Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
A model that addresses the similarities and differences in conceptual antecedents of attitudes toward private label grocery products and
national brand promotions is proposed and tested. The proposed model is tested using a sample of 300 consumers who were recruited from
grocery stores, provided behavioral data from sales receipts of their shopping trip, and responded to a survey that contained multi-item
construct measures. We predict and find in the study that both price and nonprice related constructs impact both private label attitude and
national brand promotion attitude, but the directionality and strength of several of these relationships differ. Implications of these findings
for retailers and national manufacturers are discussed. 2002 by New York University. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Since price deals on grocery items are offered in various
forms, consumers wanting to save money at grocery retailers have a number of alternatives from which to choose. For
instance, consumers can redeem manufacturers coupons,
take advantage of a stores advertised specials, search for
shelf or display discounts, or buy private label brands.
Broadly, however, consumers seeking to save money have
two options. They can seek a national brand being marketed
on deal. Alternatively, they can opt for a private label brand
that is typically priced below nonprice promoted nationally
branded goods.
Although deal or private label prone consumers share
the goal to save money when they shop, we know little
about the extent to which their savings behaviors share
similar patterns. Numerous prior studies have addressed
the characteristics of the deal prone shopper or the private label prone consumer separately (see Batra and
Sinha, 2000; Richardson, Jain, and Dick, 1996; Blattberg
and Neslin, 1990). While a recent study by Ailawadi,
Neslin, and Gedenk (2001) has identified some general
similarities and differences between the two groups, this
0022-4359/02/$ see front matter 2002 by New York University. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 2 2 - 4 3 5 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 7 1 - 4
92
93
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the antecedents of private label attitude and national brand promotion attitude.
94
95
Table 1
Overview of the multi-item measures
Multi-Item Scale Measures
Coefficient
# of
Items
Sample Items
.89
Value Consciousness
.86
Price-Quality Association
.85
.94
Brand Loyalty
.91
.90
When I buy a private label brand, I always feel that I am getting a good deal.
I love it when private label brands are available for the product categories I purchase.
When purchasing a product, I always try to maximize the quality I get for the money I
spend.
I generally shop around for lower prices on products, but they still must meet quality
requirements before I buy them.
The old saying you get what you pay for is generally true.
The price of a product is a good indicator of its quality.
When I go shopping, I take a lot of pride in making smart purchases.
When I shop smartly, I feel like a winner.
Once I have made a choice on which brand to purchase, I am likely to continue to
purchase it without considering other brands.
Even though certain products are available in a number of different brands, I always
tend to buy the same brand.
I love special promotional offers for products.
Im usually not motivated to respond to promotional deals on products. (Reverse
coded)
Methodology
Study sample and procedure
Our sample consisted of shoppers from a grocery store
chain in the Midwest. As the shoppers were exiting the
store, they were approached by interviewers and asked if
they would participate in a university-sponsored project
regarding shopping attitudes and behaviors. Those who
agreed to participate were asked to relinquish their scannerbased receipts. These receipts contained behavioral purchase information, including the total number of private
label products, total number of promoted products, and total
number of products purchased by each shopper. Respondents were then provided with a self-administered survey
and postage paid envelope so that they could complete the
remaining questions at home.
Of approximately 900 surveys distributed, 300 provided
complete information for all of the multi-item measures in
the model (response rate of 33%). The median household
income category ranged from $35,000 to $49,999, and 78%
of the respondents were women.
96
Table 2
Model fit and tests of proposed relationships in the model
Model Fit Statistics
2
1198.09
df
581
Structural Relationships:
Hypothesized Paths
GFI
.82
AGFI
.79
CFI
.91
TLI
.90
Proposed
Relationship
Completely
Standardized
Coefficients
t-value
positive
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
more positive
negative
negative
more negative
negative
positive
positive
positive
.17
.13
.15
.22
.16
.48
2.40a
2.03b
2.24b
3.45a
2.52a
6.90a
4.77a,c
2.44a
1.25
3.15a,c
4.03a
4.30a
3.68a
2.30b
.16
.08
.25
.28
.22
.14
p .01
p .025
c
The t-values for both H3c and H4c were calculated to determine the significance of the differences between the hypothesized paths using the coefficients
as outlined in Cohen and Cohen (1983, pgs. 56 57).
a
Results
Measurement properties
We used confirmatory factor analysis to assess the measurement model consisting of all items designed to measure
the six latent constructs. Standardized factor loadings from
this analysis ranged from 0.58 to 0.95 (all t-values 10.50,
p .001), with one exception. (One item of value consciousness produced a standardized loading of only 0.41
association on these constructs differs in terms of directionality. Also, both smart shopper self-perception and brand
loyalty influence these two constructs differently in terms of
strength. Furthermore, the model shows interesting relationships between brand loyalty and various constructs, and the
hypothesized paths between the attitudes and market place
behaviors are both significant.4
Discussion
In this research we investigate similarities and differences between the antecedents of national brand promotion
attitude and private label attitude. To our knowledge, this
study is the first empirical test of a model that incorporates
private label and consumer promotion attitude scales, actual
behavioral measures, and latent construct antecedents, such
as price-quality associations and the ego-related, smart
shopper self-perception.
Key similarities and differences toward off-price buying
A key empirical finding in our study is that value-consciousness is positively related to attitudes towards both
private labels and national brand promotions. Thus, while
value-consciousness helps explain why some shoppers pay
less, it does little to distinguish attitudes toward national
brand promotions and private label brands. With coefficients nearly identical for both relationships, value-consciousness is a motivation for consumers who have positive
attitudes toward national brands or private label brands.
While value-consciousness is a commonality among
consumers who seek price savings, the perception of price
in terms of its relationship to product quality, had the opposite effect. For these consumers, the lower average prices
of the private labels cause such products to be regarded as
less attractive. Quite likely, the low price on private labels
signals inferior quality for consumers. In contrast, these
same buyers viewed national brands on price promotion
more favorably. For these consumers, price promotions may
represent a way to achieve savings without feeling that
quality was being sacrificed. This finding is both consistent
with, and further illuminates, prior behavioral research examining national brand price promotions and private label
market share (Blattberg and Wisniewski, 1989; Sethuraman
and Mittelstaedt, 1992).
Consistent with our expectations, we found smart shopper self-perception to represent another basis for differentiation in attitudes toward national brand promotions and
private labels. Smart-shoppers are interested in saving
money, of course, but how they go about saving this money
is also important to them. Unlike previous work concerning
differences between store brand and national brand consumers (Ailawadi, Neslin and Gedenk, 2001), we tested the
direct impact of this ego-related construct on attitudes toward private labels and national brand promotions. Our
97
98
sociated with private labels while concurrently demonstrating that lower prices of private label brands are not
associated with inferior quality. Future research should address the effectiveness of different promotion and packaging techniques in changing quality perceptions, inferences
about the price-quality relationship, and the overall perception of value delivered by private label brands.
Notes
1. All items used, means and correlations for all measures, detailed results from a confirmatory factor analysis of the scales, and tests of discriminant validity are
available upon request from the first author.
2. Acceptable fit is further supported by the results of the
equation offered by Maiti and Mukherjee (1990) that
addresses the maximum GFI for a given model. Based
on this equation, which takes into account the sensitivity of both the number of indicators and sample size
in the calculation of GFI, the best GFI this model
could produce is 0.904. The GFI of our model is 0.82
or 91% of the best possible result for this model.
3. Two additional models were also performed to assess
the relationships from private label attitude to national
brand promotion attitude and from national brand promotion attitude to private label attitude. In each case,
the path estimate between these two constructs was
nonsignificant and did not improve the model fit.
4. As suggested by a reviewer, two versions of the model
were run to assess the presence of paths from (1)
national brand promotion attitude to percentage of
private label purchases and (2) private label attitude to
percentage of promoted product purchases. The results
of both models revealed nonsignificant paths.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank L.P. Bucklin and the
reviewers for their helpful comments.
References
Ailawadi, K., Neslin, S. A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the valueconscious consumer: Store brands versus national brand promotions.
Journal of Marketing, 65(January), 71 89.
Batra, R., & Sinha, I. (2000). Consumer-level factors moderating the
success of private label brands. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 175191.
Bearden, W. O., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1998). Handbook of marketing
scales. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Blattberg, R. C., & Neslin, S. A. (1990). Sales promotion: Concepts,
methods, and strategies. (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blattberg, R. C., & Wisniewski, K. J. (1989). Price-induced patterns of
competition. Marketing Science, 18(4), 81100.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York, NY: John Wiley.
99