STUDYING STORE PERCEPTIONS

(1)

STUDYING STORE PERCEPTIONS

The relationships between consumers’ store attribute perceptions,

store evaluations and intended store loyalty

(2)

STUDYING STORE PERCEPTIONS

The relationships between consumers’ store attribute perceptions,

store evaluations and intended store loyalty

University of Groningen

Faculty of Business and Economics

MSc Marketing Management

Master Thesis

June 2015

Supervisor: prof. dr. L. M. Sloot

2nd supervisor: prof. dr. P.C. Verhoef

(3)

Management summary

This research is aimed at gaining more insights into consumers’ store attribute perceptions and their relationships with store evaluations and intended store loyalty. This is an important field for retailers since the retail environment is changing considerably due to the upcoming e-commerce. Traditional retailers are presented with opportunities, but also with challenges. In today’s retail environment, retailers experience decreased sales traffic and decreasing sales figures. In order to be successful in increasing store traffic and subsequently store loyalty, today’s retailers should be relevant for consumers, starting by formulating a relevant customer value proposition.

A tool that helps in creating a relevant customer value proposition is the Customer Relevancy Model. This research takes a deeper dive into consumers’ store attribute perceptions on the basis of the value attribute dimensions set by the model; product, price, access, service and experience. Furthermore, it was tested whether hedonic shopping motivations, hedonic shopping value and store brand equity influence consumers’ store evaluations and intended store loyalty. Therefore, the following research question was formulated: “To what extent are consumers’ store attribute perceptions related to consumers’ store evaluation and intended store loyalty? Do hedonic shopping motivations, hedonic shopping value and store brand equity influence this relationship?”

This research was conducted by gathering data from 260 respondents that filled out an online questionnaire for four retailers in The Netherlands; a premium utilitarian store (Albert Heijn), a discount utilitarian store (Aldi), a premium hedonic store (De Schoenenfabriek) and a discount hedonic store (Scapino).

(4)

Preface

This thesis is written as a completion of the master Marketing Management at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. In September 2013, I started as a Pre-MSc marketing student. Before I started, I achieved my Bachelor degree in Business Administration at the Hanze Unversity. During my bachelor, I developed a passion for marketing, especially for retail marketing and consumer behaviour. Being a mystery shopper myself, I observe several retail stores in order to provide interesting insights to improve service quality. As I learned more during the master, I became more interested in consumer behavior and consumer experiences.

I would like to thank some people that have helped me writing my thesis. First of all, I would like to thank prof. dr. Laurens Sloot for his time, support and valuable input during this process. I would also like to thank Samir Selimi and Berend Ziengs for the interesting insights and discussions during the interviews. Finally I would like to thank my family and friends for being supportive and helpful during this process.

Groningen, June 2015

(5)

List of tables and figures

Tables

Table 1 Value attributes and underlying items

Table 2 Segmentation of retailers

Table 3 Sampling techniques

Table 4 Store representativeness

Table 5 Gender of respondents

Table 6 Age of respondents

Table 7 Education of respondents

Table 8 Income of respondents

Table 9 Average store distance (Km)

Table 10 Reliability analyses of underlying constructs of store attribute perceptions Table 11 Means of store attribute perceptions per store

Table 12 Reliability analysis and means of intended store loyalty Table 13 Reliability analysis and means of store evaluation

Table 14 Reliability analysis and means of hedonic shopping value

Table 15 Reliability analysis and means of hedonic shopping motivations

Table 16 Reliability analysis and means of store brand equity

Table 17 Skewness and kurtosis statistics

Table 18 Correlations

Table 19 Main influence of store attribute perceptions on intended store loyalty Table 20 Main influence of store attribute perceptions on store evaluation Table 21 Main influence of store evaluation on intended store loyalty

Table 22 Moderating influence of hedonic shopping value

Table 23 Moderated mediation analysis

Table 24 Influence of store attribute perceptions on intended store loyalty behavior

Table 25 Summary of hypotheses and results

Figures

Figure 1 Segmentation of consumer goods

Figure 2 Conceptual framework

Figure 3 Mediating influence of store evaluation

Figure 4 Moderating influence of hedonic shopping value

Figure 5 Moderated mediation influences

Figure 6 Marqt concept

Figure 7 Albert Heijn XL

Figure 8 Interactive screen Nelson

(8)

1. Introduction

Consumer behaviour in the physical retailing environment is changing considerably. Today’s consumer has vastly different and more sophisticated expectations of product, service, value and the store environment than five or even ten years ago (Deloitte, 2011). Furthermore, as competition in retail has intensified, retailers have had to move beyond a product focus to a focus on the customer experience (Spence et al., 2014). They constantly need to re-define the store proposition and identify how they can best address the changing customer needs within the four walls of the store (Deloitte, 2011). Creating a superior customer experience seems to be one of the central objectives in today’s retailing environment (Verhoef et al., 2009).

The emergence of the experience economy by Pine and Gilmore (1999) and experiential marketing have brought forth an experiential approach to retailing (Bagdare and Jain, 2013). In the current retail environment, the physical store still reigns and can still be seen as the favored destination for global shoppers (Capgemini, 2014). Consumers visit a physical store to make use of their five senses (sound, sight, smell, touch, and taste) in the decision-making process, which is not fully applicable for online shopping. For physical retailers, the main challenge is to offer products and services that consumers cannot find on the internet. What comes along with this challenge, is to strive for increased satisfaction levels by creating a distinctive customer experience in the store. Furthermore, to be successful in delivering a positive customer experience, creating ‘wow’ experiences and understanding “Moments-of-Truth” within the customer journey is crucial, especially being relevant to customers is key (Capgemini, 2014).

(9)

What is essential for today’s retailers is to continuously ascertain that the customer value proposition is relevant for consumers since the retail environment is dynamic and might change over time (e.g. changing customer needs, new competitors entering the market). Within this process, insight into consumer store evaluations and loyalty intentions is of central interest to retailers. Therefore, this research investigated the relationship between consumers’ store attribute perceptions and consumers’ store evaluation and intended store loyalty. The research was conducted in four retail segments; two utilitarian stores (grocery stores) and two hedonic stores (shoe stores), leading to managerial implications that are broadly applicable.

Previous research (Thiruvenkada et al., 2014) has shown that the number of attributes a consumer would use when forming attitudes toward stores are highly contextual, varying considerably by store type, purpose of purchase and consumer segment. Therefore it was expected that individual consumer characteristics and store type both influence the relationship between consumers’ store attribute perceptions and store evaluations and intended store loyalty. Thus, the aim of this research is twofold: (1) to provide more understanding of the relationship between store attribute perceptions and intended store loyalty, and (2) to test whether this relationship is mediated by consumers’ store evaluation and influenced by hedonic shopping motivations, hedonic shopping value and store brand equity. Therefore, the research question that is covered in this paper is the following: “To what extent are consumers’ store attribute perceptions related to consumers’ store evaluation and intended store loyalty? Do hedonic shopping motivations, hedonic shopping value and store brand equity influence this relationship?” An answer to this question will give retailers and management consultancies better insight in strategic adjustment, which in turn can generate a better customer experience and increased shopping value for consumers (Shukla and Babin, 2013). In addition, this would help them to modulate consumers’ shopping experience effectively and create a more favourable impression of the store and its products and services (Mehta et al., 2013).

(10)

2. Literature review

This chapter will provide a theoretical understanding of the concepts involved in this research. First, the changing retail environment will be discussed. Next, the Customer Relevancy Model will be explained in depth, followed by the concepts of store evaluations and store loyalty intentions. Then, hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations and shopping value will be addressed. Finally, store brand equity will be discussed.

2.1 The changing retail environment

Over the past few years, several trends have changed the retail environment drastically (e.g., Internet, mass discounters and social networking). Especially upcoming e-commerce has created new opportunities for retailers but at the same time also new challenges. In comparison to online retailers, traditional brick and mortar stores are confronted with issues such as decreasing store traffic, declining sales and increasing shop vacancies (Retail Gazette, 2013). Previous research has shown that in the current retail environment it is no longer enough for a traditional retailer to operate in a conventional manner by enticing customers with broad assortments, low pricing and extended store hours (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003).

Since the introduction of the concept of the experience economy by Pine and Gilmore (1999), there has been an increased interest in the enhancement of customer experience and customer engagement. In addition to looking for ways to add value by adding product features, retailers in the current retail environment are increasingly crafting value-added retailer experiences (Spence et al., 2014). Furthermore, by focusing on the concept of the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore, 1999) through enhancing customer’s in-store experiences, retailers can engage consumers and differentiate themselves from other retailers (Sands et al., 2014). Consequently, identifying ways to cultivate a distinctive customer experience has become more important in the retail environment than ever before (Spence et al., 2014).

(11)

According to Berend Ziengs (2015), the owner of ‘De Schoenenfabriek’, a relatively new shoe store concept launched in the Northern of the Netherlands, there are several factors that causes the changing retail environment. First, an increase in online retailing and entertailing (shopping is fun!) has changed the environment drastically, especially for traditional - brick and mortar - retailers. Providing entertainment in retail stores can substantially increase shopping value for customers and might create a distinctive advantage for retailers. Furthermore, retailers still experience the downsides of the economic crisis that started in 2008 (e.g., declining sales, increasing shop vacancies). Ziengs (2015) also mentioned the changing customer as an important influence on today’s retail environment. Nowadays, consumers are becoming more conscious (e.g. green consumption) and go shopping on the basis of their attitudes and values. To understand the changing customer, retailers have to be transparent, for example in their prices or production processes. Furthermore, Ziengs (2015) suggests that retailers should mainly focus on innovative store concepts and product extensions in order to increase shopping value for the customer and to gain a competitive advantage for the retailer.

(12)

Although many retailers in today’s agile shopping environment focus on merchandise variety and assortment, convenience of location and store hours (Anderson et al., 2014), it seems that consumers are looking for more. Therefore, understanding the influence of consumer psychographics and store characteristics on consumer perceptions of shopping value is essential for today’s retail practices (Shukla and Babin, 2013). Zomerdijk and Voss (2010) indicated that the customer journey can be a valuable tool for improving the customer experience. This tool demonstrates a series of touch points – points of customer contact – and involves all activities and events related to the delivery of a service, from the consumers’ perspective. Furthermore, the customer journey is used to understand how consumers behave across a shopping journey, what they are feeling, and what their motivations and attitudes are across that journey (Zomerdijk and Voss, 2010). Thau (2013) states that shopping is a social activity and consumers like to see, feel, and try on the merchandise. For physical stores, consumers’ five senses (sound, sight, smell, touch, and taste) are extremely important to create a positive customer experience.

Based on the above mentioned view on the role of the customer experience concept within the retail environment, it can be concluded that building engaging layouts, increasing store-level interactions and building an overall better experience may actually be the best focus for retailers in today’s retail environment (Shukla and Babin, 2013). However, the most important for retailers is being relevant for customers to positively influence store evaluations and consequently increase consumers’ intended store loyalty, subsequently to increase store traffic and sales. A challenging task for retailers in the current environment is to manage and manipulate store attribute perceptions of consumers. In this research, a deeper dive will be taken into consumers’ store attribute perceptions on the basis of the Customer Relevancy Model.

2.2 The Customer Relevancy Model

The Customer Relevancy Model developed by Crawford and Mathews (2003) is a valuable tool for retail positioning and can be seen as a model capitalizing on store attribute perceptions of consumers within the retail environment. Since the introduction of the model in 2001, many global retailers have successfully implemented this model, frequently with the assistance of management consultants who start from analyzing a retailers’ value proposition. However, up till now, there is limited research done on this model.

(13)

compelling customer value proposition. To illustrate the interplay among the five value attributes, a numerical value is assigned to each of the attributes (Crawford and Mathews, 2003). The model assumes that a company should dominate on one attribute (5 = far ahead of competition), differentiate on another attribute (4 = ahead of competition) and be on par (3 = similar to competition) with the remaining attributes. What should be recognized is that truly consumer-relevant companies do not attempt to dominate in every customer-centric category – price, service, access, experience, and service (Crawford and Mathews, 2003). Thus, it is important for companies to decide on which attributes to dominate and to compete. Only one attribute should be dominant or different from competitors, as otherwise this would not be economically optimal for a company to strive for. However, finding the right combination of the value attributes, a so-called delicate balance, is critical but also extremely difficult to achieve. Companies can increase their success rate of positive perceptions toward a store by selecting a second- and/or third - attribute that serves as a strong complement of the previous selected attributes and helps them further differentiate themselves from competitors (Crawford and Mathews, 2003). Another guideline for the application of the Customer Relevancy Model is that none of the value attributes should be lower than 3 since this will cause brand damage. Furthermore, even if two companies score the same on the same dimension, these companies can still offer a different value proposition, since the consumers’ evaluation of the underlying items of this value attribute might differ. A company that truly understands the application of the Customer Relevancy model is Wal-Mart, the largest discount retailer in the world scoring a 5, 4, 3, 3, and 3 across price, product, service, access, and experience (Crawford & Mathews, 2003).

(14)

2.2.1 Product

The product value attribute is aimed at inspiring customers with an assortment of great products they did not know about (Crawford and Mathews, 2003). Retailers are often identifying the product attributes that are considered as most important and relevant by consumers during their evaluation and purchase of products (Jamal and Goode, 2001). Traditionally, marketing research has focused on functional product attributes that engage consumers in a deliberate reasoning process (Brakus et al., 2014). However, since many products are functionally highly similar, it is difficult for consumers to make their decisions solely based on functional attributes. Therefore, retailers have increasingly differentiated their products to accommodate the need for a less complicated decision-making process. An example of differentiating product attributes is changing the packaging and design of a product, which might create a compelling experience for consumers (Brakus et al., 2014). An example of a store brand creating such an experience is Apple, by focusing mainly on non-functional design attributes (e.g. colour schemes, shape of products) and has become relevant for consumers due to the design of its products that can be associated with a certain reputation or status. In this regard, design and packaging are relevant underlying items of the product value attribute. This is in accordance with Capgemini (2014) who have also acknowledged that a product can be relevant to consumers under the guise of a wide and deep assortment, quality, freshness, and availability of products. However, what should be critically recognized is that consumers do not necessarily need the best product, but rather consistently good products (Crawford, 2000).

2.2.2 Price

(15)

some assurance that they have selected a fair and honest rate plan because consumers value honest (Crawford and Mathews, 2003). This is more relevant to them than getting the lowest price (Crawford, 2000). To be certain about the price they have to pay, consumers evaluate with others and visit other stores or comparison websites in order to know that they get the best price.

2.2.3 Access

The access value attribute can be referred to as the physical and psychological navigation both to and at the store (Crawford and Mathews, 2003). There was a time where access was defined by three things; location, location and location (Crawford, 2000). However, several studies (Bell, Ho and Tang, 1998; Crawford & Mathews, 2003) suggested that location no longer explains most of the variance in store choice decisions. Ailawadi and Keller (2004) still argue that the location of a store and the distance that the consumer must travel to the store are two basic criteria in store choice decisions. Nowadays, location still matters, but navigation to and within the store is considered more important for consumers as they do not want to waste time finding a parking place or checking out (Crawford, 2000). These findings are in line with a qualitative study about the Customer Relevancy Model conducted by Capgemini (2014) showing that the Access dimension can be evaluated on the convenience of reaching and navigating stores and a store’s maximum opening hours. Furthermore, previous research has identified similar underlying dimensions, such as distance to the store, travel time to the store, and car ownership (Rose and Richards, 2004).

2.2.4 Service

(16)

According to Woodall (2001), service can be defined as an organization, as a core product, as product augmentation and product support. Since the definitions of service are dependent upon the nature of the business, this paper will focus on the service aspect supporting products or being a mode of behaviour. When service is defined as product support, consumers can think of any product-oriented or customer-oriented activity that takes place after the point of purchase. Furthermore, Keller (2013) makes a distinction between service effectiveness, efficiency and empathy. Service effectiveness measures how well the store satisfies customers’ service requirements. Service efficiency describes the speed and responsiveness of service. Finally, service empathy is defined as the extent to which service providers are seen as trusting, caring, and having the customer’s interests in mind (Keller, 2013).

2.2.5 Experience

According to Crawford and Mathews (2003), experience refers to the establishment of intimacy with customers by doing something no one else can. Experience can be seen as a multidimensional construct being studied multiple times in previous research (Verhoef et al., 2009; Klaus & Maklan, 2012; Bagdare & Jain, 2013). Across these studies, various dimensions and aspects of experience have been identified. For example, linking this dimension to the concept of customer relevancy, Capgemini (2014) states that ‘experience’ is perceived and evaluated on the basis of having a friendly and clean store, having no damaged goods in store and having an inspirational atmosphere, whereas Verhoef et al., (2009) state that there are some other important aspects influencing a customer experience such as the social environment, service interface, assortment, price, customer experience in alternative channels, retailer’s brand, and previous customer experience. Furthermore, Klaus and Maklan (2012) state that experience is the customers’ assessment of all attributes of their direct and indirect dealings with a service provider that explains their behavioural loyalty through repeat purchasing. They claim that customer experience quality depends on product experience (e.g. freedom of choice), outcome focus (e.g. past experience), “Moments-of-Truth” (e.g. service recovery), and peace-of-mind (e.g. expertise).

(17)

intimacy truly matters to them (Crawford and Mathews, 2003). The customer experience construct is holistic in nature and involves the consumers’ cognitive, affective, emotional, social, and physical responses to the retailer (Verhoef et al., 2009). Therefore, it is assumed that the perception and evaluation of the experience dimension leads to a certain feeling that strongly influences a consumer’s store choice decision. According to Verhoef et al. (2009) it is important for firms to focus on customer experience, claiming that differentiation strategies based on service and price are no longer sufficient. Thus, customer experience can be seen as an important source of differentiation and competitive advantage.

The five value attributes of the Customer Relevancy Model can be classified as rather functional, emotional, or both. Based on previous research, value attributes such as product, price, and access can be seen as more functional rather than emotional, whereas service and experience can be related to hedonic and emotional benefits, which have been reported to play a more dominant role in shaping customers’ experiences (Lerner et al., 2015). The underlying items of the five value attributes that are the most relevant for this research are displayed in table 1.

Value attribute Functional/Emotional Underlying items

Product Functional Wide and deep assortment, Quality, Freshness, Availability of products, Design

Price Functional Competitive pricing, Compelling promotions, Fair and honest rate plan

Access Functional Convenience of reaching, Convenience of navigating, Maximum opening hours

Service Emotional Customer service, Complaints handling, Loyalty programs, Reliability, Personalization

Experience Emotional Friendly personnel, Clean store, Inspirational atmosphere, Customer intimacy

Table 1. Value attributes and underlying items

(18)

the market more effectively, with deeper insight and, as a result, continue to grow its top line (Crawford, 2000).

However, the broad definition of items should be critically recognized. The items are identified at different levels (functional versus emotional) and therefore it might be difficult to operationalize and measure these items in an accurate manner. Instead, the items have to be clearly identified at the same level so that they can be measured unidimensional. Hence, several items have to be removed in order to enhance the quality of this research. The operationalization and measurement of the underlying items will be further discussed in the fourth chapter.

2.3 Store evaluations

Before consumers decide whether to visit and subsequently become loyal towards a store, they might go through different processes of evaluation. Researchers often represent decision-making and evaluation as processes of accessing and combining attribute information about different alternatives, resulting in different consumer responses, such as store patronage intentions, and store loyalty intentions (Pham, 1998). This section will take a deeper dive into the decision-making process of consumers and resulting consumer behaviour.

2.3.1 Consumer decision-making process

In today’s retail environment, the process of decision-making for consumers has become increasingly complex as retailers get larger, product ranges expand, competition intensifies, and consumer requirements become more sophisticated and diverse (Swindley, 1992; Manjeshwar et al., 2013). In general, the decision-making process of consumers in the retail environment is based on cognitive, affective, and conative aspects. In essence, consumers observe information cues such as store value attributes (cognition) where they get a certain feeling from (affection) that might result in a specific consumer behaviour (conation).

(19)

everyday attempts at avoiding negative feelings and increasing positive feelings. Affect may be used as a source of information in evaluative judgments. In this case, consumers may ask themselves how they feel about the store value attributes, a heuristic that might help them in evaluating a store (Pham, 1998). Finally, conative aspects relate to behavioural consequences and are more easily understood via intention to buy or actual purchase behavior (Aurifeille et al., 2001). In the conative stage of the general decision-making process, consumers acts on the previously thoughts and feelings experienced in the previous stages. This will result in a certain consumer behaviour such as store loyalty intentions, which will be described in section 2.4.

Nowadays, a consumers’ decision-making process can be seen as more emotional rather than cognitive-based (Babin et al., 1994). This was earlier confirmed by Maslow (1968), who demonstrated that consumers are often faced with choices between hedonic and utilitarian goods and emotional desires often dominate functional motives in the choice of products. This was also confirmed by Lerner et al. (2015) who showed that emotions have a significant impact on judgment and decision-making. The different nature of utilitarian and hedonic products may affect the buying process in that the buying process of utilitarian products will be driven mainly by rational buying motives. In the buying process of hedonic products, on the contrary, emotional motives play an important role as well (Sloot et al., 2005).

Kahneman (2012) introduced two thinking systems that work together to generate decisions and actions. In fact, there are two systems consumers can employ when making decisions. First of all, system 1, also related to “low effort” decisions, are automatic, implicit, fast and emotional. In contrast, system 2 is related to “high effort” decisions where consumers make conscious and reasoned decisions in a slow and effortful manner. However, what has to be noticed here is that the unconscious way of thinking (system 1) can be as efficient as the conscious way of thinking. Furthermore, Kahneman (2012) proposes the dominant mode of thinking to be system 1. Although, this study is also based on the conscious way of thinking, system 2, where consumers consciously evaluate a store before they decide whether to visit or whether to become loyal towards a store.

(20)

by Kim and Lennon (2011), over time, consumers develop images of stores, which in turn affect consumers’ decision-making and resulting consumer behaviors. Therefore, an evaluation of store attribute perceptions is not always necessary in order to decide to visit and subsequently become loyal towards a store.

Environmental features affect evaluations of a store and its products as well as in-store behaviours (Spangenberg et al., 1996). Consumers mainly attend to design, social, and ambient environment cues when evaluating stores, because they believe that these cues offer reliable information about product-related attributes such as quality, price, and the overall shopping experience (Baker et al., 2002). For example, in-store music can be seen as a key ambient variable that influences consumers’ affective states. Together with lighting, music evokes a positive affect which results in positive consumer behaviour (Mohan et al., 2013). However, there is a wide diversity across consumer evaluations of shopping experiences which makes it more complex for retailers to create the perfect store environment for the individual customer. Thus, today’s retailers need to create an inspiring environment that will help to achieve optimal results such as maximizing store performance (e.g., store profitability). However, retailers need to be aware of the fact that introducing more sensory cues into a store atmosphere increases the number of touch points but at the same time also increases the risk of sensory overload, possibly leading to customers not approaching the store (Spence et al., 2014).

2.3.2 Consumer behavior

Attitudes towards a specific product or store can be related to a consumers’ behavior resulting from attitude formation. Consumer behavior reflects the totality of consumers’ decisions with respect to the acquisition, consumption, and disposition of goods, services, activities, experiences, people, and ideas by (human) decision-making units (Hoyer et al., 2008). Thus, consumer behavior involves more than solely buying. Hence, it is also important to retailers to get insights into consumer behavior related to the acquisition, usage and disposition behaviors of consumers. Because the sequence of these stages might be dynamic over time, this may be a challenging task for retailers.

(21)

as described earlier in section 2.3.1. Based on consumers’ evaluation of a store, a certain behavior will be demonstrated, which may be either positive, neutral or negative. Regarding customer loyalty intentions, approach and avoidance behaviors are typical examples of positive versus negative behaviors towards a store. Therefore, from a retailer’s perspective, creating a pleasant store environment is essential since emotions that customers experience in a retail environment lead to either approaching or avoiding the store (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982).

Shankar et al. (2011) identified the shopping cycle stages in which retailers can observe consumer behavior. These cycles are subsequently; search, evaluation, category/brand decision, store choice, store navigation, purchase, and post-purchase. Within these stages, store atmospherics affect consumers’ behavior and retailers and manufacturers seek to influence the consumer’s “sensory experience”. The multisensory retail environment shapes customer experience and shopping behavior and shows a general positivity of sensory cues: customers feel better, are more satisfied, and show more favorable behavior as a result of a given sensory cue (Spence et al., 2014). Furthermore, consumers’ behavioral response to the retail environment is mainly based on perceived value, perceived shopping enjoyment, shopping convenience and shopping risk, together resulting in a perceived store image (Sands et al., 2014; Kim and Lennon, 2011). Subsequently, a store image is positively related to store patronage, store loyalty, and shopping expenditures in the store. Therefore, it is critical for retailers to develop and maintain a favourable store image (Kim and Lennon, 2011).

2.4 Store loyalty intentions

It is assumed that consumers’ store choice and subsequent loyalty behavior is based on the perception of a set of attributes collectively playing a critical role in consumers’ behavior. Loyalty has significant value for present and future profits of retailers. However, given that consumers have differing perceptions and needs, efforts to gain and retain customers cannot employ a uniform focus (Velázquez et al., 2011).

(22)

preference, choice and loyalty behaviors, for example whether to purchase a product or not or whether to become loyal towards the store (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003).

However, the attitude and perceptions of consumers towards retail stores are not constant in the sense that they change over time in varying degrees. In a recent study by Thiruvenkada et al. (2014) in examining the effect of price on store patronage, the results showed that consumers switch stores mainly because of price. Previous research also suggests that limited access could be a store attribute negatively influencing store patronage behavior and store loyalty intentions (Rose and Richards, 2004). However, this may be dependent upon the type of store and consumers’ shopping motivation. According to Shah (2011), the location of the store, wide range of merchandise and store ambience can be seen as significant factors in attracting customers to the store. These factors may influence loyalty intentions separately.

Loyalty can be studied from two approaches; behavioral and attitudinal loyalty. Where behavioral loyalty is reflected in repeat purchase, attitudinal loyalty includes recommending the service provider to others and repurchase intentions (Velázquez et al., 2011). Behavioral loyalty is of great importance to retailers since this type of consumer behavior shows that consumers are actually buying. Consumers that show attitudinal loyalty may strengthen the effect of word of mouth promotions, however they do not show actual buying behavior. Hence, consumers may score high on attitudinal loyalty and low on behavioral loyalty. Furthermore, store loyalty can be considered as an indicator as well as a consequence of store brand equity (Chahal and Bala, 2010), as will be discussed in section 2.7. This research mainly focuses on attitudinal intended store loyalty, so when the term ‘intended store loyalty’ is used it is not about behavioral loyalty but only about attitudinal loyalty.

2.5 Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations

Previous research (Jamal and Goode, 2011) has suggested that the relationship between consumers’ perception of store attributes and store evaluations and loyalty intentions can be influenced by individual consumer differences. Therefore, this section will take a deeper dive into consumers’ shopping motivations to explain the relationship with consumer’s store attribute perceptions, store evaluations and intended store loyalty.

(23)

but the effects are moderated by a shoppers’ motivational orientation (Sands et al., 2014). Therefore, to optimize the customer experience as a marketing strategy, retailers must understand consumers’ motivations for purchasing at a specific retailer (Anderson et al., 2014). This is a challenging task, because a consumers’ shopping motivation can be based on many aspects, such as type of shopper, shopping enjoyment, retail attribute preferences, and orientations to product usage (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). The latter focuses on the fundamental human reasons for shopping, which are threefold: to acquire a product, to acquire both a desired product and provide satisfaction with non-product related needs or to primarily attain goals not related to product acquisition, so buying a product for having it bought (Westbrook and Black, 1985). These fundamental reasons for shopping can be linked to utilitarian (product-related) and hedonic (not product-related) motivations for shopping, identified by Hirschman and Holbrook (1982).

Utilitarian consumption has often been characterized as task-related and rational and is closely linked to whether or not a product acquisition “mission” was accomplished (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). So this type of motivation is about the mere acquisition of products and the effort to solve problems and address needs and wants through cognitively processing product information. In contrast, hedonic consumption can be defined as those facets of behavior that relate to the multisensory, fantasy, and emotive aspects of consumption, so more related to the pleasure of shopping (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). For consumers motivated by hedonic consumption, the shopping experience itself is important (Babin et al., 1994). Furthermore, hedonic motivations can be either purchase-oriented or non-purchase oriented (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). Purchase-oriented consumers are more likely to purchase and are generally involved in value shopping (i.e. looking for discounts) and role shopping (i.e. shopping for family and friends). On the contrary, non-purchase consumers are less likely to purchase and more likely to browse. These type of consumers often shop for adventure and gratification. Furthermore, shoppers driven by a larger set of hedonic motivations may pay attention to a larger set of retail attributes such as merchandise displays and in-store promotions, thereby having a larger number of inputs in the decision-making process (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003).

(24)

motivations than males. Furthermore, the shopping motivation of consumers might also vary by the day of the week and time of the day, the time of the year, and the location of the provider (Sands et al., 2014). Consumers’ shopping motivations are in line with consumer’s goal with shopping and shopping value. The latter results either from successfully accomplishing its intended goal – utilitarian shopping value – or by providing enjoyment and/or fun – hedonic shopping value – which will be discussed further in the following section.

2.6 Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value

The number of attributes a consumer would use when forming attitudes toward stores is varying considerably by store type (Thiruvenkada et al., 2014). In this research, store type is determined by the segmentation of consumer goods. The basic benefits of a consumer good can be identified as utilitarian and/or hedonic (Sloot et al., 2005). Utilitarian goods are related to non-sensory, functional attributes and focus on the instrumental expectations a consumer has about the product (Batra and Ahtola, 1991). In contrast, the hedonic perspective includes the psychological experiences that accompany product usage. Experiential shopping (i.e. having customers sense, feel think, and act) is a hedonic shopping value referring to the desire for an enjoyable and entertaining shopping experience (Anderson et al., 2014). Typical hedonic goods are multisensory and provide pleasure, fun and excitement to the consumer. Therefore, hedonic responses may be viewed as the essence of usage experience (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Although a clear distinction can be made between hedonic and utilitarian goods, different products can be high or low in both hedonic and utilitarian attributes at the same time. The segmentation of consumer goods is in line with consumers’ goal accuracy, resulting from the underlying shopping motivation, either hedonic, utilitarian or both.

(25)

Figure 1 shows four different product categories based on two dimensions, (1) Hedonic level: the extent to which a product is perceived by the consumer as fully hedonic (i.e. ‘want products’) and (2) Utilitarian level: the extent to which a product is perceived by the consumer as fully utilitarian (i.e. ‘need products’). The first product category (low hedonic and high utilitarian) consists of products with a clear utilitarian nature. Functional products such as eggs, milk, margarine and detergent belong to this category (Sloot et al., 2005). These products are often consumed in a short period of time. Next, the second quadrant (low hedonic and low utilitarian) includes products that score low on the hedonic dimension as well as the utilitarian dimension. Examples are coke, coffee and orange juice. Furthermore, the third category (high hedonic and high utilitarian) demonstrates that products can be both equally hedonic and utilitarian in nature at the same time, as mentioned earlier. Examples of products are shampoo (nice smell versus cleaning hair) and books (informative versus recreational). Finally, the fourth quadrant (high hedonic and low utilitarian) consists of products that have a clear hedonic nature providing fun, pleasure and excitement to the consumer. Examples of fully hedonic goods are ice cream, chocolate, and flowers. These products are often consumed over time (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982).

The segmentation of consumer goods is determined by the perception of the consumer. Thus, similar to identifying shopping motivations, the segmentation of consumer goods is based on individual consumer difference. For example, a consumer buying a new watch may care more about hedonic attributes (e.g., display) than about utilitarian attributes (e.g., time-related features). As a result, one consumer will perceive this product as more hedonic, while another consumer perceives this product as more utilitarian. Generally, based on the segmentation of consumer goods, store type (level of utilitarianism or hedonism) can be determined. In general, a grocery store (e.g., Albert Heijn) can be seen as a typical utilitarian store. However, grocery stores also sell products that have a high hedonic level, such as ice cream, beer and chips. In contrast, an example of a typical hedonic store is a shoe store (e.g. Scapino) since this type of store provides fun and pleasure to consumers. Though, as earlier mentioned in line with the classification of consumer goods, also store type is determined by consumers’ perception and depends on consumers’ purpose for shopping.

(26)

shopping orientations (Anderson et al., 2014), previous research suggests that it is important for retailers to focus on both task-related worth (i.e., utilitarian shopping value) and emotional worth (i.e., hedonic shopping value) to avoid customer defection (Shukla and Babin, 2013). Thus, both utilitarian and hedonic shopping orientations are important influences on consumer evaluations of shopping experiences and shopper behavior. Jones et al. (2006) state that focusing solely on utilitarian shopping value is not a sufficient condition for building store loyalty.

2.7 Store brand equity

Since there is little empirical research which has focused on the relationships between store brand equity and consumers’ responses (Buil et al., 2013), this research also takes into account the moderating role of store brand equity in the relationship between store evaluations and intended store loyalty.

(27)

3. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

Based upon the theories and concepts explained in the previous chapter, this section provides the conceptual framework and the hypotheses relating to the different variables. In addition, this chapter will elaborate further on the expected relationships. The conceptual framework integrating all hypotheses is presented in figure 2.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework

This research will measure consumers’ store attribute perceptions, based on the dimensions set by the Customer Relevancy Model, and look at their relationship with consumers’ intended store loyalty. Furthermore, it will be analyzed if this relationship is mediated by consumers’ evaluation of the store and moderated by hedonic shopping value, consumers’ hedonic shopping motivations and store brand equity.

(28)

Based on the discussion above, it is expected that store attribute perceptions are positively related to consumers’ intentions to become loyal towards a store. It is expected that a positive consumers’ perception of store value attributes is related to a higher intention to become loyal. Vice versa, a more negative perception of store attributes will be related to a lower intention to become loyal. Hence, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H1: Consumers’ perception of a) product, b) price, c) access, d) service and e)

experience level is positively related to consumers’ intended store loyalty.

Previous research (Verhoef et al., 2009) state that the customer experience construct is holistic in nature and involves the consumers’ cognitive, affective, emotional, social, and physical responses to the retailer. It is assumed that the perception and evaluation of the experience dimension leads to a certain feeling that strongly influences consumers’ store choice decision. Furthermore, previous research (Spangenberg et al., 1996) has shown that consumers’ evaluation of a store might be dependent upon many factors such as design, social and ambient environment cues. These factors influence consumers’ affective states, resulting in a positive, negative or neutral store evaluation. Therefore, it is expected that consumers’ perception of store attributes is positively related to consumers’ evaluation of a store. Thus, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H2: Consumers’ perception of a) product, b) price, c) access, d) service, and e)

experience level is positively related to consumers’ store evaluation.

Mehta et al. (2013) already demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between store evaluations and store patronage intentions. So a positive store evaluation is associated with a higher store patronage intention. It was already shown that store loyalty behavior results from a consumers’ behavioral intent (Kim and Lennon, 2011). Since loyalty behavior is reflected in repeat purchase and repurchase intentions, it is somewhat different from patronage intentions. Therefore, in this research it will be tested whether store evaluation is positively related to consumers’ intended store loyalty. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3: There will be a positive relationship between consumers’ store evaluation and

intended store loyalty.

(29)

process of consumers since affect may be used as a source of information in evaluative judgments and consumers use their feelings to guide their decisions (Pham, 1998; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Since affection may have an important role in the decision-making process of consumers, it is expected that there is a positively mediating role of store evaluations influencing the relationship between store attribute perceptions and intended store loyalty. Hence, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H4: Consumers’ store evaluation will positively mediate the relationship between

consumers’ store attribute perceptions and consumers’ intended store loyalty.

As was mentioned earlier in the literature review, value attributes such as service and experience are more hedonic in nature, whereas value attributes as product, price and access are assumed to be more utilitarian (functional) in nature. Jones et al. (2006) showed that focusing solely on utilitarian shopping value is not enough to build store loyalty. Hence, it is assumed that hedonic shopping value is an important influence on intended store loyalty, especially for hedonic value attributes such as service and experience. Therefore:

H5: The relationship between consumers’ store attribute perceptions of a) service level

and b) experience level and intended store loyalty is positively moderated by the hedonic shopping value provided by the store.

Since hedonic shopping value refers to providing fun and enjoyment and creating an entertaining shopping experience (Anderson et al, 2014), it is assumed that the moderating influence of hedonic shopping value is larger for premium stores than for discount stores since premium stores are assumed to have a higher level of store brand equity and therefore are more likely to have the knowledge and resources to build and subsequently manage customer loyalty. Therefore, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H5c: The positively moderating influence of hedonic shopping value on the

relationship between consumers’ store attribute perceptions and intended store loyalty is stronger for premium stores.

(30)

larger set of retail attributes such as merchandise displays and in-store promotions, thereby having a larger number of inputs in the decision-making process (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). Therefore, it is expected that the relationship between store attribute perceptions and store evaluations is stronger for consumers with hedonic shopping motivations.Hence, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H6: Hedonic shopping motivations of consumers will positively moderate the

relationship between store attribute perceptions and consumers’ store evaluation.

Several studies assume that store brand equity positively affects consumer evaluations and consumer responses such as purchase intentions and loyalty intentions (Buil et al., 2013). Therefore, it is expected that a store with high store brand equity positively influence a firms’ performance through its influence on consumers’ responses towards stores (Buil et al., 2013). Hence, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H7a: Store brand equity will positively moderate the relationship between store attribute

perceptions and consumer’s intended store loyalty.

H7b: Store brand equity will positively moderate the relationship between store

(31)

4. Methodology

To test the conceptual framework presented in the previous chapter, an empirical research is performed. This chapter will specify the methodology of this research. First, the research design and the method of data collection will be described, followed by the questionnaire design and the measurements of the different variables. Furthermore, the testing methods in order to measure the variables will be elaborated on.

4.1 Research design

This research investigates the relationship between consumers’ store attribute perceptions and consumers’ store loyalty intentions. In order to test the conceptual framework together with the hypotheses developed in the previous chapter, a quantitative research will be employed. Data will be obtained through an online questionnaire in which participants will be asked about their shopping motives, store attribute perceptions, store evaluations and their loyalty intentions towards a specific retail store. Online questionnaires offer many advantages, such as fast and inexpensive data collection and convenience for participants (Malhotra, 2010). However, a possible drawback of this design is that people do not always act in the same way they claim that they would. This limitation might lower external validity of reported behaviour in the study.

(32)

High-end utilitarian Albert Heijn High-end hedonic De Schoenenfabriek Low-end utilitarian Aldi Low-end hedonic Scapino

Table 2. Segmentation of retailers

This research will be done through four different questionnaires that will be distributed online among men and women living in the Netherlands, aged from 18 – 85 years. The choice is made to only send the survey to Dutch consumers, since the retailers involved in this research are generally located in the Netherlands and have most customers that live in the Netherlands. Furthermore, this group of participants is expected to regularly have to deal with visiting a physical store within the grocery and/or fashion industry. Moreover, the participants have to be familiar with the stores in order to provide reliable and valid responses to the questionnaire.

A total of at least 200 participants (minimum of 50 respondents for each category) is required for this research to come up with statistically significant results. A snowball-sampling technique will be used since this technique generates exposure, presumably leading to more people participating. Since the online questionnaire will be mainly distributed via social media, participants will be able to share the link of the questionnaire in their social network. Before distributing the online questionnaire, a pre-test will be done to validate the effectiveness of the instrument and the value of the questions to elicit the right information. Furthermore it was checked if the questionnaire was understandable for participants. After the pre-testing phase, the questionnaire will be adapted and distributed.

(33)

Table 3. Sampling techniques

4.2 Participants

This research consists of 260 participants, 31.6% male and 68.4 % female. The age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 77 years old. Furthermore, the level of education of the respondents ranged from LBO (2.1%), Mavo (3.7%), MBO (26.4%), Havo/Vwo (12.4), and HBO (32.7%) to WO (22.7%). The dataset mainly contains data from higher educated individuals. An explanation for this might be the larger number of students that participated

4.3 Measurements

To measure the variables in this research, different scale items from the Marketing Scales Handbook (Bruner II, 2009) will be used. Before taking a deep dive into the measurements of the research constructs, a closer look to the questionnaire will be essential. The online questionnaire starts with a short introduction about the purpose of the research together with information about what is expected from the participants and the average time that it will take to fill out the questionnaire. The questionnaire will consist of seven parts. In the first part, the participants’ hedonic shopping motives are measured. In the second part, participants are presented with a number of shopping characteristics of which participants have to indicate to what extent they are applicable to them, regarding shopping for groceries or shoes. The third

Store Sampling technique Advantages Limitations Albert Heijn Online (Social media) Fast, convenient,

inexpensive

Mainly students, people who are not familiar with the store, might lead to inaccurate answers.

Aldi Online (Social media) Fast, convenient, inexpensive

Mainly students, people who are not familiar with the store, might lead to inaccurate answers.

De Schoenenfabriek Online news letter

Online (Social media)

Reach people that are familiar with the store, leading to reliable and accurate answers Fast, convenient, inexpensive

Expensive, in general low response rate

Might be inaccurate and might lead to unreliable answers

Scapino Online (Social media)

Physical store

Fast, convenient, inexpensive

Reach people that are familiar with the store, leading to reliable and accurate answers

(34)

part consists of several statements about store attributes and aims at measuring consumers’ perceptions towards these attributes. Next, the fourth part consists of statements measuring store brand equity. The fifth part consists of several statements that measure the consumers’ evaluation of the store, followed by the six part consisting of questions about the participants’ loyalty intentions toward the store in question. The final part of the questionnaire consists of several questions related to the demographics of the participant, together with other questions involving control variables, such as store familiarity and distance to the store. After completion of the questionnaire, participants will be thanked for their participation. All participants will receive an identical questionnaire. The full questionnaire can be found in appendix 1. Since the questionnaires are identical for each of the four retail stores, only an example of the questionnaire for Albert Heijn is included.

4.3.1 Measuring hedonic shopping motivations

Hedonic shopping motives and various ways to measure them have been frequently studied in previous literature (Anderson et al., 2014; Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Sands et al., 2014). In the questionnaire, participants’ hedonic shopping motivations were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, based on previous research by Arnold and Reynolds (2003). The statements that were asked in the questionnaire were the following:

 To me, shopping is an adventure  Shopping is stimulating to me

 Shopping makes me feel like I am in my own universe

These statements measure the extent to which a participant expresses a tendency to shop for the arousal and excitement it brings.

4.3.2 Measuring hedonic shopping value

(35)

4.3.3 Measuring store attribute perceptions

In order to measure respondents’ store attribute perceptions, multiple statements were formulated on the basis of the underlying items of the Customer Relevancy Model by Crawford and Mathews (2003). As mentioned earlier in section 2.2, several items have to be removed to measure the items in an accurate manner. Subsequently, each dimension was divided into two aspects that in turn consist of three underlying constructs that were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. This resulted in a total of 30 statements. An overview of the statements is included in appendix 2.

4.3.4 Measuring store brand equity

The questionnaire also consisted of items to measure dimensions of store brand equity. Previous research (Arnett et al. 2003; Yoo et al., 2000) already used scale items measuring brand equity. However the main focus of these studies were brands instead of stores. Since this research measures brand equity from the store perspective, the items from previous research were slightly adapted. The scale is composed of four five-point Likert scale questions, measuring the relative value of a specific store to a consumer compared to similar competing stores due to its name and above and beyond its features and quality (Bruner II, 2009). The four items used in the scale are the following:

 It makes sense to buy at store X instead of buying at another store, even if they are the same.

 Even if another store has the same features as store X, I would prefer to buy store X.  If there is another store as good as store X, I prefer to buy at store X.

 If another store is not different from store X in any way, it seems smarter to purchase at store X.

In the questionnaire, the ‘X’ was replaced by the name of the store. The participants were asked to rate the statements on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

4.3.5 Measuring store evaluations

(36)

4.3.6 Measuring intended store loyalty

Store loyalty was measured several times in previous research (Hess, 1998; Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Agustin et al., 2005; Nijssen et al., 2003; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Zeithaml et al., 1996). Based on previous research on store loyalty, in total 6 items were constructed. All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questions measured the level of psychological commitment a consumer has to shopping at a certain store. First, participants were asked the following:

 I could easily switch from this store to another store  I am a committed shopper at this store

 I feel a sense of loyalty to this store

Next, three 7-point Likert questions were used to measure the respondents’ expressed likelihood of shopping at a specific retail store in the future. The scale items that were used are the following: How likely are you to:

 Do most of your future shopping at this store?

 Use this store the very next time you need to shop for an item?  Spend more than 50% of your budget at this store?

4.3.7 Control variables

In order to extract possible confounds and to give additional information about the main influence and the interaction effects represented in the conceptual framework, important control variables will be identified. Furthermore, control variables are likely to give a description of the participants and to provide insights in the representativeness of the sample compared to the total population in the Netherlands. At the end of the questionnaire the following questions were asked:

 What is your gender?

This is a nominal variable with the answer possibilities: Male (0) and Female (1).  What is your age?

This is an open question resulting in interval data.  What is your gross monthly income?

(37)

> 50000 Euros per month. Furthermore, the answer possibility ‘No answer’ is included since participants may think that this is private information.

 Wat is the highest level of education you have completed (or what is your current level of education)?

This is a nominal variable with an 8-point scale. The answer possibilities are: no education, basic education, LBO, MAVO, Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO), HAVO/VWO, Hoger Beroepsonderwijs (HBO), and Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (WO).

Besides asking questions about the participant’s demographics, several questions were formulated concerning the participants’ familiarity of the store, intended store loyalty behaviour, and the distance to the store. The following questions were asked:

 I am highly familiar with the store

This is an ordinal variable with a 7-point Likert scale. The answer possibilities range from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

 Out of five times you shop for groceries/shoes, how often do you choose to visit store X? This is a nominal variable with a 6-point scale. The answer possibilities are: never, once, two times, three times, four times, and five times.

 What is the average distance between your place of residence and the store?

This is a nominal variable with a 5-point scale. The answer possibilities are: < 1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-5 and > 5 kilometers.

4.4 Plan of analysis

The plan of analysis consists of three parts. At first, participants’ demographics will be analyzed. This consists of describing the sample by using demographic variables and control variables that are included in the online questionnaire. Furthermore, it will be checked if the sample corresponds with the population in the Netherlands by checking the data of the Central Bureau of Statistics of the Netherlands. Secondly, basic insights will be generated by checking reliability of the items scales and looking at correlations between the constructs. Finally, the hypotheses and model will be tested.

4.4.1 Descriptive analysis

(38)

this is only possible with nominal variables. Since income is an interval variable, this variable needs to be transformed into a nominal variable by creating different age groups: 18-34, 35-49, and 50+. Furthermore, to determine if the sample can be compared to a larger population, the sample will be compared to data of the Central Bureau of Statistics of the Netherlands. On the basis of these pre-insights, the decision will be made whether the data needs to be weighted to get a more representative sample. Finally, insights will be gained into control variables concerning the participants’ familiarity with the store, intended store loyalty behaviour and distance to the store.

4.4.2 Basic analysis and pre-insights

Basic insights are gained in store attribute perceptions, store evaluations, intended store loyalty, hedonic shopping motivations, hedonic shopping value, and store brand equity. These concepts are measured on the basis of multi-item scales. Multiple items (30 statements) were used to measure store attribute perceptions. The average of these questions can be used to compute a single new variable. However, since the items do not measure the same construct, it is more appropriate to conduct a factor analysis. This type of analysis is used to reduce the number of items by creating different factors. However, in order to combine these items into factors, the internal consistency or reliability between these items needs to be sufficient. To measure internal consistency between multi-item scales, Cronbach’s Alpha is measured. This value should be at least 0.70 in order to combine the items. Furthermore, what is important before testing the hypotheses and model of this research is to test for normality, since many tests require that the data is normally distributed. Whether the data is normally distributed can be analyzed by looking at skewness and kurtosis of the distribution. Finally, to gain pre-insights into relationships between the concepts, correlations will be analyzed.

4.4.3 Testing hypotheses

STUDYING STORE PERCEPTIONS

STUDYING STORE PERCEPTIONS

The relationships between consumers’ store attribute perceptions,

store evaluations and intended store loyalty

STUDYING STORE PERCEPTIONS

The relationships between consumers’ store attribute perceptions,

store evaluations and intended store loyalty

Management summary

Preface

Table of contents

List of tables and figures

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

3. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

4. Methodology