Brand Image Transfer from National Brand to its Private
Label Lookalike and the consequences
Mathijs Preenen
Master Thesis
Brand Image Transfer from National Brand to its Private
Label Lookalike and the consequences
Management Summary
The time when private labels could only be found on the bottom shelves of
supermarkets is long gone. Today, private labels are brand substitutes rather than simply product substitutes. This reflects in the remarkable growth of private label shares in the Netherlands and other countries, from 19% in 2002 to 25% in 2008. There are several antecedents for the success of private labels in the Netherlands, starting with the price war of 2003 which has been the starting signal for many Dutch retailers to increase private label programs. Consequently, the quality of these
products have increased tremendously, which has resulted in a decreased quality gap between national brands and private labels (Omar, 1994; Quelch and Harding, 1996). According to several authors (e.g. Richardson et al. 1996; Hoch and Banjeri, 1993; Steenkamp and Dekimpe, 1997), focus on quality is the optimal strategy for private labels, in stead of focus on price. Especially quality conscious consumers are attracted to high quality private labels, since they derive more utility from high quality products but are not likely to pay price premiums because they tend to search for information about product quality (Rao and Bergen, 1992). In general, recessions increase attitude towards private labels. The expected economic decline of 3.5% in 2009 could lead to increased focus on price and proneness of consumers to try and find better deals (Liu and Wang, 2008; Sinha and Batra, 1999). Furthermore, private labels are benefiting from retailers' investments in store image (Semeijn et al. 2004). Van der Hoeven (2008) defines different groups of private labels, of which private label lookalikes are the subject of our research. Private label lookalikes thank their name to their most important feature: the copying of extrinsic cues of national brands. According to Daniels (1998), retailers try to exploit the carefully created brand image of national brands. An easy method of creating a quality image for their private label products. Although many national brand manufacturers are hesitant to legally sue the suppliers of their products, clear dangers are present. For example, it is easier to copy package features than it is to copy actual quality, which could lead to negative associations carried over from the private label to the national brand. Positive
experiences with lookalikes are also harmful for national brands, since they can lead to decreased national brand evaluations or even erosion of brand prestige.
Furthermore, consumers could perceive the price of national brands as unfair,
An important effect of brand image is anthropomorphism, the tendency to give human attributes to objects (Riezebos, 2002). When this occurs, a brand is expressed in terms of human characteristics. That is why we tried to measure the brand
personalities of two national brands in two Dutch retail stores to answer the problem statement of this research: ''Does brand image transfer occur when private labels copy extrinsic cues of national brands?''. We also measured the brand personalities of private label lookalikes and two regular private labels of these two stores. The national brands in this research are Calvé peanut butter and Ariel Color liquid detergent, the retail stores are Albert Heijn and Jumbo. After collecting the results from our online questionnaire (n=157), a correlation analysis between the brand personality scores of the national brands and the private label lookalikes indicated that three out of four lookalikes showed high resemblance in brand personality. The other lookalike brand (Ariel lookalike of AH) showed resemblance with the national brand to a lower extend. None of the regular private labels showed resemblance in brand personality with the national brands and therefore we conclude that brand image can indeed be transferred when a private label copies extrinsic cues of a national brand.
Retailers and their private labels are profiting from the fast method of image building. We researched the effect of brand personality resemblance on consumer evaluations of price unfairness, willingness to purchase and perceived quality of the private label lookalikes. We expected the perceived quality and willingness to purchase to be higher and price unfairness to be lower when the brand personality resembles that of a national brand. We could not find the expected effect of brand personality
resemblance on perceived price unfairness. However, resemblance in brand personality can lead to higher perceived quality and willingness to purchase. The competence construct (consisting of the personality traits reliable, intelligent and successful) seems to be the highest influencer of perceived quality. The excitement construct (consisting of the traits daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date) is the most relevant influencer of willingness to purchase.
Furthermore, our findings indicate that the effect of brand personality resemblance on perceived quality is higher for consumers with low price consciousness. This
Preface
After having finished my bachelor of commerce in 2006 in three years, I decided to enlarge and deepen my knowledge by starting a new study. During the last three years, the decision to start studying Business Administration and Marketing Management in particular turned out to be the right choice for me. My period as a student in Groningen helped me develop from a professional as well as a personal point of view. Moreover, I really enjoyed my time at the university of Groningen. The last hurdle that students have to take before they receive their master degree, is writing a master thesis. After having worked on my thesis for more than six months, the end is finally within sight. I consider the report which lies in front of you as an important milestone in my personal and professional life.
This preface gives me the opportunity to thank the people which supported me during the sometimes difficult moments that I had in the last couple of months. First of all, I would like to thank my first supervisor, Dr. Laurens Sloot for his useful feedback and advice which has led to this final version of my master thesis. Furthermore, I would like to thank my parents, friends and girlfriend for their support and understanding in this period. I could not have done it without them!
Mathijs Preenen
Table of content
Management Summary...3 Preface...5 1. Introduction...7 1.1 Problem statement...9 2. Private Label...102.1 Antecedents of private label success...11
2.1.1 Price war...11
2.1.2 Private label quality...12
2.1.3 Quality consciousness...13
2.1.4 Price consciousness...13
2.1.5 Store image...14
2.1.6 Innovation by manufacturers ...15
2.1.7 Conclusion...15
2.2 Private Label lookalikes...15
2.2.1 Background...16
2.2.2 Implications for national brand manufacturers...17
2.2.3 Defence against lookalikes...18
2.2.4 Perceptual confusion...18
2.2.5 Conclusions...19
3. Brand Image ...19
3.1 Brand Image Transfer...20
3.2 Brand Personality by Aaker ...21
3.3 Gender Dimensions of brand personality...22
3.4 Free association techniques...23
3.5 Conclusion...23
4. Structure...24
4.1 Effect of National Brand Image...24
4.2 Effect of quality consciousness...25
4.3 Effect of price consciousness ...25
4.4 Effect of store image...26
4.5 Conceptual framework...27
5. Methodology...28
5.1 Research design...28
5.3 Independent variables...29
5.4 Dependant variables...30
5.4.1 Brand personality...30
5.4.2 Perceived quality...31
5.4.3 Willingness to purchase...31
5.4.4 Perceived price fairness...31
5.4.5 Quality consciousness...32
5.4.6 Price consciousness...32
5.4.7 Store Image...32
5.5 Data collection...33
5.6 (Pre)Testing the questionnaire ...35
6. Results ...36 6.1 Sample ...36 6.2 Factor analysis...37 6.3 Reliability...37 6.4 Descriptive results...39 6.4.1 Brand Personality ...40 6.4.2 Product perceptions...41
6.4.3 Quality and price consciousness...43
6.4.4 Store Image...43
7. Hypotheses testing...44
7.1 Brand Personality...44
7.2 Product perceptions...46
7.3 Consumer consciousness ...54
7.4 Consumer price consciousness...55
7.5 Store Image...55
8. Conclusions and implications...57
8.1 Conclusions...57
8.1 Implications...59
8.2 Limitations and recommendations for further research ...60
References...61
Appendix 1: Questionnaire...64
Appendix 2: Correlation analysis brand personality ...67
Appendix 3: Factor analyses...68
1. Introduction
´´De tijd dat je de elfstedentocht alleen maar kon winnen met pindakaas van Calvé is voorbij´´ (The time when one could only win the elfstedentocht with Calvé peanut butter is no more).
The quote of private label expert Koen de Jong of IPLC (2007) illustrates the situation in the fast moving consumer goods (fmcg) market today. Private Labels are no longer product alternatives but rather brand alternatives and the times when Private Label products were simply functional and hidden at the bottom of supermarket shelves are long gone (Davies, 1998). As a result, the market share of private label products in the Netherlands has grown from 19% in 2002 to 25% in 2008 (excluding fresh products). In many other countries, the market share of private label is even higher, for example 40% in Germany, 42% in Belgium, 43% in Great Britain and 54% in Sweden (Distrifood, 29-4-2009). The market shares of private label in these surrounding countries could be a sign for even further private label growth in the Netherlands in the future.
Moreover, the Netherlands are in recession. The economic decline is expected to be 3,5% in 2009 and 0,25% in 2010. This is mainly due to the decline in export of Dutch products, which is estimated to be 10,75% compared to last year (CPB, 17-3-2009). During difficult economic times when the disposable income of consumers is
decreasing, down trading from national brands to private label products is bound to occur. Consumers tend to purchase more private label products in stead of national brands. According to Lamey et al (2007), consumers move faster to private label in recession than back to national brands after the recession. This implies that private label is gaining ground on national brands with each economic downturn.
Next to economic reasons, private label is gaining ground on national brands because of other reasons, like lower perceived quality distance in combination with high price premiums. Next to competition from differentiating Private Labels, most national brands experience competition from non-differentiated Private Label brands. In many categories, Dutch supermarkets have adopted a strategy of copying national brands. Among others, Davies (1998) argues that the quickest and easiest way for a retailer to establish a quality image for its own brands is to ‘’ape up’’ the extrinsic cues of an established national brand. Private Label packaging and display used to emphasize the retailer’s logo and colours throughout the entire range. Today,
most consumers (Kapferer, 1995; Burt and Davis, 1999) or even influences customers beliefs that the national brand and private label have a common origin (Loken et al, 1986) This is mainly because shoppers rely heavily on extrinsic cues when evaluating products (Richardson et al., 1994; Kapferer 1995). The leading retailer in the Netherlands, Albert Heijn, is one of the best examples of a retailer that copies national branded products. Many AH Private Label products match national brands on package design, labels and ingredients, which could be confusing for consumers. By copying the national brand, retailers profit from high research and development costs made by manufacturers, as well as the costs that manufacturers have to make for failed introductions (Van der Hoeven, 2008). Although
manufacturers do complain about copying private labels, they are often hesitant to sue their biggest customers out of fear for reprisals and because the legal system does not provide manufacturers with much legal protection (Davies, 1998; Burt and Davis, 1999). Davies (1998) accuses national brand-copying retailers for doing nothing less than ‘’stealing brand image’’ from its own suppliers. To investigate if the harsh accusation of Davies is founded, this report focuses on this aspect of the competition between national brands and private labels, by researching whether private label lookalike products do not only adopt the extrinsic cues of national brands but consequently also the brand image of the national brand. If this is indeed the case, it would mean that private label lookalikes are profiting from national
brand’s image building efforts such as advertisement, promotions and sponsorships. This assumption could have important implications for retailers and manufacturers in deciding the optimal strategy for their brands. To the best of our knowing, no past research has been done on (unapproved) brand image transfer from a national brand to its private label lookalike and hopefully this report provides national brand manufacturers with better insights on facing private label lookalike competition. After discussing the problem statement and research questions, this report continues by elaborating on the most relevant literature on antecedents of private label success in this context, followed by literature concerning private label lookalikes. Chapter 3 covers the aspects of brand image transfer and brand personality. In chapter 4, the hypotheses which we want to test are described followed by the conceptual model. Chapter 5 describes the methodology of the research. Chapter 6 describes the
1.1 Problem statement
The first and most important step in a marketing research project is always the defining of the problem definition. Only when the marketing research problem has been clearly defined, can research be designed and conducted properly (Malholtra, 2004; p. 33). In this report, the marketing research problem is:
‘’Does brand image transfer occur when private labels copy extrinsic cues of national brands?’’
Besides the problem statement, we have also defined some sub questions: 1. What are the antecedents of private label success?
2. Do these antecedents affect the attitude towards private label lookalikes? 3. Do national brands unwillingly cooperate in increasing perceptions of lookalike
brands?
2. Private Label
To explain the definition of private label (or store brand), it is first important to give the definition of a brand in general. Keller (2007) defines the term brand as followed: ''A name, term, symbol, design or a combination of these elements intended to identify goods and services and to differentiate them from those of competitors.'' A simple online encyclopaedia (enclyclo.nl) defines private label as ''a brand-name used by a chain of stores to sell products, equal to the stores own name''. Although this does describe the meaning of private label, the goal of it is missing. Therefore, we use the definition of Semeijn et al. (2004) in this report, who describe store brands as ''brands that are exclusive to a particular store chain and compete with major manufacturer brands in several product categories.''
Private labels can be divided into four groups (van der Hoeven, 2008):
• Generic private labels: Cheap, simple products without brand features.
• Copycat private labels: Private labels copied from national brands. Good quality against fair prices, 'me too' products. Available in many product categories
• Premium private labels: High quality products, mostly available in fresh categories
• Value innovators: Private label products with strong price-quality correlation, typical store brands.
This report will focus on one group, the copycat private labels (or: lookalikes). From the definition of a brand, described by Keller (2007) it can be derived that an
important aspect of branding is to differentiate a brand or product from competitors. Interestingly enough, the private label lookalikes are doing the opposite by adopting extrinsic aspects of national brands. To explain the performance of this group of private labels, first antecedents of the remarkable success of private label in recent years will be explained. To maintain a focussed framework, only the antecedents which are relevant in this context are mentioned. After that, the relevant theory on private label lookalikes is described. Furthermore, this report will discuss relevant theory on brand image followed by empirical research on the brand personality of private label lookalikes and its effects.
2.1 Antecedents of private label success
The 20th century was the era of national brands, who offered quality, security and
National brands were powerful and forced their will upon the grocers, who were in fact nothing more than vendors of national brands. During the 1970s, the grocery stores started developing into national operating retailers and today, many retailers are larger and more powerful than national brand manufacturers. A result is that the traditional roles of manufacturers and retailers have changed. Where retailers used to position private labels as being low-priced and unpretentious, today they are
positioned by retailers as genuine brands. No longer are consumers with low budgets the only private label customers. Two in three households are purchasing private labels (van der Hoeven, 2008). The retailers prefer selling private labels above national brands because of the higher profit margins compared to national brands, the ability of private label to create leverage to negotiate lower wholesale prices on national brands and increased store loyalty of consumers generated through private label (Ailawadi, 2001). Quelch and Harding (1996) also describe the stronger
negotiating positioning that a private label program can provide for the retailer.
Although Ailawadi (2001) claims that having a competitive national brand assortment is a crucial success factor for every retailer’s profitability, national brands are under severe pressure by the rise of private label products. In this chapter, antecedents for private label success will be discussed by investigating existing literature on the matter.
2.1.1 Price war
In the 1970’s, Albert Heijn was market leader in the Dutch supermarket sector. It dominated the market with a market share of almost twice the size of its major competitors. Albert Heijn abused its strong position in the Netherlands by driving prices and thus maximizing profits. In 2003, Albert Heijn was perceived as high service, but also high prized and was under pressure because of this perception. In response, the newly appointed CEO Andres Moberg (former CEO of IKEA), decided to start a price and service offensive. Prices of around 1,000 product were drastically decreased (up to 30%). And so, on the 20th of October 2003, a price war broke out
convinced of the quality of private labels, and so the supermarket price war is an important antecedent of private label success in the Netherlands.
2.1.2 Private label quality
Because private labels are historically followers in stead of innovators and have lower marketing budgets, manufacturers of national brands tend to view private labels not in the same way as they do national brand competitors. This complacency is dangerous, because private label quality is a higher estimator for private label success than low price is. The optimal strategy for retailers is not to focus on low prices, but on high quality (Richardson et al. 1996; Hoch and Banjeri, 1993; Steenkamp and Dekimpe, 1997). Where private labels were in the bottom of
supermarket shelves a few decades ago, the quality gap has decreased substantially in the last 20 years (Quelch and Harding, 1996). Sinha and Batra (1999) state that the premium that consumers are willing to pay for national branded products
depends on the quality-price association of the product category and perceived risk of making incorrect product choices in a category. Abe (1995) suggests that the quality of national brands should exceed that of private label product in order to justify a price premium. The fact that Omar (1994) pointed out that 20% of the private label brands he included in his blind tasting research were evaluated as being of higher quality than the comparable national brand by consumers, is bad news for manufacturers. Furthermore, 62% of the products were evaluated of being of at least equal quality as the comparable national brand. Only when the brand characteristics were revealed, did preference towards national brands increase. This means that although perceived quality of national brands is still higher, actual quality is equal in many cases. This is supported by Bronnenberg and Wathieu (2001) who conclude that the perceived quality distance between private label and national brands is in too many cases far greater than actual quality distance, while price differences remain substantial. Consumers find product quality an important factor when making purchase decisions. By decreasing the perceived quality distance, retailers have eliminated an important reason for consumers to buy national brands (Steenkamp and Dekimpe, 1997).
2.1.3 Quality consciousness
means that buyers are not always fully informed about the quality of products. A price premium is the excess price paid over and above the 'fair' price, the price which is justified by the actual quality level of a product. The willingness to pay a price premium is driven by the consumer's desire for quality. Consumers derive utility or benefit from every product unit they purchase. The degree of utility derived from a product is influenced by the quality of a product as well as the buyers' quality
consciousness. Quality conscious consumers derive more utility from higher quality products and will therefore search for information about a products quality. Less quality conscious consumers are more likely to pay a price premium because the costs of search outweigh the benefits they derive from the search. Rao and Bergen (1992) claim that honest sellers are rewarded with price premiums by consumers while dishonest sellers are punished by denying them future sales. As stated in the former paragraph, the quality of private labels is approaching that of national brands against lower prices. With this development, quality conscious consumers could be more likely to purchase high quality private label products.
2.1.4 Price consciousness
In 2009, the Netherlands are in recession. The economic decline will be 3.5% in 2009 and 0.25% in 2010. This is mainly due to the decline in export of Dutch products, which is estimated to be 10.75% compared to last year (CPB, 17-3-2009). Next to the economic decline, the consumer confidence in the developments of the Dutch
increase consumers' income uncertainty (Flacco and Parker, 1993). Therefore, consumers are generally more thrifty and price conscious during recessions. People who are more price conscious, are more careful with their money and have stronger positive attitude towards private labels (Liu and Wang, 2008). Sinha and Batra (1999) have researched the effect of price consciousness on private label attitude and found that although price consciousness varies across individuals and categories, it
generally leads to more favourable private label attitude. When the positive attitude towards private label leads to actual private label purchase, consumers experience private label products. Many consumers find their quality very acceptable and will keep purchasing private label product even after the recession is over (Lamey et al. 2007). Thus, private label is gaining ground on national brands with every economic setback. This implies that, given the current economic situation, private label could conquer even more market share. According to Sinha and Batra (1999), increased consumer price consciousness has been one of the most important antecedents of private label success in the last decades, in addition to the increased quality of private labels.
2.1.5 Store image
According to Semeijn et al. (2004), store image is an important estimator for
individual Private Label attitude. Collins-Dodd and Lindley (2003) also arrive at this conclusion. Liu and Wang (2008) claim that retailers should try to cultivate a good store image to increase positive private label attitude. Other research pointed out that through private labels, increased differentiation of the retailer in the minds of
2.1.6 Innovation by manufacturers
Many researchers have stressed the importance of innovation by manufacturers of national brands to differentiate from private labels (e.g. Steenkamp and Dekimpe, 1997). Continuous product development and innovation is key for national brand differentiation. Despite this knowledge, product innovation by manufacturer's in 2008 has decreased by 3% while the innovation by retailers has increased by 48% (XTC World Innovation, 31-3-2009). Furthermore, by far the greatest share of
manufacturer product introductions fail. According to GfK, the percentage of product introductions by manufacturers that succeed is less than 30% (GfK, 01-06-1998). It
does not take a lot of research to conclude that this large percentage of failed product introductions is costly.
2.1.7 Conclusion
Several relevant antecedents for private label success have been discussed in this chapter. Although the supermarket price war is over, the following antecedents are still affecting national brand versus private label competition:
1. Increased private label quality
2. Increased price consciousness of consumers 3. Increased quality consciousness of consumers 4. Stronger retail store image
5. Failing manufacturer product introductions and less innovation
Although we realize that there are other important antecedents of private label success, such as the manufacturer investment shift from advertisement (long-term focus) to promotions (short-term focus), we do not include this since it is hard to include in this research and therefore not relevant to mention extensively.
2.2 Private Label lookalikes
After having discussed the success factors of private labels in general, this report continues by focussing on one specific type of private label: private label copycats (or lookalikes). In the past, private label products were not comparable to national
2.2.1 Background
In general, private label products have better profit margins and do not allow price comparison between retailers, since a private label program is exclusively available at the respective retailer. A particular private label strategy that is employed by most large retailers is the imitation of national brands. By imitating proprietary signs such as colours, look, symbols, graphics or even name, retailers try to attract consumers from national brands to private label lookalikes (Kapferer, 1995). For retailers, the strategy is proving to work well. For example, Chan & Coughlan (2006) conclude that the profit- and utility maximizing positioning for private labels is copying quality and product features of the strongest national brand in the category. However, the private label lookalikes have not only copied the quality and product features, but also the extrinsic cues of the national brands. Research points out that grocery shoppers rely heavily on extrinsic cues when evaluating private label products (Richardson et al. 1994). This means that packaging and colours are more important in evaluating products than the products’ ingredients. With the arise of private label lookalikes, the accusations by manufacturers of confusion, passing off and identity theft increase. From the perspective of retailers, the advantages of the lookalike strategy are plenty. For example, consider the cost savings of such a strategy: Today, the costs of
introducing a new brand in most consumer markets are very high. In order to conquer a position on the dense supermarket shelves, firms have to invest in media and distribution. Therefore, many firms choose to introduce brands by making use of established brands because leverage from a strong brand name can decrease the risk of introducing a new product by providing familiarity with and knowledge about an existing brand. The new brands are then so-called brand extensions (Aaker and Keller, 1990). Some authors suggest that retailers are doing the same, by using the image of established national brands to introduce brands in difficult consumer categories (e.g. Davies, 1998). Because consumers rely on extrinsic cues when shopping for private labels and evaluating their quality (Richardson et al. (1994), retailers can successfully employ this strategy. When consumers recognise extrinsic cues of national brands on private label products, they might perceive the quality of the private label as being higher than when the product had extrinsic cues that matches those of the retailer's brand (Burt and Davis, 1999; Kapferer, 1995).
2.2.2 Implications for national brand manufacturers
Although brand extensions can carry over favourable images from the existing brand to the extension, the wrong extension can also create harmful associations of the existing brand (Aaker and Keller, 1990). According to Kapferer (1995), private label lookalikes can harm their entire product category because, in general, it is easier to imitate a product's external features than it is to match the quality of a product. When the quality of a private label lookalike is poor, consumers could associate
disappointing product experiences with the private label lookalike with the entire product class. For new introductions which product technology is hard to imitate, this is especially dangerous. Early adopters of these products may pick up the private label lookalike and abandon the product class disappointed.
Even when the product quality of the private label lookalike is comparable with that of the national brand, the effects are harmful for manufacturers because positive
experiences with the private label lookalike decreases attitude and evaluations of the original brand (Zaichkowsky and Simpson, 1996). Moreover, respondents in their research indicated that when the quality of the private label lookalike is comparable with that of the national brand, it would only require a 10 percent price reduction to make them purchase the private label lookalike. Furthermore, because of the presence of a private label lookalike, consumers could be lead to believe that the national brand is overpriced, forgetting that the success of the lookalike is made possible by the efforts in marketing of the national brand. The danger here is that consumers adopt the believe that national brands' price premiums are unfair. According to Sinha and Batra (1999), higher price unfairness leads to lower
willingness to pay a price premium. Consumers need to be convinced that the price premium they pay, buys them better quality.
Another danger is described by Commuri (2009) who explains that some consumers view money as a tool of expressing themselves. The majority of this group of
consumers have stronger attitude towards national brands than to private labels. Commuri (2009) found that when private labels copy national brands, the prestige of such brands could erode in the eyes of this group of consumers. When this happens, one of three strategies that consumers will adopt, is the abandoning of the national brand.
2.2.3 Defence against lookalikes
counterfeiting and imitations. Counterfeiting is described as the mere reproduction of trademarks and is per definition illegal. Imitations involves a certain degree of
resemblance and can only be condemned if confusion among consumers is created by the imitating product. Although two kinds of confusion can be distinguished in this situation, behavioural confusion (unintentionally buying A in stead of B) and
perceptual confusion, only the latter is needed to convict an offender for imitation (Kapferer, 1995). Perceptual confusion occurs when consumers accept the private label lookalike as having quality and product attributes comparable with the original national brand, thus influencing the choice for the private label.
2.2.4 Perceptual confusion
Balabanis and Craven (1997) claim that the loss of buyers of national brands can be attributed to this form of confusion and not to behavioural confusion. They explain that consumers are not likely to accidentally purchase product A when they intended to purchase product B, but could evaluate product A of being of similar quality when it resembles product B. By performing tachistoscopic research to 15 national brands and their private label lookalike, Kapferer (1995) has provided evidence that private label lookalikes indeed create perceptual confusion among consumers.
Although the evidence of confusion is there, most national brand manufacturers are hesitant to go to court in order to defend their proprietary signs because of fear for being delisted by the retailer which could result in sales losses of up to 20%
(Kapferer, 1995). Davies (1998) also described the fear of manufacturers to sue their largest distributors. Most manufacturers choose to negotiate with the retailers, which is time-costly and mostly leads to only minor changes in package design of the private label lookalike product.
Although Rafiq and Collins (1996) did not specifically focus on perceptual confusion in their exploratory research to confusion that private label lookalikes generate in the U.K., they made some interesting conclusions, which could be relevant in this report. Their most important finding is that a considerable amount of consumers are
confused by the packaging of private labels. Furthermore, the amount of confusion varies between stores, products and frequency of shopping. Interestingly, more frequent shoppers experience a higher degree of confusion.
2.2.5 Conclusions
lookalike strategy is harmful for manufacturers of national brands. The most important dangers, which have been discussed in this chapter are:
• Negative associations carried from the private label lookalike to the national brand
• Positive experiences with the private label lookalike are decreasing evaluations and attitude towards the national brand
• Consumers may evaluate the price premium of national brands unjustified
• Erosion of national brand prestige
Despite of the clear and severe threat to the position of national brands,
manufacturers are often hesitant to go to court because of the danger of being delisted and thereby losing sales. If they do go to court, they still need prove that the private label lookalike is confusing consumers. Even though several researches pointed out that private label lookalikes are perceived as confusing, little convictions of retailers for copying national brands have taken place.
3. Brand Image
To gain more insight on how an image can be transferred from one product to another, the relevant literature on brand image and brand image transfer will be discussed. For a long time, researchers considered brand image as part of the bigger process of developing brand equity. Today, brand image is described by many
authors (e.g. Smith 2004) as ''how consumers perceive a brand''. An important effect of brand image is anthropomorphism, the tendency to give human attributes to objects (Riezebos, 2002, p. 68). When this occurs, the brand image is expressed in terms of personality traits, also called brand personality (Aaker, 1997: 'a set of human characteristics associated with a brand'). Thus, brand personality is a suitable
3.1 Brand Image Transfer
There are several examples of brand image transfer available in existing literature. For example image transfer from a celebrity endorser to a brand, from a sports event to a sponsor (Smith 1994) or from a brand to a brand extension (Aaker and Keller 1990). Past research on brand image transfer has covered sponsorships, celebrity endorsers and brand extensions. In this report, literature on brand extensions is most relevant, because it addresses image transfer from one brand to another. According to Aaker and Keller (1990), brand extensions rely on associations from the core brand transferring to the new brand. But let us first look at the beginning. An image must be created first, before it can be transferred. Riezebos (2002, p. 65) explains that in image forming, there are two important aspects: Inductive inference and deductive inference. Inductive inference is defined as the process by which consumers create an image of a brand through confrontations with the brand and with exposure to advertising of the brand. Consequently, advertisement is a highly suited method of creating image for a brand. The central question in the process of inductive inference is: How can associations be tied to a brand?
Deductive inference are associations that are already tied to a brand or brand image already in existence. These associations are hard to alter at a later stage.
In the process of brand image transfer, associations (valuable to consumers) are carried over from a source to a target. The source brand experiences deductive inference (since associations are deduced from this entity) and the target brand experiences inductive inference (because the associations of the source load this entity). An important requirement for brand image transfer to succeed is that both entities must have something in common (for example brand name or extrinsic cues). In most research concerning brand image transfer, perceived fit between target and source has proven to be determining the strength of the transfer of associations. Furthermore, Riezebos (2002, p. 73) indicates that the target brand can absorb associations more easily when it has very little associations by itself, which he calls ''the notion of the freerider'' meaning that the target gains more than the source brand. A possible result of brand image transfer is the arise of feedback from the target to the source, or the other way around. This feedback could either be positive or negative. Therefore, the target could influence the brand image of the source which is an important notion in this research.
private label lookalike is loaded with associations from the national brand (inductive inference), which has invested highly in tying the associations to the respective brand. When consumers perceive the private label as having poor quality or consumers have a bad experience with the store (owner of the private label), the negative feedback could influence their opinion of the national brand (deductive inference). In their research to counterfeiting of luxury products, Bian and Moutinho (2009), conclude that consumers consider buying counterfeit or lookalike products when they perceive these products as having similar brand personality as the original product. Although this report covers grocery items, their findings are relevant. To discover if brand personality similarity has the same effects in this context, brand personality will be a central conception in this report as well. By comparing brand personalities of national brands and private label lookalikes, brand image transfer might be uncovered. To select the most optimal method of measuring brand personality, two frequently used methods will be explored.
3.2 Brand Personality by Aaker
Aaker (1997) describes brand personality as the set of human characteristics associated with a brand. In her research, she draws on research on the ''Big Five'' human personality constructs from psychology. Before this work, many researchers used more theoretical personality scales based on human personality traits that had not been validated in the context of brands. While some personality scales may be applicable for brands, others may not. Therefore, these scales were not reliable enough for empiric testing.
Starting with 309 possible personality traits, 114 traits were identified in the context of brands after filtering out less descriptive traits. After performing a factor analysis on the remaining traits, Aaker (1997) concluded that five factors could be created, which are described in figure 3.1.
Sincerity Excitement Competence Sophistication Ruggedness
Down to earth Daring Reliable Upper class Outdoorsy Honest Spirited Intelligent Charming Tough Wholesome Imaginative Successful
Cheerful Up-to-date
Figure 3.1: Dimensions of Brand Personality by Aaker (1997)
highest item-to-total correlation in each cluster, 42 traits were included in the final Brand Personality Scale. Each of the 5 dimensions of Brand Personality in the scales are reliable, given the Cronbach Alpha test that was performed.
To make sure the research of Aaker (1997) was not biased, she checked her conclusions once more on a second group of brands and respondents. When the second test group derived at the same five factors with comparable factor weights, the robustness of the Brand Personality scale of Aaker (1997) has been proven. Although the Brand Personality scale has not been used very often in a retailing perspective, Zentes et al (2008) have proven that the scale is applicable in the context of retailers. Based on the data of an empirical study in Germany (n=1337) they have demonstrated that the Aaker scales serves well in differentiating between retailers. Thus, next to individual brands, the Aaker (1997) brand personality scales is also useful for measuring differences between retailer brands.
3.3 Gender Dimensions of brand personality
In the brand personality scales of Aaker (1997), gender dimensions of brands are not included. In her research to gender dimensions of brand personality, Grohman (2009) found that gender dimensions are important measures of brand personality. The masculinity or femininity of a brand can be influenced by a spokesperson in advertisement. Furthermore, gender dimensions of brand personality influence affective, attitudinal and behavioural consumer responses positively when they are congruent with consumers' sex role identity. Therefore, gender dimensions of brand personality enables consumers to express their self-concept through brands.
Grohman (2009) pointed out that both gender dimensions masculinity and femininity can be used in conjunction with the brand personality scale described by Aaker (1997). Although two dimensions of the brand personality scale, ruggedness and sophistication seem to resemble masculine and feminine dimensions of brand personality, Grohman (2009) found that they are actually complementary to each other. Figure 3.2 gives an overview of the scales as described by Grohman (2009).
Masculinity Femininity
Adventurous Expresses tender feelings Aggressive Fragile
Brave Graceful Daring Sensitive Dominant Sweet
Sturdy Tender
3.4 Free association techniques
In stead of using Likert scales, like the 5-point scale Aaker (1997) used, free association methods measure a brand's personality by presenting a set of traits, which the researchers thinks is relevant, to respondents and asking them if they feel a certain trait corresponds with a brand. Respondents answer with 'yes' or 'no'. So, brands are not rated, but simply associated. Obviously, this method of measuring brand personality has advantages: 1) Ease of administration, 2) shorter time to collect data and 3) the associated cost savings (Romaniuk, 2008). The
disadvantages of this method of capturing brand personality are 1) that the method is not very suitable in testing differences in brands and 2) neutral measures are not included, so that the (forced) opinion of neutral consumers could cause bias.
3.5 Conclusion
The brand personality scale of Aaker (1997) is dependable, robust and
comprehensive. Because of this, it is favoured by academics. However, using the scale to compare the personality of different brands is very demanding. For example, when the personality of 5 brands are to be compared, consumers would have to make 210 assessments (Romaniuk, 2008). Therefore, many practitioners are hesitant in using Aaker's brand personality scale. The free association method is a popular alternative in measuring brand image in most practical researches.
4. Structure
After having discussed the major antecedents of private label success, private label lookalikes and literature on brand image, this chapter focusses on the hypotheses that will be tested. Every hypothesis will be highlighted and explained shortly. This chapter will conclude by describing the conceptual framework of the research.
4.1 Effect of National Brand Image
Shoppers rely heavily on extrinsic cues when evaluating grocery products (Richardson et al., 1994). When a private label copies the extrinsic cues of an established national brand, consumers could mistake the private label and the national brand (Rafiq and Collins, 1996) or the perceived quality of the private label might increase in the eyes of consumers (Bulabanis and Craven, 1997). For regular private labels, store image is an important estimator of private label image (e.g. Collins-Dodd and Lindley, 2003; Liu and Wang, 2008; Semeijn et al., 2004).
Therefore, retailers can increase private label attitude by investing in enhancing the image of the store by store advertisement, service quality or appearance of the personnel (Daniels, 1998). Furthermore, by increasing the quality perception of the private label, the price unfairness could be lower resulting in more willingness to pay a price premium for the private label product (Sinha and Batra, 1999). However, when the retailers chooses to establish a private label in a difficult consumer category by adopting extrinsic aspects of an established national brand, store image could be of less influence on that respective private label. It is more likely that the image of the national brand reflects on the private label and therefore we hypothesize:
H1: When the package of a private label resembles the package of a national brand, the brand personality of the private label will resemble the brand personality of the national brand, and consequently:
H1a: the price unfairness of the private label lookalike will be lower H1b: the quality perception of the private label will be higher
4.2 Effect of quality consciousness
Quality conscious consumers gain higher utility from high quality products. Therefore, they search for information about a product's quality (Rao and Bergen, 1992). When a private label copies the extrinsic cues of an established national brand, the quality conscious consumer could recognize the quality image of the national brand in the private label lookalike. According to Rao and Bergen (1992), quality conscious consumers are not likely to pay a price premium, since they do not necessarily associate higher price with higher quality. When these consumers perceive the private label lookalike as having similar brand personality as the national brand, they might perceive the national brand price premium as unfair. Therefore, we
hypothesize:
H2: Consumer quality consciousness has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between brand personality resemblance and perceived price fairness of the private label lookalike.
4.3 Effect of price consciousness
During a recession, consumers' spendable income decreases. Therefore price consciousness of consumers is likely to increase (Luijten and Nagtzaam, 2005). Consumers who are more price conscious, are more careful when spending their money and are looking for better deals. In general, this means that consumers have stronger attitude towards private label during recessions (Sinha and Batra, 1999; Liu and Wang, 2008). Subsequently, private label has a stronger market position during weak economic periods (Flacco and Parker, 1993). It is likely that consumers who are more price consciousness are less amendable by the (possible) quality premium of national brands compared to their private label lookalikes and therefore more susceptible for private label lookalikes . Hence, we hypothesize:
H3: Consumer price consciousness has a positive moderating effect on the
4.4 Effect of store image
Store image is an important estimator for regular private label quality perception (e.g. Semeijn et al, 2004). Store image can be increased with advertisement or in-store focussed employment like store design, appearance of store personnel or delivered service to customers . A strong store image is able to cultivate a positive private label attitude (Liu and Wang, 2008). Although they are distributed inside the store, national brands do not profit from store image (Daniels, 1998). Therefore, if private label lookalikes resemble national brands in packaging, it could be possible that private label lookalikes are not profiting either from the image of the store. To provide evidence that private label lookalikes should therefore be approached in a different manner by national brand manufacturers as well as retailers, we hypothesize:
4.5 Conceptual framework
Considering the given hypotheses, the following conceptual framework will be used. This conceptual framework is a blueprint for the research that is conducted in this report. It is an overview of the relationships we hope to find by testing our newly formed hypotheses.
Figure 4.1: Conceptual framework
5. Methodology
In this chapter, the methodology of testing the hypotheses described in the former chapter is discussed starting with describing the research design. This chapter continues by describing the measurement of the data and the structure of the constructs.
5.1 Research design
As with every research design, the research design of this report is a framework or blueprint for conducting the marketing research of this report (Malhotra, 2004; p.10). In this part of the report, we detail the necessary procedures for obtaining the
required information in order to answer the formulated hypotheses and research questions. Malholtra (2004, p.75), defines two different research designs, the exploratory research design and the conclusive research design. Exploratory research is used in cases where the researcher must define the problem more precisely, identify relevant courses of action or gain additional insights to develop a further research approach. In most cases, exploratory research is qualitative in nature and findings are used as input for further research.
Conclusive research designs are used in testing hypotheses and examining
relationships. In this type of research, the information needed is clearly defined and the research process is formal and structured. Furthermore, the data analysis used is quantitative with a large and representative sample. The findings that flow from this research can be used as input for decision making. Because in this report we try to answer specifically formulated hypotheses and use the findings to describe
managerial implications, the research design here is conclusive.
5.2 Causality
According to Malholtra (2004, p.85), conclusive research can be divided into descriptive and causal research. Descriptive research is used to describe market characteristics or variables and is conducted to describe characteristics of relevant groups, to estimate percentages of a population that exhibit a certain kind of
behaviour, to determine perceptions of product characteristics, to determine the degree to which marketing variables are associated or to make specific predictions. An important assumption in descriptive research is that the researcher has prior knowledge about the problem situation.
aspect of causal research is that the independent variables are manipulated in a relative controlled environment. Because we want to investigate the effect of package resemblance on other variables, the research we will perform here is causal. In a scientific context, three conditions have to be satisfied in order to be able to assume causality:
• Concomitant variation: the extent to which a cause, X, and an effect, Y, occur together or vary together in the way predicted by the hypothesis under
consideration
• Time order of occurrence of variables: The causing effect must occur before or simultaneously with the effect. It cannot occur afterwards.
• Elimination of other possible causal factors: The cause, X, should be the only factor affecting the effect, Y. Other affecting factors should be held constant or controlled.
Even if all three mentioned conditions are satisfied, researchers can not conclude that a causal relationship exists. However, accumulated evidence from several investigations increases the researchers' confidence that a causal relationship does exist. If the evidence is strong and consistent, it could be reasonable to conclude that there is a causal relationship.
5.3 Independent variables
To test if resemblance to a national brand's product package influences a private label lookalikes' brand personality and subsequently consumers' evaluations of quality, price fairness and willingness to purchase, we showed respondents three product packages, created with Adobe photoshop: One national brand product, one private label which resembles the national brand package design on a high degree and one private label which carries the package design of the retailer. Respondents were first asked to evaluate the national brand and than to answer questions
concerning brand personality, perceived quality, willingness to purchase, perceived price fairness, price consciousness, quality consciousness and quality of the retailer. Respondents were asked to do the same for a private label lookalike and a typical store brand. To make sure that our findings are generalizable throughout the population, we choose to test two product categories in two supermarkets. The
the opposite of Albert Heijn in commercials. A recent example is the price decrease of national brands that Jumbo initiated, which forced Albert Heijn to do the same (AD, 07-06-2009).
5.4 Dependant variables
The items that we used in the survey are mostly based on existing literature. The advantage of using existing scales, is that they have been tested in order to withstand reviews of highly rated marketing publishers. Furthermore, existing standards increase the ease of reproduction. In this paragraph, each construct and the literature in which it is founded are shortly described.
5.4.1 Brand personality
The construct of brand personality in this report will be measured with the 5
dimension-scale of Aaker (1997). In order to limit bias by too long questionnaires, we have chosen to only include the 15 facets of brand personality and not the 42
underlying personality traits. Because Aaker (1997) concluded that the 15 facets measure a brand's personality with two different sets of brands, we assume that it is safe to use the 15 facets of brand personality. Furthermore, to measure the gender dimension of brands, we add the scales created by Grohman (2009) to the construct. Adding the gender scales makes the brand personality construct more complete. The following items are defined:
Brand Personality construct:
I consider brand X to be:
Sincerity Down to earth
Tough Masculinity Adventurous Aggressive Brave Daring Dominant Sturdy
Femininity Expressing tender feelings Fragile Graceful Sensitive Sweet Tender 5.4.2 Perceived quality
In order to measure the perceived quality of the three brands included in the
questionnaire, we will use the scales of Richardson et al. (1994). The scale involves one question:
PQ1 ''All thing considered, I would say that brand X has excellent/poor quality.''
5.4.3 Willingness to purchase
To measure willingness to purchase, we will also use a scale that was used in the research of Richardson et al. (1994). Although their research involved extrinsic evaluations as well as intrinsic evaluations (product tasting) , we assume here that it can be used in this research which only involves extrinsic evaluations of package designs. This scale also includes one question:
WP1 ''If I were to buy a brand of product X, I would definitely buy the brand I just saw.''
5.4.4 Perceived price fairness
dishonest sellers by denying them future sales'' (Rao and Bergen, 1992). So,
perceived price unfairness should be a good indication to find the price premium that consumers are willing to pay for products. Of course, we slightly adapted the scales to be fit for this research. To be precise, where Sinha and Batra (1999) only tested the price unfairness of national brands, while we want to measure the perceived price fairness of national brands as well as private label lookalikes. The scale includes three items:
PF1 ''The price of this brand is extremely unfair.'' PF2 ''The price of this brand is unacceptably high.'' PF3 ''The price of this brand is a rip-off.''
5.4.5 Quality consciousness
To measure the construct of quality consciousness, we use the scales used by Rao and Bergen (1992). Although in their research, the scales were used to measure attitude towards a store, we can easily make minor adaptation in the scales in order to measure attitude towards products. The construct of quality consciousness is measured by the following questions:
QC1 ''High quality is very important to me when buying product X.''
QC2 ''It would mean great monetary loss for me if the quality of product X would turn out to be disappointing.''
QC3 ''In general, I check to insure that the quality of products is high before I purchase them. ''
5.4.6 Price consciousness
In order to measure consumer price consciousness, we use a scales developed and used by Sinha and Batra (1999). The construct is measured with the following
questions:
PC1 ''I tend to buy the lowest priced brand that fits my needs.''
PC2 ''When buying a brand of category X, I look for the cheapest brand available.''
PC3 ''When it comes to buying category X, I rely heavily on price.'' PC4 ''Price is the most important factor when I am choosing a brand.''
5.4.7 Store Image
Dutch retailers Albert Heijn, Edah and Aldi. The scale exists of three constructs (store layout, store merchandise and store service), and in total 11 items:
SI1 Layout ''Physical facilities are visually appealing.'' SI2 ''Store layout is clear.''
SI3 ''Easy to find articles in promotion.'' SI4 Merchandise ''Merchandise is available when needed.'' SI5 ''Store offers high quality merchandise.'' SI6 ''Store offers broad assortment.''
SI7 Service ''Employees are knowledgeable.'' SI8 ''Employees are courteous.''
SI9 ''No problem when returning items.''
SI10 ''Employees willing to find custom solutions.'' SI11 ''Store has convenient opening hours.''
5.5 Data collection
In order to collect the primary data, we have chosen to make use of a survey, which involves interviews with a large number of respondents using a pre-designed
questionnaire. The costs of this method of data collection are relatively low and the data can be processed and summarized by using statistical software, such as SPSS (Malholtra, 2004, p.115) . We will make use of snowball sampling to select
respondents, which is a non-probability sampling technique. In this sampling
technique, respondents are selected randomly based on referrals of the initial group of respondents. The advantages of snowball sampling is that it increases the
Respondent
group Retailer National brand Private label lookalike Regular private label
1 Albert Heijn Calvé peanut butter Calvé lookalike of AH Regular peanut butter of AH
2 Jumbo Calvé peanut butter Calvé lookalike of
Jumbo Regular peanut butter of Jumbo
3 Albert Heijn Ariel Color Ariel lookalike of AH Regular liquid detergent of AH
4 Jumbo Ariel Color Ariel lookalike of Jumbo Regular liquid detergent of Jumbo
By dividing respondents in four groups we hope to decrease possible bias arising from tiring respondents. In the questionnaire, respondents will first be shown a product image including product price, which they are asked to evaluate by answering statements with 7-point Likert scales. As part of non-comparative or
nomadic scaling techniques, Likert scales are itemized rating scales which are widely used in marketing research. Likert scales require respondents to indicate a degree of agreement with a series of statements about the stimulus objects. The advantage of using Likert scales is their ease of construct and administration and because
respondents quickly understand how to use the scale. The disadvantage is that it takes more time for respondents to complete questionnaires, because they have to read all of the given statements before administering their answer.
5.6 (Pre)Testing the questionnaire
The questionnaire has been tested on 10 subjects, who are family members, friends and fellow students. The objective of this pre-test was to make sure that the
6. Results
In this chapter, the results from the quantitative research will be described and analysed. To do so, the gathered data have been prepared for analysis by using MS Excel and after that analysed in SPSS.
6.1 Sample
The goal of this marketing research project is obtaining information about the
characteristics or parameters of the population. At the hand of a sample, a subgroup of the population which is selected for participation in the study, we will make
inferences about the population parameters (Malholtra, 2004, p. 314). As stated in the previous chapter, we have used snowball sampling in order to select
respondents. The questionnaire was sent to colleagues, family, friends and fellow students, which resulted in an initial response of 239 returned questionnaires. After checking the data for incompleteness and missing data, the sample contained 157 respondents (peanut butter at Albert Heijn 46, peanut butter at Jumbo 38, detergent at Albert Heijn 33 and detergent at Jumbo 40). To make inferences about the
representativeness of the sample, we compare the geographic variables of our sample with that of the Dutch population (CBS, 2009). The results are displayed in table 6.1.
Sample (n = 157) Dutch population (CBS) Gender Male 47,1% 49.5% Female 52,9% 51.5% Age < 20 1,3% 23.9% 20 – 39 80% 25,7% 40 – 64 17,8% 35,5% > 65 1,9% 15,0%
Table 6.1: Sample compared to Dutch population
widely accepted as being reasonably representable. For example Semeijn et al. (2004) have made use of a student sample to evaluate national brands and private label products. They conclude that students are more likely to buying cheaper (store) brands and therefore experienced in making national brands versus private label decisions. Therefore, in this research, we also assume that a student sample can be used to make the inferences we would like to make.
6.2 Factor analysis
In order to test whether the items we measured in our research indeed form the brand personality scales formulated by Aaker (1997) and Grohman (2009), a factor analysis could be used. First of all, it is important to test if factor analysis is an appropriate tool here by running the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) measure of sample adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphericity tests. To be able to draw objective
conclusions, we had to run three factor analysis: One for the national brands, one for the private label lookalikes and one for the regular private labels. All KMO (with respectively values of 0.83, 0.82 and 0.91) and Bartlett's (0.00, 0.00 and 0.00) indicated that factor analysis is applicable for our dataset. Concluding from the results of the three factor analyses (see appendix 3), we conclude that our data is capable at creating the same factors that Aaker (1997) and Grohman (2009) found. Although there are minor aberrations with the Aaker and Grohman scales, our factor analysis shows enough resemblance to conclude that we can form the same brand personality constructs with our data. Especially the factor analyses of the national brand and the lookalike provided us with enough evidence to assume that we can safely use the brand personality scales of Aaker (1997) and Grohman (2009).
6.3 Reliability
Construct α/r Sincerity 4 items NB. : 0.72 PLL : 0.70 PL : 0.53 Excitement 4 items NB. : 0.88 PLL : 0.84 PL : 0.87 Competence 3 items NB. : 0.78 PLL : 0.89 PL : 0.84 Sophistication 2 items NB. : 0.68 R : 0.52 * PLL : 0.81 R : 0.68 * PL : 0.89 R : 0.80 * Ruggedness 2 items NB. : 0.82 R : 0.69 * PLL : 0.76 R : 0.61 * PL : 0.44 R : 0.32 * Masculinity 6 items NB. : 0.89 PLL : 0.91 PL : 0.89 Femininity 6 items NB. : 0.92 PLL : 0.95 PL : 0.88 Price unfairness 3 items NB. : 0.92 PLL : 0.93 PL : 0.92 Quality consciousness 3 items 0.65 Price consciousness 4 items 0.75 Store Image 11 items 0.93
Table 6.2: Results from Cronbach alpha analysis * Significant at the p <0.05 level
As table 6.2 demonstrates, most constructs have sufficient internal reliability.
score on internal reliability. Nevertheless, the correlation analysis of the ruggedness construct shows modest (0.32), but significant (0.00) correlation. Therefore, we conclude that the two items can be combined. Although the cronbach alpha score on sincerity of the regular private label brand was slightly insufficient (<0.6), the results from the other two brands show that the same respondents do recognise the items as one construct. Moreover, the insufficient internal reliability scores are associated to the private label product, which is used as a control group in this research. Therefore we assume that we can safely reduce these scales to one factor, like Aaker (1997) did.
6.4 Descriptive results
6.4.1 Brand Personality
Table 6.3 provides an overview of the mean brand personality scores for the different brands included in this research.
Product Pric e N S in c e rit y E xc ite m e n t C o m p e te n c e S o p h is tic a tio n R u g g e d n es s M as c u lin ity F e m in in ity Calvé at AH € 1.99 46 4.2 2.9 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.2 2.5 Calvé lookalike of AH € 1.89 46 3.9 3.0 3.7 2.5 3.1 2.8 2.3 Regular peanut butter of AH € 1.19 46 3.3 2.1 2.3 1.6 2.5 2.0 1.9 Calvé at Jumbo € 1.99 38 4.3 3.2 5.1 2.8 4.2 3.5 2.4 Calvé lookalike of Jumbo € 1.89 38 4.0 2.8 4.0 2.0 3.6 3.0 1.9 Regular peanut butter of Jumbo € 1.19 38 3.1 2.0 2.1 1.5 2.5 1.8 1.7 Ariel Color at AH € 5.45 33 3.7 3.7 4.9 3.5 2.4 2.9 3.5 Ariel lookalike of AH € 2.99 33 3,7 3.1 3.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.0 Regular liquid detergent of AH € 2.29 33 3.3 2.0 2.2 1.6 2.8 1.9 1.8 Ariel Color at Jumbo € 5.45 40 3.0 4.3 5.3 3.2 2.0 2.5 3.5 Ariel lookalike of Jumbo € 2.99 40 3.0 3.8 4.7 2.7 1.9 2.1 3.2 Regular liquid detergent of Jumbo € 2.29 40 3.4 1.6 2.0 1.3 2.7 1.5 1.4
Table 6.3: Mean brand personality scores
Like stated before, considering the 7 point Likert scales where 4 indicates the centre, we conclude that mean scores above 4 are most relevant for a brand's personality. In table 6.3, we have highlighted the highly relevant brand personality scores of the national brands in this research. This means the brand personality of Calvé at Albert Heijn is described as sincere and competent. Calvé at Jumbo is described as
sincere, competent and rugged. Ariel Color at AH is described as competent whereas Ariel Color at Jumbo is described as exciting and competent. We conclude that all national brands score high on the construct of competence, which is quite
remarkable. Competence seems to be a base personality construct of national brands in this research. Apparently, national brands are perceived as reliable, intelligent and successful products by consumers (since the competence construct consists of these brand personality traits).
brand personality compared with the relevant national brands. Comparing the deviation of the lookalikes with the deviation of the regular private labels could provide us with useful insights in which private labels show most resemblance with the relevant national brands.
Product Sinc e rit y E x cit e m e n t C o m p e te n c e S o p h is tic a tio n R u g g e d n es s M a sc u lin ity F e m in in ity A v e ra g e d e v ia tio n Calvé at AH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calvé lookalike of AH 0.3 -0.1 1.3 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.5 Regular peanut butter of AH 0.9 0.8 2.7 1.4 1.5 1.2 0.6 1.3
Calvé at Jumbo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Calvé lookalike of Jumbo 0.3 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 Regular peanut butter of Jumbo 1.2 1.2 3 1.3 1.7 1.7 0.7 1.5
Ariel Color at AH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ariel lookalike of AH 0 0.6 1.1 0.8 -0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 Regular liquid detergent of AH 3 4.3 5.3 3.2 2 2.5 3.5 1.3
Ariel Color at Jumbo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ariel lookalike of Jumbo 0 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 Regular liquid detergent of Jumbo -0.4 2.7 3.3 1.9 -0.3 1 2.1 1.5
Table 6.4: Absolute differences in mean brand personality scores
All the average deviations of the lookalike products are 0.6 or lower, while the average deviations of the regular private labels are all higher than 1.3. The total average deviation of the lookalike products to that of the national brands is 0.45, that of the regular private labels 1.33. Given the deviations from the brand personality scores of the four national brands, we conclude that the brand personality of the lookalike products shows higher resemblance to that of the national brands than the regular private labels do. The total average deviation of the regular private labels is almost three times higher than the total average deviation of the lookalikes, which grounds our conclusion. In the next chapter, we will analyse the resemblances and differences in brand personality scores more thorough.
6.4.2 Product perceptions
