on consumers, as well as the subtle differences between people's attitudes towards toxic clothing when they are viewed as factors such as income level, occupational characteristics and education level.

According to the survey data, 58% of consumers in the first tier cities have heard about the report of clothing quality problems such as "fashion and toxic", which is far more than 38% of the two or three cities.

Questionnaire questions are mostly single choice questions, which can get percentage data directly.

A is not necessarily, some brands of clothing quality problems, but there are many brands are very reliable.

B no, the quality of clothes is unbelievable now.

C yes, the quality of products in big stores is guaranteed.

Half of consumers in the first tier cities choose to look at the quality of clothing sold in large shopping malls. Nearly 70% of consumers in the two or three tier cities choose this option.

But another phenomenon is worth noticing. In the first tier cities, up to 46% of consumers expressed a serious loss of confidence in the quality of current clothing, even though the brand products sold in large shopping malls could not guarantee the quality of safety. In the two or three tier cities, only 23% of the data were available, and two or three lines of urban consumers had more confidence in the products sold by brands and large shopping malls.

Comment: the products sold in large shopping malls are mostly domestic and foreign.

Survey two: did you hear about the report on fashion toxic or related news before? How do you view the impact of the report?

A has no effect. Clothes should be bought or bought.

B has some influence. When buying clothes, it will consider whether it is environmentally friendly and non-toxic.

C had a lot of influence and didn't dare to buy clothes.

Nearly all front-line consumers (choosing A and B options 99%) believe that the Greenpeace report has little or no effect on buying clothes, of which six adults think that they will consider environmental factors when buying.

In the second tier cities, 90% of the people (92% of the respondents who chose A and B) believed that they did not produce or had a slight impact, and 8% of consumers said they would not dare to buy clothes.

Comments: the rapid development of the Internet has made the information pmission way wider and faster.

However, consumers in the first tier cities seem to be faster and more concerned about the quality information acquisition of clothing products than the two or three tier cities.

However, consumers in front tier cities show a more relaxed attitude towards clothing consumption.

However, on the whole, whether for the first tier cities or the consumers of the two or three tier cities, clothing consumption is a rigid consumption, and will not be affected by the "fashion toxic report" and stop consumption. It will only be more cautious when buying in the future.

Because of this, businessmen can not ignore safety problems in clothing quality.

Survey three: when buying a safe and non-toxic garment product, you need to bear part of the technical cost. How much do you want to pay for your own health?

About half of the consumers in the first tier cities choose less than 10% of the cost of payment, and the proportion of consumers in the two or three tier cities is 60%. The number of consumers who choose to pay more than 50% of the first tier cities is nearly 10%, which is more than 3% of the second tier cities.

During the survey, there was also a very noteworthy phenomenon - among the participants (including the first tier and two or three tier cities), some consumers who chose the option of "willing to pay more than 10%" expressly stated: "the production of safe and non-toxic clothing is the obligation of the manufacturer, and consumers should not pay extra money for it."

Among them, lawyers, professionals or young Internet enthusiasts are more strongly aware of their rights.

Comment: price and cost are undoubtedly the most concerned topics for consumers.

So, even when it comes to "for your own health", the nerve becomes tight when people see the need to "pay more" money.

Most people believe that paying more than 30% of the price to ensure their own health is acceptable.

However, it should not be overlooked that many of these people hope to add more "unwilling" options -- they are not concerned about their own health, but are fiercely protesting against the phenomenon of "toxic" clothing.

Survey four: buying clothing products that are less harmful to the environment need to bear part of the technical cost. How much do you want to pay to protect the environment?

In the survey, the consumers in the first tier cities and the two or three line cities are roughly the same in terms of trend and proportion.

Those who do not want to pay more for environmental protection account for about 20%, while the proportion below 10% is the highest, up to half; the 10%~30% interval has 34% and 22% respectively.

In the survey, it is found that each person has different understanding of the cost ratio of the multi burden, but most people think that the manufacturer will add the cost of health and environmental protection to the cost of consumption, and is not pparent. Therefore, consumers have no independent choice.

Comment: if we combine the findings of the last question "pay more for our own health", we can see that the consumers who participated in the survey showed a more consistent tendency on the issue of the ratio of multi payment fees, which basically concentrated within the payment range of less than 30%.

Moreover, they tend to converge in the view of their own health and environmental protection.

It can be said that most people regard environmental protection and their own health as the same thing, so they produce similar standards of consideration.

In addition, the consumers of the two or three tier cities show the trend of polarization in the willingness to pay more for the environmental protection. On the one hand, they explain the impact of the lack of information, and on the other hand, they show the mood of consumers in the two or three line cities cherishing the environment.

At the same time, there is also a large area of blue ocean market with environmental protection and fashion.