`
Brand Preference and Loyalty in the Beer Category
How to make students loyal?
Brand Preference and Loyalty in the Beer Category
How to make students loyal?
A.J.B. Blömer Faculty of Economics and Business Master Thesis Completion date: August 28th 2009 Bremlaan 12 3535 KJ Bosch en Duin
+31 (0)6-18724341
a.j.b.blomer@student.rug.nl
Preface
All good things come to an end. With this thesis my time as a student also will. As final assignment I have had the chance to make a study on a subject that I enjoyed and still enjoy very much. So first of all I would like to thank Bavaria for the opportunity they gave me to write my master’s thesis. A special thank you has to go out to Frank Andriessen and Roger ter Horst, who made this study at Bavaria possible. I would like to thank Roger also for his supervision throughout the project and all the other opportunities he has given me during my time at Bavaria. Another warm thank you goes out to the other persons I had the privilege of working with in both Lieshout and Maarssen.
Two other important persons to thank are Laurens Sloot and Hans Berger. I know that the subject of this study is one for which Laurens Sloot has had and still has interest as a subject of study. I want to thank him for the clear advices and corrections he has given me on the ideas on and parts of the thesis I submitted.
I would like to thank Hans Berg for co-reading this thesis and the very clear remarks he had on the final thesis.
A new chapter in my life, now as a young graduate will start, but first it is time to take a beer: Zo, nu eerst een Bavaria!
Alexander Blömer,
Management Summary
Brand loyalty is important. This can be seen in the number of scientific publications on the subject and the amounts of money companies spend to try to make consumers loyal to their brand. Brand loyalty has been defined in this study as “the biased behavioural response
expressed over time, by some decision-making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands, which is a function of psychological processes” (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978).
In order to be able to make consumers loyal to a brand, they first have to try a brand (a few times), so somehow a form of brand preference has to be created.
Students are known for drinking a lot of beer. Until now no scientific research has been done on their motivation for specific brand choice within this category and their brand loyalty. Therefore this study focuses on the brand preference and brand loyalty of students and young graduates within the beer category.
Because students drink a lot of beer, it is expected that their involvement with the product will be higher, but because students are held back by financial constraints, it is expected that their brand commitment and brand loyalty will be lower than those of graduates.
Because of the financial constraints of students (and / or the financial possibilities of young graduates), it is expected that students and graduates use different criteria in choosing brands.
In the formation of brand preference and brand loyalty within the beer category it is hypothesised that satisfaction with a brand (measured by the taste of the brand) and the congruence between the brand image and the self image of the consumer play important roles.
An on-line questionnaire has been filled in by 201 respondents, both students and graduates; both members and non-members of societies; studying in 3 major Dutch student-cities.
Graduates are more brand loyal than students in the beer category. Analysis showed that students are indeed less loyal because of the smaller budget they have. Criteria for brand preference also differed between students and graduates as expected. Students are far more concerned with price related aspects of a brand, whereas graduates focus on quality. When asked what brand they preferred to drink (so without the factor of price) no significant differences were found between students and graduates when they were asked to choose from five different brands.
This indicates that satisfaction and congruence between brand image and self image indeed might play a role in brand choice. Analysis of the two constructs showed that both are very important in brand preference and brand loyalty.
Based on this study, recommendations are given to Bavaria. It will be very important for the company to increase the quality perception of the product amongst both students and graduates. Because Bavaria can reach the students effective through the student societies and retail channel in the Dutch student cities, Bavaria should try to improve the quality image while the consumer is a student.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT 8
1.1 – Introduction 8
1.2 – Bavaria and Students 9
1.3 – Dutch Beer Market 10
1.4 – Problem Definition 12
1.4.1 – Objectives 12
1.4.2 – Research Questions 12
1.5 – Theoretical and Practical Relevance 13
1.6 – Structure of research 13
CHAPTER 2 – THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 14
2.1 – Introduction 14
2.2 – Brand Preference 15
2.2.1 – The formation of brand preference 15
2.2.2 – Hedonic vs. Utilitarian 16
2.3 – Brand Loyalty 18
2.3.1 - Brand Loyalty – Definitions 18
2.3.2 - Brand Loyalty – Behavioural and Affective 20
2.3.3 - Types of Brand loyalty 20
2.3.4 - Importance and advantages of brand loyalty 22
2.4 – Congruence between brand image and self image 22
2.4.1 - Self Image 23
2.4.2 - Brand Image 23
2.4.3 - Level of congruence between self image and brand image 23 2.4.4 – Consequences of self-image congruence on satisfaction, brand preference and loyalty 24
2.5 – Satisfaction 24
2.5.1 - Customer Satisfaction – A Definition 25
2.5.2 - The influence of Customer Satisfaction on Brand Loyalty 25
2.6 – Product category involvement 26
2.7 – Brand commitment 27
2.8 – Demographic Variables 28
2.9 – Conceptual Model and Hypotheses 30
2.9.1 - Conceptual Model 30
2.9.2 - Hypotheses 31
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH DESIGN 34
3.1 – Introduction 34
3.2.1 - Questionnaire 34
3.2.2 – Quality 36
3.2.3 – Sample 36
3.2.4 – Processing of data 37
CHAPTER 4 – DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS 38
CHAPTER 5 – RESEARCH RESULTS 40
5.1 – Introduction 40
5.2 – Internal Consistency 40
5.3 – Product Category Involvement and Brand Commitment 41
5.3.1 – Product Category Involvement 41
5.3.2 – Brand Commitment 42
5.3.3 – Relationship between Product Category Involvement and Brand Commitment 42
5.4 – Congruence between brand and self image 42
5.4.1 – Measurement of congruence between brand and self image 43 5.4.2 –Congruence between brand and self image and satisfaction 43 5.4.3 –Congruence between brand and self image and brand preference 44
5.5 – Brand Preference 45
5.5.1 – Brand Preference (Criteria) 45
5.5.2 – Brand Preference (Brands) 46
5.5.3 – Satisfaction and Brand Preference 47
5.5.4 – Brand Preference and Brand Loyalty 47
5.6 – Brand Loyalty 48
5.6.1 – Measurement of Brand Loyalty 48
5.6.2 – Demographics and Brand Loyalty 49
5.6.3 – Brand Commitment and Brand Loyalty 49
5.6.4 – Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty 50
5.6.5 – Congruence between brand and self image and Brand Loyalty 51
CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSIONS 53
6.1 – Introduction 53
6.2 – Conclusions 53
6.3 – Discussion 55
6.4 – Recommendations 56
6.5 – Limitations and Further Research 57
REFERENCES 59
APPENDICES 66
Appendix A – Tables used in testing 66
Chapter 1 – Introduction and Problem Statement
1.1 – Introduction
The importance of loyalty has been acknowledged for a very long time in marketing research and literature. Already in the first part of the 20th century it was noted that loyalty could play an important role in the success or failure of a company. Through the years loyalty has become more and more important. In scientific marketing literature many research on the subject has been done; in practice many dollars are spend, functions and departments have been created, all to keep the consumer loyal.
Different advantages of consumer brand loyalty have been mentioned throughout the years in academic literature:
- Brand loyalty among consumers leads to greater sales of the brand (Howard and Sheth, 1969);
- Brand loyalty leads to reduced marketing costs (Aaker, 1991; Rundle-Thiele, 2001; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990);
- Brand loyalty leads to certain marketing advantages such as more new customers and greater trade leverage (Aaker, 1991);
- Brand loyalty results in favourite word of mouth and greater resistance to competitive strategies (Dick and Basu, 1994; Uncles and Dowling, 1998);
- Brand loyalty permits brands to charge a premium for their products (Wernerfelt, 1986; Krishnamurthi and Raj, 1991);
- Brand loyal customers buy more, take less of a company’s time, are less price-sensitive and bring in new customers (Reichheld, 1996).
Before consumers can become loyal, they first have to choose a brand. Creating brand preference is therefore very important. Companies try to make sure their brand is preferred within the target market, but competition will keep on trying to pull away consumers to their own brand.
In this chapter an introduction of the company for which this research will be done, Bavaria, will be given. It will be followed by the problem statement for the research, the theoretical and practical relevance of the study and at the end of this chapter the structure of the rest of this paper will be discussed.
1.2 – Bavaria and Students
Bavaria is the second-largest brewer of beer in The Netherlands, brewing over six million hectolitres beer a year. Bavaria was founded in The Netherlands in 1719 by Laurentius Moorees in Lieshout, a small village in the southern part of The Netherlands. Since 1764 the company is owned by the Swinkels family. Until today the company is still owned and lead by members of the Swinkels family.
Bavaria is the fourth-largest seller of beer in The Netherlands. With a market share of about 10 %, it trails Heineken (52 %), InBev (24 %) and SABMiller (the South-African brewery which bought Grolsch at the end of 2008) (12 %). The strongest markets of Bavaria are in the south of The Netherlands, especially in Brabant, the “home-market” of Bavaria. In the northern part of The Netherlands Bavaria’s role is a little bit smaller, although there is a yearly small rise in market share in this part of the country.
Within the student societies, Bavaria is one of the biggest beer suppliers. It delivers its beer to approximately 65 student societies, by which between 50.000 and 100.000 students can be reached. Yet until this moment, Bavaria did not use these relations to motivate these consumers to buy Bavaria in other occasions than the student society and making them loyal to the brand. Beer was being supplied, sometimes they did some promotional activities at special occasions, but beyond that the large group of potential customers was not targeted. Especially since this group of consumers consist of consumers which form the target market for Bavaria (they focus on an age group of 18-35), this can be seen as a missed chance so far.
A reasonable part of the students already buys Bavaria in the supermarket, but a large part of them stops doing this, as soon as they graduate.
service to consumers (the only brewery who offers this service) Bavaria ensures the customers of the Bierkoerier to buy Bavaria and also try to create a more positive brand attitude.
With the possibility of targeting consumers 4 to 6 years (while they are studying and already drink Bavaria in their student society), Bavaria has got the chance to decrease the effect of the phenomenon of brand preferences changes after graduating and can try to transform these students into loyal customers.
In order to ensure this transformation, there will have to be a strong collaboration between the Horeca department (which includes the student-societies) and retail (the supermarkets), to make sure the students will choose Bavaria when standing in the supermarkets in front of all the beer brands they can choose from.
1.3 – Dutch Beer Market
This research will focus on the Dutch beer market, and will mainly focus on the retail channel (supermarket). After finishing this research, Bavaria’s retail and other on-trade (bars, clubs and restaurants) should be able to profit more from the strong position Bavaria possesses in the student-societies.
The Dutch beer market is under pressure. The past few years the beer consumption in The Netherlands is decreasing. Where 5 years ago the average beer consumption for a person was 80 litres a year, now it is only 75 litres a year. Especially the younger consumer drinks less beer. This can be explained by the trend of the so-called Ready to Drink’s (e.g. Bacardi Breezer, Smirnoff Ice). Where people used to start drinking alcohol in the beer-category, they shifted started drinking alcohol in this RTD-category. And although the highlight of the RTD’s is some time behind us now, young consumers do not return to the beer-category. There are even two new rising entry categories for young consumers: wine and “real” mixed-drinks (where young consumers first went from the RTD to the real mixed-mixed-drinks category, they use it as an entry category now).
all over the world. Heineken has got a market share in The Netherlands of 52 %. Because of its dominancy in the beer market, Heineken is not allowed to work with long-term contracts in the on-trade segment.
In The Netherlands Heineken is trailed by InBev, SABMiller (which recently bought the Dutch brewery Grolsch) and Bavaria. InBev is a Belgian-originated brewer and the largest brewer in the world in terms of volume. In The Netherlands the most important brands are Dommelsch, Hertog Jan and Jupiler. InBev has got a market share in The Netherlands of 24%.
Grolsch, which has been taken over by SABMiller, is the third producer and Grolsch is the brand they carry. Grolsch especially holds a strong position in the eastern part of The Netherlands, the region where the brand is founded and produced. SABMiller has got a market share in The Netherlands of 12%.
Bavaria is the only family-owned large brewer of beer in The Netherlands. The high-selling brand is Bavaria pilsner. In the southern part of the Netherlands, which can be seen as the home-market for Bavaria, they hold a very strong market position. Bavaria has got a market share of 10% in The Netherlands.
Marketshares Dutch Beer Market
Heineken
52%
InBev 24%
SABMiller
12%
Bavaria 10%
Rest 2%
Heineken
InBev
SABMiller
Bavaria
Rest
1.4 – Problem Definition
1.4.1 – Objectives
A distinction between the two objectives of this study can be made. First of all, for the practical part, this research should provide Bavaria with recommendations on how they can reach students more effectively and how they can try to make consumers, especially students and persons who just graduated, more loyal to their brand.
For the theoretical part, on the other hand, this research will try to investigate brand preference and brand loyalty of young consumers in the Dutch beer market. Therefore, the central question of this research will be:
How are brand preferences and brand loyalty formed among young consumers in the Dutch beer market and what is the influence of graduating from college or university on this brand preference and brand loyalty?
1.4.2 – Research Questions
To achieve the objectives mentioned above, this research will try to answer the following research questions:
- What are the antecedents of brand preference in the beer category? - What are the antecedents of brand loyalty in the beer category?
- What role does congruence between brand image and self image play on brand preference and brand loyalty?
1.5 – Theoretical and Practical Relevance
Young consumers are usually considered as not being very loyal to brands. Some authors however already indicated that this statement may not hold for every product category and that the statement should not be used too general. This study investigates the levels of brand loyalty of young consumers in a specific category (beer) and might indeed show that there are product categories in which young consumer do show loyal behaviour to brand(s).
The practical relevance for Bavaria, the company for which this study has been conducted, comes from the implications they will get on the influence of selling their beer in student societies. Future actions on acquisition and marketing efforts and expenses on student societies can be increased or decreased, depending on the results of this study.
1.6 – Structure of research
Chapter 2 – Theoretical Framework
2.1 – Introduction
Focus in a specific field of marketing research has shifted in the last few decades. Until the 1990’s satisfaction was the most important subject. Companies aligned their strategies to maximize customer satisfaction. In the mid 1990’s a shift has been made. Not customer satisfaction, but customer loyalty was the most important subject. Research showed that even very satisfied customers defected, so a loyal customer base became more important then merely satisfying a customer (Oliver, 1999).
Starting at the end of the 1990’s a newer concept replaced loyalty. This was CRM (Customer Relationship Management). Payne and Frow (2005) use an extended definition of CRM, based on earlier research: “CRM is a strategic approach that is concerned with creating
improved shareholder value through the development of appropriate relationships with key customers and customer segments. CRM provides enhanced opportunities to use data and information to both understand customers and cocreate value with them. This requires a cross-functional integration of processes, people, operations, and marketing capabilities that is enabled through information, technology,and applications”.
In the specific market of this study, retail sales of beer for use at home, chances are that the costs for companies of implementing a CRM-system will be higher than profits, especially because it will be very difficult to identify (key) individual customers in this market.
With the introduction of the Perfect Draft, a system to tap beer at home, chances of a successful implementation of a CRM-system are higher, for instance by introducing a club of users of the Perfect Draft (as Heineken did with their Beertender). This community could be used to identify key customers, sent them direct mailings with personalized offers (for instance giving them an offer in the week of their birthday) and make them more loyal to the brand. Since the home-tap beer market is not studied in this research, the possibilities of CRM will also not be studied in this research.
with Bavaria, a number of independent variables have been identified and will be tested in this study.
In this theoretical framework brand loyalty and brand preference will be dealt with first. In paragraph 2.4 the congruence between brand image and self image will be discussed, because beer is a product with which consumers can express their identity and self image. This will be followed in paragraph 2.5 with satisfaction of a brand, since satisfaction is seen as an important predictor of future behavior. In paragraph 2.6 and 2.7 product category involvement and brand commitment are discussed. The preliminary literature study showed that both constructs might be very important for brand loyalty of consumers. In paragraph 2.8 the demographic influences in this study will be discussed, where a focus will be on the difference between students and graduates and members and non-members of student societies.
At the end of this chapter the conceptual model of the research will be shown. Also the hypotheses for the research, which later will be tested, will be given.
2.2 – Brand Preference
2.2.1 – The formation of brand preference
To be able to turn consumers into loyal customers, consumers first have to choose the brand (one or more times). This brand preference has to exist before brand loyalty can occur. Brand preference can be defined as the deliberate decision to choose one brand over another. But in this case, using the beer-market as the market which will be studied, a definition a little bit more extended (with a focus on the acceptance of substitutes) should better fit this particular product market: the beer-market is an example of a market in which consumers often have a few brands they usually choose from. One reason consumers have a few different brands they usually choose from in this category is that different brands are used at different occasions by the same consumer (e.g. Sloot and Bunt, 1996). Another important factor is that beer has become more and more generic. It is quite difficult for the average user to find differences in taste between mainstream brands in blind tests, so as a marketing manager of one of the largest breweries in the world stated: beer has been transformed into a generic product, the
So it is very important that a brand will be in the so-called consideration or evoked set. This consideration set can be defined as the brands that the consumer seriously considers when making a purchase or consumption decision (Hauser and Wernerfelt, 1990).
A brand can be “accepted” in the evoked set, or chosen as sole preferred brand, on basis of either functional, hedonic or symbolic associations. Price (absolute and price-quality ratio), taste (bitterness, alcohol level) and looks (clarity, colour) can be seen as functional elements in the beer category; hedonic associations are to what extent a beer brand is for example: adventurous, tough, exciting or fun. The symbolic associations for the brand can be described as the way in which the brand of beer is associated with different kind of groups of consumers. The congruence between self image and brand image will be dealt with in more detail later on in this chapter.
The focus in this part of the research is on a retail market setting. Beer is a product which for a large part is sold in the on-trade channel (bars and clubs etc.), but it might very well be so that consumers do not choose the club, bar or restaurant on basis of the beer that is sold there, but on criteria like food, atmosphere and where friends go (exceptions might be consumers who are very committed to a specific brand). The influence of the brand of beer in a bar or restaurant will be tested in this study, because the importance of a brand of beer in choosing bars and restaurants might show a high level of brand commitment. Student societies also can been seen as part of the on-trade channel and students are known for drinking large amounts of beer and can be relatively easily reached by beer brewers over a period of four to six years. Since this is a period in which the students (usually) do their own grocery shopping for the first time and this is the stage of life where many brand associations and brand preferences are formed, beer brewers can try to use this channel to create positive brand associations and brand preference.
2.2.2 – Hedonic vs. Utilitarian
satisfaction (fun, pleasure or excitement). Ice-cream, desserts and cigarettes are typical examples of hedonic products (Voss and Spangenberg, 2003).
Beer is also seen as a hedonic product. In his expert study on the hedonic / utilitarian level of product categories, Sloot (2006) looked at 23 different product categories and these products were give values, ranging from 1 (low) to 7 (high) on both the hedonic level as well as the utilitarian level of the product category. Beer was given a 5,8 at the hedonic level and a 2,9 on the utilitarian level. Products with high scores on the hedonic level and low scores on the utilitarian level can be defined as want products. These products are bought because of the feelings they give the consumer. Products with low scores on the hedonic level and high scores on the utilitarian level can be defined as need products. These products are bought because of their functions they offer to consumers. Table 1 shows a number of products and their hedonic and utilitarian score.
Product Hedonic Value Utilitarian Value Need / Want product
Cigarettes 5,3 1,9 Want
Beer 5,8 2,9 Want
Desserts 5,8 2,8 Want
Toothbrush 2,3 6,3 Need
Toilet Paper 2,2 6,6 Need
Detergent 1,7 6,4 Need
Table 1: Hedonic and Utilitarian Value of six products (adapted from Sloot, 2006)
2.3 – Brand Loyalty
Brand loyalty is widely seen as an important concept in strategic marketing. Four decades ago Howard and Sheth (1969) stated that higher brand loyalty of customers leads to higher sales of that brand. Since then many papers have been published on the subject. The role of brand loyalty in brand performance and its relationship with other factors influencing brand performance measures (e.g. price, shelf facings, sales etc.) is becoming stronger and stronger.
2.3.1 - Brand Loyalty – Definitions
In the scientific literature of the past few decades on brand loyalty, many definitions of brand loyalty can be found. Many times there is only a small difference in nuance between the definitions. Generally, loyalty has been, and continues to be, defined in some circles as repeat purchasing frequency or relative volume of same-brand purchasing (Oliver, 1999). Example given: “… a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product or service in the future” (Oliver, 1997). Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) take two different parts of brand loyalty apart, behavioural and attitudinal. The behavioural, or purchase, loyalty consists of repeated purchases of the brand; attitudinal loyalty consists of a degree of dispositional commitment in terms of some unique value associated with the brand.
A much used definition of loyalty is given by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978). They describe consumer loyalty as: “…the biased behavioural response expressed over time, by some decision-making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands which is a function of psychological processes.”
This definition will also be used in this research, since it covers the most important aspects of brand loyalty and it has a widespread support in literature on brand loyalty and marketing in general. The definition has a few components which will be discussed and explained a bit more in detail below (Mellens et al., 1996).
Expressed over time: The word loyalty implies that there should be multiple purchases of a specific brand over a period of time, in order to justify the use of the term loyalty. A one-time brand purchase is not enough to create loyalty.
Decision making unit: The purchase-decision has to be made by someone, whether the product is bought for the buyer himself, another member of a household or a firm. This leads to the possibility that the buyer of the product will not be the user. In the present research the assumption is made that the decision maker and the user are the same individual.
Selection of brands: This means that one or more brands are selected. Multiple authors acknowledged the phenomenon of multiple-brand-loyalty (e.g. Ehrenberg, 1972; Jacoby, 1971; O’Leary, 1993). This is especially true for low-involvement goods (such as FMCG), since consumers do not evaluate products on a continuous scale, but rather evaluate a product as either acceptable or unacceptable. When multiple brands in one category are judged as acceptable, consumers might show loyalty to a group of brands instead of just one brand. This part of the definition also excludes monopoly-position brands from brand loyalty, because, as Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) state it: “Before one can speak of brand loyal, one must have the opportunity of being disloyal”. There is no possibility in choosing an alternative in the situation of monopoly brands and therefore they are not an object of interest in loyalty studies.
Function of a psychological process: This last element means that brand loyalty is a result of psychological (i.e. decision-making, evaluative) processes. When making purchase decisions, consumers evaluate the alternative brands on different criteria. The brand which offers the consumer the optimal outcome will be chosen.
Rank Product Average Loyalty Rank Product Average Loyalty 1 Frying Margerine 0,847 12 Regular Margerine 0,626 2 Regular Beer 0,802 13 Panty Liners 0,624 3 Decaffeinated Coffee 0,797 14 Cereals 0,605 4 Lowfat Margerine 0,770 15 Light Beer 0,603 5 Condensed Milk 0,742 16 Muesli 0,593 6 Regular Coffee 0,697 17 Green Peas 0,566 7 Cola 0,695 18 Sanitary Towels 0,554
8 Water 0,681 19 Crackers 0,539
9 Orange Juice 0,664 - Cat Food (wet) 0,539 10 Apple Sauce 0,663 21 Cat Food (dry) 0,502 11 Chocolate Sprinkles 0,644
Table 2: Average level of brand loyalty for 21 (grocery) product categories (Adapted from Dekimpe et al., 1997)
2.3.2 - Brand Loyalty – Behavioural and Affective
In their definition of brand loyalty, Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) separated two different components of brand loyalty. On the one hand there is behavioural loyalty and on the other hand there is affective loyalty. Behavioural, or purchase, loyalty can be seen as a repetition of a purchase of the same brand. Attitudinal brand loyalty consists of a degree of dispositional commitment in terms of some unique vale associated with the brand. The two components are, however, related to each other. Positive associations of (an aspect of) a brand in the mind of the consumer (attitudinal loyalty) is more likely to ensure repeat purchases of that brand by the consumer (behavioural loyalty). On the other hand can positive experiences of consecutive purchases of a brand (behavioural loyalty) create positive associations in the mind of the consumer on (an aspect of) a brand (attitudinal loyalty). To examine brand loyalty properly, both aspects has to be measured, because measuring only one aspect of brand loyalty, will result in measuring a spurious attitude (attitudes that can lead to not rebuying) or spurious behaviour (non stable rebuying actions, because of the lack of attitudinal attachment).
2.3.3 - Types of Brand loyalty
Loyalty Phase Identifying Marker
Cognitive Loyalty Loyalty to information such as price, features and so forth
Affective Loyalty Loyalty to a liking: “I buy it because I like it”
Conative Loyalty Loyalty to an intention: “I’m committed to buying it”
Action Loyalty Loyalty to action inertia, coupled with the overcoming of obstacles Table 3: Loyalty Phases with Identifying Markers. Oliver (1999)
The before-mentioned research of Dick and Basu (1994) used another model for the different kinds of loyalty they found. Based on the Repeat patronage (rebuying) and the relative attitude, both of which can be either High or Low, four levels of loyalty were identified:
No Loyalty: This is formed by a low relative attitude and a low repeat patronage. The concept of loyalty is absent in this level of loyalty.
Spurious Loyalty: This is formed by a low relative attitude and a high level of rebuying. So the repeat patronage in this level is not a consequence of relative high attitudes of the brand, but rather on the basis of situational cues or deals.
Latent Loyalty: This is formed by a high relative attitude and a low level of rebuying. This is a problem for marketers, since consumers put high value on the brand, but do not buy it. Loyalty: This is the most preferred of the four. It combines a high relative attitude with a high level of rebuying.
Gounaris and Stathakopoulos (2004) used a quite similar model of defining different states of loyalty. The relative attitude has been replaced in their research by emotional attachment. They identified No Loyalty (no emotional attachment, no rebuying), Covetous Loyalty (high emotional attachment, low rebuying), Inertia (low emotional attachment, high rebuying) and Premium (high emotional attachment, high rebuying).
Emotional /Attitude Rebuy Dick and Basu (1994) Oliver (1999) Gounaris (2004)
Low Low No Loyalty No Loyalty No loyalty
Low High Spurious Loyalty Cognitive Inertia
High Low Latent Loyalty Affective / Conative Covetous Loyalty
High High Loyalty Action Premium
In general the goal of companies should be to reach Loyalty (Dick and Basu), Action (Oliver) or Premium (Gounaris). In this state consumers are very loyal, rebuy the brand and have very positive attitudes or an emotional connection to the brand, which they can also transfer to other consumers.
2.3.4 - Importance and advantages of brand loyalty
Making customers loyal and keeping them loyal for a long time can be very important for a company. First of all it reduces marketing costs, since it is less expensive to retain a customer than to attract a new one. Reichheld and Sasser (1990) state that it can be as high as five times more expensive to recruit a new customer than retaining an existing customer. On top of that, a 5 % increase in customer retention, can result in a 25 to 95 % increase in profit, measured over 14 different industries (Reichheld, 1996). These numbers should carry a lot of weight in decision-making processes in companies, because the costs / benefits from losing a customer and having to attract a new one / keeping a customer can be seen directly in the profitability of the company. Aaker (1991) also mentioned the reduced marketing costs as advantage of brand loyalty, but he looked specifically at the role of brand loyalty in the process of brand equity. He pointed out that brand loyalty (besides the reduced marketing costs) can lead to more new customers and greater trade leverage. Dick and Basu (1994) added favourable word of mouth and greater resistance to competitive strategies among loyal consumers as advantages.
All these advantages together should lead to a better performance of the company. This better performance should become apparent from better performance measures, such as price, shelf facings and profits.
2.4 – Congruence between brand image and self image
Scientific research has shown that evaluations of brands are not made only on the functional (utilitarian) aspects of the brand, but also on symbolic aspects (Park et al., 1986; Sirgy, 1982; Bhat and Reedy, 1998). Levy (1959) even stated that the symbolic expression of consumptive behaviour could be more important to consumers than the functional benefits products can offer consumers.
purchases by consumers are directly influenced by the image individuals have of themselves. This concept is known as self-image congruence: the match between consumers’ self-concept and the user image of a product or brand (Kressman et al., 2006).
2.4.1 - Self Image
Individuals always examine objects in their environment. But not only the objects in the environment are examined; consumers also examine how they see themselves. Rosenberg (1979) defined the self-concept as: “the totality of an individual’s thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object”. Put more simply, the self-concept is the person’s perception of oneself (Mehta, 1999). The concept of self-image is not innate, but the learning process starts at a relative young age.
Multiple forms of self-image exist, e.g.: actual self image, ideal self image and social self image (a.o. Metha, 1999). The actual self can be defined as the way an individual sees him(her) self, whereas the ideal self can be defined as the way an individual would like to see him(her) self (Jamal and Goode, 2001). It was noted by Hattie (1992) that maintaining and enhancing the self (image) is an essential objective of humans. The actual self-image can be used to maintain the self image, whereas the ideal self-image can be used to enhance the self image.
2.4.2 - Brand Image
Aaker (1996) stated that goods can act as a vehicle to express the identity of a consumer and it is noted by Foxall, Goldsmith and Brown (1998) that symbolic needs of consumers can be explained by the fact that brands can act as symbols of their owner’s self-concept. In this way brands are considered to have a personality (just as humans do). The brand image may come from packaging, advertising, price, but many researchers in the self image – product image congruence theory used the definition that brand image can be seen as the stereotypic user of a brand. Holman (1981) mentioned three conditions which have to be met, for products being able to fulfil a communication-function: visibility in use, variability in use and personalizability.
2.4.3 - Level of congruence between self image and brand image
of those products or brands. Following this statement and Rogers’ (1951) theory of self-enhancement, Grubb and Grothwohl (1967) stated that:
a) self-concept is of value to the individual and behaviour of the consumers will be directed toward the protection and enhancement of self-concept;
b) the purchase, display and use of goods communicates symbolic meaning to the individual and others;
c) the consuming behaviour of an individual will be directed toward enhancing self-concept through the consumption of goods as symbols.
So for a long time now, the importance of the self-concept phenomenon in consumer behaviour has been made clear.
2.4.4 – Consequences of self-image congruence on satisfaction, brand preference and loyalty Jamal and Goode (2001) studied the effects of self-image congruence on brand preference and satisfaction. They found that consumers’ brand preference was higher for brands which had a higher level of image congruence with the consumer. This is explained by the fact that consumers might prefer brands that have images which have a resemblance of their perceptions of themselves. In their research they also found a strong relationship between level of self-image congruence and satisfaction. As Hattie (1992) noted, the human objective of maintaining the self-image someone has can explain this higher level of satisfaction, since a high level of self-image congruence between brand and consumer maintains the consumer’s self-image, which will give him or her a higher level of satisfaction (with the brand).
2.5 – Satisfaction
therefore not be a stand-alone goal. It should however be taken into account when looking at loyalty, since it does play a big role in the process of making the consumer loyal.
2.5.1 - Customer Satisfaction – A Definition
Oliver (1997) defines satisfaction as pleasurable fulfillment. So by this definition a product or service is satisfactory if the consumption of that product or service fulfils some kind of need, desire or goal and that this fulfillment is pleasurable.
A little bit more extended definition is given by a number of authors, amongst which Tse and Wilton (1988): “an evaluation of the perceived discrepancy between prior expectations and the actual performance of the product”. In this way it looks a bit like it is the same as an attitude.
A clear distinction however should be made between customer satisfaction and brand attitudes, but both are linked with each other. Although both concepts focus on “feelings” and “experiences” consumers have with a product or brand, customer satisfaction is relatively transient and is consumption specific, whereas attitudes are relatively enduring (Oliver, 1981). Oliver (1980) empirically found that satisfaction from past experiences with the product precedes and influences post purchase attitude.
2.5.2 - The influence of Customer Satisfaction on Brand Loyalty
Although academics as well as practitioners acknowledged that customer satisfaction alone was not enough to ensure customers to become loyal, they did however respected the fact that customer satisfaction is an important factor. Brand loyalty cannot exist without the product satisfying the consumer. Oliver (1999) stated that brand loyalty is presumably a consequence of consumer satisfaction and brand attitudes. Evaluations based on direct experience are strong predictors of (future) behavior (Fazio & Zanna, 1978, 1981), so since customer satisfaction might be the most important direct past experience, it will influence behaviour in the future.
is used in this research. In their research, Bloemer and Kasper differentiate also between true brand loyalty and spurious brand loyalty. The main point of difference between the two concepts is that the first is based on a commitment of the consumer to the brand and the latter is based on inertia. Day (1969) states: “The spurious loyal buyers lack any attachment to brand attributes and they can be immediately captured by another brand that offers a better deal, a coupon, or enhanced point of purchase visibility through displays or other devices”. For this type of consumer the buying of the same brand offers them: not being forced to make a new choice, time saved by buying the same brand, feeling of indifference with the choice or the reduction of perceived risk.
2.6 – Product category involvement
The concept of involvement has received much attention during the last few decades in both the academic as well as the practical world. Mowen (1990) noted that product category involvement plays an important role in consumer behaviour. The level of product category involvement can influence for example search behaviour, information processing and decision making by consumers. Product category involvement has been defined in different ways, but all focus on some kind of attachment to or relevance of a product category to an individual. Coulter et al. (2003) defines product category involvement as the personal relevance or importance of a product category.
Kapferer and Laurent (1985) found 5 dimensions which influence the level of product category involvement of a consumer. These are interest (does the consumer have a personal interest in the category); pleasure (the level of hedonic value of the product); sign (the degree to which a product expresses the person’s self-image); risk importance (the importance (in the eyes of the consumer) of the negative impact a wrong or bad choice in the product category may have); risk probability (the perceived chance of making such a wrong or bad decision). Applying these 5 dimensions to the beer category will probably show that the most important dimensions for this category are: interest, pleasure and sign. Especially the risk probability does not seem to play a major role in the beer category. In their follow-up research (1993) Kapferer and Laurent use phrases as When I’m in front of the beer section, I always feel rather
unsure about what to pick and When you buy beer you can never be quite sure it was the right
Dholakia (1997) makes a clear distinction between two types of involvement or importance. On the one hand there is situational importance, where the importance comes from a particular purchase situation. On the other hand there is enduring importance, which can be seen as a more stable attitude towards a product category. In the distinction between students and graduates, graduates can be seen more as consumers with situational importance, where students can be seen as consumers with enduring importance, since they purchase and consume a lot more beer than graduates.
Warrington and Shim (2000) state that consumers with high involvement, when satisfied with a specific brand, have got a (high) chance to become loyal to that brand. After literature review Quester and Lim (2003) state that consumers who are more involved are also more committed and therefore more loyal to a brand. Therefore market segments of consumers with high product category involvement are attractive to companies.
2.7 – Brand commitment
Brand commitment has been defined in scientific literature as some kind of emotional attachment of consumers to a specific brand (a.o. Ahluwalia et al, 2000). Product category involvement has often been regarded as an important antecedent of brand commitment (Quester and Lim, 2003). This might be explained by the fact that consumers who are more involved in a product category have a smaller consideration set and are more committed to a specific brand within that category.
Research by Bloemer (1993) explained the role of commitment on brand loyalty, by distinguishing two types of loyalty (see also table 4 in paragraph 2.3.3). When rebuying a brand without commitment to that brand, this can be seen as inertia loyalty, rebuying on basis of habit. When rebuying a brand with commitment, on the other hand, this can be seen as true brand loyalty, this rebuying can be explained by the (strong) commitment the consumer has with the specific brand. So seen this way brand commitment can lead to loyalty, but loyalty does not always have to come from commitment (Traylor, 1981).
2.8 – Demographic Variables
In this research an important focus will be on the difference between students and persons who just graduated from college or university. Since this is a very large turn point in the life of the consumer, chances are that there are important differences between the two groups of consumers. Especially since it is a known phenomenon in the beer category, that brand preferences can change during the life of a consumer. The change from the student life to the working life might be one factor influencing this (possible) change. These major or important changes in life have received quite some attention in scientific literature. Mathur et al. (2003) combine this with the self-concept and state that people change their behaviour when they take on a new role (caused by the change in life) and therefore have to change their possessions, in order to redefine their self-concept.
The most important difference between the two groups is probably the monthly income, which can play a very important role in brand preference and brand loyalty and their underlying constructs. The income of students is relatively low, which results in students searching for good deals in their daily groceries.
2.9 – Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
After reviewing the scientific literature a conceptual model has been made, which shows the relationships between brand loyalty / brand preference and their underlying constructs. In this chapter the conceptual model will be given as well as the hypotheses based on the model. In the following chapters these hypotheses will be tested.
2.9.1 - Conceptual Model
Figure 2: Conceptual Model
Demographics Product Category Involvement Brand Commitment Brand Preference Satisfaction Brand Loyalty Congruence between Brand -
and Self Image
2.9.2 - Hypotheses
Mowen (1990) stated that product category involvement plays an important role in all kinds of consumer behaviour. Coulter (2003) defines product category involvement as the personal relevance or importance of a product category to a consumer. Generally, students are known for drinking a lot of beer during their time as a student. At home, at student societies and while going out: they drink beer in all kinds of situations. When graduated, they loose a lot of free time, do not go out that often anymore, don’t visit their student societies and also change their drinking behaviour (for instance drink wine on more occasions). Therefore the importance of the beer category decreases when people graduate and start working. H1: There
is a significant difference in product category involvement in the beer category between students and persons who graduated.
It is expected that students are more interested in the beer category and also buy a product from this category more often than people who graduated. This results in a higher product category involvement, where students show some kind of enduring importance of the category and graduates tend to show more situational importance (Dholakia, 1997). Quester and Lim (2003) state that consumers who are more involved are also more committed to a brand. On top of that, students who are member of a student society feel a strong connection with this society and probably will feel very committed to the brand of beer that is sold on the student society. H2: There is a significant difference in brand commitment in the beer
category between students and persons who graduated.
It is a known phenomenon in the beer category that consumers change their brand preference throughout their life. They adapt new consumption styles to adjust for new circumstances coming from new lifestyles. Mathur et al. (2003) state that life (changing) events, such as graduating from college, can lead to changes in brand preferences. Following this statement it is expected that H3: Brand preference in the beer category changes when persons change
from student to graduate and start working.
probably one of the most expensive products in the grocery shopping of students, discount prices might be very attractive to students. H4: There is a significant difference in brand
loyalty in the beer category between students and persons who graduated.
Different authors found a relationship between product category involvement and brand commitment, For instance Traylor (1981) and Quester and Lim (2003) state that consumers who are more involved are also more committed and therefore more loyal to a brand. H5: the
higher the product category involvement in the beer category, the higher the brand commitment to a brand of beer.
Ahluwalia (2000) noted that commitment to a brand leads to a decreased chance of brand changing of consumers; they rather stay with the brand they are committed to. Desai and Raju (2007) focussed on the influence of brand commitment on the size of consideration sets of consumers and found that higher levels of brand commitment lead to smaller consideration sets which leads to more brand loyalty. Therefore it is expected that H6: The higher the brand
commitment to a brand of beer, the higher the brand loyalty to that brand of beer.
As Hattie (1992) noted, maintaining the self (image) is an essential objective of humans. With a brand that has got a high level of congruence with the self-image of the consumer, the level of maintaining the self-image will be higher. Therefore consumers will be loyal to a brand which has got a high level of congruence with their self-image. H7: the higher the congruence
between self image and product image of a brand, the higher the loyalty to that brand.
Jamal and Goode (2001) looked at the relationship between brand preference and self-image congruence. They found that there is a strong relationship between the two constructs. This can be explained by the fact that consumers may prefer brands that have images which have quite a high level of resemblance with the image they have got of themselves. Also Hattie’s (1992) theory applies to this relationship, since consumers want to maintain their self image and therefore prefer brands that have got a high level of congruence with their self-images.
Both Sirgy et al. (1997) (in a study on the effects of self-image congruence and satisfaction in the travel destination market) and Jamal and Goode (2001) found a significant relationship between the level of congruence of the brand and self image and satisfaction with that brand. Consumers which had higher levels of self-image congruence felt more satisfied with that particular brand than consumers which showed lower levels of self-image congruence and therefore it is expected that H9: The higher the congruence between self image and product
image of a brand, the more satisfied the consumer will be with the brand.
Oliver (1999) stated that satisfaction is one of the antecedents of brand loyalty. Since evaluations based on direct experience, which leads to (dis)satisfaction, are strong predictors of (future) behaviour (Fazio & Zanna, 1978, 1981) the level of satisfaction with a brand or product will influence behavior, and thus brand loyalty, in the future. H10: the higher the
satisfaction with the brand, the higher the brand loyalty to that brand.
The beer category is a product category in which consumers often have quite a few brands they usually choose from. For instance consumers use different brands for different occasions (Sloot and Bunt, 1996) and therefore have multiple brands in their consideration set. The more a brand gives the consumer a feeling of satisfaction after consuming it, the more the brand will be preferred, the more it will be chosen by the consumer and other brands in the consideration set will be chosen fewer times. H11: the higher the satisfaction with the brand,
the more the brand will be preferred.
It was noted by Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) that consumers who experience more hedonic-related emotions with a product or brand are expected to show a higher level of commitment. Consumers who choose a specific brand for functional benefits will be easier persuaded to change brands when another brand offers them more benefits. So consumers with a preference for a brand that has got relative high brand equity could show more loyalty than a consumer with a preference for a brand with lower brand equity. It is therefore expected that consumers which prefer more hedonic brands will show higher levels of loyalty than consumers which prefer more utilitarian brands. H12: The preferred brand of a
Chapter 3 – Research Design
3.1 – Introduction
In this chapter the research design of the study will be presented. This research design has been used to test the model which was constructed on basis of the literature review and has been presented in paragraph 2.8. To test the hypotheses in the model, a questionnaire has been used to ask students and persons who just graduated about their loyalty, brand preference and underlying constructs in the Dutch beer market.
This chapter will consist of an explanation of the questionnaire which was used for the research, the sample and sample size, and the way the data which was obtained has been processed.
3.2 – Research Methodology
3.2.1 - Questionnaire
To test the hypotheses, which were constructed after the literature review, a questionnaire was constructed (see Appendix for the questionnaire). In this questionnaire consumers were asked questions on the different constructs. Most questions used were constructed using a 5-point Likert-Scale.
Two versions of the questionnaire have been used; one for students and one for persons who graduated, but there were only a few differences between the two questionnaires. These differences only exist in the first part of the questionnaire.
First of all respondents were asked six questions regarding the characteristics of the consumer. These questions consisted of: Age; how many years they study (for graduates: how many years they have been graduated); which city the respondent study or studied; which study they follow or followed; whether they are or were member of a student society or a student sports club with their own canteen and which brand of beer is or was sold in that society or club. Graduates were also asked whether they have a full-time job and were asked to give an indication of their monthly gross salary.
influence of the brand of beer in the student society/club on brand choice at home and the intention of influence (students) / influence (graduates) of the brand of beer at home while being a student on the brand of beer at home when graduated.
After this the constructs product category involvement (three questions), brand commitment (four questions), brand loyalty (six questions) and antecedents of brand preference has been measured (four questions). Table 5 shows the sources in cases where questions have been adapted from earlier research. Questions in the loyalty section which are marked with a * are inversed questions, so a strong agreement with the statements implies a low level of loyalty, where a strong disagreement with the statements implies a high level of loyalty.
Question Source
Product Category Involvement Beer is important to me Zaichkowsky (1994) I know a lot about beer Sloot & Bunt (1996) I am interested in beer Zaichkowsky (1994)
Brand Commitment During my next purchase, I will buy the
same brand of beer as the last time
Kim et al. (2008), Fullerton (2005)
When buying beer, I am committed to buy my favourite brand, rather than an alternative brand
Kim et al. (2008)
I would be willing to pay a higher price for my favourite brand over other brands
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001), Desai and Raju (2007)
Brand Loyalty
I am loyal to one brand of beer Odin et al. (2001) I always buy the same brand of beer Odin et al. (2001) If the shop I regularly visit has not got the brand
of beer I usually buy, I go to another shop
Odin et al. (2001)
I often switch from one brand of beer to another * Odin et al. (2001)
I like changing brands of beer * Odin et al. (2001)
I often buy beer that is on a promotion discount * Wood (2001) and Srivastava (2007)
Sources of Brand Preference When choosing a brand of beer, the price of a
brand is important
Wood (2001) and Srivastava (2007)
When choosing a brand of beer, the quality of a brand is important
Wood (2001) and Srivastava (2007)
When choosing a brand of beer, the price-quality ratio is important
-
When choosing a brand of beer, the brand image is important
-
When choosing a brand of beer, I look for a brand that is a lot like me
Based on: Jamal and Goode (2001) and Sirgy et al. (1997)
When choosing a brand of beer, I look for a brand of which the typical user looks a lot like me
Based on: Jamal and Goode (2001) and Sirgy et al. (1997)
Table 5: Sources of questions in questionnaire
situation-related and consumer-situation-related. Respondents were also asked to indicate to what extent they identified with specific situations and certain groups of consumers in order to find out which brands fit which situation and group of consumers. The last question of the questionnaire asked the respondents which of the five brands (which were in this study) they preferred.
3.2.2 – Quality
Three criteria of the quality of a questionnaire have been mentioned by Malhotra (2003), these are reliability, validity and generalizability.
Reliability shows the extent to which a scale produces consistent results if measurements are repeated. In this study the internal consistency reliability will be measured by Cronbach’s Alpha on the measurement of product category involvement, brand commitment and loyalty.
Validity refers to the extent to which differences in observed scale scores reflect true differences among objects on the characteristic being measured, instead of random error.
Content validity is a subjective measure, but evaluates to what extent the content of a scale represents the measurement task. Since many of the questions are adapted from earlier research, all has been done to increase the validity of the measurement.
Generalizability is defined as the extent to which generalizations can be made from the observations to a larger group of persons. Since only men have been asked to fill in the questionnaire, the generalizability of the study is somewhat limited, because findings might not be the same for woman. And since only higher educated persons have been accepted in the study, results for lower educated persons might be different. Therefore the generalizability of the study is somewhat limited and this might be a subject for future research.
3.2.3 – Sample
loyalty and brand preference, both students (and graduates) who were members of a society with Bavaria as well as students who weren’t member of a student society or were member of a society with another brand of beer on their society have to be taken into account.
In consultation with Bavaria, three major Dutch student cities have been chosen to conduct the study. These were Groningen, Utrecht and Tilburg
Using a probability sampling technique yields the most representative sample of a population, but can also be very expensive and time consuming. According to Malhotra (2003), convenience sampling (a non-probability technique) is the least expensive and time consuming of all sampling techniques, since the respondents are easily accessible, easy to measure and probably will be cooperative. Although convenience sampling has got some disadvantages, this technique will be used in this study, due to time, money and access restrictions. The final sample consisted of 201 respondents.
3.2.4 – Processing of data
After collecting the data, the analysis can be done to test the hypotheses constructed after the literature review. For this analysis the statistical computer program SPSS has been used. The internal consistency reliability of the measurement of product category involvement, brand commitment and brand loyalty has been measured. This is done by using Cronbach’s Alpha.
To test the hypotheses, constructed in chapter 2, a number of statistical tests have been conducted.
Chapter 4 – Descriptive results
In this chapter findings from the study will be presented. The findings will describe some characteristics on the brands that were studied. No hypotheses will be tested in this chapter; this will be done in chapter 5.
Satisfaction
Satisfaction with the different brands has been measured by the taste of the brand (Brand X
has got a good taste). Table 6 shows the average scores for the different brands on the item good taste.
Brand Average Score
Amstel 2,81
Bavaria 3,17
Grolsch 3,33
Heineken 3,34
Jupiler 3,89
Table 6: Average score on taste for the brands
Table6 makes clear that Jupiler is found to have the best taste of the five brands. Grolsch and Heineken are following Jupiler. Amstel is the brand that has got the lowest score on taste.
Groups of users
Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they associated the different brands with a number of groups of users. Analysis showed that the brands were associated with the following groups: Amstel was associated with football fans and lower educated persons;
Bavaria was associated with students; Grolsch with higher educated persons, people with successful careers, “men with balls”, older men and people who enjoy life (Dutch: levensgenieters); Heineken was associated with higher educated persons and people with a successful career and Jupiler with higher educated persons, people with a successful career and people who enjoy life.
Usage occasions
Heineken was associated with large festivals, pop concerts, a night out and birthday parties, whereas Jupiler was associated with watching TV at home.
Brand associations
It will be shown later that students and graduates weigh antecedents for brand preference differently. Price is a major concern for students. Whereas graduates feel that quality is the most important aspect. Table 7 shows how the different brands score on the two most important antecedents for students and graduates
Students Graduates
Brand Price Quality Ratio
(most important)
Quality Brand Price Quality Ratio Quality (most important) Amstel 3,15 2,91 Amstel 3,27 2,77 Bavaria 3,73 3,04 Bavaria 3,59 2,81 Grolsch 3,26 3,79 Grolsch 3,37 3,69 Heineken 3,22 3,61 Heineken 3,15 3,37 Jupiler 3,18 3,81 Jupiler 3,31 3,90
Table 7: Scores of the 5 brands on price quality ratio and quality amongst students and graduates
Chapter 5 – Research Results
5.1 – Introduction
In this chapter the results of the study will be presented. This will be done by discussing the results of the statistical analysis of the answers of the respondents from the questionnaire. In paragraph 4.2 the internal consistency of the measurement of the constructs will be presented. Cronbach’s Alpha has been used to see to what extent the different items measure the same concept. In paragraph 4.3 tests with the constructs product category involvement and brand commitment will be conducted. This will be followed in paragraph 4.4 with the testing of the congruence between brand image and self image. After that brand preference will be tested in paragraph 4.5 and brand loyalty in 4.6.
5.2 – Internal Consistency
Three constructs have been measured by multiple-item Likert-scale questions in the questionnaire. These were product category involvement, brand commitment and brand loyalty (intention). To test the internal consistency of the different items, Cronbach’s Alpha has been used.
Product category involvement was measured with three statements in the questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha for these three items was 0,838, this is more than sufficient.
Brand commitment was measured using four statements. Cronbach’s alpha for these four items was 0,646. A minimum of 0,6 is required and an alpha of at least 0,7 is preferred. Testing with only three of the four statements (excluding one of the statements at a time) decreased Cronbach’s alpha or increased (when excluding the item: The brand of beer
influences the bar/pub/club I choose when I go out) it only to 0,673. Because the influence on bar choice is an interesting item which might show a real brand commitment, it was decided to use all four statements in the analysis.
