Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour: consumers in the 18–24 age group

Keywords:

Brand loyalty,

brand equity,

purchasing

behaviour

Lisa WoodKent Business School,

University of Kent,

Canterbury,

Kent CT2 7PE, UK

Tel: +44 (0) 1227

827 726

e-mail: l.m.c.wood@

kent.ac.uk

ACADEMIC PAPERS

Dimensions of brand purchasingbehaviour: Consumers in the18–24 age groupReceived in revised form.

Lisa M. Woodlectures in Marketing at the University of Kent, UK. She is currently carrying out

research that explores the future of brand management in the food and FMCG

industries. Prior to working in education, she worked in brand management for a UK-

based multinational food company.

AbstractThis paper reports the results of a study of brand selection and loyalty within the 18–24age group. The study explores brand loyalty behaviour across different product categories,and investigates the dimensions that drive loyalty behaviour within this age group. First,the construct of brand loyalty is defined, followed by an overview of key research in thearea. Finally, the study itself is detailed. The study concludes that there is a significantdifference in the degree of brand loyalty exhibited by the 18–24-year-old respondentsacross product categories. The dimensions of brand selection also vary by product type.

Brand heritage in terms of parental influence was evident in coffee and toothpastepurchase, with brand as a reflection of self-image being something that is important toclothing brands. Value and variety are important attributes of cereal brand selection.

INTRODUCTION

Loyalty is an important concept in

strategic marketing. Rundle-Thiele and

Bennett (2001) consider that a base of

loyal customers is advantageous for a

company because it reduces marketing

costs. It has been suggested that the

cost of recruiting a new customer is

five times more than the cost of

retaining an existing customer (Barsky,

1994; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). The

efficiency argument is compelling since

it has a direct impact on profitability;

however, the logic of brand loyalty

extends beyond efficiency and drives

brand extension and market

penetration strategies. Farquhar (1989:

24) suggests that the competitive

advantage of firms with high brand

equity includes: ‘. . . the opportunity

for successful extensions, resilience

against competitors’ promotional

pressures, and creation of barriers to

competitive entry’.

The concept of ‘loyalty’, however,

may not be an absolute in the way it

manifests itself in consumer behaviour.

McGoldrick and Andre (1997) state that

the term ‘loyalty’, when used loosely,

‘conjures up various notions of

affection, fidelity or commitment’. A

brand-loyal person may have a positive

attitude towards a brand, buy a brand

in preference to others within the

market and have continued allegiance to

a brand over long periods of time. It

may be assumed that these must all be

present for true loyalty to exist. The

widely used definition of loyalty

provided by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978)

adopts this approach. Cited by East

(1997: 31), Jacoby and Chestnut (1978)

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 9–24 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838 9

provided a conceptual definition of

brand loyalty as:

‘. . . the biased behavioral responseexpressed over time, by some decision-making unit with respect to one or morealternative brands which is a function ofpsychological processes’.

The underlying principle of this

definition is the covariance of attitudinal

and behavioural loyalty. Further studies

agree that essentially, loyalty comprises

both a behavioural and an affective (or

commitment) component (Assael, 1992;

Dick and Basu, 1994; McGoldrick and

Andre, 1997). Other studies have

primarily focused on the behavioural

aspect of loyalty (Cunningham, 1956;

Bayus, 1992; Fader and Schmittlein,

1993; East et al., 1995).

A composite measure of loyalty as

proposed by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978)

is difficult to operationalise. It is likely

that few people would be classified as

truly loyal when so many criteria have

to be met. It is possible for people to

regularly buy a brand they dislike

because it is the one that is readily

available to them. Also, people may

make a particular brand a small part of

their portfolio, yet continue to buy it for

a long time. Brand loyalty is a complex

construct and it should not be assumed

that behavioural loyalty involves

feelings or positive cognitive processes

as antecedents. Brand attitude may be

one possible determinant of loyal

behaviour, but there are others such as

distribution, market concentration and

promotional activity supporting a

brand. Clearly, it is important for brand

owners to understand the variables that

underpin the construct of loyalty and, in

particular, loyalty behaviour for their

brands.

Each of the studies in the following

section seeks to identify consumer

characteristics, purchasing attitudes

and/or behaviour that go some way to

explaining brand loyalty. The study that

is the focus of this paper also seeks to

take another small step in the pursuit of

understanding. It explores brand loyalty

and brand purchasing behaviour in the

18–24 age group. The rationale for this

and the specific research objectives that

the work addresses are outlined in

detail below. The broad basis for the

investigation is that, while the 18–24

age group is widely identified as low

loyal when compared with other age

groups, it should not be assumed that

the group is low loyal per se.

BRAND LOYALTY BEHAVIOUR

Early work on brand loyalty failed to

find any demographic correlates of

brand loyalty (Cunningham, 1956;

Frank, 1967). More recently, Hammond

et al. (1993) found that demographic

factors failed to discriminate between

buyers of different brands within a

category. Other studies have identified a

relationship between age and the degree

of brand loyalty. Jacoby and Chestnut

(1978) identified six studies, including

Day (1969), which indicated that older

people were more brand loyal. More

recent work by Uncles and Ehrenberg

(1990), however, found similar

purchasing habits among younger and

older consumers. East et al. (1995)

identified a curvilinear relationship

between age and loyalty that was

mainly attributed to the fact that income

is low among the young and the old.

They also indicated that shoppers who

are more concerned about price are less

loyal, with high income groups being

more loyal than low income groups.

They further reported that, in the

multiple regressions where income is

represented, age is positively associated

with loyalty, suggesting that older

people are disposed to be loyal but the

lack of money obliges them to seek

bargains. Their evidence indicated

relatively higher loyalty in the 25–44

age group. Evidence from Wright and

Sparks (1999) suggested high loyalty in

35–44 year olds, and McGoldrick and

Andre (1997) state that loyal shoppers

are more likely to be an unspecific

‘middle age’ group.

10 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 9–24 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Lisa M. Wood

It is difficult to know from the

varying results of these studies whether

younger consumers (under 25) are less

loyal than older consumers due to

situational factors such as income, or

whether the age group has a

predisposition to be low loyal.

Additionally, loyalty may vary

depending on product category. The

issue of the importance of product

category was explored by Rundle-

Thiele and Bennett (2001). They

suggested that the characteristics of the

product and market shape brand

loyalty. They indicated that fast-moving

consumer goods markets are

characterised by multi-brand

purchasing, whereas in durable goods

markets buyers do not frequently brand

switch. Cunningham (1956), Palumbo

and Herbig (2000) and Carmen (1970)

also suggested a relationship between

product type and brand loyalty. The

issue of loyalty in younger consumers

and the degree to which this is

dependent on product category led to

the first objective of the study

presented in this paper:

Objective 1: To measure brand loyaltyamong 18–24 year olds across six productcategories.

The aim was to see how brand loyal 18–

24 year olds (the group previously

identified as low loyal) are, and whether

or not there was a difference in loyalty

by product type. The issue of loyalty-

proneness (ie the tendency for

individuals to be loyal across products)

was not specifically addressed by the

study, although the data collected could

be used to investigate this phenomenon.

Where studies have measured loyalty-

proneness there have been mixed

results. Cunningham (1956) found little

evidence for loyalty-proneness, whereas

Farley (1966) identified it to a small

degree. Evidence supporting the

phenomenon has also been found by

Olson and Jacoby (1971), Snyder (1991)

and East et al. (1995). It should be noted

that East et al. (1995) implied that

product type was not an influence on

loyalty behaviour. They identified

loyalty-proneness among respondents

based on averaged correlation

coefficients. This effect is not assumed

in this study as East et al. (1995)

themselves note that their correlations

could have been affected by bias borne

from questionnaire design.

It is clear from the published work

cited that brand loyalty is complex and

probably multi-dimensional. Many of

the works outlined above were

overview studies. As such, an

additional contribution may be achieved

by investigating a specific group in

more depth. In this study (the

methodology of which is outlined

below), it was considered that if loyalty

can vary by age group then the drivers

of purchasing behaviour also may be

very specific. This led to the second

objective of the study:

Objective 2: To identify the dimensions thatunderpin brand selection in the 18–24 agegroup.

Published work has indicated various

contributors to brand purchasing

behaviour. For example, Howard and

Sheth (1969) acknowledged that

consumers are influenced by people in

their social circle. Miller (1975), Moschis

(1985) and Moore-Shay and Lutz (1988)

identified parental and family influence

as important to brand loyalty. The

influences of peer group and parents are

drivers that are further explored in the

study outlined below. The influences of

situational factors such as price and

promotion were also addressed, as was

the role of multi-brand purchase

behaviour discussed above.

Inertia in buying behaviour was also

considered in this study. Some

researchers (most notably those in the

area of risk research, eg Roselius, 1971)

consider the consumers’ concern to save

time is an influence on purchasing

behaviour and may lead to a degree of

inertia. Mitchell (1999) noted that

consumers might remain loyal to a


Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour

brand to avoid mistakes rather than to

maximise utility in purchasing, which

can lead to a degree of habit in buying

behaviour. Other additional drivers of

purchasing behaviour were highlighted

by the survey piloting process and

included in the investigation.

METHODOLOGYAND RESULTS

The sample was selected from students

in higher education. Figures from the

UK Higher Education Authority (HESA,

2001) state that there are around 1.9

million students in the UK. Carmichael

(2000) suggests that the total spend of

this group is about £10bn. This in itself

makes students a consumer group

worth investigating. It is not suggested

that this group is entirely representative

of all 18–24-year-old consumers,

although they may share many common

characteristics. The participation rate in

higher education is indicated by the

DFES (2002) at around 48 per cent for

the higher social groups (non-manual),

with all groups showing an increase in

participation. Increasingly, students in

higher education are becoming a

reasonable surrogate for the population

of 18–24 year olds. It is recognised that

representation has not been proven,

however, and certainly the lower social

groups are under-represented at

present. The sample was selected from

ten courses, including science, social

science and applied business and

management students. Chi-square

analysis was conducted to see if there

were statistical differences by course,

gender, year of study etc. As no

significant statistical differences were

found, subsequent statistical tests were

conducted using all respondents, except

where there were missing cases. The

following details the methodology and

results for objectives 1 and 2.

Objective 1: To measure brand loyalty

among 18–24 year olds across six

product categories

A total of 268 undergraduate degree

students within the 18–24 age band

completed the study, which was

analysed using SPSS for Windows

(where removing missing cases in the

analyses reduces the n figure, this is

noted in the tables). Brand loyalties for

toilet soap, toothpaste, coffee, breakfast

cereal, trainers and jeans were

measured using proportion-of-spend

percentages. This approach treats brand

loyalty as the degree to which the usual

or favourite brand within a product

category is purchased, eg 50 per cent of

purchases going to the first brand.

Cunningham (1956) called this first

brand loyalty. A category for ‘do not buy’

the product was also included.

The products were selected to reflect

broadly those chosen by other studies

looking at product-specific loyalty.

Additionally, the product categories

were distinct enough to identify

differing degrees of brand attachment,

eg students may be more concerned

about their trainers’ brand than their

soap brand, and products that are

ingested may be more emotive than, for

example, toothpaste. Product usage by

the age group under study was also

considered. Respondents who did not

buy the product were counted as

missing values.

The mean proportion of spend on the

preferred brand for each product

category is shown in Table 1. Analysis

of variance (ANOVA) was conducted in

order to identify whether or not there

was any significant statistical difference,

p , 0.05, between the mean responses

across product categories. The F ratio

indicated a significant difference in first

brand loyalty. In order to locate

differences between two categories

based on their means, post hoc tests

consisting of pairwise comparisons were

applied using the Bonferroni method as

recommended by Field (2000). This

approach was used throughout, where

ANOVA was conducted. The results are

indicated in Table 1.

It can be seen from Table 1 that coffee

has the highest degree of first brand

loyalty and jeans have the lowest. There


Lisa M. Wood

is no significant difference in loyalty

between coffee, toothpaste and

breakfast cereal; however, coffee has

significantly greater brand loyalty than

trainers, soap and jeans. Furthermore,

toothpaste and breakfast cereal have

significantly greater brand loyalty than

soap and jeans. These results indicate

that first brand loyalty among the 18–24

age group differs by product type. The

decision as to whether a mean figure

constitutes high or low loyalty is largely

arbitrary. If a mid-point figure of 50 per

cent is taken then all except soap and

jeans show high first brand loyalty

figures. Even soap and jeans are only

just below this break point. All means

indicate an average purchase rate above

one in three purchases devoted to a

preferred brand, with coffee, toothpaste

and breakfast cereal nearer to two out of

three purchases devoted to the

preferred brand.

In order to get a richer picture of

brand loyalty among the 18–24 age

group, a slightly different measure was

taken. Respondents were asked to rate

the statement ‘I make my purchase of

(toilet soap, coffee etc) according to my

favourite brand regardless of price’ on

an interval scale anchored at each end

with ‘very strongly agree’ (valued at 9)

and ‘very strongly disagree’ (valued at

1). The rank order of price insensitive

brand loyalty by product type is shown

in Table 2.

Taking any means above 5.00 as high

agreement and any below as low

agreement, it can be seen that

respondents showed price insensitive

brand loyalty to all products. As no

means were towards the upper end of

the scale, however, it should be

considered that no category brands had

a very high degree of price insensitivity.

There is a significant difference at the

p , 0.05 level in the degree of price

insensitive brand loyalty across

categories. Respondents showed a

significantly higher degree of price

insensitive brand loyalty to toothpaste

than to trainers, soap and jeans. The

rank order of brand loyalty is identical

to that in Table 1 with the exception of

coffee, which was first in Table 1 and

third in Table 2. This may indicate that

respondents are brand loyal to lower

priced coffee brands so do not consider

that their purchases are made

‘regardless of price’. From both Tables 1

and 2 it is evident that there is a

significant statistical difference in the

degree of brand loyalty exhibited across

product categories.

Objective 2: To identify the

dimensions that underpin brand

selection in the 18–24 age group

Having identified that brand loyalty

and price sensitivity differ significantly

by product category, it was important to

Table 1 First brand loyalty by product category

Rank Product Mean proportion spent on preferred brand

1 Coffee 63.97 +2 Toothpaste 62.19 + +3 Breakfast cereal 60.23 + + +4 Trainers 54.29 + + +5 Soap 49.93 +6 Jeans 48.94 +

NB: Where there are crosses (+) in a column that link means, there is no significant statistical differencebetween them, p , 0.05.

Table 2 Price insensitive brand loyalty

Rank Product Mean

1 Toothpaste 6.20 +2 Breakfast cereal 6.12 + +3 Coffee 5.89 + + +4 Trainers 5.51 + +5 Soap 5.39 +6 Jeans 5.21 +

NB: Where there are crosses (+) in a column thatlink means, there is no significant statistical dif-ference between them, p , 0.05.



explore the dimensions that underpin

brand purchasing behaviour within the

age group under study. This was

achieved using a two-step process, the

first applying ANOVA and the second

applying factor analysis.

Eleven statements (derived from the

brand loyalty literature and the piloting

process) regarding brand selection were

rated by respondents according to the

interval scale outlined above.

Summarised (with abbreviations for

further discussion), the statements were:

— I make my purchase according to

my favourite brand, regardless of

price (loyalty)

— I have more than one preferred

brand (multi)

— I like to change brands for the sake

of novelty and variety (novelty)

— My choice of brand is largely based

on price (price)

— I buy the brand my parents buy

(parents)

— My choice of brand says something

about me as a person (image)

— My choice of brand is influenced by

promotions (promotion)

— I stick with my usual brand as this

saves me time (time)

— Quality is my primary concern

when buying a brand (quality)

— My choice of brand is based on

what my friends buy (friends)

— I choose my brand because it has a

good reputation (reputation).

NB: Aspects of the ‘quality’ construct

(including both functional, eg flavour in

the case of coffee, and symbolic

attributes, eg brand image) that

influence purchase were investigated. A

summary of this part of the study is in

the Discussion and Conclusions, as it is

useful for elucidation.

ANOVA was conducted in order to

assess whether or not there was any

statistically significant difference

between the levels of agreement with

these statements, which represent

variables that influence purchase. The F

ratios indicated that there was a

significant statistical difference in the

responses to the statements. The means

generated by ANOVA indicated the

order of strongest agreement by

statement for each product category.

Tables 3 and Tables A1–A5 from

Appendix 1 summarise the rank order

of agreement with these statements

across all six products, indicating where

there is a significant difference in

agreement between statements.

It is immediately apparent that there

is a distinct break between the ‘agrees’

(above 5.00) and the ‘disagrees’ (below

5.00). This indicates a statistically

significant difference between the

statements with which respondents

agreed and those with which they

disagreed. The range of means shows

comprehensive coverage of the scale

avoiding the error of central tendency

that Oppenheim (1997) suggests is often

a problem with questionnaire scales. It

Table 3 Soap (n ¼ 257)

Rank Variable Mean

1 Promotion 6.77 +2 Quality 6.20 + +3 Multi 6.05 + +4 Reputation 5.63 + +5 Price 5.43 + +6 Loyalty 5.23 + +7 Time 4.66 +8 Novelty 4.44 + +9 Parents 4.28 + +10 Image 3.26 +11 Friends 2.25 +



Lisa M. Wood

can be seen that respondents most

strongly disagreed with brand choice

being a reflection of self ‘image’, and

‘friends’ being an influence on

purchase. The strength of this

disagreement may be regarded as a lack

of importance of these criteria as a basis

for soap brand selection. The highest

level of agreement with a statement was

‘promotion’ as an influence on soap

brand selection and this was

significantly stronger than any other

statement except ‘quality’. Importantly,

it should be noted that all statements

with means on the ‘agree’ half of the

scale could be regarded as having some

influence on soap purchase. The factor

analysis outlined later shows the

relationship between these statements/

variables. It is clear from the ANOVA

that no single variable drives soap brand

selection and this is the case for all

product categories.

Table A1 in Appendix 1 shows the

ANOVA for coffee purchase. The

statement with which respondents most

strongly agreed with respect to their

coffee purchase was ‘quality’, and

agreement with this statement was

significantly (p , 0.05) greater than with

any other. Additionally, the ANOVA

indicates that the variables of

‘reputation’, ‘loyalty’, ‘multi’,

‘promotion’, ‘parents’, ‘time’ and ‘price’

could be regarded as having some

influence on coffee purchase. Buying

brands for ‘novelty’ and ‘image’ may be

considered unimportant as drivers of

coffee purchase. ‘Friends’ as an

influence was the statement with which

respondents most strongly disagreed, so

may be considered the least important

driver of coffee purchase among this

group. It should be noted that although

‘quality’ was the statement with which

respondents most strongly agreed, it

does not mean that on its own quality is

the strongest driver of coffee brand

selection. It is possible that other

variables collectively may be more

important, or quality, together with

other variables, provides the best

explanation of brand selection, as

shown in the factor analysis later in this

paper (Consequently, multiple

regression, although widely used, was

not used in this study.)

Table A2 in Appendix 1 shows the

ANOVA for trainers purchase.

Respondents most strongly agreed with

brand ‘quality’ and ‘reputation’ as being

the basis of their trainers purchases.

They also indicated multi-brand

preference. These statements had

significantly (p , 0.05) higher levels of

agreement than any other. The strongest

disagreement was with ‘friends’, ‘time’

saving and ‘parents’ as the basis of

trainers brand purchases.

With regard to the purchase of

breakfast cereal brands (Table A3 in

Appendix 1), most important to note are

those statements with which

respondents most strongly disagreed, ie

‘image’ and ‘friends’ as the basis of

cereal brand purchase. There was

significantly less agreement with these

criteria as drivers of brand purchase

than any others. They may be

considered as unimportant in brand

selection of breakfast cereal. The

statements with which respondents

agreed were ‘quality’, ‘multi’-brand

preference, ‘loyalty’, ‘promotion’,

‘novelty’ and ‘reputation’ as drivers of

purchase. All therefore may be

considered important influences on the

purchase of breakfast cereal brands.

Respondents most strongly agreed

that ‘quality’ was the basis of their

purchase of jeans (Table A4 in

Appendix 1). The level of agreement

with this statement was significantly

greater than any other. The strength of

agreement with having multi-brand

preference was significantly greater

than with any other driver except

‘quality’ as the basis of brand purchase.

There was significant disagreement that

‘friends’, ‘time saving’ and ‘parents’

were drivers of jeans brand purchase.

The strength of this disagreement may

be regarded as a lack of importance of

these criteria as the basis for jeans brand



selection. The issue of ‘friends’ not

being a driver is explained later in the

Discussion section. All the statements

with which respondents agreed may be

considered influences on jeans

purchase.

There was strongest agreement that

‘quality’ was the basis of toothpaste

brand selection (Table A5 in Appendix

1). This was significantly greater than

for any other selection criterion except

brand ‘reputation’. ‘Novelty’, ‘image’

and ‘friends’ may be considered

unimportant in toothpaste brand

selection, while all other variables have

some influence.

In all product areas there is a distinct

statistical break between the statements

with which respondents agreed and

those with which they disagreed. Where

there is no statistically significant

difference in the levels of agreement

between statements, there may be some

underlying relationship(s). This was

explored using factor analysis. It can be

seen from the ANOVA that even when

one variable is shown as highly

influential in a product category, it does

not mean that it is the sole driver of

brand selection. Factor analysis groups

the influences (variables) showing

which collectively best explains

purchase behaviour.

In order to discover the main

underlying dimensions of brand

selection across the six product

categories, factor analysis was applied.

Following a principal component

analysis the factors were rotated using

the varimax rotation. The Eigenvalue

used applied Kaiser’s criterion of 1.

Only those statements with factor

loadings . +0.4 or �0.4 were regarded

as substantive (when squared) and used

in interpretation. Stevens (1992), in Field

(2000), suggests that this is appropriate

for a sample size of between 200 and 300

respondents.

From the results of the ANOVA it

was apparent that some statements/

variables were unimportant as

attributes of brand selection. Therefore

it was considered that they were

unlikely to contribute to an explanation

of the underlying dimension(s) of brand

selection within a product category.

This was tested by running factor

analyses with and without the inclusion

of these variables. In all cases (with the

exception of toothpaste), excluding

these variables increased the variance

explained in the factor analysis. The

exception of toothpaste was due to

setting the Eigenvalue at Kaiser’s

criterion of 1, which excluded a

component at 0.947. Had Jolliffe’s

recommendation of 0.7 (in Field, 2000)

been used, the variance explained in

toothpaste would have increased also.

In fact, the variance explained would

have been greater in all product

categories. An Eigenvalue of 1 was

selected in order to increase the

robustness of the model at the expense

of the variance explained.

The factors representing the

underlying dimensions of brand

selection for the six product categories

are shown in Table 4 and Tables A6–

A10 in Appendix 2. All product

categories have more than one ‘factor’,

indicating that there is more than one

group of influences on brand selection.

The terms factor(s) and dimension(s) are

used synonymously.

It can be seen from Table 4 that there

are two opposing dimensions of soap

brand purchase, collectively explaining

69.2 per cent of the variance. The

variance explained by the two factors is

almost equal. Factor 1 represents the

dimension ‘outer directed brand loyalty’. It

is characterised by a price insensitive

brand preference associated with the

Table 4 Dimensions of soap brand selection

Factor 1 Factor 2

Loyalty 0.667 �0.517Multi 0.234 0.694Price �0.370 0.764Promotion �7.961E-02 0.847Quality 0.866 3.108E-02Reputation 0.841 6.178E-03% variance explained 34.985 34.177


Lisa M. Wood

quality and reputation of the brand. The

term ‘outer directed’ is based on loyalty

being connected to product and brand

evaluation rather than purchase being

related to brand as a reflection of self-

image (see trainers Table A7 in

Appendix 2). Factor 2 represents the

dimension ‘value seeking’. It is

characterised by multi-brand preference

associated with price and promotion

sensitivity, and negatively associated

with brand selection made regardless of

price. ‘Time’, ‘novelty’, ‘parents’,

‘image’ and ‘friends’ were the variables

excluded from the factors.

Table A6 (Appendix 2) indicates that,

unlike soap, coffee has a dominant

dimension. Factor 1 is the dominant

dimension of coffee brand selection. As

with soap, it is characterised by a price

insensitive brand preference associated

with the quality and reputation of the

brand. There is an additional aspect to

this dimension, however, which is

absent from that for soap: loyalty is

associated with parental purchasing

patterns and also with time saving

behaviour. This could indicate a degree

of habit as well as positive brand

associations in coffee brand loyalty and

represents ‘habitual brand loyalty’. Factor

2 represents the dimension ‘value

seeking’. It is characterised by multi-

brand preference associated with price

and promotion sensitivity. The total

variance explained by the factors was

66.9 per cent with ‘novelty’, ‘friends’

and ‘image’ being excluded from the

dimensions.

There are three dimensions of trainers

brand purchase (Table A7 in Appendix

2) that collectively explain 67.9 per cent

of the variance. Factor 1 is characterised

by a price insensitive brand preference

associated with the quality and

reputation of the brand. Importantly, in

this factor, loyalty is also associated

with brand as a reflection of self-image

and represents the dimension ‘inner

directed brand loyalty’. Although not

dominant, factor 1 is clearly the major

dimension for trainers. The second

dimension, factor 2, represents ‘bargain

orientation’ and is characterised by price

and promotion sensitivity. This factor is

not associated with either brand

preference regardless of price (not

unexpectedly) or having more than one

preferred brand. It is very clearly a price

and promotion orientation. Factor 3

accounts for the lowest percentage of

variance explained and represents the

dimension ‘variety seeking’. It is


associated with novelty and variety

seeking. ‘Time’, ‘parents’ and ‘friends’

were the variables excluded from the

factors.

There are three dimensions of cereal

brand purchase (Table A8 in Appendix


of the variance. Factor 1 represents the

dimension ‘value and variety seeking’. It is


associated not only with variety seeking

behaviour, but also with price and

promotion sensitivity. This is the major

dimension of cereal brand purchase.

Factor 2 represents the dimension ‘outer

directed brand loyalty’ and is

characterised by a price insensitive


quality and reputation of the brand. The

lowest percentage of variance explained

is by factor 3. Factor 3 represents the

dimension ‘inertia’ in that purchase is

associated with parental buying

patterns and time saving, and not with

positive brand associations. ‘Friends’

and ‘image’ were excluded from the

factors.

There are three dimensions of jeans

brand selection (Table A9 in Appendix


of the variance. There is no dominant

factor with the variance explained being

relatively equal for each. Factor 1

represents ‘value seeking’. It is


associated with price and promotion

sensitivity, and negatively associated

with brand selection made regardless of

price. Factor 2 represents the dimension

‘outer directed brand loyalty’. It is





quality and reputation of the brand.

Factor 3 represents the dimension ‘image

variety seeking’ and is characterised by

multi-brand preference associated with

variety seeking and brand as a reflection

of self-image. ‘Time’, ‘parents’ and

‘friends’ were excluded from the

dimensions. This is perhaps the most

complex of the products and is

discussed more fully in the Discussion

and Conclusions section below.

Table A10 in Appendix 2 indicates

that there are two dimensions of

toothpaste brand selection that

collectively explain 61.6 per cent of the

variance. Factor 1 represents the

dimension ‘habitual brand loyalty’. It is



quality and reputation of the brand. It is

also associated with parental

purchasing patterns and time saving

behaviour, indicating a degree of habit

as well as positive brand associations in

toothpaste brand selection. Factor 2

represents the dimension ‘value seeking’.

It is characterised by multi-brand

preference associated with price and

promotion sensitivity. It is negatively

associated with price insensitive brand

loyalty. ‘Novelty’, ‘friends’ and ‘image’

were excluded from the dimensions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

From both Tables 1 and 2 it is evident

that there is a significant statistical

difference in the degree of brand loyalty

exhibited by 18–24-year-old students

across product categories. The

implication of this finding is that when

studies explore loyalty differences

between age groups, the results would be

strongly influenced by the product

categories chosen. Any conclusions

drawn should be constrained to the

product under study as not to do so

would provide simplistic

generalisations. The dimensions of

brand selection shown in Table 4 and

Tables A6–A10 in Appendix 2 also vary

by product type. Although the

differences in the dimensions across

product categories are in some cases

subtle ones, they are nonetheless

important because they show the

complexity of purchase behaviour in

this target group.

With the exception of breakfast cereal

and jeans, all product categories have

loyalty behaviour (whether it is habitual

brand loyalty with parental influence

being important, or loyalty based on

outer-directed criteria such as the

reputation of the brand) as their

primary dimension. Breakfast cereal

and jeans have ‘value and variety

seeking’ and ‘value seeking’

respectively as their primary dimension.

Typically, the percentage of variance

explained by primary and secondary

dimensions is broadly similar, meaning

that both are important in explaining

brand selection, although coffee had the

dominant dimension of ‘habitual brand

loyalty’. It is important to note that all

products had multi-brand preference

within either their primary or secondary

dimension. That is, respondents

indicated that they had more than one

preferred brand within a product

category and their choice was based on

criteria such as availability. This may

explain the proportion-of-purchase

figures shown in Table 1.

With the exception of soap, all

products had ‘quality’ as the statement

with which respondents most strongly

agreed in the ANOVA. In the case of

coffee and jeans, there was a significant

statistical difference in agreement with

‘quality’ when compared with other

influences. This does not suggest that

this is the single most important driver

of brand purchase, but that it is a highly

important variable in brand selection of

these products. It is in either the

primary or secondary dimension for all

product categories.

Although not the focus of this paper,

attributes of the quality construct were

also investigated in this study. For each

product the functional attributes as well


Lisa M. Wood

as symbolic attributes were explored.

Respondents were asked to rate

variables in terms of their importance to

the purchase of the product category.

For example, soap included the

importance of scent, colour,

performance qualities (moisturising,

hypoallergenic etc), packaging

performance (such as no mess

dispensers against bars), symbolic

factors (such as the influence of

packaging and brand image), ethical

issues such as not tested on animals,

and environmental factors such as

biodegradable packaging. The interval

scale outlined earlier was used,

anchored at each end with ‘of the

utmost importance’ (valued at 9) and ‘of

no importance at all’ (valued at 1).

ANOVA was conducted on the mean

scores to identify the most important

attribute(s) of the product. Interestingly,

there were very clear statistical breaks

for the attribute that was most

important to each product, ie the top

attribute was statistically more

important than any other. The top

quality attribute for each product is

shown in Table 5.

It should also be noted that the mean

scores for the top quality attribute were

near the upper end of the scale (ie well

above the mid-point) and therefore

should be considered as very important

to purchase. Table 5 helps to explain the

dimensions that were identified in the

factor analyses.

Some product categories exhibited a

similar profile in the factor analyses.

Coffee and toothpaste were the closest

in their underlying dimensions. The

primary dimension in both these

products was ‘habitual brand loyalty’,

which identified a relationship between

responses to the statements:

— I make my purchase according to

my favourite brand, regardless of

price

— Quality is my primary concern

when buying a brand

— I choose my brand because it has a

good reputation

— I buy the brand my parents buy

— I stick with my usual brand as this

saves me time.

It is clear that in the purchase of

coffee and toothpaste brands,

respondents indicated the underlying

importance of quality and brand

reputation to their loyalty; however,

brand familiarity is also relevant to their

purchase behaviour. It is important to

note that these were the only two

product categories where respondents

indicated the relationship to parental

buying behaviour, and the relevance of

time saving when buying the brand.

Familiarity with the brand and brand

satisfaction may have developed as a

result of usage in the parental home. If

one is satisfied with the performance of

a brand then there may be no reason to

waste time switching. Additionally, it is

reasonable to suggest that the attributes

required from these products are similar

to those desired by one’s parents. For

example, in the case of toothpaste,

parents may be as concerned about

tooth protection, whitening and breath

freshening attributes as their 18–24-

year-old children. In the case of

toothpaste and coffee, significantly the

most important quality attribute

specified by respondents was taste.

Taste preference may well be developed

in the family home.

It may be asked why parental buying

behaviour was not a similar influence

on soap brand selection. Possibly, needs

and wants in soap purchase are more

individual, for example, someone may

need a product that suits their

individual skin type. The attribute that

Table 5 Most important attribute for eachproduct

Product Attribute Mean score

Soap Scent 7.30Coffee Flavour 7.50Trainers Appearance 8.29Breakfast cereal Flavour 8.17Jeans Fit 8.63Toothpaste Flavour 7.80



was of greatest importance to the

purchase of this product was scent. It

may be, therefore, that while

respondents may care about their

parents they do not necessarily want to

smell like them. Soap was distinctive

because it had two relatively equal, but

opposing, dimensions. One dimension

focused on price insensitive brand

preference associated with the quality

and reputation of the brand, and the

other represented a multi-brand

preference with price and promotion

sensitivity. These could represent two

market segments of consumers and

would be worth further investigation.

Time saving and parental buying

patterns were considered by

respondents as unimportant to their

purchase of jeans and trainers. This is

perhaps not unexpected since it is

unlikely that students would wish to

emulate their parents’ fashion choices.

Additionally, it may be expected that

browsing and ‘shopping around’ are

important to the purchase of these

items. These product categories were

also distinct in the agreement by

respondents that their jeans and trainers

say something about them as a person,

ie brand as a reflection of self-image.

‘Image’ was not a relevant aspect of

brand purchase in any other product

categories.

In the case of trainers, image was

associated with price insensitive brand

loyalty, quality and reputation of the

brand. This was the primary dimension

in trainers selection. The importance of

both branding and brand as a reflection

of self-image were very specific to

trainers in this study. This differed from

jeans where image was associated with

variety seeking and multi-brand

preference. This may indicate that

respondents like to vary their products

and brands to reflect different images.

The issue of multi-brand preference is

very important. It can explain why

respondents suggested that they do not

buy the brands their friends buy. There

are several brands that are socially

acceptable, so respondents do not

perceive they are buying on the basis of

what their friends buy, but on other

criteria. It does not mean that peer

group is not important, otherwise

respondents would not have indicated

that their jeans say something about

them as a person.

The primary (although not dominant)

dimension of jeans brand selection was

‘value seeking’. Clearly, price and

promotion are important in this product

category as would be expected in a high

value item. The importance of ‘quality’

was strongly reflected in the second

dimension of jeans purchase. The aspect

of the quality construct that was most

important in jeans purchase was ‘fit’,

followed closely by ‘appearance’, which

supports the view that self-image is

important. Brand image (another aspect

of the quality construct investigated)

received a higher importance rating in

jeans and trainers than with the other

products but was not the top ranked

attribute in any product category.

Overall, both jeans and trainers were

distinct from the other product

categories in that both self-image and

brand image were important in

understanding what drives brand

selection. This supports the findings of

studies such as Auty and Elliott (1998)

and Noesjirwan and Crawford (1982)

focusing on the importance of clothing

brands.

Breakfast cereal had dimensions that

were distinct from any other product

category. The primary dimension of

cereal was ‘value and variety seeking’.

This may be as much a reflection of the

market itself as it is of consumer

behaviour. Recently, the breakfast cereal

market has become characterised by

heavy sales promotion activity as well

as product innovation and

diversification. These are borne out of

necessity in order for major brands to

remain competitive. It is difficult to

assert that ‘value and variety seeking’

behaviour has been created by this

marketing activity, since marketing


Lisa M. Wood

activity may also be driven by consumer

demands, but either way it is likely that

they are related.

Overall, it can be seen that to suggest

that younger consumers have low

loyalty would be to miss the richness of

their complexity. Opportunities in

marketing also may be overlooked. The

brand heritage that is evident in coffee

and toothpaste purchase could be

something that manufacturers might

reflect in their positioning. For

example, taste as a reminder of home,

might be a successful message in coffee

promotion targeting this demographic

group.

Brand as a reflection of self-image is

something that is clearly important and

specific (among the products

investigated) to clothing brands. Again,

this could be reflected in promotional

activity; however, the advertising of

trainers might differ from that of jeans.

With trainers, creating the brand

reputation as a reflection of self-image,

and quality positioning, would be key

to success. Although these are also

important in jeans selection and should

not be overlooked, product performance

is also critical. Ultimately, when

selecting jeans (from the brands that are

socially acceptable) the consumer may

make decisions on how the fit of their

jeans affects their physical appearance.

Also, the marketing of trainers needs to

reflect their relative price insensitivity

compared with jeans.

Value and variety are important

attributes of cereal brand selection and

so sales promotion will be successful in

this product category. In the longer

term, however, marketers may wish to

consider which brand-switching

promotions will best protect their

margins, so they can continue to invest

in product innovation.

FURTHERWORK

While students increasingly may be a

good representation of the 18–24 age

group, further work would need to be

conducted on the non-student

population to identify any differences.

Survey work frequently asks

respondents to recall aspects of their

behaviour. Auditing actual behaviour of

this group could provide further

insights.

REFERENCESAssael, H. (1992) Consumer Behaviour and Marketing

Action, 4th edn, PWS-Kent, Boston, MA.

Auty, S. and Elliott, R. (1998) ‘Fashion involvement, self-

monitoring and the meaning of brands’, Journal of

Product and Brand Management, 7 (2), 109–123.

Barsky, J. (1994) World-class Customer Satisfaction, Irwin

Professional Publishing, Burr Ridge, IL.

Bayus, B. L. (1992) ‘Brand loyalty and marketing strategy:

An application to home appliances’, Marketing Science,

11 (1), 22.

Carmen, J. M. (1970) ‘Correlates of brand loyalty’, Journal

of Marketing Research, 7, 67–76.

Carmichael, M. (2000) ‘Degrees of spending’, The Grocer,

19th August, 42–44.

Cunningham, R. M. (1956) ‘Brand loyalty — What, where,

how much?’, Harvard Business Review, 34, Jan/Feb,

116–128.

Day, G. S. (1969) ‘A two-dimensional concept of brand

loyalty’, Journal of Advertising Research, 9, 29–35.

DFES (2002) www.dfes.gov.uk/trends/index (accessed

18th November, 2002).

Dick, A and Basu, K. (1994) ‘Customer loyalty: Toward an

integrated conceptual framework’, Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2), 99–113.

East, R. (1997) Consumer Behaviour: Advances and

Applications in Marketing, Prentice Hall, Hemel

Hempstead.

East, R., Harris, P., Willson, G. and Hammond, K. (1995)

‘Correlates of first-brand loyalty’, Journal of Marketing

Management, 11 (5), 487–497.

Fader, P. S. and Schmittlein, D. C. (1993) ‘Excess

behavioral loyalty for high-share brands: Deviations

from the dirichlet model for repeat purchasing’, Journal

of Marketing Research, 30 (4), 478–499.

Farley, J. U. (1966) ‘A test of loyalty proneness

hypothesis’, Commentary, 8, 35–42.

Farquhar, P. H. (1989) ‘Managing brand equity’,

Marketing Research, 1 (September), 24–33.

Field, A. (2000) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for

Windows, Sage Publications, London.

Frank, R. E. (1967) ‘Correlates of buying behavior for

grocery products’, Journal of Marketing, 31, 48–53.

Hammond, K. A., Ehrenberg, A. S. C. and Goodhardt, G.

(1993) ‘Brand segmentation: A systematic study’,

Proceedings of the Marketing Education Group Conference,

Loughborough, UK, 439–448.

Higher Education Statistics Agency (2001) ‘Table 0a — All

students by institution, mode of study, level of study,

gender and domicile’, available at www.hesa.ac.uk

(accessed 13th November, 2002).

Howard, J. A. and Sheth, J. N. (1969) The Theory of Buying



Behaviour, John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York,

NY.

Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R. W. (1978) Brand Loyalty

Measurement and Management, Wiley, New York, NY.

McGoldrick, P. and Andre, E. (1997) ‘Consumer

misbehaviour’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, 4 (2), 73–81.

Miller, B. (1975) ‘Intergenerational patterns of consumer

behavior’, Proceedings, Association for Consumer

Research, 93–101.

Mitchell, V.-W. (1999) ‘Consumer perceived risk:

Conceptualisations and models’, European Journal of

Marketing, 33 (1/2), 163–195.

Moore-Shay, E. S. and Lutz, R. J. (1988) ‘Intergenerational

influences in the formation of consumer attitudes and

beliefs about the marketplace: Mothers and daughters’,

Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 461–467.

Moschis G. P. (1985) ‘The role of family communication in

consumer socialization of children and adolescents’,

Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (4), 898–913.

Noesjirwan, J. and Crawford, J. (1982) ‘Variations in

perception of clothing as a function of dress form and

viewers’ social community’, Perceptual and Motor Skills,

54 (1), 155–163.

Olson, J. C. and Jacoby, J. (1971) ‘A construct validation of

brand loyalty’, Proceedings of the American Psychological

Association, 6, 657–658.

Oppenheim, A. N. (1997) Questionnaire Design,

Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, Pinter,

London.

Palumbo, F. and Herbig, P. (2000) ‘The multicultural

context of brand loyalty’, European Journal of Innovation

Management, 3 (3), 116–124.

Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W. E. Jr (1990) ‘Zero defections:

Quality comes to services’, Harvard Business Review, 68,

Sept/Oct, 105–111.

Roselius, T. (1971) ‘Consumer rankings of risk deduction

methods’, Journal of Marketing, 35, Jan, 56–61.

Rundle-Thiele, S. and Bennett, R. (2001) ‘A brand for all

seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty approaches and

their applicability for different markets’, Journal of

Product & Brand Management, 10 (1), 25.

Snyder, D. R. (1991) ‘Demographic correlates to loyalty in

frequently purchased consumer services’, Journal of

Professional Services Marketing, 8 (1), 45–55.

Uncles, M. D. and Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1990) ‘Brand

choice among older consumers’, Journal of Advertising

Research, 30 (4), 19–22.

Wright, C. and Sparks, L. (1999) ‘Loyalty saturation in

retailing: Exploring the end of retail loyalty cards?’,

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,

27 (10), 429–439.

APPENDIX 1

Table A1 Coffee (n ¼ 210)

Rank Variable Mean

1 Quality 6.45 +2 Reputation 6.06 +3 Loyalty 5.90 + +4 Multi 5.40 + + +5 Promotion 5.10 + + +6 Parents 5.07 + + +7 Time 4.72 + + + +8 Price 4.46 + +9 Novelty 3.66 +

10 Image 3.66 +11 Friends 2.70 +


Table A2 Trainers (n ¼ 252)

Rank Variable Mean

1 Quality 6.99 +2 Reputation 6.80 + +3 Multi 6.69 + +4 Novelty 5.62 +5 Price 5.56 + +6 Loyalty 5.50 + + +7 Image 5.43 + + + +8 Promotion 5.23 + + + +9 Friends 3.56 +10 Time 2.97 +11 Parents 1.67 +



Lisa M. Wood

APPENDIX 2

Table A3 Breakfast cereal (n ¼ 244)

Rank Variable Mean

1 Quality 6.51 +2 Multi 6.31 + +3 Loyalty 6.12 + + +4 Promotion 5.94 + + + +5 Novelty 5.82 + + +6 Reputation 5.34 + + +7 Price 4.99 + +8 Time 4.63 + +9 Parents 4.36 +10 Image 3.42 +11 Friends 2.36 +


Table A4 Jeans (n ¼ 250)

Rank Variable Mean

1 Quality 7.07 +2 Multi 6.93 + +3 Reputation 6.29 +4 Price 5.80 + +5 Promotion 5.61 + +6 Novelty 5.38 + + +7 Image 5.14 + + + +8 Loyalty 5.09 + + + +9 Friends 3.45 +10 Time 3.31 +11 Parents 1.89 +


Table A5 Toothpaste (n ¼ 268)

Rank Variable Mean

1 Quality 6.81 +2 Reputation 6.52 + +3 Loyalty 6.12 + +4 Promotion 6.05 + + +5 Multi 5.72 + + +6 Parents 5.44 + + +7 Time 5.30 + + +8 Price 5.26 + +9 Novelty 4.08 +10 Image 3.13 +11 Friends 2.37 +


Table A6 Dimensions of coffee brand selection

Factor 1 Factor 2

Loyalty 0.837 �0.181Multi 0.114 0.828Price 3.865E-03 0.886Parents 0.621 0.161Promotion 5.952E-02 0.884Time 0.717 3.792E-02Quality 0.826 7.870E-02Reputation 0.848 0.141% variance explained 37.718 29.212



Table A7 Dimensions of trainers brand selection

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Loyalty 0.619 �0.380 �0.161Multi �4.028E-02 0.266 0.793Novelty 0.195 �2.784E-02 0.853Price �5.005E-02 0.890 0.100Image 0.670 �9.507E-02 0.266Promotion 5.281E-02 0.888 8.956E-02Quality 0.741 0.192 4.832E-02Reputation 0.828 2.895E-02 4.596E-02% variance explained 26.403 23.029 18.448

Table A8 Dimensions of breakfast cereal brand selection


Loyalty �0.251 0.737 0.313Multi 0.822 0.109 �0.148Novelty 0.765 0.208 �9.151E-02Price 0.774 �0.218 9.404E-02Parents 0.121 7.355E-02 0.843Promotion 0.789 �0.110 0.256Time �7.457E-02 0.314 0.650Reputation 9.859E-02 0.802 0.232Quality 8.729E-02 0.841 �1.187E-02% variance explained 28.696 23.466 15.447

Table A9 Dimensions of jeans brand selection


Loyalty �0.605 0.404 0.289Multi 0.408 �2.824E-02 0.644Novelty 1.022E-02 4.776E-02 0.834Price 0.849 �2.989E-02 4.827E-02Image �0.117 0.289 0.669Promotion 0.796 0.168 0.166Quality 0.145 0.845 2.583E-02Reputation �0.133 0.858 0.183% variance explained 24.234 21.622 21.321

Table A10 Dimensions of toothpaste brandselection

Factor 1 Factor 2

Loyalty 0.683 �0.457Multi �6.314E-02 0.819Price �0.151 0.868Parents 0.544 �3.647E-02Promotion �3.545E-02 0.882Time 0.598 �0.173Quality 0.807 5.181E-02Reputation 0.828 �3.152E-02% variance explained 31.068 30.579


Lisa M. Wood

Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour: consumers in the 18–24 age group

Documents

Transcript of Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour: consumers in the 18–24 age group