BRAND LOYALTY
Is there a difference in the creation of consumers’ brand
loyalty between utilitarian products and hedonic
products?
By Grace van den Berg University of Amsterdam
MSc Business Studies October 2013
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics and Business
Author: Grace van den Berg Student number: 6137962
Date of submission: October 2013
Institution: University of Amsterdam Specialization: Marketing & Strategy Supervisor: Karin Venetis
Abstract
Given the highly competitive environment nowadays, it is very important for firms and their brands to pursue a sustainable competitive advantage over other firms and their brands. Therefore, firms must do everything to create lasting
brand-consumer relationships with their (existing) customers to foster brand loyalty. Satisfaction, brand commitment and brand attachment are three consumer-brand relationship drivers that create consumer-brand loyalty. However, the effect of the three consumer-brand relationship drivers on brand loyalty could be differently among product type; utilitarian vs. hedonic. While some products are purchased to fulfill functional needs, also referred to as utilitarian products (Voss, Spangenberg & Grohmann, 2003), others are primarily purchased to provide pleasure and fun or for self-esteem, referred to as hedonic products (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000).
Therefore, this study examines whether there is a difference in the creation of consumers’ loyalty towards brands between utilitarian product categories and hedonic product categories. Via an online survey 260 people participated in this study in order to collect data about their relationships with brands and loyalty towards brands regarding different product categories. Through several empirical analyses support is found for the moderating effect of product type between the relation of satisfaction and brand loyalty, brand commitment and brand loyalty and brand attachment and brand loyalty. In short, regarding consumers that are committed towards the brand it is more likely that they remain loyal to brands within hedonic product categories than utilitarian product categories. Satisfied consumers and consumers that feel
emotionally attached to brands, are more likely to stay loyal to brands within utilitarian product categories than hedonic product categories.
Table of contents
1. Introduction 5
1.1 Introduction topic 5
1.2 Problem statement 6
1.3 Sub-questions 7
1.4 Academic and managerial relevance 7
1.5 Research outline 8 2. Theoretical background 8 2.1 Brand loyalty 8 2.2 Satisfaction 11 2.3 Brand commitment 12 2.4 Brand attachment 14
2.5 Hedonic versus utilitarian value 15
2.6 Conceptual model 16
3. Developing research hypotheses 19
3.1 Three main brand-to-consumer relationship drivers creating brand loyalty 19 3.1.1 The relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty 19 3.1.2. The relationship between brand commitment and brand loyalty 20 3.1.3. The relationship between brand attachment and brand loyalty 21 3.2 The impact of product type: hedonic versus utilitarian 23 3.2.1 Satisfaction-brand loyalty relationship 23 3.2.2 Brand commitment-brand loyalty relationship 24 3.2.3 Brand attachment-brand loyalty relationship 25
4. Methodology 27
4.1 Procedure pre-test 27
4.1.1 Selection procedure of the product categories 27 4.1.2 Measurement of hedonic versus utilitarian value 29
4.2 Results pre-test 31
4.3 Procedure main questionnaire 33
4.3.1 Survey method 34
4.4 Measures main questionnaire 34
4.4.1 Independent variables 34
4.4.1.1 Measurement of satisfaction 34
4.4.1.2 Measurement of brand commitment 35
4.4.1.3.Measurement of brand attachment 35
4.4.2 Dependent variable 36
4.4.2.1 Measurement of brand loyalty 36
5. Results 36
5.1 Response analysis 37
5.2 Descriptive statistics 37
6. Discussion 49
6.1 Interpretation of the results 49
6.2 Limitations and directions for future research 51
6.3 Managerial implications 53
7. Conclusion 53
Reference list 55
Appendices 60
Appendix A: Example pre-test 60
Appendix B: Demographic factors pre-test 66
Appendix C: Hedonic and utilitarian value per product category 67
Appendix D: Example main questionnaires 68
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
In today’s business environment companies have to cope with fierce competition as markets are characterized by heightened competitive pressures, diminishing product differentiation and increasing unpredictability (Fournier & Yao, 1997; Shocker, Srivastava, & Ruekert, 1994; Tsai, 2011). Within this prevalent highly competitive environment, companies should realize that next to acquiring new
customers, it should be top-priority to watch over the long-term interest of their existing customers and create lasting brand-to-consumer relationships. Therefore, fostering brand loyalty aiming to augment regular purchase, increase patronage and maintain revenue growth becomes a prominent strategic issue in the brand’s pursuit of sustainable competitive advantage (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009;
Punniyamoorthy & Prasanna Mohan Raj, 2007; Tsai, 2011).
In the past many researchers approached and viewed creating brand loyalty as a transactional exchange between the brand and the consumer (Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991; Johnson, Herrmann, & Huber, 2006; Tsai, 2005a, 2005b). This
perspective was based on the assumption that consumers purchase a branded product via rational choice and the ‘value-for-money’ concept.
Oliver (1999) was one of the first researchers who put forward the lack of psychological meaning in brand loyalty definitions. Oliver (1999) concludes in his research that not all firms are able to achieve or pursue ultimate brand loyalty due to the nature of the product category or simply consumer disinterest. In addition, he (1999) states that satisfaction is likely the only feasible goal to strive for concerning these firms and thus satisfaction remains a worthy consumer-brand relationship driver that should be nurtured.
Nowadays, research in the international brand management field has applied the relationship-building approach; thereby the focus has shifted towards the role of building lasting relationships between the brand and the consumer, on the formation of long-term brand loyalty (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Park, MacInnis, & Priester, 2006; Sung & Campbell, 2009; Tsai, 2011). A prior study of Fournier (1998) reveals that there can exist special relationships between consumers and products even to the extent that it could evoke emotional or affective responses. According to Fournier (1998) firms must consider the relationships between consumers and their brands in
order to get a grasp on the issues of brand loyalty because, as Fournier (1998) argues: “….brands can and do serve as viable relationship partners”.In line with this, Tsai (2011) also emphasizes the importance of fostering brand loyalty through building brand-to-consumer relationships. Tsai (2011) states in his research that brand
commitment and brand attachment transform the relationship between the brand and the consumer into distinctive brand strength. The findings of his research support that to a very large extent brand commitment and brand attachment directly predict long-term brand loyalty, namely 61,2% of the variance (Tsai, 2011). And next to this performance satisfaction, trust and self-concept connection directly explain 18,4% variance of brand loyalty (Tsai, 2011). In short, satisfaction, brand commitment and brand attachment are important consumer-brand relationships drivers in the creation of fostering brand loyalty (Tsai, 2011)
1.2 Problem Statement
A significant amount of research has only dealt with the behavioural and attitudinal components of consumers and their loyalty towards a brand (Rocereto & Mosca, 2012). There are only a few studies (e.g. Rocereto & Mosca, 2012; Fournier, 1998; Richins, 1994) that have directly focused on the impact of product
characteristics such as product type with regard to fostering brand loyalty (Rocereto & Mosca, 2012). Also, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) mention the importance to conduct research on the effect of product category in the formation of long-term brand loyalty. So, it can be assumed that the role of product type in fostering brand loyalty is not yet identified.
Yet the role of product type could lead to interesting new insights because not every product type is purchased for the same reasons. In the existing literature two product types can be identified, namely hedonic products and utilitarian products. Whereas hedonic products are primarily consumed for the pleasure and fun they provide (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000), utilitarian products are purchased regarding the fulfillment of functional or instrumental needs (Voss, Spangenberg & Grohmann, 2003).
Therefore, I will examine in this thesis whether different consumer-brand relationship drivers, namely satisfaction, brand commitment and brand attachment, are equally important in fostering brand loyalty among hedonic products and utilitarian products. The following research question will be addressed:
Is there a difference in the creation of consumers’ brand loyalty between utilitarian products and hedonic products?
1.3 Sub-questions
In order to generate an answer to the main research question, the following sub-questions are developed:
- What is brand loyalty?
- What are the main consumer-brand relationship drivers to foster brand loyalty? - What are the characteristics of utilitarian product categories?
- What are the characteristics of hedonic product categories? 1.4 Academic and managerial relevance
This research will be of both academic and managerial relevance. First, this research contributes to academic theory because it will show if satisfaction, brand commitment and brand attachment are equal drivers in the creation of brand loyalty. Furthermore, findings in this thesis will reveal whether there is a difference in consumers’ long-term brand loyalty formation between utilitarian and hedonic product categories. Thereby, this thesis will complement existing research of Tsai (2011) because findings of Tsai (2011) reveal that brand commitment and brand attachment are almost equal drivers in the formation of brand loyalty. However, this could imply that irrespective of the product, each product type can achieve an equally high brand loyalty. While in contrast, as mention in the introduction, Oliver (1999) states that brand loyalty is not a constant and that ultimate brand loyalty is not a feasible goal for every firm due to the nature of the product type. Moreover, also Fournier (1998) shows how useful it is to understand the role of brands in the life of a consumer and mentions that more research about this subject is required.
This research is of managerial value as well. Mostly, it is relevant for (strategic) brand managers to adapt a relationship-building strategy that corresponds with the given product category of the firm, in order to maximize the effectiveness for fostering brand loyalty. Moreover, brand managers can find out to what extent it is feasible to pursue brand loyalty and whether it is relevant regarding their types of products.
1.5 Research outline
The structure of this thesis is as follows. Chapter two contains a literature review regarding the main research question. Existing theory about the different concepts are discussed and a conceptual framework will be drawn. In chapter three the hypotheses are developed and proposed. The methodology and research
measurements are described in chapter four. In chapter five the results will be presented. The discussion, limitations of this study, suggestions for future research and managerial implications are outlined in chapter six. In the final chapter of this research paper a conclusion is given.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Brand loyalty
To date, brand loyalty has received much attention among both researchers and business practitioners (Dick & Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999). In various early studies the concept of brand loyalty was merely defined and focused on repeated purchase behaviour (Farley, 1964; Jacoby & Kyner, 1973; Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978) and approached as a behavioural construct. Thereafter, the concept of brand loyalty has evolved via several phases and can be interpreted differently, depending on the research context and goal. It can be stated that the conceptualization of brand loyalty has shifted and researchers nowadays view brand loyalty as a multi-dimensional concept (Dick & Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999).
Definition and conceptualization
The evolution of brand loyalty through the past decennia has been widely recognized by researchers (Dick & Basu, 1994; Khan, 2009). Throughout and due to this evolution, numerous definitions have been developed.
In the early days brand loyalty definitions were predominantly operational and behavioural measures such as proportion of purchase (e.g. Cunningham, 1966) and purchase sequence (e.g. Kahn, Kalwani & Morrison, 1986) were used in traditional brand loyalty research. Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) criticized this behavioural measurement of brand loyalty because this captured only the static outcomes of a dynamic, evolutionary process. Moreover, they pointed out the absence of a coherent definition and therefore Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) reviewed over 200 studies
concerning the nature and characteristics of brand loyalty. As a result, Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) defined brand loyalty as: “the biased (i.e. non-random) behavioural response (i.e. purchase) expressed over time by some decision-making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and is a function of psychological (decision-making) evaluative processes.” This was one of the first widely accepted conceptual definitions (Knox & Walker, 2001). However, the main problem researchers encounter is how to operationalize the brand loyalty definition of Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) (Knox & Walker, 2001; Rundle-Thiele & Bennett, 2001). Though several researchers (e.g. Bloemer & Kasper, 1995; Oliver, 1999) used this definition, or components of it, as a basis for their definition. In order to make this definition more comprehensible, I will elaborate on Jacoby and Chestnut’s (1978) definition in parts. First, the purchasing moment cannot be based on a coincidence. There has to be existence of preceding thoughts and feelings, as Oliver (1999) quotes in his definition that there has to be presence of “a deeply held commitment to rebuy
or repatronize a preferred product/service….”. Secondly, purchasing of the same
product/brand has to take place repeatedly over time, which is also emphasized by the brand loyalty definitions of Dick and Basu (1994) and Oliver (1999). Thirdly,
repeated purchase is done by some decision making-unit. Fourthly, Jacoby and Chestnut’s (1978) definition acknowledges the existence of multi-brand loyalty. Also present researchers (Dick & Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999) support that individuals can be loyal to more than one brand. Finally, there has to be presence of alternatives in order for an individual to be truly loyal and the actual purchasing behaviour is a result of an evaluative, decision-making process.
Next to the definition of Jacoby and Chestnut (1978), Dick and Basu (1994) also did an attempt to define brand loyalty or customer loyalty as they call it. They define customer loyalty as “the relationship between relative attitude and repeat patronage.” According to Dick and Basu (1994) behavioural definitions are insufficient to explain how and why brand loyalty is developed because these
definitions make no attempt to get a grasp on the factors underlying repeat purchase. Furthermore, Dick and Basu (1994) developed a framework that combined an individuals’ relative attitude towards a brand and repeat patronage of the brand, in order to determine the strength of the loyalty relationship. Subsequently, Dick and Basu (1994) identified four types of loyal consumers; ‘loyalty’ (high relative attitude and high repeat patronage), ‘latent loyalty’ (high relative attitude but low repeat
patronage), ‘spurious loyalty’ (low relative attitude but high repeat patronage) and ‘no loyalty’ (low relative attitude and low repeat patronage). Whereas ‘loyalty’ would be the most preferred state out of the four conditions according to Dick and Basu (1994). Next to this, Bloemer and Kasper (1995) tried to define brand loyalty. In line with Jacoby and Chestnut (1978), Bloemer and Kasper (1995) argue that the brand loyalty definition also has to include the antecedents of the actual behaviour and not only the behaviour of repurchasing on itself. Therefore, they made a distinction between true brand loyalty and spurious loyalty. For both definitions Bloemer and Kasper (1995) adopt the one given by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978). They define true brand loyalty as: “ (1) the biased (i.e. non-random), (2) behavioural response (i.e. purchase), (3) expressed over time, (4) by some decision-making unit, (5) with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, which (6) is a function of
psychological (decision-making, evaluative) processes resulting in brand commitment.” And they defined spurious loyalty as: “ (1) the biased (i.e.
non-random), (2) behavioural response (i.e. purchase), (3) expressed over time, (4) by some decision-making unit, (5) with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, which (6) is a function of inertia.” The most important difference between the two loyalty concepts is that true brand loyalty is selective brand
purchasing based on a consumer’s commitment and spurious loyalty is based on inertia (Knox & Walker, 2001). Also Amine (1998) states that the consistent
purchasing of a brand must be accompanied with a positive attitude towards the brand in order to capture the whole brand loyalty phenomenon.
Despite the composite definition of Jacoby and Chestnut (1978), one of the most prominent and currently used definitions of brand loyalty is proposed by Oliver (1999): “a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred
product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same-brand set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behaviours”. This definition shows that Oliver
(1999) puts forward the lack of an emotional or psychological component regarding the conceptualization of brand loyalty. This is in line with Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) and Dick and Basu (1994), who emphasized the attitudinal component that must be present for brand loyalty to emerge.
Furthermore, Kamat and Parulekar (2007) point out that brand loyalty is the result of a positive relationship that exists between a brand and a consumer and that
brand loyalty in itself is not an existing brand-to-consumer relationship. Concerning this thesis the above written definition of Oliver (1999) is
adopted. First, because this definition captures both aspects of brand loyalty that have been described in previous studies, namely attitudinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Day, 1969; Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978). Behavioural loyalty consists of the actual repeated purchasing of the brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001) and attitudinal loyalty comprises consumer’s beliefs, feelings and intentions toward a brand (Oliver, 1999). Building upon this, most contemporary researchers (e.g. Fournier & Yao, 1997; Punniyamoorthy & Prasanna Mohan Raj, 2007; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001) agree that loyalty definitions containing both loyalty aspects will approach the extensive theoretical definition of Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) the best. Moreover, because Oliver’s (1999) definition is currently the most applied in brand loyalty studies (e.g. Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Knox & Walker, 2001; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Punniyamoorthy & Prasanna Mohan Raj, 2007). Finally, Oliver’s (1999) definition of brand loyalty acknowledges multi-brand loyalty which is a necessary condition regarding my research.
2.2 Satisfaction
In general customer satisfaction is defined in the literature as the discrepancy between a consumer’s expectations and perceptions (Moshavi, 2004; Oliver, 1997). In line, also Kotler (1996) states that customer satisfaction is a positive or negative feeling deriving from a comparison between a consumer’s pre-consumption expectation and post-usage perception.
To become more specific, the existing marketing literature differentiates between two approaches, namely transaction-specific satisfaction and cumulative
satisfaction (Olsen & Johnson, 2003). Transaction-specific satisfaction is a
consumer’s post-choice evaluative judgement of a particular moment of purchasing (Oliver, 1977, 1980, 1993), that is, the consumer perceives that the consumption fulfils some need, desire or objective and that fulfillment is pleasurable (Oliver, 1993, 1997, 1999). In short, Oliver (1997) also refers to satisfaction as a pleasurable
fulfillment. Furthermore, Oliver (1997) mentions that the post-consumption evaluation comprises both cognitive and affective components.
Cumulative satisfaction (or overall satisfaction) refers to a consumer’s overall evaluation based on the accumulated impressions regarding the total consumption and
purchase experience with the product or service over time (Fornell, 1992; Johnson & Fornell, 1991).
This thesis focuses on cumulative satisfaction because comparison between both perspectives shows that cumulative satisfaction is the best predictor of brand loyalty (Anderson, Fornell & Lehmann, 1994; Yang & Peterson, 2004).
2.3 Brand commitment
In the early days brand commitment was defined as ‘the pledging or binding of an individual to his/her brand choice’ (Kiesler, 1968; Lastovicka & Gardner, 1978). More recently, Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande (1992) have defined commitment as ‘an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship’. Based upon the definition of Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande (1992), Morgan and Hunt (1994) defined brand commitment as ‘an enduring desire to continue the relationship combined with a consumer’s willingness to make efforts at maintaining it’.
Past research has demonstrated that brand commitment is an important variable in relationship marketing. The Commitment-Trust model and the Relationship Investment model are the two main approaches within the brand commitment paradigm that can be identified in the literature. Morgan and Hunt (1994) proposed a model of relationship-building based upon the Commitment-Trust theory of relationship management. According to Morgan and Hunt (1994) successful relationship-building requires both commitment and trust. Originally the
Commitment-Trust model was applied in business-to-business relationship management contexts (Tsai, 2011). However, researchers (e.g. Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner & Gremler, 2002) found evidence for the applicability in the context of consumer-brand relationship management. In order to make it applicable, the
Commitment-Trust model needs modifications (Tsai 2011; Hess & Story 2005, 2006). The revised model takes into account personal and functional connections, thereby brand commitment encompasses two dimensionalities, namely calculative and affective (Tsai, 2011). Whereas calculative commitment derives from calculating the functional benefits, affective commitment results from the appraisal of affective bonds (Tsai, 2011).
The second major approach is the Relationship Investment model, which was originally proposed to study interpersonal relationships. However, other researchers (e.g. Oliver, 1990; Ping, 1993) have tested the model in non-personal relationship
settings and found support that the model can also be applied regarding these contexts. Next to this, also Le and Agnew (2003) concluded that the Relationship Investment model could be extended to other domains such as commitment to jobs, loyalty to institutions, decision-making and consumer’s purchase behaviours.
The Relationship Investment model is designated as a more cognitive-oriented model, which consists of three variables: relationship satisfaction, attractiveness of alternatives and relationship investment, to predict the level of (calculative) brand commitment that subsequently mediates their impact on brand loyalty (Tsai, 2011). First, relationship satisfaction represents the sum of positive versus negative
evaluations regarding the relationship partner. Attractiveness of alternatives refers to the judgement resulting from the comparison between a partner and alternative partners and relationship investment refers to the resources that are put into a specific brand either financially, time-related or effort-wise (Tsai, 2011; Geyer, Dotson & King, 1991).
In line, Sung and Campbell (2009) agree that the Relationship Investment Model originated from the interpersonal relationships theory, is based on the three variables: satisfaction, alternatives and investment. However, according to Sung and Campbell (2009) quality of the alternatives refers to the amount of alternative brands or quality of those competing brands. And investment describes both the resources such as money, effort and time that are put into the relationship and the resources that are uniquely linked with the relationship such as material possessions, shared
memories, activities/objects or events. Furthermore, Sung and Campbell (2009) are the first who applied the Investment Model in a consumer-brand context and used this model to predict the level of relationship commitment to brands. All three variables – satisfaction, alternatives and investment – significantly and independently contribute to predict the level of consumer’s commitment towards brands. They conclude that greater satisfaction and size of investment together with poor alternatives, results in higher commitment to a brand (Sung & Campbell, 2009).
In addition, it is relevant to mention that the Relationship Investment model does not consider the role of trust in the relationship, nor it includes the influence of affective commitment. Thus, the model focuses more on the calculative than the affective elements of consumer’s relationships with a brand (Tsai, 2011).
In line with this, findings of two other studies (Li & Petrick, 2008; Breivik and Thorbjornsen, 2008) support that consumers have the tendency to calculate the
quality of other alternative brands compared with the current brand. Furthermore, they state that brand loyalty will decline, or even in some case disappear, when the current brand cannot remain its attractiveness in terms of financial value, functional
performance and uniqueness.
To summarize, (calculative) brand commitment is primarily based upon a cognitive evaluation of the brand whereby a consumer calculates the perceived losses against the potential gains in order to decide whether to switch brand or remain loyal (Tsai, 2011; Amine, 1998).
2.4 Brand attachment
Present research in the literature of marketing, proposes consumers can become emotionally attached to brands, either named brand attachment, emotional (brand) attachment or affective commitment (e.g. Caroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005; Schouten & McAlexander, 1995). However, consumers interact with an abundant amount of products and brands in their whole life, and only develop deep emotional feelings to a small portion of those products or brands (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995).
The foundation of brand attachment is rooted in the field of psychology and evolution, with as a starting point the pioneering work of Bowlby (1979, 1980, 1982). He conducted his research on attachment in the realm of parent-infant relationships and defines attachment as “an emotion-laden target-specific bond between a person and a specific object that could vary in strength” (Bowlby, 1988). Consistent with Bowlby (1988), several researchers (e.g. Aron & Westbay, 1996; Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1998; Collins & Read, 1990) support the notion that attachments of an individual vary in strength, and moreover that stronger attachments are associated with stronger feelings of connection, passion, love and affection.
In a more recent study of Thomson, MacInnis and Park (2005) a scale has been developed to measure the strength of consumer’s emotional attachment to brands. They proposed emotional brand attachment as an emotion-laden relationship between a consumer and a brand, characterized by deep feelings of affection, passion and connection (Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005).
Furthermore, Grisaffe and Nguyen (2011) argue that emotional attachment indicates a consumer’s deep desire to keep a feeling of security in connection with a brand and, next to this, takes on an active role in order to avoid separation with the
brand. This manifests itself in repurchasing, based on the emotional ties with the brand and avoidance of switching to another brand.
To summarize, while calculative commitment is primarily based upon a cognitive (calculated) evaluation of the brand regarding its attributes (Tsai, 2011; Amine, 1998), affective commitment (or brand attachment) reflects the extent to which a consumer wants to stay in relationship with a brand based on a holistic judgement of the brand in terms of liking (or attachment) (Amine, 1998). 2.5 Hedonic versus utilitarian value
In past studies it has been suggested that product category characteristics will influence brand-level effects such as brand loyalty and brand performance according to the categorization and schema theory (Lurigio & Carroll, 1985; Sujan, 1985).
Both theories indicate that cognitive thinking with regard to the product category is likely to precede thoughts and feelings about brands within the given product category (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). The categorization theory (Sujan, 1985) suggest that people form categories of stimuli (here brands) around them and, subsequently, new brands are known according to how they fit in the already existing categories within an individual’s mind. In short, prior knowledge about the product category forms the basis regarding the type of evaluation that a brand stimulus will elicit (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). According to the schema theory (Lurigio & Carroll, 1985) people form maps in their minds based on former obtained knowledge and experience, and thereafter employ these maps (here product categories) to evaluate new information (in this case on brands) (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).
The traditional approach, based on the information-processing paradigm (e.g. Bettman, 1979), views phenomena in consumer behaviour predominantly as rational and objectively, or calculative processing. However, Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) acknowledged that next to the traditional approach, there also exists a hedonic
approach that could be influential during different contexts of consumer behaviour such as the process of purchasing or brand choosing. Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) defined hedonic consumption as: “those facets of consumer behaviour that relate to multisensory, fantasy and emotive aspects of one’s experience with products”. Within the traditional approach products are viewed as objective entities and from a hedonic perspective products are seen as subjective symbols (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Thereby, they proposed two types of consumption, namely utilitarian and hedonic
product consumption. Whereas utilitarian products contain tangible and objective attributes, hedonic products are characterized by intangible or subjective features, which provided a pleasurable consumer response (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) state that the hedonic perspective is a valuable extension and complementary approach, next to the traditional perspective, with regard to research on phenomena in consumer behaviour.
Also other researchers have examined and tried to measure the hedonic versus utilitarian aspects of consumption (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Voss, Spangenberg & Grohmann, 2003; Spangenberg, Voss & Crowley, 1997).
For instance, Batra and Ahtola (1991) did an attempt to measure the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumers’ product/brand attitudes. Their findings show that both the hedonic and utilitarian dimension exists regarding consumers’ attitudes toward brands. In addition, results revealed that the hedonic dimension is based on the sensory, experiential product attributes, while the utilitarian component is associated with the instrumental and functional product attributes (Batra & Ahtola, 1991). According to their study, Batra and Ahtola (1991) also suggest that the hedonic and utilitarian components are salient across different consumer behaviours and products.
Moreover, Voss, Spangenberg and Grohmann (2003) developed a
hedonic/utilitarian scale (henceforth HED/UT scale) to measure consumer attitudes towards product categories and different brands within product categories. Their results suggest that both constructs, hedonic and utilitarian, are two distinct
dimensions of consumers’ attitudes towards brands (Voss, Spangenberg & Grohmann, 2003). Consistent with findings of Voss et al. (2003), Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) also note that hedonic value and utilitarian value are viewed as two uncorrelated types of value and should not be viewed as two ends of the same single continuum.
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) define hedonic value as “the pleasure potential of a product class” and they define utilitarian value as “the ability of a product class to perform functions in the everyday life of a consumer”. Finally, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) also suggest that product type, hedonic or utilitarian, has an overall effect in brand loyalty formation.
2.6 Conceptual Model
Existing literature has examined brand loyalty (sometimes also called customer loyalty) from two perspectives, namely behavioural loyalty and attitudinal
loyalty. Behavioural loyalty refers to the consumer behaviour or the actual
repurchasing behaviour of consumers, which can be measured by purchase rate or repeat purchase frequency. In the earlier days, researchers argued that behavioural loyalty is sufficient to identify loyal consumers (Cunningham, 1966; Kahn, Kalwani & Morrison, 1986; Tellis, 1988). However, more recently researchers suggest
otherwise and introduced attitudinal loyalty. For instance, according to Oliver (1999), next to the behavioural aspect of consumer behaviour, there must be an attitudinal component embedded in the brand loyalty construct to reflect the emotional and psychological attachment. In line with this, Dick and Basu (1994) also approached loyalty as an attitudinal construct by stating that loyalty only exists when a high repeat patronage coexists with a high relative attitude towards the product/brand.
As written before, Oliver (1999) was one of the first who put forward the lack of emotional and psychological meaning regarding the brand loyalty construct. Furthermore, he examined the role of consumer satisfaction with regard to loyalty. One of Oliver’s (1999) main findings is that satisfaction is a necessary but poor predictor of loyalty because it does not capture the full breath and depth of
consumers’ experiences with brands and their subsequent loyalty behaviours. Oliver (1999) argues that additional factors like personal fortitude and social bonding are necessary to pursue loyalty.
Commencing on Oliver (1999), more recently Tsai (2011) applies the
relationship-building approach. Tsai (2011) states that throughout the years there have emerged three brand-to-consumer relationship paradigms to elicit favorable consumer behaviour such as brand loyalty, namely the Brand Relationship Quality paradigm, the Brand Commitment paradigm and the Brand Attachment paradigm.
First, the Brand Relationship Quality (henceforth BRQ) framework, originally from Fournier (1998), is viewed as one aggregate entity consisting of various
relationship components such as partner quality and self-connection (Fournier, 1998). These different relationship components fall under cognitive, emotional,
socio-affective and behavioural dimensions and all together indicate the total relationship quality (Tsai, 2011). Throughout the years the BRQ framework has been revised and applied by several researchers (e.g. Smit, Bronner & Tolboom, 2007; Chang & Chieng, 2006) resulting in divergent outcomes (Tsai, 2011). Therefore, according to Tsai (2011) more research is needed to confirm the appropriate dimensions in the BRQ framework and their sequential order in yielding impact on brand loyalty.
According to proponents of the Brand Commitment theories, decisions of consumers are primarily based on calculative thinking about the brand rather than the affective bonds with the brand (Tsai, 2011). As written before, there are two main approaches within the Brand Commitment paradigm, namely the Commitment-Trust model and the Relationship Investment model. Whereas the Commitment-Trust model includes both personal and functional connections by dividing brand
commitment into calculative and affective dimensions, the Relationship Investment model is more cognitive-oriented without taking into account the influence of affective commitment (Tsai, 2011).
In contrast, the Brand Attachment theory emphasizes that companies should pay particular attention to emotional attachment because the emotional components are the key driver of loyalty relationships. However, the Brand Attachment paradigm is a relatively new approach in the field of relationship-building and therefore
agreement on several key points such as conceptual and operational definitions of brand attachment has not been achieved. This makes the Brand Attachment paradigm less applicable and more research is needed to achieve accordance (Tsai, 2011).
In short, according to Tsai (2011) the problem is that these three relationship-building paradigms are viewed from diversified perspectives, which results in
divergent outcomes regarding long-term brand loyalty formation. Building upon this, Tsai (2011) states that there is lack of one overall model that captures the full breath and depth of building brand-to-consumer relationships to foster brand loyalty. In his research, Tsai (2011) adapts and modifies the three relationship-building paradigms and develops and validates the Relationship-Building for Strategic Brand
Management Model (henceforth RB-SBM Model) to foster brand loyalty. Another contribution of the RB-SBM Model is that it merges three facets of consumer’s experiences with brands, namely utilitarianism, emotionalism and social symbolism (Tsai, 2011).
As indicated earlier in this thesis, Oliver (1999) stated that more additional factors next to satisfaction have to be present to attain brand loyalty. In addition, Thomson, MacInnis and Park (2005) agree upon Oliver (1999) because they state that emotional brand attachment is also not the only antecedent of brand loyalty.
Therefore, in this thesis the approach of Tsai (2011) will be applied due to the comprehensiveness of the RB-SBM Model.
Build upon the approach of Tsai (2011) the conceptual model of this thesis is presented below:
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
3. Developing research hypotheses
3.1 Three consumer-brand relationship drivers creating brand loyalty 3.1.1 The relationship between satisfaction and brand loyalty
Several researchers have examined the link between satisfaction and brand loyalty and findings show that satisfaction affects loyalty.
For instance, Oliver (1999) examined what aspect of consumer satisfaction is relevant for brand loyalty and what part of consumer’s loyalty can be attributed to the satisfaction component. His findings show that satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty formation, however satisfaction on its own is insufficient to transform into the ultimate state of loyalty. Moreover satisfaction becomes less meaningful when loyalty Satisfaction
Brand Commitment
Brand Attachment
Brand Loyalty
Utilitarian product categories versus
starts to emerge via other mechanisms such as personal determinism and social bonding on both the institutional and personal level (Oliver, 1999).
Furthermore, according to Ngobo (1999) it is not sufficient for a firm to have satisfied customers because a firm should strive for delighted customers to generate increasing returns in repurchase intentions. Consistently with Ngobo (1999), the findings of Oliver, Rust and Varki (1997) show that tremendously satisfied customers are more likely to remain customers of a firm compared to those who are just merely satisfied.
Consistent with Oliver (1999), Amine (1998) examined the role of
commitment regarding consumers’ true brand loyalty and argues that consumers’ satisfaction is a necessary but insufficient condition regarding consumers’ brand loyalty. According to Amine (1998) this is because satisfaction, together with involvement, is an indirect antecedent of brand loyalty and could interact with other variables such as brand sensitivity and perceived risk.
Several other researchers (Taylor, Celuch & Goodwin, 2004; Back & Parks, 2003) support the notion that consumers’ satisfaction with a brand is one of the key components regarding brand loyalty formation. Also findings of Bloemer and Kasper (1995) support that satisfaction is a significant antecedent of brand loyalty.
3.1.2 The relationship between brand commitment and brand loyalty
Bloemer and Kasper (1995) make a distinction between true brand loyalty and spurious brand loyalty in their research. While true brand loyalty is based on
commitment, spurious brand loyalty is a function of inertia. According to them brand commitment is a necessary condition for brand loyalty to occur. Brand commitment ties the consumer to its brand with as a consequence that consumers are less
vulnerable to marketing activities of competitors and are more willing to remain with their current brand (Bloemer & Kasper, 1995). Consistent with Bloemer and Kasper (1995), also findings of Knox and Walker (2001) support the notion that brand commitment, and next to this brand support, are necessary in order for true brand loyalty to occur.
Furthermore, Tsai (2011) argues that brand commitment and brand attachment directly impact long-term brand loyalty and that both constructs transform the
relationship between the consumer and the brand into distinctive brand strength. The direct effect of both consumer-brand relationship drivers is almost equal, namely
brand commitment with 26,1% and brand attachment with 28,2%. Furthermore, his findings show that to a very large extent brand commitment and brand attachment predict long-term brand loyalty, namely 61,2% of the variance. Brand commitment accounts for 28,5% of the variance in brand loyalty, whereas brand attachments explains 32,7% (Tsai, 2011).
3.1.3 The relationship between brand attachment and brand loyalty
The domain of brand attachment is a relatively new development compared to other areas of brand-to-consumer relationship-building such as brand commitment. Though several researchers have studied the link between brand attachment and brand loyalty.
For instance, Dick and Basu (1994) proposed that brand loyalty should be greater when a more positive emotional mood is present. Therefore, according to them, it can be assumed that brands that have the attributes to make consumers ‘joyful’, ‘happy’ or ‘affectionate’ should foster greater brand loyalty.
Moreover, Reinartz and Kumar (2002) state that true loyalty (also referred to as the highest level of loyalty) can only be attained when, next to positive attitudes and behaviours, a firm is able to build emotional connections with the consumer. This is in line with Oliver (1999) who argues that the result of deep emotional attachment drives the ultimate state of loyalty. He refers to the ultimate state of loyalty in case of a consumer who “fervently desires to repurchase a product or service and will have no other” and thereby will pursue this search “against all odds and at all cost” (Oliver, 1999, 1997). Next to this, Oliver (1999) states that not every firm has the ability to strive for this ultimate state of brand loyalty due to the nature of the product category or simply consumer disinterest.
As written before, Thomson, MacInnis and Park (2005) developed a scale to measure the strength of consumers’ emotional attachment to brands in order to predict outcomes such as brand loyalty and willingness to pay a price premium. According to findings in their research, Thomson, MacInnis and Park (2005) state that emotional attachment predicts both brand loyalty and consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium. However, they emphasize that emotional attachment is not the only predictor of brand loyalty and that next to this there exist other brand loyalty drivers like satisfaction (e.g. Oliver, 1999; Bloemer and Kasper, 1995) and brand
Based upon the above written, it can be stated that existing theory has found sufficient evidence regarding the positive effect of satisfaction, brand commitment and brand attachment with regard to brand loyalty. With respect to the research context in this paper, the following three hypotheses are proposed:
H1a: Satisfaction has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
H1b: Brand commitment has a positive effect on brand loyalty. H1c: Brand attachment has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
Next to this, based upon the written literature in this paper, it can be hypothesized that brand attachment will have the strongest impact on the relationship between
consumers and their loyalty towards brands, followed by brand commitment and satisfaction.
First, because in past research from Oliver (1999) evidence is found that satisfaction is a requisite but poor driver in the creation of brand loyalty. According to Oliver (1999) satisfaction is not able to encompass the total experience consumers have with brands and thereby associated loyalty behaviours. He argues that in order for companies to achieve the ultimate brand loyalty other additional factors such as personal fortitude and bonding on a social and emotional level have to occur and play a more prominent role (Oliver, 1999). Secondly, and in line with Oliver (1999), Reinartz and Kumar (2002) state that true loyalty can only be achieved when, next to a consumer’s positive attitude and behaviour, a company is able to create an
emotional tie with the consumer.
And thirdly, as mentioned before, in a recent research of Tsai (2011) findings show that brand attachment and brand commitment are two main drivers in fostering long-term brand loyalty. Whereas brand attachment directly affects loyalty with 28,2%, brand commitment direct influences brand loyalty with 26,1% (Tsai, 2011).
In short, it is due to the strength of ‘emotional bonding’ that can take place between consumers and their brands, that it can be expected to find the strongest positive effect of brand attachment on brand loyalty. And furthermore, it can be expected to find the least positive effect of satisfaction on brand loyalty due to the inability of satisfaction to capture the full package of a consumer’s total experience with brands and their loyalty towards it.
H2a: Brand attachment has a stronger positive effect on brand loyalty than brand commitment and satisfaction.
H2b: Brand attachment and brand commitment have a stronger positive effect on brand loyalty than satisfaction.
3.2 The impact of product type: hedonic versus utilitarian 3.2.1 Satisfaction – brand loyalty relationship
As previously described, past research supports the notion that satisfaction is one of the key antecedents of brand loyalty (e.g. Oliver, 1999; Bloemer & Kasper, 1995). In addition, it is acknowledged in the marketing literature that product type impacts brand loyalty (Rocereto & Mosca, 2012; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).
Mano and Oliver (1993) conducted a research regarding three aspects of post-consumption experience, respectively product evaluation, feelings a product may elicit and product satisfaction. They incorporated both hedonic and utilitarian product evaluations in their study to examine if both influence a judgement of satisfaction with a product and subsequently if one is more influential compared to the other (Mano & Oliver, 1993). Findings of Mano and Oliver (1993) show that both affect and utilitarian outcomes play a role in shaping satisfaction judgements. However, they suggest that, taken together all their results, it should be bear in mind that product satisfaction is not easy to tie down. Satisfaction regarding a product appears to be a complex consumer response that includes both affective and cognitive elements and the results do not clearly reveal which of them is more influential (Mano & Oliver, 1993).
Furthermore, Kuikka and Laukkanen (2012) explored four antecedents, respectively satisfaction, brand value, brand equity and brand trust, of consumers’ brand loyalty in the chocolate market. They wanted to gain more insight about the role of hedonic value among hedonic consumable goods. According to their results satisfaction with the brand was the most significant factor for brand loyalty and brand trust appeared to be the least significant antecedent within the chocolate market (Kuikka & Laukkanen, 2012). The findings of Kuikka and Laukkanen (2012) show that there exists a moderating effect of hedonic value in the relation between satisfaction and attitudinal brand loyalty but no moderating effect was found in the
relation between satisfaction and behavioural brand loyalty, nor regarding the other antecedents on brand loyalty (Kuikka & Laukkanen, 2012).
Next to this, Reast (2005) states that brand loyalty is largely build upon a consumers’ consistent satisfaction with regard to the functional aspects and
performance of the brand. In line with Reast (2005), Story and Hess (2005) argue that according to the Trust-Based Commitment model, satisfaction is an outcome
predominantly driven by consumers’ functional connections with a brand/product. In addition, they mention that satisfaction also contributes to trust and that trust
subsequently has the ability to build personal connections between the consumer and the brand (Story & Hess, 2005).
In line with Reast (2005), Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) assess and test the degree of passionate emotional attachment satisfied consumers can have to a particular brand, also referred to as brand love. According to findings of Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), satisfied consumers have the tendency to be less loyal to brands that are more in hedonic product categories. This is clarified by a study of Dodd, Pinkleton and Gustafson (1996), who state that variety seeking is sometimes the outcome from a consumer’s desire to find pleasures out of other, new hedonic experiences. Building upon this, it can be assumed that product categories that score high on the hedonic dimensions give more reasons for exploratory variety seeking. Therefore, it is likely that brands in hedonic product categories will enjoy less brand loyalty from satisfied consumers compared to brands in utilitarian product categories.
This has resulted in the following hypotheses:
H3a: Satisfaction has a stronger positive effect on brand loyalty concerning utilitarian product categories than hedonic product categories.
3.2.2 Brand commitment – brand loyalty relationship
According to Story and Hess (2005, 2006) satisfaction primarily results in functional connections between a consumer and the brand and moreover contributes to build trust in consumer-brand relationships. Subsequently, trust has the ability to form personal connections between the consumer and the brand. Furthermore, they argue that committed relationships are a consequence of the combination of functional and personal connections consumers can have with brands, whereby these consumers are a subset of satisfied consumers (Story & Hess 2005, 2006). According to Story
and Hess (2005, 2006) the group of satisfied consumers who are also in a committed relationship are more likely to remain brand loyal, compared to consumers who are just merely satisfied. Committed consumers are putting effort in the relationship between themselves and the brand and are willing to invest in it. Satisfaction is a first step in loyalty formation, however merely satisfied consumer may remain loyal due to convenience, lack of alternatives or inertia (Schultz & Bailey, 2005) and not because they experience a sense of commitment to remain with the current brand (Story & Hess 2005, 2006).
Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the Relationship Investment model is one of the major approaches regarding brand commitment. In a recent study of Sung & Campbell (2009), a consumer’s commitment towards a brand is based on three factors, namely satisfaction, quality of the alternatives and investment, whereby the overall evaluation is derived from calculative processing. Also other researchers (e.g. Tsai, 2011; Amine, 1998) are arguing that brand commitment is cognitive-oriented and primarily a result of a consumer’s cognitive evaluation regarding a brand.
Given the existing studies, it can be assumed that consumer’s commitment to certain brands is more a result of calculative thinking than affective or emotional feelings. It can be expected that a utilitarian product category positively moderate the relationship between brand commitment and brand loyalty due to the fact that
functional features or performance outplay the hedonic potency a product may have. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H3b: Brand commitment has a stronger positive effect on brand loyalty concerning utilitarian product categories than hedonic product categories
3.2.3 Brand attachment – brand loyalty relationship
Several researchers in the literature acknowledge the emotional components in brand loyalty formation (e.g. Dick & Basu, 1994; Fournier, 1998; Tsai, 2011).
For instance, Fournier (1998) mentioned the importance of taking into account the emotional aspects regarding consumers’ long-term relationships with certain brands. In line with Fournier (1998) Park, MacInnis, Priester and Eisingerich (2010) state that brands to which consumers are strongly attached and in turn remain loyal, capture both consumers’ minds and their hearts.
As already mentioned Tsai (2011) found evidence that brand attachment directly impacts brand loyalty for 28,2% of the variance, next to brand commitment with 26,1%. Furthermore, the findings derived from his developed and validated RB-SBM model highlights that consumer’s emotional experiences with brands, such as affinity and sensory pleasures, are provoked by intangible features and aesthetics. In addition, according to the RB-SBM model emotional brand attachment is driven by relationship satisfaction, trust, aesthetic attractiveness, delight and self-concept connection (Tsai, 2011).
Next to this, past research has shown that hedonic products have the tendency to generate a stronger emotional consumer response (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Chandon, Wansink & Laurent, 2000). Building upon this, it can be expected that a consumer’s emotional attachment will have a stronger effect on brand loyalty regarding brands in hedonic product categories compared to utilitarian product categories. This results in the following hypotheses:
H3c: Brand attachment has a stronger positive effect on brand loyalty concerning hedonic product categories than utilitarian product categories.
Figure 2: Overview of the conceptual model + hypotheses
Satisfaction
Brand Commitment
Brand Attachment
Brand Loyalty
Utilitarian product categories versus
4. Methodology
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the effect of three main brand-to-consumer relationship drivers on brand loyalty and to test whether there exists a moderating effect of hedonic versus utilitarian product categories. Prior to testing the proposed hypotheses an in-depth description about the research method will be given in this chapter.
4.1 Procedure pre-test
Prior to the implementation of the two main questionnaires, one pre-test will be conducted to determine the most appropriate product categories for the two main questionnaires. The main objective of this pre-test is to assess the appropriateness of each product category with regard to the hedonic and/or utilitarian value. Regarding this research it is important to select two product categories that score ‘high’ on utilitarian value and two product categories that score ‘high’ on a hedonic level. Subsequently, these four selected product categories will be included in the two main questionnaires, whereby each questionnaire will contain one ‘highly’ valued hedonic product category and one ‘highly’ valued utilitarian product category. Within this pre-test eight different product categories will be measured, where it is presumed
regarding four product categories to find a high rating on the hedonic items of the measurement scale and four of them are valued highly on the utilitarian items.
The pre-test is filled out by thirty people, who are a representative of the final sample, which was an online survey that was send to each person by mail. The participants were asked to give their opinion about the following eight product categories: margarine, beer, shampoo, chocolate, toothpaste, perfume, magazines and detergents.
4.1.1 Selection procedure of the product categories
In order to select eight product categories past literature has been reviewed related to this field of study. For instance, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) examined two aspects of brand loyalty in order to determine the effects from brand trust and brand affect to the performance of a brand. Thereby they included next to product-level and brand-product-level controls, a product category related control variable that refers to the hedonic and utilitarian value of a product group. Chaudhuri and Holbrook
(2001) selected their final product groups based on the premise that the product has easy identifiable branded alternatives for consumers and that it is a widely distributed good. Furthermore, there are several other studies that developed a scale to measure the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer’s attitudes to product categories or brands within different product categories, or examined the impact of product type in their research (e.g. Rocereto & Mosca, 2012; Crowley, Spangenberg & Hughes, 1992; Voss, Spangenberg & Grohmann, 1997; Sloot, Verhoef & Franses, 2005). Based upon past literature regarding this field of study, the eight product categories included in this pre-test are: 1) Margarine, 2) Beer, 3) Shampoo, 4) Chocolate, 5) Toothpaste, 6) Perfume, 7) Magazines, and finally 8) Detergents.
Regarding the four product categories margarine, shampoo, toothpaste and detergents it will be expected to find a high rating on the utilitarian dimensions. In a study of Sloot, Verhoef and Franses (2005) about the impact of brand equity and the hedonic (versus utilitarian) level of the product on consumer’s stock-out responses, eight product categories were tested regarding their hedonic and utilitarian benefits based on the definitions of Batra and Athola (1991). According to their results margarine and detergent can be classified as utilitarian product categories. Also Crowley, Spangenberg and Hughes (1992) and Spangenberg, Voss & Crowley (1997) found evidence in their research that consumer’s valued detergents as highly
utilitarian product category with a low hedonic level.
For the four product categories beer, chocolate, magazines and perfume, it is expected to find a high rating on the hedonic dimensions. According to Voss,
Spangenberg and Grohmann (2003) consumer’s classified beer as a hedonic product. Also results of Sloot, Verhoef and Franses (2005) showed that beer is considered as a hedonic product category and subsequently (potato) chips. Crowley, Spangenberg and Hughes (1992) included 24 product categories in their research in order to measure the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer’s attitudes towards different product categories. Based upon the items suggested by Batra and Ahtola (1991) their results revealed that most of the product categories represent both utilitarian benefits and hedonic benefits with the exception of (potato) chips and chocolate. These two product categories rated low on the utilitarian scale and high on the hedonic scale and thus consumers consider them as hedonic product categories (Crowley, Spangenberg & Hughes, 1992).
In a study of Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) regarding two aspects of brand loyalty, namely purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty, 146 product categories were included in the first phase of their data collection and were tested on their utilitarian and hedonic value. Finally, 41 product categories were selected based upon the premises that 1) the product category has easy identifiable brand alternatives and that 2) it is a widely distributed consumer good. According to Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) the product category perfume is one of them that meets these requirements next to for example beer, ice cream and cameras. It is preferable within the current research context that a product category meets up to these conditions because
participants have to recall the brand that they have been in contact with most recently regarding the product categories that will be included in the final questionnaires. Thereby, perfume is not a gender specific product category, both females and males have sufficient branded alternatives and for both gender type perfume has the same purpose. Furthermore, a study of Fournier (1997) reveals that persons can become emotionally attached to brands and that brands can function as viable relationships partners. An examples in Fournier’s (1997) research of a product category to which people can become emotionally attached to is perfume because perfume is an extension of someone’s ‘self’ and provides a sense of feel-good. Also Albert,
Merunka and Valette-Florence (2008) state in their research that perfume is a product category that is strongly associated with the feeling of love by consumers. Building upon the studies of Fournier (1997) and Albert, Merunka and Valette-Florence (2008), it can be expected that perfume provide primarily hedonic value to a consumer due to the multisensory aspects people can experience with perfume.
The fourth category were it will be expected to score high on hedonic value is magazines. For instance Addis & Holbrook (2001) mention magazines, books and movies as examples of more hedonic product groups because the consumer responses subjectively towards intangible, symbolic or aesthetic components of the product.
4.1.2 Measurement of hedonic versus utilitarian value
For the purpose of this pre-test the HED/UT Scale from Voss, Spangenberg and Grohmann (2003) will be adopted to measure the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of each product category. The HED/UT Scale developed by Voss, Spangenberg and Grohmann (2003) is chosen above another commonly used scale, namely the scale of Batra and Ahtola (1991). This is for several reasons. First, because in quite some
recently published studies (e.g. Voss, Spangenberg & Grohmann, 2003; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001), researchers had problems with the use of the scale of Batra and Ahtola (1991). This was mostly due to several different methodological problems such as in the study of Crowley, Spangenberg and Hughes (1992), where they reported problems across product categories regarding the predictive validity and generalizability. In another researchof Mano and Oliver (1993), items in the scale cross-load with measurement items of product category involvement from
Zaichkowsky (1985), which suggest deficient discriminant validity.
Furthermore, Voss, Spangenberg and Grohmann (2003) showed in their study that their ten-item HED/UT scale is solid in its performance to successfully measure consumer’s attitudes toward both product categories and brands in those product categories. This is supported by Gursoy, Spangenberg and Rutherford (2006), who argue that the HED/UT scale has proven to be an appropriate scale to measure the utilitarian and hedonic dimensions of consumer attitudes due to its reliability, validity and generalizability.
The HED/UT Scale of Voss et al. (2003) comprises ten semantic differential response items, five items to measure the utilitarian dimension of consumer attitudes and five items refer to the hedonic dimension. Moreover, Voss, Spangenberg and Grohmann (2003) conclude that both constructs are two distinct dimensions of consumer’s attitude toward a brand.
As elaborated above margarine, beer, shampoo, chocolate, toothpaste, perfume, magazines and detergents are the eight product categories that will be measured regarding their utilitarian and hedonic value. The pre-selected product groups will each be evaluated regarding five hedonic items and five utilitarian items on a seven-point scale. The ten items are presented in table 1.
Table 1: 10-item HED/UT Scale
Utilitarian constructs Hedonic constructs
Unnecessary <-> necessary Dull <-> exciting
Ineffective <-> effective Not delightful <-> delightful Not functional <-> functional Not fun <-> fun
Impractical <-> practical Not thrilling <-> thrilling Unhelpful <-> helpful Enjoyable <-> unenjoyable
(Source HED/UT scale-items: Voss, Spangenberg & Grohmann, 2003) There will be two different seven-point scales, namely one regarding the hedonic items ranging from 1 = not hedonic until 7 = very hedonic and one to measure the utilitarian value, ranging from 1 = not utilitarian until 7 = very utilitarian. Within 1 item, for example Not functional / functional, ‘not functional’ represents ‘ 1 = not utilitarian’ and it goes until ‘functional’ that represents ‘7 = very utilitarian’.
An example of the complete pre-test survey that has been send to thirty people can be found in appendix A.
4.2 Results pre-test
As mentioned above thirty people in total filled out the online pre-test survey. In terms of gender thirteen males and seventeen females participated in the pre-test, respectively 43% males and 57% females. The respondents are between the age of 21 and 35, and more than half (57%) is between the age of 26 and 30. In appendix B all the demographic factors are presented.
In table 2 below the utilitarian and hedonic value regarding each product category is presented. Moreover, in figure 3 each of the eight product categories are plotted on the axes based upon their hedonic and utilitarian value. In appendix C the hedonic and utilitarian value regarding each product category is also presented.
Table 2: Hedonic and utilitarian value per product category
Product category Utilitarian dimension Hedonic dimension
Margarine 4,94 2,71 Beer 3,57 4,87 Shampoo 6,39 3,74 Chocolate 3,77 5,12 Toothpaste 6,50 3,20 Perfume 5,05 5,35 Magazines 4,42 5,16 Detergent 6,38 2,75
Figure 3: Product categories plotted based on HED/UT value
The results show that purely based on the hedonic value perfume and magazines are seen as the two most hedonic product categories, with a rating of respectively 5.35 and 5.16. However, it is important regarding this study to select two product categories that score high on the hedonic dimension but simultaneously low on the utilitarian dimension and vice versa. With regard to this selection criteria the product
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 H ed on ic d im en si on Utilitarian dimension
Consumer product categories (classified HED/UT scale)
Margarine Beer Shampoo Chocolate Toothpaste Perfume Magazines Detergent
categories chocolate and beer are most appropriate. The hedonic value of chocolate (5.12) is almost similar to the hedonic value of magazines. However the utilitarian value of chocolate, namely 3.77, is significantly lower compared to the utilitarian value of magazines (4.42). Next to chocolate, beer is the second qualified product category to use in the main questionnaire because beer also scores high on the hedonic dimension with a value of 4.87 and low regarding the utilitarian dimension, namely 3.57. Both chocolate and beer rate significantly above the mid-point of 4.0 on the hedonic dimension and below the mid-point of 4.0 on the utilitarian dimension. Therefore, chocolate and beer are the most suited hedonic product categories to use in the main questionnaire regarding the research purpose.
Next to this the utilitarian product categories for the main questionnaire are determined. Three out of the four pre-selected categories rated extremely high on the utilitarian dimension, namely toothpaste (6.5), shampoo (6.39) and detergents (6.38). The fourth product category margarine also rated well above the mid-point of 4.0 with an utilitarian value of 4.94. According to the results the product categories ‘shampoo’ and ‘toothpaste’ are shown to be the most appropriate to use in the main
questionnaire. Both shampoo and toothpaste are perceived by participants as high utilitarian products with an utilitarian value of respectively 6.39 and 6.5. And both product categories scored low on the hedonic dimension, below the mid-point of 4.0.
In short, beer and chocolate will represent the hedonic product categories and shampoo and toothpaste refer to the utilitarian product categories in the main
questionnaires.
4.3 Procedure main questionnaire
After conducting the pre-test, two questionnaires were composed both
containing one product category that scored high on the utilitarian dimension and one with high hedonic value. The first questionnaire comprises shampoo to be the
utilitarian product category and chocolate to be the hedonic product category. The other questionnaire contains the product categories toothpaste and beer representing respectively utilitarian and hedonic. In appendix D examples of the two
