The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.

htm

BFJ 108,3

An empirical investigation of Turkish cola market

Dilber Ulas and H. Bader Arslan
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Political Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to present a broad view and analysis of brand switching attitudes of cola consumers in Turkish cola market. Design/methodology/approach Presents the results of a questionnaire, conducted with 855 university students. Brand preferences and loyalty towards cola drinks were investigated by frequency distributions, T-tests and cross-tabulations, using particular factors such as purchasing frequency of the brand, brand preference, repurchase intent, searching for the brand, price and promotion tolerance. Findings Cola Turka, the new cola brand, has captured almost one-quarter of the market. It has the potential to create loyal consumers. Despite Coca-Cola preserving its dominance, Pepsi-Cola has been surpassed by this new product. Research limitations/implications Although special attention was spent in constructing a sample with high presentation ability, university students, selected from three different cities, may not reect the whole picture of the cola market. Cola Turka is a newly-born brand and it is hard to identify whether consumers are loyal or not to such a brand. Practical implications Origin, advertising and image of the product may foster its preference, as in the case of Cola Turka. Men and women have different buying motives and this can be used for attracting new consumers. Originality/value This research paper is unique in its eld, which aims to depict brand loyalty in the Turkish cola drinks market. It has a particular importance since the research was carried out after the launch of the new Turkish cola brand Cola Turka. Keywords Brand loyalty, Brand management, Advertising, Soft drinks, Turkey Paper type Research paper

156

British Food Journal Vol. 108 No. 3, 2006 pp. 156-168 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0007-070X DOI 10.1108/00070700610650981

Introduction At 9:30 p.m. on 5 July 2003 almost all TV watchers saw a famous Hollywood star, Chevy Chase, in a three-minute advertisement, which was simultaneously broadcast in all TV channels in Turkey. Was that the beginning of a shift in the cornerstones of Turkish soft drink market that was dominated by the two established multinationals: Coca Cola (CC) and Pepsi Cola (PC)? At rst glance, the new brands image was made of a synthesis between the traditions and modernity, and coexistence of the west and the east. Many people went to markets next day for taste trial, however they faced empty shelves. Cola Turka (CT) was sold out in its rst day throughout the countrys retail stores. This success brought about a number of empirical questions. Was the Turkish market witnessing a birth of a new and long-lasting brand? Was that a temporal behalf of curiosity? Or, was that a reaction to old American producers?
The authors would like to thank Zeynep Akyuz from Universite Paris Dauphine for her very insightful comments.

The Turkish soft drink market has reached to a sales volume of 7.5 billion litres, 1.3 billion of which is grasped by cola drinks. It is an attractive and rapidly growing market with 2.5 billion dollar annual sales, 40 percent of which is held by cola drinks. CC and PC have been the major players in the eld until the last couple of years. However, PC seems to have lost ground against CC and the new brands like CT. Jim Zaza, the new head of Pepsi Bottling Group in Turkey, states that its market share has fallen from around 50 percent to 20 percent in the last ten years. Coverage rates, the rate of the sales outlets that the product reaches, depict a similar vision of the market: CC (85 percent), CT (80 percent) and PC (59 percent) (Oncel, 2005). Surveys reveal that the market share of CT is oating between 15-20 percent. Although its market share has fallen when CT entered the market, CC is still the market leader with around 60 percent. Finally PC is just under 20 percent (AC Nielsen Turkey, 2005a). Ulker Company (www.ulker.com.tr), the producer of CT, was established in 1944 and has become the major confectionary and cookie producer by years. Publicly traded on the Istanbul Stock Exchange, Ulker is delivering its products to 94 countries worldwide with over 21,000 employees in its 25 production units in ve countries most of which operate in the homeland. The company makes sales of four billion dollar a year, 80 percent to the domestic market, with a growth rate of 7 percent and continuously present new products in food and soft drink markets. The launch of CT through all the stores on the same day was not surprising, taking into consideration the Ulker Companys wide distribution network. Delivering more than 100 different products with more than 4,500 vehicles, the company has one of the biggest eets in the whole market. The cola market was dominated by CC with a 57 percent share, followed by Pepsi with 27 percent in 2002. Not only have they a gigantic volume of sales throughout the world, but also are their brand awareness and loyalty strong with such names as CC and PC. CC is the most famous and valuable brand in the world and the value of its brand is estimated to be worth $70.45 billion in 2003 with a one percent increase compared to 2002, according to BusinessWeeks 2003 Global Brands Scorecard Survey. Pepsis global brand is ranked twenty-third with its $11.78 billion value. The case is not different in Turkey. According to an AC Nielsen Turkey (2002) survey, CC is the rst cola brand submitted by Turks when they are asked to recall one, with a 76.2 percent frequency. Coca-Cola and Pepsi, have spent myriad dollars in brand building, brand maintenance and achieving top-of-mind awareness. However, some consumers are also willing to try new products. Prior studies Brands consist of the proprietary visual, rational, emotional and cultural image surrounding a company, organization, product or person (Vrotsos, 2000). Besides having a brand name, its identity is also crucial for companies. Brand identity refers to connation in the hearts and minds of the clients and it prospects associates with the brand name. Brand loyalty is dened as the consumer behaviours of repeatedly purchasing a specic brand over a certain period of time rather than switching to an alternative (McConnell, 1968; Lin et al., 2000; Leclercq et al., 2003). However, this is not a comprehensive denition. Brand loyalty involves something more than repeated purchasing. Consumers repurchase the same brand after experiencing it; because they

Turkish cola market

157

BFJ 108,3

158

perceive that the brand offers the right product features, advertising, image or level of quality at the right price. Thus, brand loyalty is a complex concept that may require both psychological and behavioural measurements (Jacoby and Kyner, 1973; Knox, 2001). For East et al. (2000), loyalty, which they call customer retention, signies a preserving dimension. Brand loyalty occurs when favourable beliefs and attitudes for the brand are manifested in repeat buying behaviour (Keller, 1993). Dubois and Laurent (1999) dene loyalty as propensity to choose a given brand in a variety of situations. According to them, a consumer is loyal if she/he decides not only to purchase the Tropicana Fruit Juice, but also to go to another store to get it if it is out of stock. Miller and Grazer (2003) noted that brand loyalty could be identied by repurchase intention, price tolerance and recommendation to others. Brand loyalists have three mindsets: commitment to the brand, willingness to pay a higher price for the brand over other brands and recommending the brand to others (Giddens and Hofmann, 2002). Thus, we can say that loyalty is comprised of three factors: (1) psychological loyalty to a brand; (2) repeated purchasing (which also involved price tolerance); and (3) searching for a brand. An important determinant of the extent of evaluation (whether or not to buy and select a brand) is whether the customer feels involved in the product. Involvement determines the extent of effort a person puts into deciding what to buy. Some customers are more involved in the decision-making process for products that they perceive to be risky. In case of any risk, the belief that use of a product has potentially negative consequences, nancial, physical, or social; the consumer feels low involvement. Buying a soft drink is a lower involvement purchase than buying a house or a car (Roehm et al., 2002). Consider, for example, consumers who receive initial information about a new cola brand. This information might consist of taste, package, brand, price, etc. Given that cola is typically a low-involvement product, and that a new cola brand is unfamiliar to consumers, it is unlikely that they will be aware of motives for their preferences. In such a situation, consumers, who are asked to analyse reasons for their preferences, tend to focus disproportionately on cues those are easily verbalized, such as the product attribute information. Instead, for a low-involvement product such as a cola drink, the purchase decision is likely to be inuenced largely by non-verbalized cues, such as packaging, company image and advertisement (Sengupta and Fitzsimons, 2000). Consequently, analysing reasons for brand preferences should lead to a disruption between brand attitudes and choice behaviour (Sengupta and Fitzsimons, 2000). There are several inuential factors on brand choice such as advertising, sales promotions, packaging, company image and previous purchase. Measuring brand loyalty in cola market Loyalty has been calculated using the data based on entire purchasing history of the consumer, either as an exponentially weighted average of previous purchases or as a proportion of purchasing measures (Papatla and Krishnamurthi, 1996). Cola drinks are inexpensive and frequently purchased goods. Trial and brand switching in the cola market are easy to undertake. When people have a positive experience with a memorable brand, they are more likely to buy that product again comparing to other competing brands. The probability of consuming a specic brand

would be higher if that brand has already been tried. On the other hand, market share of a product is a very simple indicator of brand loyalty. Market share and brand loyalty are often closely related to each other. Brand loyalty may be higher for brands, which have a larger market share (Leclercq et al., 2003). Methodology We aimed to determine a sample with as much diversity as possible. A total of 855 university students at four different universities (Ankara, Gazi, Cukurova and Suleyman Demirel) were elded in March 2004. We thought that would be more convenient to apply our questionnaire to university students for some reasons. First, they come from different regions and thus they represent different subcultures and purchase habits within the country. Second, cola drinks consumption is high among young people, especially in university students and this would make the rate of response high. Third, they were easy to reach. Only 45 of 900 questionnaires were sent back without response. We applied 855 questionnaires to students of four universities in three different cities throughout the country to enhance the reliability. Of the respondents, 445 (52 percent) were female and 410 (48 percent) were male, which means almost an equal distribution of gender. Research questions In this study we tried to investigate presence of brand loyalty towards cola brands by: . measuring purchasing frequency of each brand; . determining brand preferences and last purchased brand; . interrogating repurchase intent; . searching endeavour for the brand; . depicting a general picture of price; and . promotion tolerance variables. Descriptive analysis of these factors will be presented later in the paper. Respondents participated in a 20-minute questionnaire. A pre-test was also held to evaluate the efciency of survey questions. The survey included questions related to drink consumption, brand awareness, brand preference, purchase frequency, factors affecting purchase decisions, brand appraisals, etc. Responses to a question of cola preferences revealed that CC, CT and PC were the most frequently preferred brands in the sample. Therefore the analysis was conducted on these three brands. Frequency distributions were calculated and T-tests and cross-tabulations were conducted based on responses. Due to their importance in measuring loyalty, repurchase intention and price tolerance for brands were particularly investigated. Under this framework awareness and last purchase ratios for cola brands have been calculated. For measuring repurchase intention for brands, students were asked if they would buy their favourite brand again, under all conditions; what they would do in case they could not nd their favourite brand; and for measuring price tolerance they were asked if they change their preference in case other brands reduce their prices or make promotions. For identifying preference factors limited to CT, respondents were asked to sign items that affect their decision to buy (or not to buy) CT. Thus, common factors that affect buyers and non-buyers of CT have

Turkish cola market

159

BFJ 108,3

been determined. Finally, we aimed to identify the most important driving factors that impact CT purchasing decisions. Was it just the brand name, the price or the promotion or was it a cluster of many different factors? Which characteristics were more important in making CT a widely preferred brand in Turkey, in a market that is solidied by two global brands? In sum, our research questions in this study are: RQ1. Do consumers have price and promotion tolerance towards their favourite brands? RQ2. How loyal are consumers of CC, CT and PC? RQ3. What are the key strengths and the weaknesses of CT? RQ4. Does CT have the potential to construct a brand loyalty? Scope and limitations In our study, the sample was selected from university students from three different cities. Although special attention was spent in constructing a sample with high presentation ability university students may not reect the whole picture of the cola market. CT is a newly born brand and it is hard to identify whether consumers are loyal or not to such a brand. Therefore, future analysis may exhibit different outcomes. Furthermore, there are gaps in what consumers feel about a brand and how they actually behave when making a purchase decision. In this study we investigated the data provided only by the respondents who conrmed that they purchased CT. Therefore, a purchase observation study may give different outcomes. Analysis and results Drink consumption Of the respondents, 46.8 percent announced that they consume cola drinks. That was followed by 20.5 percent that consume non-carbonated fruit juice; 32.7 percent of respondents signed carbonated, soda pop and other drinks. Preference of cola drinks is higher among males whereas that of fruit juice is higher among females. Brand preference Of the respondents, 82.2 percent has brand preference. CC (66.3 percent) is the most frequently chosen brand. CT (25.4 percent) followed CC. Although females were main consumers of CC, it is not the case in CT. Almost 70 percent of CT consumers is men. Results indicate that male students attitudes towards CT were more favourable than female students. Finally, 7 percent of respondents chose PC. Last purchased brand gures depict a similar picture: 57.7 percent CC; 21.4 percent CT; 7.4 percent PC. In this study CT captured 25 percent of samples market share and it can be inferred that CT surpassed PC in terms of last years market share statistics. The ndings of the empirical study indicate that preference for PC has been replaced with CT in Turkish soft drink market and CC still has the biggest market share. Devotion to brands In out-of-stock or non-existence situations, 35.9 percent of respondents buy another specic brand (that is they have particular second choices), 13.7 percent buy any existing brand, 15.3 percent would chase the brand to a different store, 28.2 percent

160

buy other beverages and 6.8 percent turn back without buying anything. Thus, while 49.6 percent of respondents prefer buying a different brand; only 15.3 percent of them keep searching for their favourite brands and 6.8 percent of respondents do not buy anything. Therefore a leg of brand loyalty, insistent purchase, is missing in cola market since almost 85 percent of respondents may give up their brand without any effort. This may be due to the phenomenon that a cola drinks primary function is to make people get cool. However it is not the sole option to meet this need. That is, consumers may easily shift to other brands or products in case of a brands non-existence. One important question to this may be what are the favourite brands of those who insistently chase for the brands? Answer to this question may illuminate our understanding of the fundamentals of cola market. Table I shows distribution of preferences among three brands and also by gender. A total of 105 individuals (57.1 percent of which are male) said that they would look for their favourite brands if they could not nd it in a particular store. Among men, 53.3 percent are buyers of CC and 41.7 percent are those of CT. On the other hand, the gap is much wider in the case of women 68.9 percent of them are buyers of CC and 20 percent of them are buyers of CT. Therefore, CC is the strongest brand in generating loyalty; 60 percent of this category are buyers of CC. CT is the second brand which buyers keep searching if they could not nd one; 32.4 percent of this category are buyers of CT. On the other hand, female consumers have a greater tendency than males in terms of commitment to CC. Another indicator of brand loyalty may be not buying anything in out-of-stock and non-existence situations. In our study 48 individuals are located in this category. Among them 72.9 percent are buyers of CC, 18.8 percent are buyers of CT. Second choices Among 701 students who answered the relevant question, 35.9 percent signed that they could buy another brand in case they could not nd their favourite brand. Among them, 63 percent are buyers of CC, 26.6 percent are buyers of CT and 9.9 percent of them are buyers of PC. 34.8 percent of CC buyers (459 students) said that they could buy another brand. Among them, 83 (18.1 percent) prefer PC and 76 (16.6 percent) prefer CT. Of CT buyers (175 students), 38.3 percent (67 students) said that they could buy another brand. Among them, 55 (31.5 percent) prefer CC and 11 (6.3 percent) prefer PC. Of PC buyers (48 students), 52.1 percent (25 students) have a second choice, 23 (48 percent) prefer CC and 2 (4.2 percent) prefer CT. The results revealed that PC is the second choice of 37.92 percent of respondents. CC and CT have close shares, 30.83

Turkish cola market

161

PC Female Male Total Count Percentage Percentage Count Percentage Percentage Count Percentage within gender of total within gender of total of total 5 11.1 4.8 2 3.3 1.9 7 6.7

CC 31 68.9 29.5 32 53.3 30.5 63 60.0

CT 9 20.0 8.6 25 41.7 23.8 34 32.4

Total 45 100.0 42.9 60 100.0 57.1 105 100.0

Table I. Devotion to brands

BFJ 108,3

percent and 31.25 percent respectively. Thus, second choice rate is the highest among PC buyers and it is the lowest among CC buyers. Although Pepsi is the highest ranked second choice of cola drink buyers, buyers of Pepsi easily skip to another brand (see Table II). Sales and price promotion tolerance Sales promotion can be dened as activities or techniques intended to create consumer demand and maximize sales volume for a product or service. Sales promotions can be divided into price and non price-oriented categories. The benet of price promotions for the consumer is a lower purchase price, whereas other promotions focus on various benets (e.g. value for money, like two-for-one promotions) (Laroche et al., 2001; Laroche et al., 2003). According to Dodson et al. (1978), promotion itself has an effect on the perceived value of the brand and it induces customers to choose a brand. Sales promotion is used not only to attract new customers but also to reinforce and to retain more and more loyal customers (Raaij et al., 2001). Baohong et al. (2003) also afrm that promotions inuence consumer choice by encouraging them to switch to another brand. One reason for the increase in the use of sales promotions can be a lack of product differentiation, which makes it difcult for advertising to inuence consumers by touting unique product features. However, for a product with high satisfaction rate, there may be less need for price promotions (Fornell, 1992). Promotions have therefore become the key inuence in many product categories, because they are a mechanism to bring the product to the attention of the consumers, and they are being frequently used for soft drinks. Among the 692 individuals who answered the relevant question 507 (73.26 percent) said that they would not change their preferred brand even if prices of other brands decline. Among these, 349 (68.8 percent) drink CC, 121 (23.9 percent) CT and 33 (6.5 percent) PC. Contrary, there are 185 consumers who uttered that they would change their preference in case of discount at other brands. Of them, 106 (57.3 percent) originally prefer CC, 57 (30.8 percent) prefer CT and 16 (8.6 percent) PC. It is worth mentioning that, only two weeks after CT went on the market, US brands reduced their prices by 12.5 percent. Of the students, 266 (38.46 percent) said they would prefer any brand that makes promotions and 426 (61.56 percent) said they would stay loyal to their original brand even if other brands make promotions. Theoretically, cola drinks are low involvement products and their consumers may easily switch between them. Parallel with price discounts, possible promotions do have a signicant impact on brand choice. Almost one-third of consumers have the potential to shift to another brand if the price is
Second choices Percentage 2 18.1 31.5 48 CT PC CT

162

Favourite brand Table II. University students second brand choices CC CT PC Others

Percent 66.3 25.4 7 1.3

1 PC CC CC

Percentage 16.6 6.3 4.2

reduced or promotions are offered. A total of 174 (65.4 percent) of them are drinkers of CC, 64 (24.1 percent) are those of CT and 22 (8.3 percent) are PC. This study showed that premiums (free gifts) were found to be the most attractive type of promotions. Thus, any promotional attempt by a cola drink company has a rough possibility of expanding its market share by 38 percent. Thus, almost one-quarter of respondents are sensible to price reductions and 38.46 percent are sensible to promotions which illustrate a possibility of high volatility in market shares and somewhat loose overall loyalty in the market. Appraisals on Cola Turka Flavour A total of 63.2 percent of the sample has tasted CT. Among them (540) 57.6 percent found its avour satisfying, 14.1 percent unsatisfying, and 28.3 percent claimed no comment. This study did not, primarily, aim to reveal the organoleptic qualities of cola drinks. However, the sample was asked to compare each products avour. Results showed that 69 percent of the sample found CC as the best-avoured drink. The rate for CT is 23 percent and for PC is 8 percent. Advertising Ulker Company is likely to build its brand by focusing on the product through its name: Cola Turka. The brand has nationalist components. This idea is conveyed in advertisements where American consumers start to adopt Turkish customs after drinking it. Turkish viewers are offered a pleasing fantasy of seeing Turkish culture transform behaviours of Americans. Answers revealed that 83.2 percent of respondents were pleased by CT advertisements. According to Medya Takip Merkezi (www.medyatakip.com), a media investigation company, CT has been the second most advertised cola brand with $45.5 million, following CC ($53.3 million) during the period of June-October 2003. PCs advertising expenditure has been $6.4 million in the same period. Since CT entered the market in July 2003, it can be inferred that the company had assigned a serious advertising budget. Brand name A good brand name gives a good preliminary impression, a marketing edge over comparable competitors and evokes positive associations with the brand (Rooney, 1995). Companies must have a connection in the hearts and minds of the clients and prospects associated with the brands name. Our study showed that 79.4 percent of respondents liked Cola Turka brand name. Turkish consumer rst became aware of CT before purchasing it. This is the concept of reminder advertising and CT attracted consumer attention and encouraged them to buy it. Brand name recalls nationalistic sentiments, Turkish life-style, act of patriotism and positive nationalism. According to Grocery Manufacturers of America Survey, American consumers are loyal to national brands of food, beverage and consumer products. A familiar brand name was the rst or second most important element for Americans when making a purchase in the supermarket. As for CT, being a domestic good and having a familiar brand name may have affected Turkish consumers purchasing decisions. Timing of

Turkish cola market

163

BFJ 108,3

the advertisement campaign also proved to be crucial. Because of the simultaneity of the war (and unexpected raid of US troops to Turkish soldiers in Northern Iraq) and the commercials, national sensitivity was at its peak in Turkey and many chose to buy national brand rather than US products. Packaging Appearance of package has an inuence in buying decision as well. For consumers, manufacturer-branded products have clear and distinct identities. Their distinctive packaging makes them clearly identiable on sight and the package can change consumers perceptions of the product (Schoormans and Robben, 1997). Of the respondents, 55.2 percent said that they liked CT packaging and 44.8 percent said that they did not. Company image and product origin A company image is described as the combination of the thoughts, feelings, beliefs, opinions and visions people have about a company, its business name, products and services at a certain period of time, tradition, ideology and therefore it is in constant change (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001; Laforet, 1999). As long as the company image appears as an essential strength for CT demand in the market, it is worth stating that Ulker is the second most popular brand following Arcelik, a major white-goods manufacturer according to a recent AC Nielsen survey (AC Nielsen Turkey, 2005b). Improving a companys image is one step closer towards enhancing brand loyalty. 64.5 percent, a quite high portion, of respondents nd Ulkers image pleasant (see Table III). However, company image is such an asset that could be harmed easily despite abundant expenditures. Thus it is an important yet delicate factor in attempts to strengthen brand loyalty. Besides asking a question, which simply seeks to evaluate the company image by directly heading towards consumers, that would be more analytical to infer it by interrogating brand image. 79.4 percent of students found brand name pleasing. Moreover, 96.1 percent cited that being a domestic product is a positive factor. The respondents were asked to utter what the three most popular cola brands do (CC, CT and PC). We gained a list of positive and negative associations they have with the brands. Most of the answers involve political phenomena. The one that CT encompasses is nationalism. A huge portion of students 76.6 percent claimed that the brand name reminds them of nationalistic themes. The sample was also asked to qualify each brand with a word or phrase. Responses depict a clear vision of brands perceptions by consumers. CC was characterized as an American brand by 18 percent, quality by 10 percent and addiction by 8 percent; CT as national cola by 27 percent, advertisement by 9 percent and competition by 8 percent; PC as bad
Factor Flavour Brand name TV commercials Packages Company image Pleased (%) 67.1 79.4 83.2 55.2 64.5 Unpleased (%) 32.9 20.6 16.8 44.8 35.5

164

Table III. Appraisals on Cola Turka

avour by 13 percent, American brand by 8 percent and celebrities by 8 percent of the sample. It can be inferred that CT would be placed somewhere between CC and PC in a brand perception scale. Positioning the brand is a crucial decision to ensure its sustainable success. That is, underpinnings of a brand should be placed correctly and effectively to defence its position. Brand name shows that the product has been wittingly located on a point where nationalistic ideas dominate, and this characteristic has the possibility to surpass the brand and its avour. However, interestingly, claims have been submitted that CT concentrate was purchased from Royal Crown Cola Company. Ulker ofcials regret such a transaction however; accept that they import a sort of aromatic compound. Debates have been witnessed, claiming that CT was anti-American. Evidently, its commercials do not represent an anti-American setting as well but turn the idea of cola as an American symbol on its head as New Yorkers who are shown drinking CT suddenly become Turkish (Advertising Age, 2003). As for its marketing campaign and company image, CT is far from being a niche brand, unlike new Islamic colas Mecca Cola, Zam Zam Cola and Qibla Cola. Furthermore, it does not claim to be a religious brand but imply a soft positive nationalism with the catchword the acquainted cola, ` but a la turka. Focusing on the name, but not claiming to be better or healthier, Ulker is saying that CT changes you. Drinking CT should give the consumer some sort of a feeling just like the enjoy happiness of CC and the young and cool/next generation of PC. CT has to have certain values and beliefs, which have the power to gather people around it, who were attracted by these values. CT requires more than identity; it needs a personality, some strong characteristics. Drivers for purchasing Cola Turka In the questionnaire, students have been asked the reasons why they prefer buying CT and why they do not. Since the brands advertising campaign was based on nationalistic grounds, we thought company image, advertising and product origin (being a domestic good) have signicant impacts on purchase decisions; and these have different weights in males and females purchase decisions (see Table IV). A total of 297 female and 355 male students purchase CT. Flavour, quality, advertisement, origin (being a domestic good), curiosity, etc. are the factors that lead female students purchase the brand. Similarly male university students purchase CT for its avour, quality, advertisement, domestic good, company image, etc. Though curiosity is the fth factor for female consumers, it is replaced by company image in males ranking. Conclusion CC and PC dominated immense portions of worldwide market shares. Since they are the earliest brands, consumers have become familiar with their avours and have accepted them as benchmarks of cola drinks. As a conclusion, any brand would need more time to be qualied as loyalty creator. Thus it is simply early to say that brand loyalty is high towards CT brand. However, as opposed to its predecessors, brands that come on the market as rivals of CC and PC, CT gained quite a bigger market share. In line with the results of other market surveys, CC is the rst choice of 66.3 percent of the

Turkish cola market

165

BFJ 108,3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Female (n 297) Flavour Quality Advertisement Domestic good Curiosity Price Company image Availability Promotion Packaging Reference

X 4.59 4.5 4.32 4.05 4.01 3.93 3.9 3.68 3.42 3.3 3.09

S 0.64 0.66 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.87 0.94 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.16

Sig (two-tailed) 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.394 0.31 0.362 0 0.424 0.53 0.926 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Male (n 355) Flavour Quality Advertisement Domestic good Company image Price Curiosity Availability Promotion Packaging Reference

X 4.44 4.37 4.17 4.12 3.88 3.86 3.62 3.55 3.37 3.29 2.68

Sig (two-tailed) 0.05 0.03* 0.04* 0.394 0* 0.362 0* 0.424 0.53 0.926 0*

166

Table IV. The reasons for purchasing Cola Turka

0.87 2.45 0.86 2.13 0.97 2.02 1.09 20.85 1.07 4.65 1.03 0.91 1.15 0.31 1.02 20.8 1.05 0.62 1.1 0.093 1.12 4.46

Note: * There is signicant difference at the 0.05 level for females and males not purchasing reasons (p , 0:05)

sample. CT and PC are the favourite brands of 25.4 percent and 8.3 percent of the sample respectively. The rst choice gures for PC are not compatible with market data, which sign a market share of 20 percent. Statistics in the early period of a brands life may be misguiding for interpreting consumer loyalty towards it. Due to the effects of intense advertising campaigns and curiosity for the product, the market share of CT may be somewhat higher. Therefore, in order to strengthen its position in the market, the company has much way to go. CT has at least two particular advantages in expanding market share, generating brand value and loyalty. First, since it is a domestic product, consumers perceptions towards the brand would be more positive. Given that nationalistic sensitivity is more powerful in rural areas, the brand could attract more demand in Central Anatolia. Second, it looks more serious than a plain venture and corporate image and strategies seem to support the brand. However, brand positioning is such a critical factor that could misguide the brand. Therefore, CT should strengthen its image and may relocate itself somewhere a little further away from its present reactive position, which could be called moderate-nationalist (focusing on nationalistic origin of the product). This is especially important, taking into consideration the former attempts to break the hegemony of global brands.
References AC Nielsen Turkey (2002) Brands 2002 Report, AC Nielsen Turkey, Istanbul. AC Nielsen Turkey (2005a), Brands 2004 Report, AC Nielsen Turkey, Istanbul. AC Nielsen (2005b), Sektorel degerlendirme raporu 2004, AC Nielsen Turkey, Istanbul. Advertising Age (2003), Chevy Chase does Turkish cola ads aimed at Coke and Pepsi, Advertising Age, 28 July, available at: www.adage.com Baohong, S., Neslin, S.A. and Srinivasan, K. (2003), Measuring the effect of promotions on brand switching when consumers are forward looking, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40, pp. 389-405.

BusinessWeek (2003), Brands in an age of anti-Americanism, BusinessWeek, 4-11 August, pp. 44-51 (European ed.). Dodson, A., Tybout, A. and Sternthal, B. (1978), The impact of deals and deal retraction on brandswitching, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, pp. 72-81. Dubois, B. and Laurent, G. (1999), A situational approach to brand loyalty, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 657-63. East, R., Sinclair, J. and Gendal, P. (2000) Loyalty: denition and explanation, paper presented at ANZMAC 2000 Visionary Marketing for the 21st Century: Facing the Challenge Conference, Gold Coast, pp. 286-90. Fornell, C. (1992), A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 6-21. Giddens, N. and Hofmann, A. (2002), Brand loyalty, available at: www.extension.iastate.edu/ agdm/wholefarm/html/c5-54.html Jacoby, J. and Kyner, D.B. (1973), Brand loyalty vs repeat purchasing behaviour, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10, pp. 1-9. Keller, L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand extensions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22. Knox, S. (2001), Measuring and managing brand loyalty, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-18. Laforet, S. (1999), Managing brand portfolios: why leaders do what they do?, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 51-66. Laroche, M., Pons, F., Zgolli, N. and Kim, C. (2001), Consumers use of price promotions: a model and its potential moderators, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8, pp. 251-60. Laroche, M., Pons, F., Zgolli, N., Cervellon, M.C. and Kim, C. (2003), A model of consumer response to two retail sales promotion techniques, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56, pp. 513-22. Leclercq, C., Arcella, D., Le Donne, C., Piccinelli, R., Sette, S. and Soggiu, M.A. (2003), Stochastic modelling of human exposure to food chemicals and nutrients within the Montecarlo project: an exploration of the inuence of brand loyalty and market share on intake estimates of intense sweeteners from sugar-free soft drinks, Toxicology Letters, Nos 140-141, pp. 443-57. Lin, C., Wann-Yih, W. and Zhi-Feng, W. (2000), A study of market structure: brand loyalty and brand switching behaviours for durable household appliances, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 274-85. McConnell, J.D. (1968), The development of brand loyalty: an experimental study, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5, pp. 13-19. Miller, A.R. and Grazer, W.F. (2003), Complaint behaviour as a factor in cruise line losses: an analysis of brand loyalty, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 78-91. Nguyen, N. and Leblanc, G. (2001), Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers retention decisions in services, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8, pp. 227-36. Oncel, S. (2005), We had lost contact with the customer, Capital, Vol. 13 No. 8, available at: www.capital.com.tr Papatla, P. and Krishnamurthi, L. (1996), Measuring the dynamic effects of promotions on brand choice, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, pp. 20-35.

Turkish cola market

167

BFJ 108,3

168

Raaij, W.F., van Strazzieri, A. and Woodside, A. (2001), New developments in marketing communications and consumer behaviour, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 1-3. Roehm, M.L., Pullins, E.B. and Harper, A.R. Jr (2002), Designing loyalty-building programs for packaged goods brands, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39, pp. 202-13. Rooney, J.A. (1995), Branding: a trend for today and tomorrow, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 48-55. Schoormans, J.P.L. and Robben, H.S.J. (1997), The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 271-87. Sengupta, J. and Fitzsimons, G.J. (2000), The effects of analyzing reasons for brand preferences: disruption or reinforcement?, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37, pp. 318-30. Vrotsos, K. (2000), opening presentation at Brand Leadership in the New Economy, Conference, The Center on Global Brand Leadership at Columbia Business School, available at: www. fathom.com/ feature/121628/ Corresponding author H. Bader Arslan can be contacted at: harslan@politics.ankara.edu.tr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints