ukessays.com http://www.ukessays.com/dissertations/marketing/consumer-branding.

php
Consumer Branding
Branding: How It Inspires People To Purchase A Particular Brand
Abst ract
This research is done with the suitable research methods to describe how the people attempt to match
their characteristics with a particular brand. A f irm or companys primary target is to make and preserve
customers. They use various plans which include several research methods in order to discover the best
way to make prof its. For the companies, the saying, consumer is god, is crucial f or a successf ul their
business. Observing the customers purchasing behaviour is the initial step in the direction of successf ul
understanding of customers. Branding is a crucial marketing strategy which inspires customers viewpoint
and purchasing behaviour every time. Understanding customer buying behaviours will give marketers a close
look into how signif icance f or the marketers is to know the basic association the consumer has with the
brand. So, f or this reason, the research splits these issues into number of dimensions to consider that
there is any connection between consumer purchasing behaviour. In other words, it permits one to see if
branding can actually inspire consumer purchasing process.
The research concentrates on the individual purchasing behaviour and branding associations. The sample
is collected f rom the United Kingdom to overlook the culture impact and moreover to get rid of racial,
religion and geographic issue f or suitable sampling. The importance of this research is to explain how
branding have an ef f ect on dif f erent buyers behaviours build upon f our kinds of complicated purchasing
behaviour, conf lict-reducing purchasing behaviour, habitual purchasing behaviour, and variety-seeking
purchasing behaviour that are f urther talked about in this paper. By assessing commodity products,
investigation of dif f erent approaches f rom these dif f erent consumer purchasing behaviour groups towards
brand ef f ects is done. The f indings showed in the end reveals a strong positive association that can guide
companies to concentrate more on strategies of branding according to the customers purchasing attitude
towards branding.
Int roduct ion
Today, in this f ast moving environment, marketing depends upon the consumers behaviour and response
to the product, price, promotion, place, physical layout, process and people (Gronroos, 1997; Kotler and et
al., 1999; Egan, 2002) because today marketing is more consumers oriented than never bef ore and due to
the increasing value of service sector. For the development and survival of a f irm, it requires exact f acts
about customers like their approach of buying, what they purchase, f rom which place they purchase and
most essentially quantity they buy. Marketing has accepted the behavioural sciences basically sociology and
social psychology to study and understand the process of consumer behaviour and decision making. While
doing this, marketers are able to get explanations and f orecasts build on these disciplines to f igure their
market of f erings.
To the extent that marketers are investigating the consumers' psychological background in order to their
establish f actors that af f ect consumer choice in terms of cognition, perception, learning and attitude all
of which af f ect his buyer behaviour. A current day market trend has been the increasing similarity of
products with little real f unctional dif f erence between competing products. This is primarily due to intensive
competitive rivalry and the existence of ef f icient production, transport, communication and f inancial
systems. Under such circumstances technological innovations are quite quickly imitated by competitors and
can no longer of f er previous levels of sustainable competitive advantage and product dif f erentiation
(Levitt, 1983; Gronroos, 1997; Kotler, 2000). Theref ore a signif icant f eature of contemporary marketing
research and practice concerns the emergence of brands as key organisational assets and a major issue in
product strategy (Kotler, 2000). Firms have placed a heavy emphasis on adding symbolic values associated
with brand names as the basis f or product dif f erentiation. The winner will eventually be the one whose
strategy entails a mix conducive to the customers purchase behaviour, while doing so more ef f ectively than
its competitors.
Object ive Of The St udy
The primary goal of this research is to display branding value, f unctions and most important thing, its part
in the consumer buying decision. This research examines the process and attributes that direct towards the
customers evaluation of brands. This research will concentrate on the assessment of questionnaires f illed
by the public. Other objectives are like explanation of how the present customers attempts to match the
individual identity with the identity that they relate to the brand, to prove that is there any correlation
between individual purchasing behaviour and branding, and to evaluate how branding have an ef f ect on
dif f erent purchaser behaviours.
Lit erat ure Review
This study provides a f oundation f or the value and uses of branding as a vital marketing activity having an
important impact on the consumer purchase decision. This research relates to a basic theory which has yet
to be verif ied which says that as the dif f erence among similar available products in the market is reducing,
the chances that customers will buy through extrinsic signals, i.e. brand name associations is rising
(Murphy, 1992). So, as customers ability to distinguish same kind of product declines, it is likely that the
awareness of f amiliarity of a particular brand will push them to buy their particular choice of brand.
Branding
Let us def ine a product bef ore def ining a brand, according to Baker (2000) a product is like anything that
meets the needs of consumers. He says that it is the ability of the product to meet these needs that gives
it value. The needs or problems can be psychological, economic or f unctional. In a competitive environment
there are several companies of f ering opponent products that meet the customers needs. It is important to
consider the f act that the brand can also allow companies to overcome the need to compete at a f unctional
level, and can be used to help a company to compete on any level it is by applying its main capabilities
(Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). It is the brand that distinguishes and identif ies their of f erings (Levitt, 1983).
Like, most valuable possession is its brand name. They may be ref erred to as invisible assets of a lot of
corporations around the world.
Branding at present is increasingly concerned with bringing together and maintaining a mix of values, both
tangible as well as intangible, which are relevant to the consumers and which properly dif f erentiate ones
brand f rom that of another (Muehling and Laczniak, 1991; Hankinson and Cowking, 1993; Kapf erer, 1995;
Kotler et al., 1999). There are many tools other then the brand name to distinguish products and invest
them with personality. Leading among them are advertising, promotion and packaging, other ways to
dif f erentiate f rom the competition may be product f ormulation, delivery systems, sizes, colour, smell, shape
and so on. On the other hand, all these elements are put together with an appropriate and protected name
with which the primary attributes of the product or service ultimately reside give the product its brand
identity. This combination of messages within the structure of a brand name is a f oundation to the
development of brand personality (Graham, 2001; Holt, 2002). From the consumers point of view, brand
names are as important as the product itself in the sense they make purchasing process easier, guarantee
quality and at times f orm as a basis of self -expression. As said by Kotler (1997), any company can produce
cold drinks, but only Pepsi Co. can produce 7UP.
Talking about branding purpose and benef its, branding f acilitates and makes the customers selection
process more ef f ective, people are loaded with lots of decisions in their day to day lives, and they are
f looded with limitless products and messages contesting f or attention. People look f or shortcuts to make
the decisions easier, a shorter way is to depend on habit, this shows of purchasing products that have
shown good results in the past. This is in particular a case of less involvement purchases. This is f urther
shown by a model of habitual buying behaviour (Assael, 1993), stating that reasonable past consumption
behaviour leads to benef it association, which is a idea means the tendency of the consumer to relate the
positive rewards to a particular brand, this relation between positive rewards towards a certain brand
restricts the customers need f or looking inf ormation and strengthen the likelihood that the identif ication of
a need will lead the customer to straight buy a particular brand. And f rom the retailers point of view,
branding can help dif f erentiation. According to (Adcock. et al., 1998), dif f erentiation is an action of
modelling a set of meaningf ul dif f erences to dif f erentiate the company's of f ering f rom the opponents
of f erings. Competition with f ast pace can f ollow development in technology and product f ormulation.
An opponent will quickly able to make a replica, example, a cigarette brand, though they will not be able to
copy the personality that use the brand name, like Marlboro. Porter (1980) says that dif f erentiation is a
source of competitive advantage. Using a dif f erential advantage companies are in a position to distinguish
their of f er f rom competitors in the same segment. According to Porter (1980), the main need f or gaining a
competitive advantage is by creating such dif f erentiation. Dif f erentiation, in this case, ref ers to a
companys ability to be exclusive in its product sold and service of f ered. This individuality must be of a
value to the consumer and can thus be sold at a premium over its competitors price. The more valuable
this exclusivity is, the higher the dif f erentiation, leading to the higher premium. Dif f erentiation however
comes with a cost, so f or dif f erentiation to have a competitive advantage, the cost of dif f erentiating must
be signif icantly lower than the premium earned. Theref ore, in the perf ect market with perf ect competition,
this premium allows the company to make a higher prof it margin than its competitors. In a market segment
with no dif f erential advantage held by anyone, consumers might opt purely on the basis of price, and
perf ect competition which conf irms that prof its are pushed to zero (Porter, 1980; Foxall and Goldsmith,
1994; Baker, 2000). The dif f erential advantage above can be gained by obtaining any element of the
marketing mix. But studies have shown that the best possible plan is to f ocus on brand dif f erentiation,
rather than cost and price as a way of building prof itability and growth (East, 1997; Diaz de Rada, 1998;
Fankel, 2002).
The Signif icance of Brand Loyalt y
According to (Meenaghan, 1995; Quester and Smart, 1998), branding can be related to the increasing value
of brand loyalty. Loyalty can be termed as a total commitment towards a particular brand. Building loyalty
depends on satisf ying the needs of the consumers better than other opponents (Oliver, 1999) and the
stage of loyalty that can be reached depends on the aimed consumers. According to (Quester and Smart,
1998), people all over the globe develop irrational connection with dif f erent products. Though (Levitt,
1983), came with the structure to understand how booming brands are made and claimed that consumers
are not irrational to select them.
The core of all brands consists of key product attributes, which allow the consumers to distinguish the
product, as an answer to their needs; the attributes describe the products perf ormance and usef ulness.
Adjoining this main product there is a group of attributes that enable the consumer to distinguish the
product f rom other products of dif f erent brands. These characteristics take the shape of the products
appearance, design, packaging, and identif ication. If these attributes would not been there, the only
dif f erentiation would be based on its reasonable pricing. According to Doyle, the brand name permits f or a
sustainable dif f erential advantage. In the end, it is the external shell of the product that has been described
by Doyle as, whatever thing that possibly can be done to create customer inclination and loyalty (cited
Baker, 2000).
According to (Alreck and Settle, 1999,) marketers basic aim is to make good relationship with buyers, rather
just selling. The core of a relationship is a powerf ul bond between the brand and the buyer. If successf ul
there will be present a loyalty that keeps out the opponents. A strong brand name should have a consumer
f ranchise that will develop when enough number of customers wants that brand and reject other
alternatives, still if the price is less. A brand with a powerf ul consumer f ranchise is protected f rom
competitors (Kotler and Cox, 1980; Cheratony, 1993; Cowley, 1996). The brand loyal customers, whether
they purchase same brand every time which can be an act of trust, habit or outcome of less participation
and product availability, the clear assumption is that they push high prof its f or the company. Thakor and
Kohli (1996) says that it costs six times more to succeed over new buyers then to hold present ones,
because of the f act that it results in more expenditure linked to adverts, promotions and sales. So loyal
consumers make brand equity the main asset underlying brand equity is buyers equity (Machleit, 1993;
Kotler, 1999).
It is vital to make loyalty and settled base of customers who are f ixed and loyal purchasers of a brand,
which negates change and churn f rom the companys products. For every business it is costly to increase
new customers and cheaper to keep present one. Theref ore, a settled customer base has the customer
acquisition investment mainly in its past (Gwinner and Eaton, 1999). Contemporary marketing recommends
obtaining data about customers as much as possible, anywhere it is to widen the understanding of
customer wants, standard of living, attitude and purchasing behaviour (Chisnall, 1995; Davis et al., 1996;
Dun, 1997; Chevron, 1998). This allows a company to modif y the brand of f ering, to shif t f rom the usual to
an unexpected level of service actually delighting the customer, make sure the f uture loyalty and
commitment. Generally, a brands value to a company is mainly created by the customer loyalty it controls
(Aaker, 1996).
Brand Equit y
Brands might dif f er in terms of the amount of dominance they have in the market. Many brands are
unf amiliar whereas others have great consumer awareness, and moreover some brands have a great
amount of consumer brand inclination. A strong brand can be said to have great brand equity. This can be
explained as a brand which enjoys great brand loyalty, awareness, powerf ul brand associations, perceive
quality and other benef its like trademarks, exclusive rights and channel relationships (Chay, 1991). The idea
behind brand equity relates to the importance of a brand, value to the marketer as well as the buyer.
With the marketers viewpoint, brand equity is a big market share theref ore better cash f lows and prof it.
From the consumer viewpoint, brand equity relates to a powerf ul positive brand attitude through a
promising assessment of the brand, which is build upon consistent meanings and values that are simply
accessible in the buyers memory (Lewis, 1993; Keller, 1998). With substantial ef f ort has been put in
measuring and def ining the concept of brand equity there has been limited empirical research aimed at
understanding the importance of the brand name associations in product dif f erentiation (Aaker, 1991). One
of the main objectives of Marketing is to get the products of f ered in a particular category to be distinct.
Muehling, Stoltman and Mishra (1989), have f ound consumers to be less brand loyal, more price sensitive
and less receptive to marketplace inf ormation in the absence of perceived dif f erences between the
alternatives.
Brand Image
Marketers understand that brands summon up symbolic pictures which are more signif icant to success of a
product than its real natural characteristics (Meenaghan, 1995; Feltham, 1998). For products which are
recognized with a brand, Davis (1995) has perf ormed a research by splitting the customer assessment in
two f actors. Assessment which is linked to product characteristics (tangible) and assessment linked to the
brand name (intangible). The consumer's power to assess the perf ormance abilities of the product and
view about its value f or money, usage ef f ectiveness, reliability and availability develops the inherent
advantage of the product, matching to products characteristics. The external benef its are at the emotional
stage where, the symbolic assessment of the brand is taken into account. Here consumers make use of
their personal reasons normally matching the brand name related attributes. With the growing variety of
standardized products, consumers give more importance to the image of products to make the
assessment of dif f erent options easier.
Meenaghan (1995) tells that consumers display an inclination towards symbolic rather than purely
f unctional f eatures of products. Theref ore, they usually ask f or social reliability and loyalty f rom f irms and,
in general, symbolic associations have their origin mostly in brand name perception instead of product
perception (Meenaghan, 1995). Marketers have tried to employ behavioural theories to clarif y and recognize
usef ul relations involving consumers personality and their buying behaviour. Kamakura and Russell (1993)
have spotted such theory stating that individuals have a def inite self -image build on who they believe they
are ideal self -concept build on who they believe they would like to be. Howard and Sheth (1969) have
explained self -image as an individual thoughts and f eelings about their own selves in relation to other
objects in a socially determined f rame of ref erence. By self -concept or self -image model, individuals will
perf orm in a way that sustain and improve their self -image. One way is through the products they buy and
use.
The Ef f ect of Branding on Consumer Purchase Behaviour
The f unction of brand values is highlighted in the literature above, and in particular the signif icance of the
brand to get distinctive benef it has been documented in depth. The reason behind the study to understand
the consumer purchasing behaviour in light of the literature discussed so f ar. In order to do this consumer
decision-making models will be organized. The hypothesis will be assumed as the derivation of the tests
that will be conducted in the primary research.
Marketing and ecological stimuli penetrate the buyers perception, the def inition of consumer buying
behaviour can be comprehended as buyers purchasing decision process. Four types of consumer buying
behaviours, based on the degree of buyer contribution and the degree of dif f erences among brands
(Kotler, 2000). These f our types are complex buying behaviour, habitual buying behaviour, variety-seeking
buying behaviour, and dissonance-reducing buying behaviour. In complex buying behaviour the consumer is
aware of the brands and gets too involved in the buying by analysing the product thoroughly.
The customer is highly involved in buying the product in dissonance-reducing behaviour but doesnt get too
involved in the brands. Some buying situations are characterised by low involvement but signif icant brand
dif f erences. Consumers of ten do a lot of brand switching f or variety-seekers. They are only according to
the inf ormation in advertisement and television. The buying process begins with brand belief s in habitual
buying behaviour.
The brand plays most important role in consumers purchase decision to purchase a particular product f rom
another. Various attributes that merge to make the consumer behaviour in particular f ashion during his
purchase decision but also inducing any pre-purchase and post purchase activities. As (Engle et al., 1995)
has def ined consumer behaviour as consisting all those acts of individuals which are directly involved in
obtaining, using and disposing of economic goods and services, including the decision process that
precede and determine these acts.
It is important f actor to consider that inf luence the consumers buyer behaviour and study wishes to
incorporate the Howard-sheth model of decision making. The theory of the model is that buyer behaviour is
in general component f irm by how consumer thinks and develops in order. (Howard and Sheth, 1969). It
supports the f act that cognitive decision making which eventually determine the choice of brand and
purchasing decision. The brand impact motivate the buyer and changes the behaviour , perception, learning
and attitude are examined in terms of how each is af f ected by this impact on branding.
Percept ion
Here brand perception is based on individual personal experience of their own belief s, needs and values.
People receive and understand the sensory f rom their f ive senses they are sight, hearing, smell, touch and
taste) in their own ways. Engel at el have def ined perception as the process whereby stimuli are received
and interpreted by the individual and translated into a response (Foxall, 1980,p.29).
Primarily the social and psychological meaning of a product gets conveyed by two f actors which determine
the idea of stimuli, also known as stimulus discrimination and stimulus generalisation.
Stimulus discrimination the question that hits in mind is whether the consumer can actually discriminate
between dif f erences in stimuli. Consumers become conscious of brands through packages,
advertisements, promotions, and word of mouth they may be involved at some point in decision making
process. Once customers became aware of brands through learning their purchase decision are then
guided by their perceptions of their brands f ormed f rom the inf ormation they get about the brands
guided by their perceptions of their brands f ormed f rom the inf ormation they get about the brands
characteristics (Foxall and Goldsmith, 1994).
The marketers will f irst provide the similar brands and provide same inf ormation about the product and they
position better way and discriminate between characteristics of the brands. The marketing inf ormation
which will discriminate based on the brand name inf ormation provided with and it will be derived f rom brand
name or the perception of the brand. It has been concluded (kotler et al, 1999) that consumers depend on
reputation of the brand name to believe the quality of the product. Brand name is someone who creates the
image and some cases provide perception of the quality in a product and that shows the involvement of
low level buyers. The main part of brand impact where the customer experiences the service they provide
and class they maintain it guide through the purchasing behaviour. Chernatony (1993) explained f our
f actors that attract them to change a particular brand and to understand their provided f ramework of their
successf ul brands .
1. Quality is the pre-eminent f actor that through time can lead buyers to learn to trust a brand which leads
to priority position in the evoked set and repeat purchasing activity.
2. Build superior service can not only endorse product quality, but also prove post purchase problem
solving. For instance, digital camera consumers would select an international brand f or its global service
and technological support.
3. The most common means of building an outstanding brand is being the f irst into the mind consumer. It is
much easier to build a strong brand in the consumers mind than in the market, characterised by the intense
level of competition.
4. In building brands the principle is to invest in markets which are highly dif f erential or where such
dif f erentiation can be created. Mostly, the dif f erentiation is why the brand is dif f erent f rom others.
Brand provides consumer with lower search costs f or products internally and externally. Brand reduces the
risk in product decisions and Keller (1998) identif ies six types of risk in consumers view. 1. Functional risk-
product expectations 2.physical risk- f riendly user or not 3. Financial risk- product should f it in the budget
and it should be worth 4. Psychological risk- the product af f ects the mental well-being of the user 6. Time
risk- f ailure of the product leads to f ind the other product.
Brands have a personally of their own which consumers want to associate with, would like to ref lect their
own behaviour or aspirations and want to have an experience with. A brand, theref ore, adds value to a
f unctional product providing it of f ers clear dif f erentiation in the market in which it competes. Branding is
short, transf orms the actual experience of using the product - and thereby adds to its value" (Chevron,
1998).
Learning
So f ar it has been highlighted how extrinsic cues of a product namely the brand name can af f ect the
consumers perception. Learning ref ers to any change in behaviour that comes about as a result f rom past
experience. Dodds (1991) ref ers to learning as changes in a consumers behaviour caused by inf ormation
and experience. Consumers store inf ormation in their memory in the f orm of associations, which links the
brand name of a product with a variety of other attributes of the brand, like its price, packaging, colour, size
and benef its as well as how the consumer f eels about it in terms of its quality and emotions it evokes.
These associations are the ones that f orm the inf ormation base f rom where the consumer makes his
ultimately decisions (Foxall and Goldsmith, 1994). Most of this inf ormation consumers have stored in their
memory comes f rom the process of learning - that is what they think, f eel or know about brands.
Conoway (1994), claims that the subjective personal meanings of psycho-social consequences are
represented by consumers cognitive systems. Since these consequences are experienced by consumers
they are likely to trigger responses such as emotions, f eelings and evaluations. Learning will be examined
as a result of the marketing ef f orts, in terms of how inf ormation f rom the external communication
environment is registered with the consumers long term memory f rom where it is extracted and used during
his purchasing decision and also examine the way learning takes place in the f orm of changes in the
consumers behaviour as a result of experience.
At its simplest f orm learning occurs when consumers are repeatedly exposed to inf ormation such as brand
names, slogans and jingles. Through this f orms of learning consumers may f orm a weakly held belief that a
particular brand is desirable due to an advertisement where the spokesperson repeats this claim over and
over again. On the other hand, learning vicariously occurs when a consumer imitates the behaviours of
others. Bandure (1977) stated that vicarious learning describes the way in which a consumer learns pattern
of behaviour by watching other behave and applying the same lessons to his/her lif e. Brand images are
created through advertisements, marketers use celebrities and f amous sportsmen f or this purpose, as it
are the case with major retailing brands of Sainsbury's and ASDA or Nike and Puma. Advertisements conjure
upon a image f or the brand through the use of models living a certain lif estyle that might be in tune with the
consumers' aspirations - this will allow f or f avourable inf ormation about the brand to be processes by the
consumers learning process.
For marketers the learning theory is one of signif icance and of practical importance, as it allows them to
build up demand f or their brands by associating them to strong drives, motivation cues and thereby
enabling positive reinf orcements.
At t it ude
A persons overall evaluation of a concept may be def ined as his or her attitude (Carpernter and
Nakamopto, 1989). Consumers attitudes towards brands are ref lected by their tendency to evaluate brands
in a consistently f avourable or unf avourable f ashion.
While behaviour and attitude are related and each may uinf luene each other, it si not necessary f or them to
be entirely consistent (Briggs and Cheek, 1986). General logic claims that if a consumer pref ers or f avours
a brand there is greater likelihood of him to purchase it. thereby a positive trend in consumers' attitude
towards a particular brand may result in an increase in sales f orecast. It is no wonder that testing or
measuring attitude provides the bulk of marketing research work (Foxall and Goldsmith, 1994). Researching
consumer attitudes are f unctionally usef ul f or the marketer in directing consumers toward brands they f ind
usef ul in satisf ying needs, wants and aspirations.
Chay (1991) claims that advertisements inf luence attitudes towards the add, which is an importance
predecessor of brand attitude. While Cheratony (1989) and Muehling (1987) go on saying that the inf luence
of attitudes towards the ad on brand attitudes has been f ound to be even more signif icant under low-
involvement conditions and emotionally based advertising. While in some cases even though the consumer
has a f avourable attitude towards a brand due to an advertisement he might have enjoyed, af ter having
watched the advertisement if his purchase action is postponed the ef f ect of the advertisement will wear
of f resulting in the f avourable attitude towards the brand f ading away. Furthermore even if the purchase
action is not delayed there is the possibility of variables such as price that rule out the consistency
between attitude and behaviour (Belk, 1975).
Motivation is another mental f actor that inf luences the underlying emotions and attitudes towards brands
and the purchasing decision. Freud (Vecchio, 1992) claims that people are mostly unconscious of the real
psychological f orces shaping their behaviour. He suggests that a person does not f ully understand his/her
motivation. He states that as people grow up they repress many urges, and these urges are never really
eliminated or under perf ect control. An applied example could be in terms of Pepsi adverting campaign
during 1989 to 1992, with slogan such as "Pepsi the choice of a new generation" and "Pepsi Gotta Have It"
(Alison, 1992). David Novak, Pepsi's vice president of marketing explains that the campaign represents the
Pepsi attitude f or people who think young and want to celebrate his lif e. The implication here would be f or a
young adult who purchases the Pepsi with the underlying motive to quench his thirst or purchase a
beverage. At a deeper leave he might have purchase the Pepsi to f eel or show that he is young and alive
(Alison, 1992).
There is a possibility f or the brand to be a ref lection of the consumer's perception of his image or self -
presentation. Carpernter and Nakamopto (1989) and Chisnall (1995) have def ined image as a f unction of
social interaction. Thereby consumption can be an act of self -presentation. The consumer tries to link
himself with a desired image, or the ideal social self -image.
Conclusion
Through the literature reviewed the signif icance and importance of branding as a marketing tool has been
highlighted, while providing suf f icient evidence as to why a company should brand its products. Product
dif f erentiation has been made dif f icult due to immense competition and improvements in technology,
allowing products to be quickly imitated. In this way f irms have placed a heavy emphasis on adding symbolic
values as the basis f or product dif f erentiation. Theref ore, while evaluating products the consumer will tend
to consider the image aspect of the product to simplif y the evaluation of dif f erent alternatives. Additionally
the review suggested that consumers have a self -concept that have a crucial ef f ect on their purchase
decisions. This means that consumer might evaluate brands on the basis of the congruence between the
brands image and their own self -image.
Moreover, when the consumer has little or no experience with the product or has a lack of inf ormation
about the product, consumers will use brand names to evaluate products, some consumers even when
provided with inf ormation will avoid spending time to investigate the products intrinsic cues (product
specif ic characteristics) and will instead rely on the power of the brand name, which is more apparent when
the product is one of low involvement.
Project Met hodology
3.1 Int roduct ion
The purpose of methodology chapter is to develop an ef f ective research strategy f or this study.
Methodology designs f or the collection of the primary data used in testing the hypotheses and includes
f ormulating of the hypotheses, the data collection methods, designing the questionnaires, the pilot study
and the sample design.
3.2 Hypot heses
The rationale behind the literature has been to investigate the impact of branding on the consumers
purchase decision. In terms of how what evaluate attributes inf luence their purchase decision. The
underlying discussion has tried to come to an understanding of the consumers perception and attitudes
towards how their actual purchase choices or decisions are generated, keeping in mind the brand name
associations that inf luence the consumer, leading to his consistent behaviour and loyalty.
There are two main issues within the study: whether there is a dif f erence in the ef f ect that branding has on
the dif f erent categories of consumer buying behaviour groups, and the relationship between branding
variables and consumer buying behaviour.
As it has been mentioned in the literature review, branding is about certain customers, not all customers as
they have dif f erent attitudes and behaviours toward brands. Further, Crimp and Wright (1995) def ine
consumer attitudes as a composite of a consumer's belief s about, f eelings f or, and behavioural intentions
towards some object-within the context of brad. In the research, the independent variable is the consumer
buying behaviour that is primary interest f or marketer. The main objective of the research is to understand
and describe the purchasing behaviour in terms of brand and to explain its variability within the purchasing
process and attempt to predict it. The dependent variable is the branding element that is considered by the
consumer. Dif f erent consumers may hold dif f erent attitudes f or these branding elements, or in other
words, these branding components are viewed together since they are highly interdependent and together
represent f orces that inf luence how the consumer react to the object. Theref ore, the purpose of the f irst
hypothesis is to explore the dif f erence in the ef f ect that branding has on the dif f erent categories of
consumer buying behaviour groups.
The null H0 and alternative H1 hypothesis can be stated as f ollows:
Group A = independent variable = Consumer buying behaviour
Group B = dependent variable = Branding
Hypot hesis 1
Null hypothesis (H0): There is no dif f erence in the ef f ect that branding has on the f our dif f erent categories
of consumer buying behaviour groups.
Statistically expressed, H0 is 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
.
Alternative hypothesis (H1): There is a dif f erence in the ef f ect that branding has on the f our dif f erent
categories of consumer buying behaviour groups.
Statistically expressed, H1 is 1 2 3 4
In this branding research project that includes several variables, beyond knowing the means and standard
deviations of the dependent variables, researchers of ten would like to know how one dimension is related
to another. That is, it would like to see the nature, direction, and signif icance of the bivariate relationships
of the branding elements used in this study. Theref ore, hypothesis 2 is proposed so as to explore the
consumer's attitudes, on whether there is relationship among brand elements.
Hypot hesis 2
Null hypothesis (H0): There is no correlation among six branding dimensions of the consumers attitudes.
Alternative hypothesis (H1): There is a correlation among six branding dimensions of the consumers
attitudes.
3.2.1 Measurement of Variables
Operationally def ining, a concept to render it measurable, is done by looking at the behaviour dimensions,
f acets, or properties denoted by the concept (Sekaran, 2002). In the literature review, it has been said that
it is possible to describe the behaviour of a person who involves in purchase. Theref ore, this comprises a
complex buying behaviour, dissonance-reducing buying behaviour, habitual buying behaviour, and variety-
seeking buying behaviour basis on the degree of buyer involvement. Then, a nominal scale can be used that
allows the study to assign people to the f our consumer buying behaviour categories.
On the other hand, branding dimensions comprise attitudes, benef its, values, culture, personality
symbolism, and user's reveal of branding elements. Interval scale is used that would allow to measure the
distance between any two points on the scale and help to compute the means and the standard deviations
of the responses on the variables.
3.3 Dat a Collect ion Met hod
The studys survey has aimed to incorporate the f ollowing f eatures to meet the specif ic requirements of
the projects:
Specif ic objectives, these may be in terms of points that the survey should achieve and should be kept
relatively simple;
Questionnaire that entails straightf orward questions that extract consistency and accurate inf ormation;
A research design that includes survey sampling, sampling methods, sample size and the sound choice of
population and sample meaning a relatively large unbiased group;
The appropriate quantitative as well as qualitative analysis and reporting of survey results.
3.4 Quest ionnaire Design
The opinion poll involves three sections. Classif ication data, also known as personal inf ormation or
demographic questions, such as age, education level, marital status, are extract at the Section A in
questionnaire may opine that one respondent have shared some of their personal history, they may have
psychologically identif ied themselves with the questionnaire, and my f eel commitment to respond. Section B
is f ocusing on respondents' buying behaviours and aims to separate them into dif f erent consumer buying
behaviour groups. Furthermore, the questions provide brief ly explanations f or each buying behaviour group.
Section C is designed to collect inf ormation about respondents attitudes towards branding variable. The
data f rom sections B and C is used to test and decide whether to accept and reject the hypothesis and
make recommendations f or marketers.
In section C, a respondent is required to agree with the statement on the scale of 1 to 5, with 1
representing a strong disagreement and 5 being a strong agreement. The aim is to measure the consumers
attitude f or each brand dimension, and f ind out how branding ef f ects on consumer buying behaviour. Each
dimension has two questions corresponding to measures. For example, question 6 and 7 are designed f or
measuring the brand attribute ef f ects. These questions are easy to understand and answer, and take less
time and ef f ort to respond.
Surveys are usef ul f or getting a great deal of specif ic inf ormation. However, surveys come in several
dif f erent f orms. Mail surveys are relatively inexpensive, but response rates are typically quite low f rom 5-20
percent. Phone surveys get somewhat higher response rates, but not many questions can be asked
because many answer options have to be repeated and f ew people are willing to stay on the phone f or
more than f ive minutes. Mall intercepts are a convenient way to reach consumers, but respondents may be
reluctant to discuss anything sensitive f ace-to-f ace with an interviewer. By personally administered
questionnaire, any doubts that the respondents might have on any question could be clarif ied on eth spot.
And researcher may have better opportunities f or introducing the research topic and motivating the
respondents to give f rank answers.
3.5 Pilot St udy Reliabilit y and Face Validit y
3.5.1 Pre-Test Quest ionnaire
It was carried put to pre-test the questionnaire design, and reliability of the scale in the context of the
questionnaire to see whether it produced reliable results when f requent measurements are made and to
adjust any sudden problems with the questionnaire. Pre- test questionnaire in this study will be used to
identif y whether the research elements are valid and reliable bef ore implementing. (Malhotra 1996)
3.5.2 Validit y
The validity of this content that measures an suf f icient and diplomatic set of items to tap the concept. By
recommend structure of questionnaire, more the scale items represent the domain or universe of the
concept being measured, the grater content validity. To put it dif f erentially, the content validity is a f unction
of how well dimensions and elements of a concept have been def ined. This would give the proper content
of validity.
(Sekaran ,2003).
To support content validity, the questionnaire has designed that there are f our dimensions of the
consumer buying behaviour variable and six dimensions of brand variable and two questions f or each
dimension. To evaluate the f eedback on this matter, f or the period of study process, the respondents were
requested to make comments on the clarity and the structure of the questionnaire. By considering this
f eedback on this matter, f ew modif ications and adjustments have been applied to the study.
3.5.3 Reliabilit y of Measures
For appropriate reliability of measures 15 to 20 respondents has been conducted on streets, via emails and
on the phone to check the reliability. It can help us to assess the appropriateness. Interim Consistency
reliability is a test of the respondents answer to all the items in a measure. To degree that items will be
correlated with one another. According to this method, more than 0.70 reliability coef f icients is accepted
and marked. The test conducted f or section C, f or this scale is 0.8281, thus demonstrating good levels of
reliability (table1).
Table 1. Reliability Analysis
3.6 Sample Design
The process of selecting an adequate number of basics f rom the population, so that a pilot learning of the
model and an indulgence of its property or characteristics would make it possible to be widespread.
Consumer research is usually based upon techniques like sample survey (Kress, 1988). However, while
doing a research it is not possible to do a survey done f or the whole population and then study them.
Thus, a sample survey is been done to determine a f rame to f acilitate the f indings.
3.6.1 Sampling Techniques
In this research random sampling methods have been used. For this method, a technique of non-probability
sampling-quota sampling has been chosen. Quota sampling can be measured as a f orm of balanced
stratif ied sampling, in which encoded percentages of individuals are sampled f rom diverged groups,
conveniently. For example, this study divided consumers into f our categories of buying conduct, in order to
ensure each grouping has the equivalent measure of respondents. The initial available respondents were
sampled accordingly and then randomly select other respondents who f it the quota until each group if f illed.
Since this is a non-probability sampling, the outcomes are not generalised to be population (Sekaran,
2003). Still, it becomes necessary when a subset of the population in the study is unidentif ied.
3.6.2 Sample Size
The determination of sampling size is af f ected by two main f actors: the economies of the data and the
need to make an appropriate decision that is to have enough observations to make a decision (Gof ton and
Ness, 1997). While perf orming a market research in branding ef f ects on consumer, the numerical evaluation
of sample amount may be not so easy.
Proposed that a sample size more than 30 and less than 500 is majorly appropriate f or maximum research
methods, while making a subsample at least 30 samples in each category are important (Crimp and Wright
(1995) In this study, there are f our categories/subgroups and a large sampling size will be time consuming.
thus, 120 respondents are most suitable f or the f ieldwork. in addition, in this study, a greater degree of
cultural and social dif f erence can be met in dif f erent buying behaviours. In this regard it would be better to
assume each sub-group has the same sample size. Theref ore, this study constraints to 30 respondents
f or each subgroup.
3.7 Conclusion
The main f ocus of the methodology design used to conduct the research is the hypotheses based on the
literature review that is to examine the branding ef f ect on consumer buying behaviour. The f irst hypothesis
concludes if there is dif f erence in the outcome that branding has on f our diverse consumer buying
behaviour groups. The second hypothesis, is to explore the inter-relationship among brand dimensions
when they have ef f ect on consumer buying behaviour. The research also includes data resources,
questionnaire design and sampling design. Moreover, the instrument has also assessed in validity and
reliability of using piloting test f or this research.
Analysis Of Findings
4.1 Int roduct ion
The f ollowing are the data results f rom the questionnaires. The purpose is to study the hypothesis of the
branding ef f ect on consumer buying behaviour. On f inal survey sampling, ten more questionnaires, that is
40 items were collected f or each consumer buying behaviour group in order to avoid some invalid or
incomplete questionnaire on the study. Theref ore, seven invalid questionnaires were taken out as
incomplete and 153 questionnaires were put into consideration. The non-response rate is at 4.6 percent.
Finally, 30 respondents were separately selected f rom each consumer buying behaviour groups by random
method.
4.2 Dat a Analysis Met hods
In this data analysis process, the Frequency Descriptive is put at f irst to highlight the demographics and the
distribution of the data obtained. Af ter that, Kruskal-Wallis Test is conducted to compare the dif f erence in
the ef f ect that branding has on the f our dif f erent categories of consumer buying behaviour groups. Finally,
the Spearman's Rank Order Correlation is used to explore the correlation among brand elements towards
consumers' attitudes. For this case it would be appropriate to use non-parametric tests when the scale is
not continuous, as it is suggested by Pallant (2002). As the data obtained f rom questionnaires is not
continuous but nominal, the non-parametric tests would be used f or the research. In order to ease the
statistical dispensation, the sof tware (SPSS) was engaged f or the f ollowing study.
4.3 Descript ive St at ist ics
Statistics study serves three major principles: to portray the data at of f er, test hypothesis, and f orecast or
estimate the data (Malhotra, 1996). This analysis starts by current demographics and the division of the
data collected. Frequency distributions were also attained f or the data and categorized variables. The
f requencies f or the f igure of individuals in the diversed classif ication f or this sample are shown below.
Table 2. Frequency Output
Gender In the 120 respondents, 62 percent are f emale and 58 percent are male. This indicates that
f emale participate in shopping more than male.
Age 25 percent of the respondents are under the age of 20, 21 percent are within the range of 21-30
years, 27 percent in 31-40, 25 percent in 41-50 and 22 percent are over the age of 51. Theref ore, it shows
that the size of each age group is standard f or the research.
Education 29 percent had a primary school education, 18 percent had secondary school education, 19
percent - Bachelors Degree, 31 percent Masters Degree, and 23 percent had doctoral degrees.
Marital status There are 74 percent of married and 46 percent of single responses. It implies that
married people participate more in shopping than single.
From the statistics synopsis above, it provides a summary of the responses in the research, which is
usef ul to portray the model of this report. For f urther research, the f requencies can visually be displayed
as bar charts, histograms, or pie charts.
4.3 Hypot heses Test s
4.3.1 Kruskal Wallis Test s
The Kruskal-Wallis Test is the non-parametric alternative to a one-way between groups analysis of
variance. It allows research to compare the scores on some continuous variable f or three or more groups.
Which in this case, would there be dif f erence in the ef f ect of branding on f our dif f erent types of consumer
buying behaviour groups: those who are Complex buying behaviour/Dissonance-reducing buying
behaviour/Habitual buying behaviour/Variety-seeking buying behaviour. Scores are converted to ranks and
the mean rank f or each group is compared. As this is a between-groups analysis, dif f erent people must
be in each of the dif f erent groups.
Kruskal-Wallis Test involves one independent variable-consumer buying behaviour (ref erred to as a f actor),
which has a number of dif f erent categories. The statistical groups correspond to the dif f erent categories.
The dependent variables are elements of branding ef f ect (in this case: attributes, benef its, values, culture,
personality and user). As it has been mentioned in Chapter 3.2.1, each of these dimensions has two
questions that correspond to measures. In order to analyse the branding ef f ect, this paired measures need
to be transf ormed as a mean value. The next step is the new variables f or branding ef f ect have to be
obtained f or statistical tests. To test the f irst hypothesis, the data results f rom questions 6-17 are
reviewed. The output generated f rom this procedure is presented below.
Table 3. Kruskal-Wallis Test
The main pieces of inf ormation f rom this Kruskal-Wallis Test output are: Chi-Square value, the degree of
f reedom (df ), and the signif icant level (presented as Asymp.Sig.). If the signif icant level is a value less than
or equal to 0.05, then there is a statistically signif icant dif f erence in the consumer buying behaviour across
the f our groups. In the table below, brand attributes, brand benef its and brand values Sig. values are all less
than 0.05 and imply that these three branding elements have signif icantly dif f erent ef f ects on f our
categories of consumer buying behaviour groups.
On the other side in terms of brand culture, brand identities, and brand user, all Sig values are larger than
0.05, indicating that f our categories of consumer buying behaviour groups have no dif f erent attitudes
towards these three branding elements. In other words, these three branding elements have no signif icant
dif f erent ef f ects on f our categories of consumer buying behaviour groups.
Moreover, the Mean Rank f or these f our groups was presented in the output table below. This will indicate
which groups had highest overall ranking that correspond to the highest score on the branding variables.
Table 4: Mean Rank
Firstly, on the brand attribute ef f ects, the consumer group 1 (Complex buying behaviour) has highest mean
rank of all while group 4 (Variety-seeking buying behaviour) has much lower mean rank than other groups.
Secondly, on the brand benef it ef f ects, the group 1 (Complex buying behaviour) has highest mean rank of
all while group 4 (Variety-seeking buying behaviour) once again has much lower mean rank than other
groups. In regards to brand value ef f ects, the group 1 has much higher mean rank of all, with the group 4
reporting the lowest. In terms of brand culture, brand identity and brand user ef f ects, the results f rom mean
ranks do not possess much variance and imply that there are no signif icant dif f erences across f our
consumer groups.
4.3.2 Correlat ion Test s
To identif y the environment, path, and consequences of the vicariate relations of the branding
f undamentals in this study, a non-parametric test Spearmans Rank order Correlation matrix is presented to
assess the relationship between ordinal variables and provides this in order.
Cohen (1988) proposes the subsequent procedure (cited in Pallant, 2002):
r = .10 to .29 or r= -.10 to -.29 small
r =.30 to .49 or r = -.30 to -.49 medium
r =.50 to 1.0 or r = -.50 to -1.0 large
Hypothetically, there might be a pref ect optimistic correlation between two variable, which the correlation is
symbolized by 1.0 (plus 1), or a pref ect pessimistic correlation which would be -1.0 (minus 1). The negative
symbol only ref ers to the course of the association, not the potency. In f act, neither or these will be f ound
certain while measuring correlations among any two variables conventional to be diverse f rom previous.
As a result, the theory that hypothesizes relationship(positive or negative) between branding basics can be
experienced by investigating the correlation between either of the two. still, in the f irst hypothesis analysis
concluded that f our class of consumer buying behaviour groups have considerably dissimilar approach on
branding basics, and these consumer groups will be separately analysed. as a result, the sub hypotheses
should be conducted as f ollow:
Sub hypotheses:
(H01): no correlation among branding elements and complexes buying behaviour group.
(H11): a correlation between branding variables and complexes buying behaviour group
(H02): no correlation between branding variables and dissonance-reducing buying behaviour group
(H12): a correlation between branding variables and dissonance-reducing buying behaviour group.
(H03): no correlation between branding variables and habitual buying behaviour group.
(H13): a correlation between branding variables and habitual buying behaviour group.
(H04): no correlation between branding variables and variety-seeking buying behaviour group.
(H14): a correlation between branding variables and variety-seeking buying behaviour group.
On the table, the asterisk (*) explains which two branding f undamentals have a relationship to both due to
the Sig. (2-tailed) rate attain the statistical implication at the conventional point (p<0.05). Correlation
coef f icients indicate the accurate potency of the association between two variables. In addition, to what
extent the dif f erence of the two variables to be measured condemned to as the coef f icient of purpose.
Table 5. Correlation of brand variables f or complex consumer group
The outcome on the previous table of buyer set 1 demonstrates that there is a standard, positive
association among brand characteristic aspect and brand traditional measurement (r=0.362, p=0.049), with
high rank of superf icial brand aspect related with complex levels of brand behaviour. The parallel coef f icient
r, when squared, symbolizes 13.1 percent share variation. Supposed brand conduct helps to explain nearly
13 percent of the diversity in respondents score on the supposed brand attributes range. On the other
hand, there is a strong negative association among brand customs and brand identity variables (r=-0.537,
p=0.002), with high levels of perceived brand culture associated with lower levels of perceived brand identity
scale. The superf icial brand culture helps to describe nearly 28 percent of the dif f erence in respondents
scores on the supposed brand identity scale. Hence, (HI) is accepted which means there is a association
between branding variables that dif f erence reducing buying behaviour set considers.
Table 6. Correlation of brand variables f or dissonance-reducing consumer group
In consumer group 2, the results f rom the above table show that there is strong negative association
between brand value variable and brand identity variable (r=-0.527, p=0.003), with high levels associated
with lower levels of brand distinctiveness range. The perceived brand value helps to evaluate nearly 27
percent of the variance in respondents scores on the scale. Hence, (H12) is accepted and there is an
association between branding variables that dissonance-reducing buying behaviour set considers.
Table 7. Correlation of brand variables f or habitual consumer group
In consumer set 3, the table above proposes that there is only a f ragile association among any of two
brand variables, which acquires (H03) that there is no association among branding variables that regular
buying behaviour group considers. The statistical analysis has to maintain moving on the production of the
f ourth consumer set.
A standard, positive relationship also happened among the brand attribute and brand identity user on the
consumer set 4 (Variety-seeking buying behaviour). The potency of correlation is 0.383 and share variance
of these two variables is 14 percent which means brand characteristic enables to give explanation that
almost 14 percent of the dif f erence in respondents scores on the brand identity range. Theref ore, H14 is
established and there is an association between branding variables that variety-seeking buying behaviour
group believes.
Table 8. Correlation of brand variables f or variety-seeking consumer group
4.4 Conclusion of Findings
From the analysis commenced, a number of indications can be complete the conclusions. The research
used f requency division exposes the categorization in terms of gender, age, education level and marital
status of the answers. In provisions of the tests associated to the projected hypothesis is established as
there is stagnant distinction in the consequence that branding has on the f our diverse categories of
consumer buying behaviour set. In theory 2, null hypothesis is cast of f and substitute is established in
hypothesis 1, 2 and 4. Null hypothesis is established and substitute is rejected in sub hypothesis 3. For
composite consumer group, habitual consumer group and variety-seeking consumer group, there is a
association among branding variables. Still, on the dissonance-reducing consumer set, there is no
signif icant association between brand variables.
Disscussions & Conclusions
5.1 Research Conclusion
This research tried to present the branding ef f ects on f our classes of consumer buying activities. This
research is based on products tried to examine the diverse attitudes f rom consumer buying behaviour
groups in analysing towards brand ef f ects in the UK. A diversity of people and researchers examine the
anxiety between f irms in the marketplace and the nature of consumption. These criticisms of marketing
have argued that, collectively, f irms' branding ef f orts f igure the desire and actions of the buyers. The
f undamental purpose of this study was to show how branding af f ects dif f erent buyers behaviours.
For research proposition, the scales of branding process were gone through reliability test. The resulting
scale was reliable with an overall determination of branding. The method included attributes, benef its,
values, culture, personality symbolism and belief s of the buyers. Four class of consumer buying behaviour
were identif ied, representing complex buying behaviour, dissonance-reducing buying behaviour, habitual
buying behaviour, and variety-seeking buying behaviour, by Kotler (2003). The hypotheses brought f orward
were, Hypotheses 1 that is if there is dissimilarity in the outcome that branding has on the f our classes of
consumer buying activities in the groups. Hypotheses 2 if there is a correlation between branding variable
and also, Sub hypotheses was also developed f or advance analysis on hypothesis 2 in 4.4.2.
This result f ound that in terms of branding ef f ects, there is a signif icant dif f erence among f our categories
of consumer buying behaviours. Kruskal-Wallis test summarised that the dif f erent ef f ects came f rom
branding attributes, benef it and value measures. But with brand culture, personality symbolism, and user
revealing, the mean relative importance of attribute is not f ound to dif f er signif icantly between any of the
consumer buying behaviours groups.
The second hypotheses f ocused to examine whether there is an association between brand variables in
diverse buying behaviour groups. For this hypothesis, simply in complex buying behaviour, habitual buying
behaviour and variety-seeking buying behaviour there was an association between brand variables. For the
dissonance-reducing buying behaviour there was no association between brand variables. normally, it
showed that in a complex buying behaviour group, brand culture explains 13 percent of the dif f erence in
respondents scores on the brand attributes scale. For brand culture and brand identity nearly 28 percent of
the dif f erence could be used to explain brand identity on the brand identity scale. In dissonance-reducing
buying behaviour group brand values helps to explain nearly 27 percent of the dif f erence in respondents
scores on the brand identity scale. In variety-seeking buying behaviour group, brand attributes helps to
explain nearly 14 percent of the dif f erence in respondents scores on the brand identity scale.
5.2 Managerial Implicat ions and Recommendat ions
These results proved that consumers buying behaviour is inf luenced by dif f erent branding proportions.
Brand attribute, benef it and value situation signif icantly impact the relative signif icance of branding
evaluation, and their relations contributes to explaining consumer behaviour, even though this relations
remains to be quantif ied in f uture researches.
The researched proved proposal of Graham (2001) that branding is about conf ident consumers. Dif f erent
kinds of consumers may think dif f erent on the same brand. For example, the Mac Apple branding message
is clear, while a Mac is not f or everyone, it is f or those who do not want to be computer geeks and those
who think computing should be f un. In other words, this is the computer f or those who, like to think of
themselves as thinking dif f erently. The Mac product lineup reinf orces the branding with the extraordinary
design and colours of the iMacs and the iBooks, and the latest, the starling Cube (Graham, 2001).
For branding marketers, the results clearly indicate the need to target approach to their consumer markets.
Segmenting customers merely on the basis of their brand measure/variable could ultimately prove mistaken
of these branding variables interact to explain specif ications. For example, while brand benef it of premium
quality remains a dominant f actor, it may play a dif f erent part f or complex buying behaviour in given
circumstances than f or the habitual buying behaviour consumers. It used to take years to builds a premium
brand. Companies like Proctor &Gamble or General Electric would make quality products and over time
consumers would come to associate that quality with the company name, value, culture and so on. Hence,
Keller (1993) def ined brand image as "perceptions about a brand as ref lected by the brand associations
held in memory". This def inition takes an association memory network view, in that brand image is based
upon linkages a consumer holds in his/her memory structure regarding the brand. These linkages, or in
Kellers terminology, brand associations, are developed f rom a variety of sources including brand and
product category experiences, product attributes, price inf ormation, positioning in promotional
communications, packaging, user imagery (e.g. typical brand users), and usage occasion (Keller, 1993).
Brands and sustain a price over similar products because consumers or at least many consumers perceive
a recognised value f rom purchasing a product. While buying goods and services these consumers would
opt to but a given product because certain companies made them. The company itself becomes a brand
name and the products they make become brands as well.
To realise that consumers evaluation of branding attributes changes the emphasis on the various
attributes altered to the purchase of the product f or specif ic branding strategies. For example, if the brand
attributes can really support 13 percent of the variance in consumers' evaluation on the brand identity
scale, it can make market targeting much easier. While this matter considered as limiting market potential,
these individual market niches are likely to be quite lucrative if targeted ef f ectively. Finally, it is also
important f or practitioners to note that their market research should take into account the type of
interaction revealed in this study.
5.3 Limit at ion and Furt her Research
Further limitations should have to be considered as the result of the previous conclusions. This can relate
the hypothetical products used to evaluate consumers' decisions. Having 6 branding variables, it excluded
other potential variables and the absence of attributes may have made consumers unable to replicate the
purchase process. in addition, it is possible that inf luences of dif f erent branding variables on consumer
behaviour may be somewhat partial to only product categories presenting similar characteristics, thus
preventing generalised f indings.
The reliability test comprised all respondents f rom dif f erent buying behaviour groups, leading to the f act
that it could inf luence the reliability. In the opinion of experts, its reliability is dependent upon the design of
the study and the nature of the sample. Whilst all practical ef f orts were made to gain a representative
sample of consumers, the potential f or sampling bias can never be eliminated. With an intercept style of
data collection, response rates cannot be measured, and theref ore non-response bias cannot be
accounted f or.
Due to the nature of branding, there is a lot of scope f or additional research to be carried out. Research
can be also conducted on topics such as the consistency and levels of advertising and promotion.
Researchers might want to f ocus themselves with a particular brands market position, including brands age
and analysing the reasons f or its success or f ailure - as well as its relative market share and demand.
Further research is suggested f or analysing legal aspects of branding. Moreover, the communication of
trademarks that is their impression on the consumer would make interesting research. Such topics might
present f urther explanations to the ef f ects of branding on the consumers purchase decision.
Ref erences
Aaker, D. (1991) Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name, New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. (1996) Building strong brands, London: The Free Press.
Adcock, D. et al. (1998) Marketing Principles and Practice, London: Pitman Publishing.
Alison, F. (1992) Pepsi bridges generation gap in ads, Advertising Age, January 20, p.14.
Alreck, P. and Settle, R. (1999) Strategies f or building consumer brand pref erence, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, Vol. 8 Issue 2, pp.130-144.
Assael, H. (1993) Marketing principles and strategy, New York: The Dryden Press.
Assael, H. (1998) Consumer behaviour and marketing action, 8th Edition, Boston: Kent Publishing Company.
Baker, M. (2000) The marketing book, 4th Edition, Oxf ord: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bandura, A. (1977) Social learning theory, US: Prentice Hall.
Belk, R. (1975) Situation variables and consumer behaviour, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, pp.157-
164.
Briggs, S. and Cheek, J. (1986) The role of f actor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality
scales, Journal of Personality, Vol.54, pp.106-148.
Carpernter, G. and Nakamopto, K. (1989) Consumer pref erence f ormation and pioneering advantage,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp.285-298.
Carpernter, G. and Nakamopto, K. (1996) Impact of consumer pref erence f ormation on marketing objectives
and competitive second mover strategies, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 5 Issue 4, pp.325-358.
Chay, R. (1991) How marketing researchers can harness the power of brand equity, Marketing Research,
Vol. 3 Issue 2, pp.30-37.
Chevron, J. (1998) The Delphi process: A strategic branding methodology, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 15 Issue 3, pp.254-264.
Cheratony, L. (1989) Understanding consumers perception of competitive tiers, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 4 Issue 3, pp.12-19.
Cheratony, L. (1993) Marketers and consumer concurring perceptions of market structure European,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23 Issue 1, pp.156-157.
Chisnall, P. (1995) Consumer behaviour, 3d Edition, London: McGraw-Hill.
Conoway, F. (1994) The mature consumer, Discount merchandiser, Vol. 34 Issue 5, pp.150-153.
Cowley, D. (1996) Understand brands, London: Kogan Page.
Crimp, M and Wright, L. (1995) The marketing research process, 4th Edition, London: Prentice Hall.
Curwin, J. and Slater, R. (1996) Quantitative methods f or business decisions, 4th Edition, London:
Thompson Business Press.
Davis, S. (1995) A vision f or the year 2000: Brand asset management, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.
12 Issue 4, pp.65-82.
Davis, J. et al. (1996) Theoretical and empirical linkages between consumers responses to dif f erent
branding strategies, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp.296-300.
Dodds, B. (1991) Ef f ect of price, brand and store inf ormation on buyers product evaluations, Journal of
marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp.307-319.
Diaz de Rada, V. (1998) A simple consumer or dif f erent types of consumer: An analysis of social types
according to their consumer habits, British Food Journal, Vol. 100 issue 7, pp.326-336.
Dun, G. (1997) Brand management, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 Issue 2, pp.9-11.
East, R. (1997) Consumer behaviour: Advances and applications in Marketing, London: Prentice Hall.
Egan, J. (2002) Relationship marketing: Exploring relational strategies in marketing, 2nd edition. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.
Engle, J et al. (1995) Consumer behaviour, 8th Edition, New York: The Dryden Press.
Erdem, T. (1998) An empirical analysis of umbrella branding, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 Issue 3,
pp.339-351.
Evans, M. (2001) Consumer behaviour towards f ashion, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23 Issue 7,
pp.24-35.
Feltham, T. (1998) Leaving home: Brand purchase inf luences on young adults, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 15 Issue 4, pp.49-60.
Fankel, R. (2002) Fresh ways to connect with consumers, Brandweek, Vol. 44 Issue 2, pp.23-27.
Foxall, G. (1980) Consumer behaviour A practical guide, Guildf ord: Biddles Ltd.
Foxall, G. and Goldsmith, R. (1994) Consumer psychology f or marketing, London: Routledge.
Gambill, M. (2000) Shopping centre branding: Does it make sense?, Real estate Issues, Vol.25 Issue 1,
pp.13-28.
Graham, J. (2001) If theres no brand, theres no business, Canadian Manager, Vol. 26 Issue 1, pp.25-27.
Ghauri, P. and Cromhaug, K. (2002) Research methods in business studies A Practical Guide, 2nd Edition,
London: Pearson Education Limited.
Gwinner, K. and Eaton, J. (1999) Building bran image through event sponsorship: The role of image transf er,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 Issue 4, pp.47-57.
Gof ton, L. and Ness, M. (1997) Business market research, London: Kogan Page.
Gronroos, C. (1997) Keynote Paper From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing - Towards a Paradigm
Shif t in Marketing, Journal of Management Decision, Vol.35 Issue 4, pp.322-339.
Hankinson, G. and Cowking, P. (1993) Branding in action, Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. (1994) Competing f or the Future, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School
Press Boston.
Herbig, P. and Milewicz, J. (1995) The relationship pf reputation and credibility to brand success, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol.12 Issue 4, pp.3-7.
Holbrook, M. (1978) Beyond attitude structure: toward the inf ormational determinants of attitude, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol.15, pp.545-556.
Holt, D. (2002) Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 Issue 1, pp.70-91.
Howard, J and Sheth, J. (1969) The theory of buyer behaviour, New York: John Wiley.
Kamakura, W and Russell, G. (1993) Measuring brand value with scanner data, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 10 Issue 1, pp.68-83.
Kapf erer, J. (1995) Strategic brand management, London: Kogan Page.
Keller, K. (1998) Strategic brand management, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. et al. (1999) Principles of Marketing, 2nd Edition, Europe: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. (1997) Marketing Management: Analysis planning and implementation, US: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. (2000) Marketing management, Millennium Edition, US: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. and Cox, K. (1980) Marketing management and strategy, US: Prentice Hall.
Kress, G. (1988) Marketing research, 3d Edition, Englewood Clif f s: Prentice Hall.
Levitt, T. (1983) The globalization of markets, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp.23-26.
Lewis, B. (1993) Service quality measurement marketing intelligence and planning, Vol. 11 Issue 4, pp.4-12.
Machleit, K. (1993) The mature brand and brand interest: An alternative consequence of ad-evoked af f ect,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp.72-88.
Malhotra, N. (1996) Marketing research an applied orientation, 2nd Edition, New York: Prentice Hall.
Meenaghan, T. (1995) The role of advertising in brand image development, Journal of Brand and Product
Management, Vol. 4 Issue 4, pp.23-24.
Miller, D. (1991) Handbook of research design and social measurement, 5th Edition, New York: Sage
Publications.
Muehling, D. and Laczniak, R. (1991) The moderating ef f ects of ad message involvement: A reassessment,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 Issue 2, pp.29-38.
Muehling, D., Stoltman, J. and Mishra, S. (1989) An Examination of the cognitive antecedents of attitude-
toward-the-ad, Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 12 Issue 1, pp.95-118.
Murphy, J. (1992) Branding a key marketing tool, London: Macmillan Press.
Oliver, R. (1999) Whence Consumer Loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, 63(Special issue), pp. 33-44.
Pallant, J. (2002) SPSS survival manual a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS f or Windows,
1st Edition, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Pitta, S. and Katsansis, P. (1995) Understanding brand equity f or successf ul brand extension, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 Issue 4, pp.51-64.
Porter, M. (1980) Competitive Strategy, London: Macmillan Press.
Quester, P. and Smart, J. (1998) The inf luence of consumption situation and product involvement over
consumers' use of product attribute, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 Issue 3, pp.220-229.
Sekaran, U. (2003) Research methods f or business A skill-building approach, 2nd Edition, New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Thakor, M. and Kohli, C. (1996) Brand origin: Conceptualization and review, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 13 issue 3, pp.27-32.
Webb, J. (1999) Understanding and designing marketing research, London: International Thomson Business
Press.
Vecchio, R. (1991) Organisational behaviour, 2nd Edition, US: The Dryden Press.
More f rom UK Essays
Get an Instant Quote - No registration required!