Measurement of the Customer Equity of orange juices in the food retail sector in the Netherlands. Quantitative research based on consumers perspective who assessed a national brand, private label and discounter.

(1)

Measurement of the Customer Equity of orange

juices in the food retail sector in the Netherlands.

Quantitative research based on consumers perspective who assessed a national brand,

private label and discounter.

Bas Bijleveld

10038310

A.C.J. Meulemans

25-06-2013

(2)

Abstract

The last decades private labels in the food retail

industry has significantly grown. National and

discounter brands started to encounter fierce competition

but for the consumer choices of products has

increased. Private labels have become very strong brands and in this study it is examined if the private labels may have surpassed national brands on certain areas. This is done according to the framework prepared by Rust, Lemon and Zeithaml that propose that every product or service has a Customer Equity. Customer Equity is defined as the total discounted lifetime value of all its customers from a product or service. Customer Equity is composed of Value Equity, Brand Equity and Retention Equity and it will be examined what the levels are of each of these equities for three different brand types. The product that has been studied is orange juice and the three brand types that are

examined are the national brand Appelsientje, the private label AH – Orange juice and the discounter Euroshopper. In a survey 104 respondents are asked about their opinion about the three brand types. Results show that the national brand Appelsientje has highest values for all three the equities. The overall Customer Equity of Appelsientje has a level of 4.69 out of 7. The customer equity of AH – Orange juice appears to be 4.27 out of 7, a score just above the average. The customer equity of AH – Orange juice did not surpass the customer equity of Appelsientje and it can be stated that the national brand is Appelsientje is still positioned stronger than the private label AH – Orange juice. In-depth analyses show that AH – Orange juice scored poor on brand and retention equity, these equities should be improved in order to improve the total customer equity.

(3)

1. Introduction

Up to the late 1960 the food retail sector had the sole function to market the products that were made available by the manufacturers. From 1970 onwards major shifts occurred in the food retail sector: as a result of fundamental socio – economic changes in Europe and America and a fast growing demand for high quality products the relationship between manufacturer and retailer changed. Where previously the manufacturer strongly opposed the retailer, the retailer started to gain more power (Burch & Lawrence, 2005). Together with the growing power of the retailers another process took effect: consolidation between retailers and a growing concentration of retailers. Mergers and acquisitions among food retail companies resulted in a very concentrated retail market since the late nineties. Today’s international supermarket industry is owned by a few major corporations which have gigantic turnovers: Wal-Mart had a turnover of 421 billion dollar in 2011 (Fortune 500; Dobson, 2000; Dobson et al. 2002, p. 112). Besides the growing concentration of the retailer a second major change occurred in the food retail industry: the emergence of

supermarket’s ‘own’ brands or ‘private labels’ which started to compete with the national brands that were previously only offered in the supermarkets (Burch & Lawrence, 2004).

The emergence of the private labels (PLs) in the food retail industry has caused shifts in the whole food retail sector. National and discounter brands started to encounter fierce competition of the private labels. Customers’ product choice increases and every customer has different motives to buy either a national brand, a private label or a discounter. In this study motives of the customer behind the purchase of a product will be examined. It will be examined which aspects of a product

customers consider as strong and which aspects customers consider as weak. All possible drivers that drive a customer to the purchase of a product will be fragmented and with the help of a survey the levels of the drivers will be measured. The case product that is used in this study is orange juice. The three brands that will be examined are the national brand Appelsientje, the private label AH – Sinaasappelsap and the discounter Euroshopper Sinaasappelsap. The following research question is prepared.

What is the relative position of the Customer Equity of private label AH – Sinaasappelsap in contrast with the national brand Appelsientje and the discounter Euroshopper Sinaasappelsap?

(5)

Customer Equity framework will be elaborated extensively in the conceptual framework of this study. In order to measure the position of customer equity of private label AH –Sinaasappelsap the total discounted lifetime value should be determined. Therefore the following sub-question is prepared.

What is the relative position of the customer lifetime value of private label AH – Sinaasappelsap in contrast with national brand Appelsientje and the discounter Euroshopper Sinaasappelsap?

The objective of this study is to determine which drivers of the private label AH – Sinaasappelsap are currently considered as strong by customers, and which aspects are considered as weak. With the data of the drivers eventually the customer equity of the different brands can be determined. Results of this study will give managers of Albert Heijn an indication about the strong and weak aspects of private label AH – Sinaasappelsap, subsequently it can take action to strengthen the position on the market.

In the next section of this study, the theoretical framework, a literature review regarding the PL’s is conducted. Historical performance indicators of private labels are examined and consumer behaviour will elaborated. In section three the Customer Equity framework prepared by Rust et al. (2000) will be explained and the use and implementation in this study will be clarified. In section four the actual methodology that have lead to the results will be explained. In section five the results will be

presented. Section six consists of the discussion, and in the last section of this paper conclusions will be made.

(6)

2. Theoretical Framework

Increase market share of Private Labels

The last decades the market share of the private labels in the supermarkets in the Netherlands increased to 26.4 % in 2007 (IRI, 2008). As explained in the introduction, the rise of private labels is partly due to the increased concentration of retailers that emerged the last decades. This is a cause on industrial level, in this section the rise of the PL’s will be more elaborated at product level according to existing literature.

This section will start with the elaboration of two important performance indicators of PLs: price and quality. The paragraph is followed op by the explanation of an important variable regarding those performance indicators: consumer behaviour. This section ends with a paragraph which explains the contribution to the literature.

2.1 Performance indicators

2.1.1 Low price

In several studies and reports (van der Stichele & Young. 2009, p. 25; Burch & Lawrence, 2005, p. 5; Bathra & Sinha, 2000, p. 175) the low price of the private labels is indicated as an important factor for the success and increasing market share of the supermarkets’ private labels. According to research institute ACNielsen PL’s were in the Netherlands in 2005 about 26% cheaper than national brands. One of the reasons that retailers can sell the PL’s cheaper than national brands is because retailers don’t have advertisement costs and listing fees when they distribute their own (private label) brands . The main reason, however, is fact that the food retailers are able to buy the products for very low prices at the producers: food retailers can force producers to supply products for very low prices. This is caused by increased concentration of the retailers, due to this increasing

concentration the retailers started to gain more and more buyer power. Producers can be replaced anytime for other producers, therefore the producers don’t have any bargaining power by the food retailers. This has as a result that producers of private labels become economically depended on the giant food retailers and keep on supplying for minimum margins. Besides a lack of bargaining power, producers can’t differentiate themselves in other aspects like for example quality. This is because there lacks a clear and visible indication of the producer on the packaging of the PL products, this way producers don’t have any form of (loyalty)relationship with the consumers which has as

(7)

The fact that it is for producers very difficult to differentiate through quality does not mean that quality is not important, in contrary, several studies have shown that quality is even more important than a low price (Hoch & Banerji, 1993).

2.1.2 Increasing quality

The quality of the private labels has increased significantly over the last years. There are several examples of independent product tests were PL products found to be of a better quality than national brands. In 2005 for example, where Tesco’s PremierCru champagne was named best non vintage champagne (Kumar & Steenkamp, 2007, p. 11).

Hoch & Banerji (1993, p.59) state that the quality of PLs may have been seen in two dimensions: (1) the mean level of quality relative to that of national brands and (2) the variability of quality. It differs per product category what the level of quality is from the point of view of these two dimensions. Both dimensions mostly depend on level of processing and the complexity of the production process. Products with an relative easy and inexpensive production process reach higher level of quality than products that have a more sophisticated production process. Examples of products with a relative easy production are sugar and canned vegetables, product with a more sophisticated production processes are for example laundry soap and prepared meals (Hoch & Banerji, 1993).

Product categories

Product categories play thus an important role in the relative quality manufacturers can range with their PL’s, this variable might also has an indirect effect on differences between market share of PL sales in different product categories. According to Brandweek(1992) and Wallstreetjournal(1992) PL sales were highest in the product categories milk (64%), frozen plain vegetables (47%), sugar (42%), butter (40%), cottage cheese (39%), frozen orange juice (31%), pies and cakes (29%), and paper cups and plates (29%), and lowest in cigarettes (1.7%), frozen chicken (3.6%), cold cereal (4.6%), frozen desserts (5.4%), carbonated beverages (6.7%), chips and snacks (7.2%), coffee (7.9%), and cookies (8.6%) (Bathra & Sinha, 2000, p. 176). Products as sugar and frozen plain vegetables that were named by Hoch & Banerji (1993) as products with a relative easy production process, and

theoretically can reach a relative high quality, have an high sales percentage according to the study of Bathra and Sinha (2000). The historical high sales of PLs’ orange juice might be an indicator that the quality of orange juice is developed to a relative high level. It is therefore expected that respondents will rate the quality of PL AH – Sinaasappelsap as relative good.

(8)

2.2 Consumer behavior

Besides objective aspects like price and quality of the product, products are also valued on the perception customers have with the product. The overall perception a customer has of the product plays an important role in what price a consumer is willing to pay for a product and which product a customer decides to buy. The choice that consumer eventually have to make for a product is called consumer behaviour. Bauer (1960) firstly proposed that consumer behaviour should be seen as risk taking: in order to avoid risk consumers are willing to pay a price premium for advertised products. When consumers have to make the choice between a branded product and a PL, the consumer is forced with uncertainty, or risk. Any choice situation always involves two aspects of risk taking: uncertainty of the outcome and uncertainty of the consequences (Taylor, 1974). Bauer (1960) subscribes the willingness to pay a price premium for national brand to the idea that consumers want to avoid any risk in their purchasing decisions. This proposition is underlined by a study Sethuraman (2000) conducted, he found that even when the consumer perceived no difference in quality, they were still willing to pay a 28.1% price premium for the national brand. Manufacturers of national brands are therefore advised by Sethuraman (2000) to focus on ‘image based emotional-advertising’. It is therefore expected that national brand AS has a stronger Brand Equity than PL AH – Sinaasappelsap.

2.3 Literature gap

There have been several influential studies conducted about the emergence and consequences of the PLs in the food retail industry (Hoch & Banerji, 1993; Dhar & Hoch, 1997; Steiner, 2004;). In these studies the emergence of the PLs have been examined from different perspectives. Hoch & Banerji (1993) and Dhar & Hoch (1997) have examined PLs from the perspective that the drivers of the PL performance contains of three main parties: consumers, retailers and manufacturers. Steiner (2004) stated that there are 5 areas of competition between national brands and PL: price, shelf space, quality, innovation and brand advertising.

This study will focus solely on customers perspective on one product category and the study is conducted according to the framework of Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml (2000). The final objective of this study is the measurement of the customer equity of orange juice of the three brand

categories. Besides the measurement of the customer equity, the customer lifetime value will be measured. The measurement of the customer equity and the customer lifetime value has never

(9)

3. Conceptual Framework

This chapter will start with a short general introduction about Customer Equity (CE). In the first paragraph the CE framework as proposed by Rust et al. (2000) will be explained. In the following paragraphs the sub-drivers of the CE framework will be explained in detail.

Customer Equity

The principles of theory about Customer Equity lies in the mid-90s, where realisation among

marketing managers emerged that focus should be put on the customer instead of the product. Two pioneering companies that started with this approach are Land’s men and McDonalds. These

companies started focussing their strategy at the time on (keeping) their customers instead of selling their products. ‘The main goal of McDonald’s 1995 corporation plan was to get its current customers eat at its restaurants more often’. Managers became aware of the importance to keep customers coming and to increase their customer base. The marketing budget became a task of balancing between what was spend on the acquisition and what was spend on the retention of customers (Blattberg & Deighton, 1996, p. 137).

As Blattberg and Deighton (1996) introduced the term Customer Equity for the first time, in this study the definition of Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon will be used. Customer Equity is defined as: ‘the total of the discounted lifetime values of all its customers’ (Rust et al. 2000, p. 4). The Customer Equity of AH – Sinaasappelsap is therefore not only the current market share, but more important the market share that it will have in the future. The percentage of all the food retail customers that will choose in their next purchase for the AH - Sinaasappelsap is of interest. This percentage should be the most important indication for the future’s profits of Albert Heijn.

3.1 Customer Equity framework

Customer Equity can be measured according to a framework that is described in the book ‘Driving Customer Equity’. The basics of the framework that the authors describe consist of the statement that every product or service has drivers and sub-drivers that determine the final value of this product or service. This final value is expressed in Customer Equity. The three main drivers of Customer Equity are Value Equity (VE), Brand Equity (BE) and Retention Equity (RE), subsequently these main drivers all have sub-drivers. The sub-drivers of value equity are price, quality and convenience. The sub-drivers of brand equity are brand awareness, customer attitude towards a brand and customers perception of brand ethics towards a brand. The sub-drivers of retention equity are loyalty, community programs, knowledge building programs, affinity and recognition programs.

(10)

All the sub-driver can be converted to variables that eventually will be measured among customers. In the methodology section it will be explained in detail how the exact measurement of the sub-drivers is executed. Figure 3.1 gives an overview of the main sub-drivers of Customer Equity.

Figure 3.1. Customer equity framework and the main drivers (Rust et al. 2000, p. 9).

3.2 Value Equity

Shopping is for most people an everyday activity and choices for certain products are often made unconsciously. Though the choices are made unconsciously, they are based on certain aspects where customers attach importance to. The choice that customers make for either a national brand, private label or discounter can be divided on objective aspects and subjective aspects. Objective elements of a product are the price, quality and convenience. These elements together determine the value of a product: value is the consumers objective assessment of the utility of brand based on perceptions of what is given up for and what is received (Rust et al. 2000, p. 68) .In figure 3.2 an overview is given of value equity and the sub-drivers of value equity.

(11)

Figure 3.2. Value equity and the sub-drivers (Rust et al. 2000, p. 74).

Out of the literature review it reveals that two sub-drivers of VE, price and quality, are relatively important in this study. The third sub-driver, convenience mostly depends on the accessibility of the store where the product is sold.

3.3 Brand Equity

Brand equity is the second driver in the customer equity framework set up by Rust et al. (2000). It is stated that Brand Equity is ‘the subjective and intangible assessment of the brand, above and beyond its objectively perceived value’. Brand equity has several drivers herself as well. The first driver of Brand Equity is building awareness. The second driver of Brand Equity is building an emotional connection with customers. The third driver of brand equity is the customers perception of brand ethics towards the brand. In figure 3.3 brand equity and the sub – drivers are shown.

(12)

According to Rust et al. (2000, p. 86) there are several characteristics when Brand Equity appears to be an important driver of the customer equity. The first characteristic, which is applicable in the food retail sector, is when a purchase consists of low involvement with a simple decision process. In this case the perception customers have of a brand is important when they make the choice to either buy the product or not. Brand Equity is also important when the purchase of the product is highly visible to others. This characteristic is also applicable in the food retail sector. These factors make it

plausible that Brand Equity could be an important driver of the Customer Equity of PL AH – Sinaasappelsap.

(13)

3.4 Retention Equity

The last driver that is described in the Customer Equity framework is Retention Equity. Retention Equity mainly focuses on strengthen the relationship between the customer and the product. Retention Equity is thus defined as ‘the customer’s tendency to stick with the brand, above and beyond objective and subjective assessments of the brand’. RE also has sub-drivers that are

important in increasing the likelihood that a customer returns to Albert Heijn The five sub-drivers of Retention Equity are the creation of loyalty programs, special treatment programs, affinity programs, community programs and knowledge building programs (Rust et al. 2000, p. 99).

(14)

4. Methodology

In the previous section the theory concerning the PLs according existing literature is discussed, subsequently the conceptual framework that is used in this study is explained. In this chapter the methodology that is used to calculate the Customer Lifetime Value and the Customer Equity will be explained.

4.1 Measuring the Customer Equity

In the Conceptual Framework of this study it is explained that Customer Equity is based on certain main drivers and sub-drivers. In order to determine to Customer Equity of a Orange Juice the drivers that drives a customer to a purchase should be measured. The identification of the drivers behind the purchase of Orange Juice can be done through several ways. Focus groups are an example: bringing together seven to ten individuals in a group format can provide a good starting point for uncovering potential drivers of each equity (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2000, p. 118).

In this study another method is used to identify potential drivers behind the purchase of Orange Juice: brainstorming. Two persons, a male and female age 22 and 21 were asked to discuss about what they thought was important when drinking an Orange Juice. All the important aspects, potential drivers, regarding the Value Equity, Brand Equity and Retention Equity were listed. The founded potential important drivers were converted into a statement or question and implemented in the survey. This process, the listing, converting and implementation of the drivers that came out of the brainstorm session have led to the complete survey. The final version of the survey can be founded in Appendix A.

After the preparation of the survey the collecting of data was started. Data has been collected through internet-mediated method, with help of the site www.qualtrics.com . Using this website the prepared questionnaire was put online and respondents could fill out the questions online. Results were saved automatically and it was a time saving method because all the results did not have to be entered manually. Most of the data is collected through my personal network, people are

approached by Facebook and by email. The data collection took two weeks. When 104 respondents completed the survey the survey was closed and potential respondents were not able to fill out the survey anymore.

(15)

Analyses: new variables

All the analyses have been done using the software SPSS. As stated in the introduction the final objective is to measure the Customer Equity of all three the brands. In order to determine the CE the level of the drivers and sub-drivers are measured. This is done by computing new variables that represent the different sub-drivers. In order to measure the value equity three new-variables are created: price, quality and convenience. For the measurement of brand equity three new variables are created: brand awareness, customers attitude towards a brand and customers perception of brand ethics. For the measurement of retention equity five new variables are created: loyalty, recognition, affinity, community programs, knowledge building programs. All the new variables that are created are a composition of the questions that measured the particular driver. All the analyses are conducted with the new computed variables.

Likert scale

In the survey a likert scale ranging 1 to 7 was used, where 1 indicated a very strong agreement and 7 indicated a very strong disagreement with the statement or question. This has as a result that a higher valuation of variable results in a lower rate on the likert scale, and subsequently a lower rate in graphs and charts. To avoid misinterpretations in the reading of graphs and charts, the scale of the new computed variables are recoded: 7 indicates a strong agreement and 1 indicates a strong disagreement. With the conversion of the scale high graph rates equal an high agreement of the statement or question, this simplifies reading the graphs and charts. In the table below (4.1) the meaning for the different values of the likert scale is given.

Table 4.1: meaning of the different values of the likert scale.

Likert Scale ₁ ₂ ₃ ₄ ₅ ₆ ₇

Meaning _Strongly

disagree

Disagree Not really agree

Neutral Tend to agree

Agree Strongly agree

(16)

4.2 Customer Lifetime Value

In the conceptual framework it is explained that companies should focus on the customers instead of the product. The assessment of performance is the ability to evaluate the lifetime value of the customer. This is measurement is the key in measuring and monitoring the Customer Equity.

Calculating the Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) requires the following information inputs: time period chosen for analysis (t), companies discount rate (d), companies planning horizon (T), customers Frequency of purchase in each period (Fit), average contribution from a purchase of this brand (πit)

and customers’ estimated probabilities of choosing each brand on the next purchase (Sit) (Rust et al. 2000. P. 265).

When the following data is obtained the CLV can be calculated using the following formula.

Customer Lifetime Value = [ (1 + d) ^-t * Fit * Sit * πit ]

Data about customers’ frequency purchase a product in each period (Fit) and customers’ estimated probability of choosing each brand in the next purchase (Sit) is obtained from the survey. The variables T and t are both set at 1. Two variables are kept constant because there is no accurate data for all three the brands available. The two variables that are kept constant are the discount rate and the average contribution from a purchase of this brand. In the next section of this study the

(17)

5. Results

In this section of the study the results will be presented. First some descriptive statistics will be given. Subsequently the results regarding the customer lifetime value and the customer equity will be presented.

5.1 Descriptive statistics

At the time that the survey was concluded 140 people started the survey, however, 104 people did really finish the survey. The final sample that is used in this study therefore consists of 104 people, incomplete data of 36 people is removed from the dataset. The sample has been completed by 47 men (45,2%) and 57 women (54,8%). A large part of the sample has an age between 20 and 23 (73.9%). This is probably due to that for this survey my personal network is used which consists mostly of relatively young people. In the survey 102 respondents indicated that they have at least drank once Appelsientje (98%). A great part of the respondents, 93, indicated that they have drunk at least once AH – Sinaasappelsap (89%) and 65 respondents indicated that have drunk at least once Euroshopper (62,5%). The age distribution of the sample is biased: 73.9% of the respondents between the 20 and 23.

5.2 Customer Lifetime Value

As explained in the methodology, the key in measuring and monitoring the Customer Equity is the Customer Lifetime Value (CLV). The CLV makes it possible to quantitative assess the lifetime value of a customer. In this paragraph the Customer Lifetime Value of Appelsientje (AS) , Albert Heijn (AH) and Euroshopper (ES) will be calculated. Data given in the tables is obtained from the sample. First the share of wallet will be determined. The Share of Wallet is the estimated probability a customer chooses each brand next time (Rust et al. 2000, p.38). Second the average purchase frequency per product per month will be determined. Lastly the remaining variables will be nominated.

5.2.1 Share Of Wallet

An important first step when calculating the CLV of a product is estimating the Share of Wallet. The Share of Wallet is the estimated probability a customer chooses each brand next time. This estimated probability a customer chooses in the future is called from now on the retention rate.

Out of the 104 respondents 36,53% indicated that it will buy Appelsientje next time, 48.19% indicated that it will buy AH –Sinaasappelsap next time and 15.28% indicated that it will buy

(18)

not very relevant: it important whether a customer repurchases a certain brand, therefore the sample is divided in three groups. The first group is called group Appelsientje and bought Appelsientje most recently (N=37), the second group is called group AH and bought AH –

Sinaasappelsap most recently (N=60) and the third group is called group Euroshopper and bought Euroshopper most recently (N=7). Per group it is determined what the chance is a customer purchases in the future a product from the same group, it is also determined what the chance a customer will switch to another product, this is called the switch probability. In tables 5.1a to 5.1c the retention rates and switch probabilities per group are shown.

Table 5.1a: Retention rate from Group Appelsientje.

N = 37 Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Retention Rate AS 20,00 % 100,00 % 60,68 % 23,95

Switch to AH 0,00 % 80,00 % 27,78 % 18,67

Switch to ES 0,00 % 50,00 % 11,55 % 12,35

Table 5.1b: Retention Rate from group AH - Sinaasappelsap

Switch to AS 0,00 % 50,00 % 23,23 % 15,95

Retention Rate AH 20,00 % 100,00 % 62,23 % 18,33

Switch to ES 0,00 % 70,00 % 14,53 % 16,33

Table 5.1c: Retention Rate from group Euroshopper

Switch to AS 0,00 % 60,00 % 22,86 % 18,90

Switch to AH 20,00 % 60,00 % 35,71 % 15,12

Retention Rate ES 10,00 % 80,00 % 41,43 % 26,10

Table 5.1a shows that 60,68 % of customers that bought Appelsientje most recently, will buy in their next purchase Appelsientje as well. From the group that bought AS most recently 27,78 % will switch to AH and 11,55 % will switch to ES. Table 5.1b gives that 62,23 % of customers that bought AH – Sinaasappelsap most recently, will buy in their next purchase AH – Sinaasappelsap as well. From the group that bought AH most recently 23,23 % will switch to Appelsientje and 14,53 % will switch to ES. Table 5.1c gives that 41,43 % of the customers that bought Euroshopper most recently, will buy in their next purchase ES as well. From the group that bought ES most recently 22,86 % will switch to AS and 35,71 % will switch to AH.

(19)

With the average retention rates per product known a consolidated table is prepared. This consolidated table, is called a Customer Switching Matrix and is shown in table 5.2.

Table 5.2. The Customer Switching Matrix : consolidated table of the average retention rates per group.

N total = 104 Retention rate AS Retention Rate AH Retention Rate ES

N = 37 Group AS 60,68 % 27,78 % 11,55%

N = 60 Group AH 23,23 % 62,23 % 14,53%

N = 7 Group ES 22,86 % 35,71 % 41,43 %

The Customer Switching Matrix is crucial in determining the CLV of each of the products. The table shows that the retention rates of AS and AH are almost equal (approximately 60%) , where the retention rate of Euroshopper is about 20% lower with 41.43 %. An important note is that the sample of Euroshopper group consists of only 7 people. In the next paragraph the customers frequency purchase rates are determined.

5.2.2. Customers frequency purchase rates

As well as in determining the retention rates, with the customers frequency of purchase rates it is important to note that these are determined per product group as well. Again the sample is divided in three groups. Group AS (N=37), Group AH (N=60) and group ES (N=7). In the survey respondents are asked about their purchases per month. In order to determine what the purchase per day are in this study one month equals 4 weeks and therefore 4 * 7 = 28 days. The means of the average purchases per month are 4.86 purchases for AS, 4.45 for purchases for AH and 4.71 purchases for ES. Important to note is that these values are the SPSS values that reflect values between 1 and 6, where value highest value 1 indicates 1 purchase per day and the lowest value 6 indicates less than 1 purchase per month. These values don’t indicate the purchases per month, the conversion to purchases per month is calculated in Appendix B. The results are shown below in table 5.3.

Table 5.3: average frequency purchase rates per group.

N Total = 104 Purchases per month

AS - Purchase Frequency AS (N=37) 2.3 AH - Purchase Frequency AH (N=60) 3.1 ES - Purchase Frequency ES (N=7) 2.6

(20)

5.2.3. Other variables and calculation

The two variables that are determined until now are the expected Share of customers i wallet t (Sit) and the expected Frequency of customers purchase next time (Fit). The company’s discount rate (d) is an variable that is kept constant for all three the products and will be set on 5%. The average contribution from a purchase (π it) is a variable that is kept constant and will be set on 8%. The company’s planning horizon (T) is one month. In table 5 all the variables for the different product groups are given.

Table 5.4: overview different variable per product group Product Group t T d Fit Sit π it AS 1 1 0.05 2.25 0.6068 0.08 AH 1 1 0.05 3.125 0.6223 0.08 ES 1 1 0.05 2.5625 0.4143 0.08

With all the data obtained the CLV can be calculated for Appelsientje, AH – Sinaasappelsap and Euroshopper.

5.2.4. Calculation Customer Lifetime Value

As explained in the methodology the calculation of the customer lifetime value is done according to the following formula:

Customer Lifetime Value = [ (1 + d) ^-t * Fit * Sit * πit ]

All the required data is known and the CLV for all three brands, regarding one period are calculated.

CLV Appelsientje = [ (1+ 0.05)^-1 * 2.25 * 0.6068 * π 0.08] = 0.33 per period

CLV AH – Sinaasappelsap =[ (1+ 0.05)^-1 * 3.125 * 0.6223 * π 0.08] = 0.47 per period CLV Euroshopper = [ (1+ 0.05)^-1 * 2.56 * 0.4143 * π 0.08] = 0.38 per period

AH – Sinaasappelsap has the greatest CLV, this can be (partly) explained due to the highest retention rate (62.23%) and the highest purchase frequency (3.125 purchases per month). In terms of

(21)

5.3 Customer Equity

In the conceptual framework and the methodology it is explained in detail how to CE framework is set up and what the drivers and the sub-drivers are. In this paragraph results regarding the Customer Equity and the different drivers will be presented. The CE is based on mean values respondents gave to the questions and statements in the survey.

Using the new computed and recoded variables the means of the different equities are determined and corresponding graphs are prepared. First the levels of the sub-drivers are measured and shown in graphs 5.1a to 5.1c. Subsequently the level of the main drivers are measured and are shown in graph 5.2. Lastly the level of the customer equity of the three brands is determined and shown in graph 5.3.

5.3.1 Value Equity

The levels of the sub-drivers of value equity are in graph 5.1a. In the graph the value 7 indicates the best performance on either quality, price or convenience of the concerning orange juice. The value 1 indicates the worst performance on either quality, price or convenience of the concerning orange juice. The value 4 indicates a neutral performance either quality, price or convenience of the concerning orange juice.

(22)

Quality Price Convenience 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.31 4.66 6.39 5.14 5.34 5.78 4.12 5.4 5.54

Value Equity

Appelsientje AH ES M ae n Quality

The quality of Appelsientje is rated 5,31 where the quality of AH is rated as 5,14. The quality of ES is rated as 4.12. The difference in valuation of quality between AS and AH is 0.17 (1.03%), a relatively small difference. The difference between AH and ES is 1.02 (14.6%).

Price

The next sub-driver, price, is rated 4.66 for Appelsientje and 5.34 for AH. ES is rated on average as highest 5.4. The difference in valuation of price between AS and AH is 0.68 (10,6%).The difference in valuation between AH and ES is 0.06. Important to mention is that the price competitiveness is measured, therefore the high valuation of the price of AH – Sinaasappelsap indicates that

respondents believe that the price of AH – Sinaasappelsap is lower than the price of Appelsientje.

The current price of Appelsientje Sinaasappelsap 1.5L is €1.75- . The current price of AH – Sinaasappelsap 1.5L is €1.71- .

(23)

Convenience

Convenience of Appelsientje is rated as 6.39 where the convenience of AH – Sinaasappelsap is rated as 5.78. The difference in valuation is 0.51 (8,7%). The convenience of ES is rated as 5.54. The difference in valuation of convenience between AH and ES is 0.24 (3.4%).

5.3.2 Brand Equity

The levels of the sub-drivers of brand equity are in graph 5.1b. In the graph the value 7 indicates the best performance on either brand awareness, customers attitude towards the brand or the

customers perception of brand ethics towards the brand. The value 1 indicates the worst

performance on either the brand awareness, customers attitude towards the brand or the customers perception of brand ethics towards the brand. The value 4 indicates a neutral performance on either brand awareness, customers attitude towards the brand or the customers perception of brand ethics towards the brand.

Brand Awareness Customers Attitude Perception of Brand Ethics 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4.37 4.89 4 3.1 4.68 3.49 2.4 3.8 3

Brand Equity

Appelsientje AH ES M e an

(24)

Brand Awareness

The brand Awareness of Appelsientje is valued as 4.37 where the Brand Awareness of AH – Sinaasappelsap is valued as 3.1. The brand awareness of ES is quite low with a rate of 2.4. The difference in valuation between the brand awareness of AS and AH is 1.27 ( 18%), which is a relatively big difference. The brand awareness of AH and ES below the line of 4 and can be considered as pretty bad brand awareness of AH and poor brand awareness of ES.

Customers attitude towards the brand

The second sub-driver of Brand Equity is the customers attitude towards the brand. Respondents valued Appelsientje 4.89 where they valued AH – Sinaasappelsap 4.68. The difference in attitude to AS or AH is 0.21 (3%). The attitude towards ES is rated as 3.8. With a value of 4.68 is the customers attitude towards AH reasonable good.

Customers perception of brand ethics

The last sub-driver of Brand Equity is customers perception of brand ethics. Appelsientje is rated as 4 where AH – Sinaasappelsap is rated as 3.49. The difference in valuation of brand ethics between AS and AH is 0.51 (7,3%). The perception respondents have of Euroshopper is 3. The difference in valuation of perception of brand ethics between AH and ES is 0.49 (7%). With a value of 3.49 customers perception of brand ethics is just below the average of 4.

5.3.3 Retention Equity

The levels of the sub-drivers of retention equity are in graph 5.1c. In the graph the value 7 indicates the best performance one of the 5 sub-drivers towards the brand and value 1 indicates the worst performance concerning the relevant driver. Value 4 is neutral.It is important to mention that these values are only based on customers that drank the relevant product the most. From the sample of 104 people 42 people most drunk Appelsientje and 54 people most drunk AH – Sinaasappelsap. Only 8 people of the sample most drunk Euroshopper. Since retention equity eventually measures the probability a customers will buy the product in the future again only those responses are of interest.

(25)

Loya lty Reco gniti on Affini ty Com mun ity P rogr ams Know ledge Build ing p rogr ams 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4.43 2.36 4.9 4 3.55 4.52 3.46 4.8 2.41 3.5

Retention Equity

Appelsientje AH M e an

The loyalty towards Appelsientje is measured as 4.43, where brand loyalty of AH is slightly higher: 4,52. This is a difference of 0.09 (1,3%). Recognition of the brand is measured 3.46 for AH –

Sinaasappelsap where it is measured quite lower for Appelsientje, 2.36. The difference is 1.1 (15.7%). Affinity is valued 4.9 for Appelsientje and 4.8 for AH – Sinaasappelsap. The difference is 0.1(1.4%). The community program is measured as 4 for Appelsientje and 2.41 for AH. The difference is 1.59 (22.7%). The knowledge building programs driver is measured as 3.55 for Appelsientje and 3.5 for AH. The difference in valuation is 0.05 (0.7%).

(26)

With all the sub-drivers analyzed the levels of the main drivers of the customer equity of the three different brands are determined. Results are shown in graph 5.2

Value Equity Brand Equity Retention Equity 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.3 4.36 3.79 5.2 3.63 3.76 4.57 2.98 3.42

Customer Equity

AS AH ES M e an

As shown in graph 5.2 the Value Equity of AS is the highest with value of 5.30. The VE of AH is 5.20 and the VE of ES is 4.57. As well as with the VE, the BE of Appelsientje is the greatest, with a value of 4.35. The BE of AH is 3.63 and the BE of ES is 2.98. The RE of AS has a value of 3.79, the RE of AH is only tercentenary point lower, 3.76. Euroshopper has a RE of 3.42.

For all the three drivers national brand Appelsientje is rated on average as strongest. AH –

Sinaasappelsap is rated in all the three drivers rated in between where Euroshopper is rated for all three drivers on average as lowest. The difference on means between Appelsientje and AH – Sinaasappelsap is very small on Value Equity and Retention Equity, for Brand Equity the difference is relatively bigger. The small difference in value equity can be explained according to the small difference in sub-drivers quality and convenience. The small difference in RE can also be explained

(27)

programs Appelsientje scores a lot better.

All levels of the sub – and main drivers of Appelsientje, AH – Sinaasappelsap en Euroshopper sap have been measured and are shown graphs 5.1a to 5.2. With this data the level of the Customer Equity for all three brands is measured. Results are shown in graph 5.3.

Appelsientje AH ES 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4.69 4.27 3.75

Customer Equity

Customer Equity M e an

The Customer Equity of Appelsientje is 4.69 (58.6%), the Customer Equity of Albert Heijn is 4.27 (53.4%) and the Customer Equity of Euroshopper is 3.75 (46.9%). Appelsientje is valued as best, AH – Sinaasappelsap is rated as second best where the Customer Equity of Euroshopper is rated as third.

(28)

(29)

6. Discussion

In this section the findings of the study will be presented. This section will first elaborate on the calculation of the Customer Lifetime Value. Subsequently it will elaborate on the findings regarding the Customer Equity of the three brands. The last paragraph of this study contains of the limitations of this research and suggestions for further research.

6.1 Assessment of Value Equity and the drivers

6.1.1. Relative quality of private label AH – Sinaasappelsap

Quality of private labels has increased significantly the last decades (Kumar & Steenkamp, 2007). Hoch & Banerji (1993) stated that the level of quality can be seen in two dimensions: the quality relative to that of the national brand and the variability of quality within a product. In this study the quality relative to that of the national brand Appelsientje and discounter Euroshopper is measured. It is proposed that the quality of orange juice theoretically can reach an high level. The quality of Appelsientje is rated as 5.31 where the quality of AH – Sinaasappelsap is rated as 5.14. The difference in perception of quality is thus 0.17/8= 2.125%. The difference in quality between that of AH – Sinaasappelsap and Euroshopper is 1.02 which is 12,75%.The perception customers have of the quality of AH – Sinaasappelsap approaches the quality of Appelsientje to a minor difference. It can be stated that the first dimension of Hoch and Banerji (1993), the relative quality of private labels to that of the national brands, is very strong in the case of AH - Sinaasappelsap. The second dimension of Hoch and Banerji (1993), variability within the quality of a product, could not be measured in this study.

6.1.2 Relative price of private label AH – Sinaasappelsap

According to research institute Nielsen the prices of PLs were in 2005 about 26% cheaper than national brands. An analysis of the products showed that AH – Sinaasappelsap is only 2.29% cheaper than that of the National Brand Appelsientje. The price difference between Euroshopper and AH – Sinaasappelsap in reality is 24.56%. Respondents rated the price (competitiveness) of Appelsientje as 4.66 where they rated the price (competitiveness) of AH – Sinaasappelsap as 5.34. On average the price perception of AH – Sinaasappelsap is rated as 13.7% more competitive than Appelsientje: this is a difference of more than 10% compared to the real price difference(2.29%) between Appelsientje and AH – Sinaasappelsap. It can be stated that the price perception consumers have of the (low) price of private labels is greater than this is in reality.

(30)

6.1.3. Convenience

The convenience driver is in this study only measured by one question; whether the customers thought the concerning product was easily available. Appelsientje scored the best with a value of 6.39 followed by AH – Sinaasappelsap (5.78) and Euroshopper (5.54). AH – Sinaasappelsap Euroshopper Sinaasappelsap is only available in Albert Heijn, the perception of convenience therefore largely depended on the accessibility of an AH in the neighbourhood. Appelsientje can be bought also in other supermarkets than AH , this could be reason for the high convenience level of Appelsientje.

6.1.4. Overall perception of value equity of the private label AH – Sinaasappelsap

As explained in the conceptual framework, the value equity is the customers objective assessment of the utility of the brand based on perceptions of what is given up for and what is received (Rust et al. 2000, p. 68). The average Value Equity of Appelsientje is rated as 5.3, where the average Value Equity of AH – Sinaasappelsap is rated as 5.2. The difference is 0.1 (0,125%) which is negligible. The average perception of customers regarding value equity of Appelsientje and AH – Sinaasappelsap is almost equal. The objective assessment of AH – Sinaasappelsap by customers is relative to that of Appelsientje positive: the Value Equity of AH – Sinaasappelsap is relatively strong.

6.2 Assessment of the drivers of Brand Equity

Brand Equity is the subjective and intangible assessment of the brand, above and beyond its objectively perceived value (Rust et al. p. 81). As explained, BE might be important due to that the purchase of orange juice consists of low involvement with a simple decision process. The first driver, brand awareness, is rated as 4.37 for Appelsientje and 3.1 for AH – Sinaasappelsap. The value 3.1 on the likert scale of 7 indicates that customers have a poor brand awareness of AH. In the literature the brand equity is indicated as one of the most important factor, therefore it can be stated that the score of 3.1 of customers brand awareness is a very low score. The customers attitude towards AH – Sinaasappelsap is rated as 4.68 where Appelsientje is rated as 4.89, this indicates that customers have a moderate brand attitude towards AH - Sinaasappelsap. The perception of brand ethics is rated as 3.49 for AH – Sinaasappelsap, this is also a poor score.

The overall Brand equity score of AH – Sinaasappelsap is 3.63. This score is below the average of 4, for a driver that is considered as important this is a really bad score. Important to highlight is that the

(31)

of AH – Sinaasappelsap can and should be significantly improved, at least to an average score above 4.

6.3 Assessment of the Retention Equity

The retention equity is the customers tendency to stick with the brand, above and beyond the subjective assessments of the brand (Rust et al. 2000, p. 95). It is the feeling a customer has with the brand and is highlighted as very important by Rust et al. (2000). It should be highlighted that all the data measured regarding the Retention Equity is only data from the customer that drank the certain product the most. A disadvantage is that all the individual drivers of Retention Equity are measured by only one question, this makes it difficult and less reliable to assess the individual drivers. In the assessment of the sub-drivers there are two remarkable differences: the difference of 1.1 in rating of the recognition driver in the advantage of AH – Sinaasappelsap and the 1.49 higher rating on

community programs in the advantage of Appelsientje. AH – Sinaasappelsap should figure out what the reason is for this extremely low score ‘Community Programs’ and subsequently invest and improve this driver.

The overall Retention Equity is valued as 3.79 for Appelsientje and 3.76 for AH – Sinaasappelsap, almost equal. Still this is for both drivers below the average score of 4: strong improvement is required.

6.4 Assessment of Customer Lifetime Value

In determining the CLV the formula of that is presented by Rust et al (2000) is used. Two variables are kept constant because not all the required data is available. Out of the calculation it appears AH – Sinaasappelsap has the highest Customer Lifetime Value of 0.47 per period. AH does it remarkably better than AS (0.33) and ES (0.38). It is striking that the CLV of ES is also higher than AS, this in contrast with the CE levels where ES scored on every aspect lower than AS. The CLV of AH appears to be strongest: currently AH – Sinaasappelsap has the strongest relationship with the customer. When determining future performance according to the CLV AH has will have the best future performance.

(32)

6.5 Limitations

In this paragraph the limitations of the study will be highlighted. Limitations regarding the product choice the preparation of the survey will be elaborated.

6.5.1. Product choice

The initial idea behind this study was to find out what the drivers are behind the success of the private labels the last decades. The choice to do this according to a case study of orange juices should have been made more deliberately. Results are not generalizable. The differences in product categories within supermarkets are underestimated. A study concerning multiple product categories and multiple food retail concerns should be conducted in order to generalize results to the whole private label industry. In analyzing the results the product choice of a single category orange juice entailed complications: especially the brand equity drivers, awareness – attitude and perception of ethics, are only measured regarding the specific product AH - Sinaasappelsap. When measuring for example the sub-driver brand awareness, and it is questioned to what extend respondents

remember a commercial about AH – Sinaasappelsap , it is plausible that respondents don’t

remember commercials of Albert Heijn regarding orange juice. This is due to that the commercials of Albert Heijn almost never issue one specific product, they mostly issue the Albert Heijn in general. This may be a cause for the extreme low Brand Equity value that is found in this study. Differences within product categories and subsequently possible consequences in analyses should have been considered much better when making the product choice. The choice of orange juice brings to many limitations with it: conclusions are not generalizable for the whole private label industry.

6.5.2. Preparation of the survey

The preparation of the survey should have been prepared more precisely and accurate. It should have been more clear which variables to measure exactly and subsequently prepare questions that exactly measure these variables. Some questions in survey are not carefully enough prepared which has resulted in a lack of reliability of certain variables. Besides the reliability of certain variables, some variables are only measured with one question. This does not contribute to the reliability of the questions, for future research every variable should be measured with at least three questions.

(33)

7. Conclusion

The main objective of this study was to find out what the relative position is of the drivers behind the purchase of orange juice, more in particular why customer would choose for either a national brand, a private label or a discounter. This is measured according to the Customer Equity framework

prepared by Rust et al. (2000).

Customer Lifetime Value found to be the strongest for private label AH – Sinaasappelsap. With the highest frequency purchase rate and the best retention rate the CLV of AH – Sinaasappelsap found to be 0.47. Concluding it can be stated that AH has the best future performance perspectives. The CLV of AS is 0.33 where the CLV of ES is 0.38. Appelsientje have the worst future performance

perspectives when the CLV is taken as performance indicator.

Analyses of the different main and sub drivers indicate that currently Value Equity (5.2) of AH – Orange juice is the strongest. The price and quality of private label AH – Sinaasappelsap are relatively good. The Brand Equity (3.63) is poorest, a lack of brand awareness and a low customers perception resulted in a valuation below average. Besides a worse valuation of the Brand Equity Retention Equity is valued below average (3.76) as well. The overall level of the Customer Equity of Albert Heijn 4.27, just above average where the customer equity of Appelsientje is 4.69. Despite the strong emergence of the private labels the last decades, in the orange juice industry in the

Netherlands the national brand Appelsientje is still positioned stronger than private label AH – orange juice. Discounter Euroshopper follows with a respectable level of 3.75 out of 7.

In depth analyses show that AH – Orange especially scores poor on the brand and retention equity. In conclusion it can be stated that management of Albert Heijn should focus on improving the brand and retention equity of AH – Sinaasappelsap. This will increase the overall customer equity and eventually strengthen the position on the Dutch orange juice industry.

(34)

8. Bibliography

ACNielsen: A review of growth trends around the world, 2005 (Data from 80 categories within 14 product areas) quoted in “Nordic food markets – a taste for competition”, , November 2005, Chapter 5.4, http://www.ks.dk/en/service-menu/publications/publication-file/publikationer-2005/3/nordic-foodmarkets- 5-competition-for-the-store-shelves/#fn67

Bauer, R. A. (1960) ‘Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking’, in R.S. Hancock, ed. Dynamic Marketing for a

Changing World. Boston, American Marketing Assn.

Bathra, R. And Sinha, I. (2000). Consumer-level factors moderating the succes of the private label brands. Journal of Retailing, Volume 76(2) pp. 175–191,

Brandweek. (1992). “Something for Everyone,” September 7, 1992. 20.

Burch, D. and Lawrence, G. 2005. Supermarket own brands, supply chains and the transformation of the agri-food system.

Blattberg, R. and Deighton, J. 1996. Manage marketing by the customer equity test. Harvard business

review 74. P. 136 – 144.

Dhar, S. K. and S. J. Hoch (1997) „Why Store Brand Penetration Varies by Retailer‟, Marketing Science, Vol. 16; p. 208–227.

Dobson et al. 2000. Buyer power and its implication on competition in the food retail sector of the European Union.

Dobson, Waterson & Davies (2002).The patterns and implications of increasing concentration in European food retailing. Journal of Agricultural Economics ¾ Volume 54, Number 1 ¾ March 2003 ¾ Pages 111-125

Fortune 500 http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/full_list/

Hoch, S. J and Banerji, S. (1993). When do private labels succeed? Sloan Management Review; Summer 1993; Global pg. 59

(IRI) Information Resources Europe December 2008.

Kumar, N., Steenkamp, J.E.M., (2007) “Private Label Strategy: How to meet the store brand challenge”, Cambridge MA: Harvard Business School press

(35)

b26jPOQUT2iw#v=onepage&q=Private%20Label%20Strategy%3A%20How%20to%20meet%20the %20store%20brand%20challenge%E2%80%9D%2C&f=false

Rust, R. and Zeithaml, V. and Lemon, K. 2000. Driving customer equity. The free press.

Sethuraman, R. (2000) What Makes Consumers Pay More for National Brands than for Store Brands: Image or Quality? MSI Working Paper, Report No. 99-110.

Steiner, R.L. (2004), “The Nature and Benefits of National Brand/ Private Label Competition”,

Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 24; p. 105 – 127

Taylor, J.W. (1974). The role of risk in consumer behaviour. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, No. 2

(Apr., 1974), pp. 54-60

Van der Stichele, M. & Young, B. 2009. The abuse of supermarket buyer power in the EU food retail sector. AAI - Agribusiness Action Initiatives.

Wall Street Journal (1992). “More Shoppers Bypass Big-Name Brands and Steer Carts to Private Label Products,” 20 (October): B1.

(36)

APPENDIX A: Klantenenquete

Introductie

Bedankt dat u deze vragenlijst wilt invullen! Het zal slechts 5-10 minuten van uw tijd in

beslag nemen. De vragenlijst wordt gebruikt voor mijn Bachelorscriptie aan de Universiteit

van Amsterdam. De vragen betreffen uw persoonlijke mening en er zijn dus geen goede of

foute antwoorden. Wel wil ik u vragen de beschrijving goed door te lezen en een eerlijk

antwoord te geven. Uw antwoorden zijn volledig anoniem, er zullen geen persoonsgegevens

gevraagd worden, dus de antwoorden kunnen achteraf niet aan u gekoppeld worden.

In de enquete zal er naar uw mening worden gevraagd betreffende verschillende type sap

merken. Het maakt hierbij niet uit als je 1 of meerdere typen nog nooit heb gedronken, de

vragen moeten dan worden ingevuld naar het gevoel dat u bij dit merk heeft. Het is van

belang dat u al de vragen invult.

Voor verdere vragen of opmerkingen kunt u mij bereiken via

e-mail:

bas.bijleveld@student.uva.nl

Kenmerken 1. Wat is uw geslacht? o Man o Vrouw 2. Wat is uw leeftijd? ______ 3. Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleiding?

o Basisschool

o Lbo, mavo, vmbo, mbo-1, eerste 3 jaar van havo of vwo o Havo, vwo, mbo-2-4

o Hbo, wo

o Anders, namelijk:___________________________________________

4. Binnen welke categorie valt uw Bruto* jaarinkomen? * Inkomen voor aftrek van belastingen en premies. o Lager dan € 10.000

o €10.000 - €20.000 o €20.000 - €30.000

(37)

5. Welke merken sap heeft u wel eens gedronken? Kruis aan indien u dit merk heeft gedronken.

o Appelsientje 1L o AH – Huismerk 1.5L o Euroshopper 1.5L

6. Welke van de volgende merken appelsap heeft u als laatst gedronken? o Appelsientje 1L

o AH – Huismerk 1.5L o Euroshopper 1.5L

7. De volgende keer als u sap koopt, hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat u dit merk koopt? Appelsientje ……… %

AH – Huismerk ……… % Euroshopper ……… %

Totaal 100 %

8. Hoeveel keer per maand koopt u sap? o Elke dag

o 3 tot 5 keer per week o 1 tot 3 keer per week o 1 keer per week o 1 keer per 2 weken o 1 keer per maand

o Minder dan 1 x per maand

9. Hoe beoordeeld u de totale kwaliteit van de volgende merken sap?

Merk Hoge kwaliteit Lage Kwaliteit

Appelsientje 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Euroshopper 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

10. De prijs kwaliteit verhouding van dit merk sap is goed.

Merk Veel meer waard Veel minder waard

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

(38)

11. In hoeverre is de prijs van dit merk sap concurrerend?

Merk Zeer concurrerend Niet concurrerend

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

12. Dit merk sap is makkelijk verkrijgbaar.

Merk Makkelijk verkrijgbaar Niet makkelijk verkrijgbaar

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

13. Dit merk sap heeft een natuurlijke smaak.

Merk Natuurlijke smaak Chemische smaak

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

14. Het drinken van dit merk sap geeft mij een bevredigend gevoel.

Merk Gezond gevoel Ongezond gevoel

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

15. Dit merk sap zou ik aanraden bij vrienden.

Merk Wel aanraden Niet aanraden

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

16. Mijn standpunt tegenover dit merk sap is bijzonder positief.

Merk Sterk mee eens Sterk mee oneens

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

(39)

17. Ik zie vaak/besteed aandacht aan mediareclame van dit merk sap.

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

18. Dit merk sap staat bekend als een maatschappelijk verantwoorde onderneming.

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

19. De producenten van dit merk sap streven een zo duurzaam mogelijk productieproces na.

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

20. Dit merk sap hanteert hoge etische normen met betrekking tot zijn klanten en werknemers.

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

21. Het imago van dit merk sap van past goed bij mijn persoonlijkheid.

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

22. Ik kan mijzelf gemakkelijk een reclamespotje van dit merk sap voor de geest halen.

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

23. Met dit merk sap wordt ik graag gezien in het openbaar.

(40)

AH - Huismerk 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

24. Welk merk sap drinkt u momenteel het meest of heeft u het meest gedronken? o Appelsientje

o AH - Huismerk o Euroshopper

De volgende antwoorden hebben alleen betrekking op het merk sap wat u momenteel het meest drinkt of heeft gedronken.

25. De mogelijkheid tot het gebruik van spaarkaarten waarbij kan worden gespaard voor een gratis product zou ervoor zorgen dat ik alleen dit merk sap drink.

Sterk mee eens Sterk mee oneens

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

26. Ik voel een zekere verbondenheid met andere personen die dit merk sap drinken.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

27. Dit merk sap heeft nog nooit mijn vertrouwen geschaadt.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

28. Als er een nieuwe smaak van dit merk sap op de markt komt zal ik het gelijk gaan uit-proberen.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

29. Bij vragen/opmerkingen/problemen kan ik bij dit merk sap persoonlijke aandacht verwachten.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

30. Als een persoon mij een negatief advies geeft over dit merk sap zou ik het toch blijven drinken.

(41)

Slotwoord

Bedankt dat u mijn vragenlijst heeft willen invullen! Mocht u achteraf nog vragen of opmerkingen hebben dan kunt u deze naar mijn e-mail sturen: bas.bijleveld@student.uva.nl

(42)

APPENDIX B: Converting table frequency purchases per month

Table 5.4. SPSS values converted to quantitative purchase values per month SPSS Value Qualitative value Average Per week Per Month

1 Every dag 7 per week 28

2 3 to 5 times per week 4 per week 16

3 1 to 3 times per week 2 per week 8

4 1 per week 1 per week 4

5 1 per 2 weeks 0.5 per week 2

6 Less than 1 per month 0.25 per week < 1

SPSS Value Quantative purchase value per month

4 4 4.4375 3.125 4.5 3 4.5625 2.875 4.625 2.75 4.6875 2.625 4.71875 2.5625 4.75 2.5 4.8125 2.375 4.875 2.25 4.9375 2.125 5 2

Measurement of the Customer Equity of orange juices in the food retail sector in the Netherlands. Quantitative research based on consumers perspective who assessed a national brand, private label and discounter.