Méndez, Oubiña and Rubio (2011)

The relative importance ofbrand-packaging, price and tastein affecting brand preferences

Jose Luis Mendez, Javier Oubina and Natalia RubioDepartment of Finance and Marketing Research, Business Studies Faculty,

Autonoma University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to analyze the relative importance of brand-packaging, price and taste inthe formation of brand preference for manufacturer and store brands in food product categories.

Design/methodology/approach The authors first perform a blind taste test of the product usingthree brands (two manufacturer brands and one store brand) in two categories with differentiatedcharacteristics (cola drinks and olives stuffed with anchovies). They then use conjoint analysis toanalyze the influence of the intrinsic cue (taste) and the extrinsic cues (price and brand-packaging) onconsumers preference for manufacturer and store brands. Finally, after telling the consumers whichtaste belongs to each brand, the authors study the influence of the extrinsic cues on the consumersquality evaluations of the real stimuli.

Findings The results show that not knowing the brand to which the taste tested belongs, leadsconsumers in general to order their preferences fundamentally by taste. However, the results differ byproduct category and consumer segment analyzed. Consumers who evaluate the taste of store brandsas better change their preferences more when they know which brand belongs to which taste. Further,the change in preference when consumers know the brand-taste correspondence is clearly greater inthe most differentiated category.

Research limitations/implications The main limitations of this research derive from the factorsconditioning the information. A greater number of categories and attributes would enrich theinformation. In addition, it would be useful to analyze more than one store brand.

Practical implications The results obtained have interesting implications for manufacturers andretailers concerning management of the brands in their product portfolio and management of theirrelationships in the distribution channel.

Originality/value The main contribution of this paper lies in the work methodology used. Thepaper offers a comprehensive analysis of how the relative importance of brand-packaging, price andtaste affect brand preference for manufacturer and store brands. The study also contributes evidenceon how the consumers knowledge of the correspondence between brand and taste can change his orher brand preferences, an issue of great interest for manufacturers and distributors in managing theirproduct portfolios.

Keywords Store brand, Manufacturer brand, Preferences, Conjoint analysis, Brands, Brand awareness,Drinks, Prices

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of Ministry of Education and Science(research project ref.: ECO2008-00488/ECON) and Madrid Regional Ministry of Education(research project ref.: S2007/HUM-0413). The authors are listed in alphabetical order because allcontributed equally to developing this article.

Importance ofbrand-packaging,

price and taste

1229

Received October 2009Revised May 2010

Accepted May 2010

British Food JournalVol. 113 No. 10, 2011

pp. 1229-1251q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0007-070XDOI 10.1108/00070701111177665

1. IntroductionThe main problem facing store brands is that they are perceived by consumers asproducts of lower quality than manufacturer brands and thus have lower purchaseloyalty (Corstjens and Lal, 2000). The results of recent research demonstrate, however,that there has been a progressive reduction of the quality differential betweenmanufacturer and store brands (Apelbaum et al., 2003; Davies and Brito, 2004 andMendez et al., 2008). As shown by the merchandising policy applied to these brands(Fernandez and Gomez, 1999; Hoch, 1996), retailers have been devoting increasingeffort to marketing their own brands through the presence of these brands in newcategories (Dunne and Narasimhan, 1999), through active communication about thesebrands both inside the establishment and in the communications media (Richardsonet al., 1994), and through market segmentation of store brands (Dunne andNarasimhan, 1999; Seok, 2001). An exemplary case is the supermarket Carrefour inSpain, which incorporates store brands Carrefour Seleccion, Carrefour Calidad yOrigen and Carrefour Eco Bio as premium brands, the Carrefour brand as a valuebrand and the brand 1 as an economy brand.

In this context, we attempt to determine:. consumers quality evaluation of manufacturer and store brands based on the

intrinsic and extrinsic cues of both brands; and. the relative importance of the intrinsic and extrinsic cues in consumers

preferences.

Our main contribution lies in the work methodology used: first, we analyze theperceived quality of the brands through a blind taste test of the product; then, we applyconjoint analysis to determine the relative importance of different extrinsic andintrinsic cues on the formation of the consumers brand preference; finally, we examinethe brand quality perceived by the consumer for the real stimuli. In this last stage, theconsumer judges the quality of each brand by considering its true taste, price andbrand-packaging jointly.

More specifically, the paper offers a comprehensive analysis of the relativeimportance of how brand-packaging, price and taste affect brand preference formanufacturer and store brands. It also contributes evidence on how the consumersknowledge of the correspondence between brand and taste can change his or her brandpreferences, an issue of great interest for manufacturers and distributors in managingtheir product portfolios.

This study presents the results obtained in an investigation applied to two clearlydifferentiated product categories (cola drinks and olives) for three kinds of brands(leading manufacturer brand, second leading manufacturer brand and value storebrand). It studies the consumers perception of one intrinsic cue (taste) and twoextrinsic cues (brand-packaging and price). Interesting implications for managementemerge from the study performed.

2. Literature review: quality perceived by consumers and formation ofpreferencesConsumers use, ordering and evaluation of product attributes provide an initialframework for investigating which factors determine the formation of qualityperceived by consumers in brand choice.

BFJ113,10

1230

The first theoretical studies proposed different classifications of these attributes tomeasure differences in quality between brands. Cox (1967) argues that products can beconceived as arrays of cues and that consumers assign information values to the cuesavailable based on their predictive value PV (the degree to which consumersassociate this attribute with the products quality) and confidence value CV (theconfidence that consumers have in their own capacity to use and interpret this attributeeffectively as an indicator of quality).

Later, Olson (1972) and Olson and Jacoby (1973) classified product attributes asintrinsic and extrinsic to products. Intrinsic cues represent product-related attributesthat cannot be manipulated without altering the physical product itself. They includeingredients, taste, freshness, texture, aroma and nutritional value. Conversely,extrinsic cues are product-related attributes that are not part of the physical productitself and that may include price, brand name, advertising, labelling and packaging.

There is evidence that extrinsic cues are more easily recognized, integrated andinterpreted than intrinsic cues, which are harder to process (Purwar, 1982). Thus, onecan assume that consumers assign greater CV to extrinsic cues than to intrinsic cues. Itis reasonable to assume, however, that in determining the real quality of packagedgoods consumers attribute more importance to intrinsic cues than to extrinsic ones. Itis thus realistic to argue that the PV assigned to intrinsic cues is greater than that forextrinsic cues (Richardson et al., 1994).

It is accepted that consumers have limited cognitive capabilities and seek efficientmeans of processing and storing information. Brand names have traditionally beenshown to represent many attributes, and there is clear evidence that consumersrecognize a brand name as an informational chunk (Jacoby et al., 1977). Brand namesrecall store information from memory, and this information interacts with the intrinsiccues to produce different results (Bettman and Park, 1980).

Researchers have attempted to clarify the relative importance of extrinsic andintrinsic cues in perceived product quality for consumers. Olson (1972) argued thatintrinsic cues are more important than extrinsic cues, mostly for utilitarian productssuch as nylon hose, carpeting and envelopes. Similar analysis of food products hasproduced contradictory results. Whereas Chung et al. (2006) find that intrinsicattributes are more important, Richardson et al. (1994) conclude the opposite. Holbrook(1986) and De Chernatony and Knox (1990) observe that extrinsic attributes mainlybrand name and packaging may be more important than intrinsic cues for productsfor which image is important. This argument is supported by studies ofimage-reflective products such as carbonated bottled water, beer and colas(Christopher et al., 1987 and Steenkamp, 1990).

Zeithaml (1988) and Steenkamp (1990) incorporate these intrinsic and extrinsicattributes into their definitions of perceived product quality. Zeithaml definesperceived quality as the result of an overall process of evaluation of a product(high-level abstraction) that integrates the information provided by a set of objectiveattributes of the product and whose importance, as informative inputs in the evaluationprocess, is given by a set of factors that are situational (situation prior to purchase oract of consumption) and personal (e.g. motivation or experience). These attributes arenot perceived in the same way by all consumers. Likewise, Steenkamp (1990)understands perceived product quality as an idiosyncratic value judgment withrespect to the fitness for consumption, which is based upon the conscious and/or


price and taste

1231

unconscious processing of quality cues in relation to relevant quality attributes withinthe context of significant personal and situational variables.

Quality can also be understood in terms of fitness for consumption or satisfaction ofneeds (Steenkamp, 1990; Kotler et al., 2006). Kotler et al. (2006) define quality as the setof aspects and characteristics of a product and service that maintain a relationshipwith their capacity to satisfy consumers expressed or latent needs. The AmericanSociety for Quality Control integrates the elements of objective and subjective qualityinto its definition, using Kotlers concept of the term.

Several studies have focused on store brands, performing comparative analysis oftheir quality with manufacturer brands through the evaluation of their intrinsic andextrinsic attributes.

On the one hand, Bellizzi et al. (1981) uses a Likert scale to measure consumersperceptions of different intrinsic and extrinsic cues (specifically, design, externalappearance, and overall quality measured). They find significant differences in theevaluation of extrinsic cues in favor of manufacturers brands. Cunningham et al.(1982) observe that consumers evaluate both the intrinsic and the extrinsic cues ofmanufacturer brands more positively. However, Richardson et al. (1994) examine theeffect of intrinsic and extrinsic cues on consumer-perceived quality for five productcategories and find that the most valued choices have the extrinsic cues ofmanufacturer brands, independently of their objective quality.

On the other hand, the objective quality of manufacturer and store brands based onevaluations by qualified technical experts has been studied by Apelbaum et al. (2003),Davies and Brito (2004), and Mendez et al. (2008). Davies and Brito (2004) obtain dataon objective quality for a single product category, liquid dishwashing detergent (basedon evaluations performed by the British Consumers Association). They find that in thiscategory the consumer did not pay extra for image only, as the leading brand had achemical patent that made the product perform better. Mendez et al. (2008) analyzeobjective quality in 90 categories of food and beverage and 28 categories of homecleaning and personal hygiene products (based on the evaluations performed by OCUCompra Maestra). They find that only eight (8.9 percent) categories of food andbeverage and six (21.4 percent) categories of home cleaning and personal hygieneproducts showed significant differences in quality between store and manufacturerbrands, in favor of the latter.

The empirical studies developed from prior theoretical contributions to analyze thequality of manufacturer and store brands have primarily used variance analysis withexperimental designs to obtain information. Nevertheless, if we consider quality asthe set of aspects and characteristics of a product and service that maintain arelationship with their capacity to satisfy consumers expressed or latent needs(Kotler et al., 2006), variance analysis does not provide information on the intensitywith which specific attributes act, or on the role of specific levels of attributes in theformation of consumer preferences.

In this study, we propose and apply conjoint analysis as a technique forunderstanding:

. the importance of different attributes; and

. the preference for different levels of attributes, both of which are key issues forimproving satisfaction of consumers real or latent needs.

BFJ113,10

1232

Conjoint analysis studies the effects of the joint influence of two or more attributes(independent variables) on consumers preferences (dependent variable) by measuringquantitatively the relative importance of some attributes over others. To classify a setof alternatives in order of preference, the consumer must perceive these alternativesindividually, not as a whole but as a set of partial attributes or characteristics. We canthus interpret consumers final ranking as the sum of qualities (or perceived utilities)associated with the different properties or levels of the attributes that characterize thebrand (Hair et al., 1998).

The application of the technique of conjoint analysis to food products is relativelyrecent. Steenkamp (1987) was one of the first European researchers to apply thistechnique to evaluate the quality of ham as perceived by Dutch consumers. Steenkampused the attributes of brand name, packaging, store and price. In the 1990s, we findvarious studies along these lines, which examine consumers preferences for meatproducts (Sendim, 1995), wine (Gil and Sanchez, 1997) and eggs (Ness and Gerhardy,1994), among other products.

In the current decade, interesting studies also incorporate the technique of conjointanalysis to evaluate consumer preferences in different food products. To examinePortuguese consumers preferences in cheese, De Souza Monteiro and Ventura Lucas(2001) consider the attributes of price, texture (creamy, partially aged, or fully aged)and size of packaging. Skytte and Blunch (2001) study consumers preferences for fishand cheese products and use the attributes of quality, consistency, traceability, price,promotion, and reputation, among others. For the category of yogurt, Ferjani et al.(2009) measure brand equity using three attributes- brand name, price and flavour. Forflavour, they do not use a taste test but instead establish a priori flavours of vanilla,strawberry and banana. The results of their study show the importance of brand valuein the formation of consumers preferences for this product.

None of the researchers mentioned incorporates a blind taste test of the product todetermine the consumers perception of the intrinsic attributes and to establish the effectof the experience of consumption on consumers evaluation for different brands. Theonly study we have found that uses conjoint analysis and blind taste test is that ofDavies and Brito (2004). These researchers employ conjoint analysis to examine theconsumers preferences for manufacturer and store brands, analyzing the attributes ofbrand, taste and price. Their study performs blind taste tests on consumers using fourcategories of food products. Although most of the consumers in the sample claimed thatthey usually bought the manufacturer brand in the product categories analyzed(margarine, breakfast cereal, crackers and mayonnaise), only a small proportion of theseconsumers actually chose the manufacturer brand in the blind taste test of the product.Further, very few of those who chose the manufacturer brand continued to do so oncethey knew its price of sale to the public. These results show that brand image is often theonly explanation for the higher prices consumers pay to acquire manufacturer brands.

Our research follows Davies and Brito (2004) in using conjoint analysis and inincorporating attributes of price, taste and brand. However, their study differs fromours, among other issues, in that ours:

. considers brand as linked to packaging (binomial brand-packaging); and

. uses presentation of full profile stimuli instead of trade-off presentation.

We describe the research methodology in the following section.


price and taste

1233

3. Methodology3.1 Techniques of analysis appliedThis study uses the technique of conjoint analysis to examine consumers preferencesfor two product categories (cola drinks and olives stuffed with anchovies). Tounderstand the existence of market segments with homogeneous preferences, weapplied a TwoStep cluster analysis to the estimations of utility obtained in the conjointanalysis for each individual.

3.2 Phases of analysisObtaining information to understand consumer preferences is developed in threephases, first for the category of cola drinks and second for the category of olives stuffedwith anchovies.

In the first phase, the consumer is asked to evaluate the perceived quality of thetaste of three brands through a blind taste test. Quality was measured on a scale with arange of seven points, where the value 1 corresponded to very poor quality and 7 tovery good quality. The taste of each brand in the category was presented to theconsumer as Taste 1, Taste 2 or Taste 3. The environmental conditions of light,temperature, etc. were the same for all consumers.

After the consumers had evaluated the taste of each brand in both categories, weperformed the second phase, which consisted of the application of conjoint analysis.Table I shows the attributes and levels considered in the conjoint analysis. Theattributes were taste as an intrinsic cue and brand-packaging and price as extrinsiccues. The levels for the attribute taste were presented to the consumer as Taste 1, Taste2 and Taste 3. These correspond to the taste tested in Phase 1. For brand-packaging,we considered two manufacturer brands the leading brand and the second leadingbrand and one store brand (belonging to Carrefour). The consumer was shownbrand-packaging for the product, including the name of the brand, symbols andcolouring, but not information about the composition of the product. Finally, the valuesof the prices were average actual (non-promotional prices) prices for the brands used,applied by Carrefour stores in Spains capital city, Madrid[1].

We chose presentation of full profile stimuli[2] instead of trade-off presentation,because consumers usually evaluate jointly combinations of more than two attributesto form their preferences. The full profile presentation avoids the loss of realism

Cola drinks Stuffed olives

TasteTaste 1 Gold El SerpisTaste 2 Pepsi Cola CarrefourTaste 3 Coca Cola La Espanola

PriceLeading manufacturer brand (Coca Cola/La Espanola) 0.37e 0.73eSecond Leading manufacturer brand (Pepsi Cola/El Serpis) 0.32e 0.92eStore brand (Gold/Carrefour) 0.16e 0.52e

Brand-packaging Coca Cola La EspanolaPepsi Cola El SerpisGold (Carrefour) Carrefour

Table I.Attributes and levelsconsidered in the conjointanalysis

BFJ113,10

1234

involved in showing only two attributes per card and thus gives the results greaterpredictive validity.

We also applied an orthogonal procedure (Orthoplan available on SPSS, version17.0) to the initial (3 3 3 27) hypothetical products to reduce them to nineproduct concepts. We used a complementary set of stimuli (four holdout cards) toevaluate the models reliability[3].

The consumers were asked to order the cards according to their preferences. Theconjoint analysis was performed using the following models to relate the data onpreferences to the factors: for the attributes taste and brand-packaging, we used thediscrete model because it reflects the definition of these attributes (discrete). For theattribute price, we used the linear model, which obtained a better fit.

After consumers had ordered the cards in the conjoint analysis, we began the thirdphase. In this phase, we told consumers which taste belonged to each brand. We thenasked them to evaluate the overall quality of the three cards that contained the REALinformation on each brand tested, using a scale with a range of seven points (1 verypoor quality 7 very good quality). Each card presented one brand-packaging, itstaste and its price.

The software package used in the data treatment was SPSS 17.0.

3.3 Qualitative research: selection of categories and commercial chainTo select the product categories and commercial chain for analysis, we performed 20in-depth interviews of consumers who did not subsequently participate in thequantitative research.

We chose the categories of cola drinks and anchovies stuffed with olives because theyrepresent categories that are familiar to consumers and they are characterized by socialconsumption. These categories have different brand detectability in social consumptionand different brand differentiation among the brands that make up the category.

The category of cola drinks involves social consumption and a manufacturer brandwith strong leadership (we confirmed that, according to Alimarket[4], in Spain in 2008the leading manufacturer brand, Coca Cola, had a market share of 84.6 percent; thesecond leading manufacturer brand, Pepsi Cola, a share of 8.1 percent; and all storebrands taken together a share of 6.3 percent). In contrast, different manufacturerbrands of olives stuffed with anchovies have moderate leadership (we confirmed thatin 2008 the leading manufacturer brand, La Espanola, had a market participation of21.9 percent, the second leading manufacturer brand, El Serpis, a participation of 4.1percent and all store brands taken together a participation of 67.3 percent).Consumption of olives has also social dimension, but, unlike cola drinks, the consumerdoes not see the brand.

We chose Carrefour and its store brand, because both the chain and the store brandhave great brand recognition for the consumers interviewed. This commercial chainhas a substantial presence in the city of Madrid, with five hypermarkets, eightsupermarkets and ten convenience stores.

3.4 Quantitative research: sample and field workThe criterion used for the sample unit selection in the quantitative research was thatthe person participating in the study habitually did his or her shopping in Carrefour.Shoppers were recruited at all stores of the chain in the city of Madrid, that is, in the


price and taste

1235

five Carrefour hypermarkets, the eight Carrefour Express supermarkets and the tenconvenience stores, Carrefour city.

The shoppers were chosen through a stratified process according to sex (70 percentfemales, 30 percent males) and occupation (70 percent working, 30 percent notworking). We first chose 350 shoppers from the 23 Carrefour establishments operatingin the city of Madrid. The interviewers were graduate-level marketing students trainedin how to approach shoppers with the characteristics of the study. The interviewersexplained the broad outlines of the research to the shoppers (that it consisted of tastingand evaluating brands in some of the categories that they marked on a list). Theshoppers chosen had to mark the categories they purchased and consumed regularlyon a list of 15 product categories. They were asked for their telephone number so thatwe could contact them to participate in the study. After one week, the marketinggraduate students contacted the consumers who had marked the categories of coladrinks and olives stuffed with anchovies (220). Of the shoppers contacted, 130participated in the study. However, only 93 shoppers contributed valid information forboth product categories, a slightly high sample error for each category,^10.37 percentwith a confidence level of 95.5 percent. For the sample size achieved, the statisticalpower is 90 percent, higher than the minimum recommended level of 80 percent, forsignificance levels of 0.05 and moderate effects size (Hair et al., 1998).

To obtain the information (from the blind taste test, the conjoint analysis and theevaluation of the stimuli with the real information), we performed the study in anair-conditioned room in which the environmental conditions of light, temperature, etc.were the same for all consumers. We began by asking for information about thecategory of cola drinks. The fieldwork for this category was performed over 13 days,during which we obtained information from a maximum of ten shoppers per day. Forthis category, we obtained valid information from 100 shoppers, who weresubsequently contacted to perform the study in the category of stuffed olives. Thefieldwork for this category was performed in the same way as it was for cola drinks,although we obtained valid information from only 93 shoppers for this category. Thus,93 shoppers contributed valid information for both product categories, cola drinks andstuffed olives, a total of 186 preferences. 70 percent of the respondents were female, and75 percent were employed. The average education level was secondary school and themedian age category 35-49. The median monthly household income was between2000-3000 Euros and the average number of members of the household was three.

4. Results4.1 Results of conjoint analysisResults for the whole sample. Tables II and III show the results of the conjoint analysisfor the sample of consumers in the categories of cola drinks and stuffed olives.

The values for measures of goodness of fit for the sample (Pearsons R and KendallTau parameters) show the high precision of the model, not only for the original stimulibut also for the validation stimuli. They have a value of 1 or nearly 1 and arestatistically significant with a confidence level of 95 percent. This result implies thatthe estimated ordering of the stimuli presented corresponds faithfully to the realstructure of preferences in the two product categories composing the sample analyzed.

The stimulus most valued in both categories analyzed is taste, before price and thebinomial brand-packaging. However, price is more important than brand-packaging

BFJ113,10

1236

for stuffed olives (28.46 v. 21.39), whereas brand-packaging is more important thanprice for cola drinks (37.33 v. 20.39).

Interestingly, in both categories only one of the brands showed positive utilities fortaste: Coca Cola for cola drinks and El Serpis for stuffed olives. In contrast,brand-packaging has positive utilities in both categories of the manufacturer brands.The only negative utilities are for store brands, in taste and brand-packaging. Storebrands are only evaluated more favorably than manufacturer brands in price.

With cola drinks, the preferred taste and brand-packaging are those of the leadingbrand, Coca Cola. For stuffed olives, however, consumers preferred the taste of thesecond leading brand, El Serpis, while they preferred the brand-packaging of theleading brand, La Espanola.

The difference between the manufacturer and store brands in the range of variationof the utilities assigned to taste and brand packaging is also interesting for each of thecategories analyzed.

In the case of taste, the maximum range of variation (difference between the highestand the lowest value of the brands analyzed) is 1.34 for cola drinks and 0.64 for stuffedolives; that is, based on the attributes of their experience in consumption, consumersevaluate the manufacturer brand better in differentiated categories than in genericcategories.

Cola drinks (Total): 93 consumersCoca Cola Pepsi Gold

Attributes Importance (%) Coefficient se Utility se Utility se Utility se

Brand-packaging 37.33 1.21 0.07 0.26 0.07 21.47 0.07Taste 42.28 0.79 0.07 20.24 0.07 20.55 0.07Price 20.39 0.69 0.69 0.07 1.39 0.11 2.08 0.11Constant 3.62 0.12

Notes: Pearsons R 0.99 * * *; Kendalls Tau 1.00 * * *; Kendalls Tau 4 holdout 1.00 * *; se standarderror; ( *, * *, * * * level of statistical significance of 0.10, 0.05 and 0.01 respectively); aIn performing theconjoint analysis with the program SPSS 17.0, we used the subcommand Subject. This subcommandaverages the values for importance of the individual subjects. These averages do not generally agreewith those calculated in the summary of utilities obtained

Table II.Results of conjoint

analysis for the samplea

Olives stuffed with anchovies (Total): 93 consumersLa Espanola El Serpis Carrefour



Notes: Pearsons R 0.99 * * *; Kendalls Tau 0.87 * * *; Kendalls Tau 4 holdout 1.00 * *; se standarderror; *, * *, * * * level of statistical significance of 0.10, 0.05 and 0.01 respectively; aIn performing theconjoint analysis with the program SPSS 17.0, we used the subcommand Subject. This subcommandaverages the values for importance of the individual subjects. These averages do not generally agreewith those calculated in the summary of utilities obtained

Table III.Results of conjoint

analysis for the samplea


price and taste

1237

In the case of brand-packaging, the difference is even greater. The maximum rangeof variation is 2.68 for cola drinks and 1.02 for stuffed olives. As we might expect, thevariation occurs between the leading brand and the store brand and takes a muchgreater value in the differentiated than in the generic category.

Results for the segments. We analyzed the utilities obtained for each individual inboth product categories to identify possible market segments according to theirpreferences by applying TwoStep cluster analysis. The results obtained with TwoStepcluster analysis were validated with those obtained using Wards method. Bothprocedures provide nearly identical results. We then applied conjoint analysis to eachsegment. Tables IV-IX show the results of the conjoint analysis performed on themarket segments obtained. The values for measures of goodness of fit for the segments

Segment 1: Consumers guided by intrinsic cues who prefer the store brand (31 consumers)Coca Cola Pepsi Gold



Notes: Pearsons R 0.99 * * *; Kendalls Tau 1.000 * * *; Kendalls Tau 4 holdout 1.00 * *; se standarderror; ( *, * *, * * * level of statistical significance 0.10, 0.05 and 0.01 respectively)

Table IV.Results of conjointanalysis for the segmentsin cola drinks

Segment 3: Consumers guided by intrinsic cues who prefer the leading brand (25 consumers)Coca Cola Pepsi Gold




Table VI.Results of conjointanalysis for the segmentsin cola drinks

Segment 2: Brand consumers (37 consumers)Coca Cola Pepsi Gold




Table V.Results of conjointanalysis for the segmentsin cola drinks

BFJ113,10

1238

(Pearsons R and Kendall Tau parameters) are high and significant for the originalstimuli and for the validation stimuli.

In the category of cola drinks, we distinguish three segments[5]. Segment 1 is definedas consumers guided by intrinsic cues who prefer the store brand. These consumersestablish preferences based primarily on taste. The store brand and Coca Cola are thetwo brands with positive utilities in this respect, although the value for the store brand isconsiderably greater. Segment 3 is composed of consumers guided by intrinsic cueswho prefer the leading brand and who also determine their preferences based on taste.However, the alternatives with positive utilities are the manufacturer brands, and theleading brand Coca Cola has a considerably higher value. Segment 2 is composed ofbrand consumers. These consumers focus their preference on brand-packaging andchoose the leading brand Coca Cola or, in its absence, the second leading brand Pepsi.

Segment 1: Consumers guided by intrinsic cues and brand-packaging (43 consumers)La Espanola El Serpis Carrefour




Table VII.Results of conjoint

analysis for the segmentsin stuffed olives

Segment 3: Price conscious consumers (15 consumers)La Espanola El Serpis Carrefour




Table IX.Results of conjoint


Segment 2: Consumers guided by intrinsic cues (35 consumers)La Espanola El Serpis Carrefour




Table VIII.Results of conjoint



price and taste

1239

For the category of stuffed olives, Segment 1 is composed of consumers guided byintrinsic cues and brand-packaging. These consumers grant greater importance totaste (44 percent). For them, the store brand has the highest positive utility, followed bythe leading brand. These consumers also grant relatively high importance tobrand-packaging (34 percent). The leading brand is the most valued brand, and storebrands show negative utility. Segment 2 is defined as consumers guided by intrinsiccues. These consumers show markedly higher preference for taste and value thesecond leading brand, El Serpis, highest. Segment 3 is composed of price consciousconsumers. These consumers prefer store brands.

4.2 Results compared: taste test, utility of stimuli in the conjoint analysis and evaluationof the stimuli with the real informationTo observe how different intrinsic and extrinsic cues affect the formation ofpreferences, we analyzed three different aspects of consumers evaluations, accordingto the phases of the research explained in the methodology section. The first aspect isthe evaluation of taste quality in each of the brands of cola drinks and stuffed olivesthrough a blind taste test of the product. The second is the estimated utility value of thereal stimuli of brand-packaging, price and taste, based on the results of the conjointanalysis. The third and final aspect is the consumers quality evaluation of the realstimuli of brand-packaging, price and taste, once the consumer is informed of thebrand-taste correspondence.

Results for the whole sample. Table X shows the results obtained for each productcategory.

Cola drinks Mean SD Stuffed olives Mean SD

Blind taste test of the product (values from 1 verypoor quality to 7 very good quality)

Blind taste test of the product (values from 1 verypoor quality to 7 very good quality)

Taste of Coca Cola 5.01 1.62 Taste of La Espanola 4.62 1.69Taste of Pepsi 3.86 1.50 Taste of El Serpis 4.82 1.70Taste of Gold 3.65 1.54 Taste of Carrefour 4.43 1.56

Preferences estimated for the real stimuli(utility values)

Preferences estimated for the real stimuli(utility values)

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor Coca Cola (SIMULATION) 6.32 2.17

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor La Espanola (SIMULATION) 5.3 2.09

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor Pepsi (SIMULATION) 5.03 1.54

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor El Serpis (SIMULATION) 4.34 2.58

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor Gold (SIMULATION) 3.68 2.17

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor Carrefour (SIMULACION) 5.33 2.32

Overall quality for the real stimuli (values from1 very poor quality to 7 very good quality)

Overall quality for the real stimuli (values from1 very poor quality to 7 very good quality)

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor Coca Cola 5.43 1.48

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor La Espanola 4.79 1.49

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor Pepsi 4.67 1.23

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor El Serpis 4.79 1.57

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor Gold 3.41 1.56

Taste, brand-packaging and pricefor Carrefour 4.24 1.51

Note: SD standard deviation

Table X.Comparative analysis forsample: taste test, utilityof the stimuli in theconjoint analysis, andevaluation of the stimuliwith the real information

BFJ113,10

1240

Regarding blind taste test of the product, the store brand receives the lowest evaluationin both categories (3.65 for cola drinks and 4.43 for stuffed olives). Although consumersevaluate the leading brand of cola drinks highest, they prefer the second leading brandof stuffed olives. The range of evaluation of taste quality is much greater for coladrinks (a difference of 1.36) than for stuffed olives (a difference of 0.39). For cola drinks,the taste quality evaluation for Coca Cola is clearly higher than that of the other twochoices, which receive similar values. In contrast, all three brands of stuffed olivesreceive similar taste quality evaluations.

When we compare the results of the estimated utility of the real stimuli and thequality evaluation of the real stimuli, we find a clear influence of extrinsic cues onconsumers preferences.

For cola drinks, the second leading brand (Pepsi) and the store brand (Gold) clearlydiffer in the estimated utility and in the quality evaluation (even though they wereevaluated as similar in the blind taste test of the product). We see a clear preference forCoca Cola, followed by Pepsi and finally by Gold. Gold is the only brand assigned avalue lower than 4 (mean value of the scale).

For stuffed olives, the results of conjoint analysis reveal similar utility for theleading brand and the store brand. However, consumers relegate the store brand to lastplace once they know which taste belongs to which brand.

Results for the segments. We performed a variance analysis to evaluate the existenceof statistically significant differences between the segments in the three aspectsdiscussed (blind taste test, estimated utility of the real stimuli and quality evaluation ofthe real stimuli). Tables XI and XII shows the results in the segments identified.

The segments differ significantly according to the evaluations obtained for the blindtaste test of the product, the estimated utility of the real stimuli, and the qualityevaluation of the real stimuli.

For cola drinks, we can see statistically significant differences in the blind taste testof the product for the leading brand, Coca Cola, and the store brand, Gold. Segment 1,consumers guided by intrinsic cues who prefer store brand, assigns the highest valuefor quality to the taste of the store brand. This is the only segment that values the tasteof the store brand as above average. Segment 3, consumers guided by intrinsic cueswho prefer the leading brand, assigns a value considerably higher than that of othersegments to the taste of Coca Cola.

When consumers order all of the stimuli presented after the blind taste test,Segments 1 and 3 give priority to the products taste over price and brand-packaging.Segment 1, consumers guided by intrinsic cues who prefer the store brand, assignsthe store brand, Gold, comparatively higher preferences. Although these consumersprefer the taste of Gold only slightly over that of Coca Cola in the blind taste test, therelative importance granted to price (23.7 percent) implies that they prefer the storebrand considerably more than Coca Cola in the conjoint analysis. Coca Cola showscomparatively higher preferences for Segment 3, consumers guided by intrinsic cueswho prefer the leading brand, and for Segment 2, brand consumers.

As to the value obtained for the quality evaluation of the real stimuli, Coca Cola isprimarily valued by Segments 2 brand consumers and 3 consumers guided byintrinsic cues who prefer the leading brand. For both segments, the results obtainedagree with the preferences obtained in the conjoint analysis. In contrast, for Segment 1,consumers guided by intrinsic cues who prefer the store brand, the quality evaluation


price and taste

1241

Seg

men

t1

Seg

men

t2

Seg

men

t3

INT

RIN

SIC

ST

OR

EB

RA

ND

PR

EF

ER

EN

CE

BR

AN

D

INT

RIN

SIC

LE

AD

ING

BR

AN

DP

RE

FE

RE

NC

EC

ola

dri

nk

sM

ean

SD

Mea

nS

DM

ean

SD

F-S

ned

ecor

Blin

dta

ste

test

ofth

epr

oduct

(valu

esfr

om1

very

poor

qualit

yto

7ve

rygo

odqualit

yT

aste

ofC

oca

Col

a4.

451.

654.

951.

765.

800.

965.

31*

Tas

teof

Pep

si3.

711.

353.

761.

644.

201.

470.

88T

aste

ofG

old

4.45

1.31

3.76

1.54

2.48

1.05

15.0

9*

Pre

fere

nce

ses

tim

ate

dfo

rth

ere

alst

imuli

(uti

lity

valu

es)

Tas

te,

bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

and

pri

cefo

rC

oca

Col

a(S

IMU

LA

TIO

N)

4.70

2.70

7.23

1.05

6.96

1.50

17.5

6*

Tas

te,

bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

and

pri

cefo

rP

epsi

(SIM

UL

AT

ION

)4.

132.

055.

300.

715.

731.

1710

.15

*

Tas

te,

bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

and

pri

cefo

rG

old

(SIM

UL

AT

ION

)6.

251.

412.

471.

052.

271.

0011

2.46

*

Ove

rall

qualit

yfo

rth

ere

alst

imuli

(valu

esfr

om1

very

poor

qualit

yto

7ve

rygo

odqualit

y)T

aste

,b

ran

d-p

ack

agin

gan

dp

rice

for

Coc

aC

ola

4.65

1.47

5.68

1.49

6.04

1.02

8.10

*

Tas

te,

bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

and

pri

cefo

rP

epsi

4.55

1.09

4.51

1.37

5.00

1.14

1.61

Tas

te,

bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

and

pri

cefo

rG

old

3.84

1.49

3.70

1.65

2.44

1.08

7.59

*

Notes:

* Lev

elof

stat

isti

cal

sig

nifi

can

ceof

0.01

;S

Dst

and

ard

dev

iati

on

Table XI.Comparative analysis forsegments in cola drinks:taste test, utility of thestimuli in the conjointanalysis, and evaluationof the stimuli with thereal information

BFJ113,10

1242

Seg

men

t1

Seg

men

t2

Seg

men

t3

INT

RIN

SIC

BR

AN

DIN

TR

INS

ICP

RIC

ES

tuff

edol

ives

Mea

nS

DM

ean

SD

Mea

nS

DF

-Sn

edec

or

Blin

dta

ste

test

ofth

epr

oduct

(valu

esfr

om1

very

poor

qualit

yto

7ve

rygo

odqualit

y)T

aste

ofL

aE

span

ola

4.74

1.71

4.26

1.67

5.14

1.61

1.62

Tas

teof

El

Ser

pis

3.88

1.76

5.91

0.85

4.93

1.44

19.4

9*

**

Tas

teof

Car

refo

ur

4.60

1.71

3.89

1.41

5.29

0.91

4.86

**

*

Pre

fere

nce

ses

tim

ate

dfo

rth

ere

alst

imuli

(uti

lity

valu

es)

Tas

te,

bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

and

pri

cefo

rL

aE

span

ola

(SIM

UL

AT

ION

)6.

102.

184.

421.

945.

291.

057.

09*

**

Tas

te,

bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

and

pri

cefo

rE

lS

erp

is(S

IMU

LA

TIO

N)

3.18

2.36

6.60

1.35

2.23

0.87

43.6

2*

**

Tas

te,

bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

and

pri

cefo

rC

arre

fou

r(S

IMU

LA

CIO

N)

5.72

2.38

3.98

1.73

7.49

1.04

17.1

4*

**

Ove

rall

qualit

yfo

rth

ere

alst

imuli

(valu

esfr

om1

very

poor

qualit

yto

7ve

rygo

odqualit

y)T

aste

,b

ran

d-p

ack

agin

gan

dp

rice

for

La

Esp

anol

a4.

421.

555.

061.

535.

290.

912.

76*

Tas

te,

bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

and

pri

cefo

rE

lS

erp

is4.

401.

565.

711.

203.

711.

2013

.80

**

*

Tas

te,

bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

and

pri

cefo

rC

arre

fou

r4.

421.

483.

771.

464.

861.

513.

29*

*

Note:

Lev

elof

stat

isti

cal

sig

nifi

can

ceof

* 0.1

0;*

* 0.0

5;*

** 0

.01;

SD

stan

dar

dd

evia

tion

Table XII.Comparative analysis for

segments in stuffedolives: taste test, utility ofthe stimuli in the conjoint

analysis, and evaluationof the stimuli with the

real information


price and taste

1243

for the real stimuli differs from the taste evaluation and from the preferences estimated inthe conjoint analysis. In the conjoint analysis, this segment chooses the store brand forits quality of taste as well as its price. Yet when consumers in this segment know thebrands of the tastes tested, they assign the store brand the lowest quality evaluation.Specifically, Gold obtains a value slightly lower than 4 (mean value of the scale), whilethe manufacturer brands Coca Cola and Pepsi obtain similar values above the meanvalue of the scale. This result shows the importance of the detectability of brand inquality evaluations for product categories with highly recognized brands.

For stuffed olives, the results of the blind taste test of the product show significantdifferences in the second leading brand, El Serpis, and the store brand, Carrefour.Consumers in Segment 2, consumers guided by intrinsic cues prefer the taste of ElSerpis significantly more, finding it to be quite good. This segment assigns aconsiderably higher value to the taste of El Serpis than to the other two brands.Segment 3, price conscious consumers, finds the taste of Carrefour significantlybetter, in fact quite good, but the value that this group assigns to the taste of Carrefouris only slightly higher than that assigned to the manufacturer brands.

In the conjoint analysis, Segment 2, consumers guided by intrinsic cues clearlychooses El Serpis due to the importance these consumers give to taste. Segment 3, priceconscious consumers, chooses Carrefour for price. Segment 1, consumers guided byintrinsic cues and brand packaging who evaluate the taste of the leading brand, LaEspanola, and the store brand, Carrefour, as very similar, showing similar estimatedutilities for both brands. We must remember that for this segment the importance oftaste is 45 percent, but that of brand-packaging is also relatively high, at 34 percent.

When the consumers learn the brands of the tastes tested, the quality evaluation ofthe real stimuli varies in some cases, specifically in Segments 1 and 3.

In Segment 1, consumers guided by intrinsic cues and brand-packaging,brand-packaging clearly influences quality evaluations. The results of the conjointanalysis show a definite preference for Carrefour and La Espanola, a result that agreeswith the point values given to the tastes of these brands and the importance granted to theattribute of taste. Once the brands of the preferred tastes are known, however, consumersdo not clearly prefer any of the three stimuli but assign all three nearly identical values.

In Segment 3, price conscious consumers, price-brand interaction clearlyinfluences quality evaluations. Consumers perceive a similar taste for the threebrands and initially form their preferences based on price. However, when they knowthat the leading brand is not the highest priced, they give this brand the highest qualityevaluation, followed by the store brand.

5. Conclusions and implications for marketing strategyThis paper proposes an approach to determining consumer preference formationaccording to consumers choice of manufacturer and store brands. To establish whataspects of a product influence preference, we perform a conjoint analysis with a fullprofile presentation of stimuli.

We have seen in the categories analyzed that attributes of experience play a majorrole in consumer preference structure after consumption.

In general, once a product has been consumed, taste is the strongest attributedetermining the choice of the preferred stimulus, but price and brand-packaging alsoaffect the consumer preference structure greatly. The results obtained in this research

BFJ113,10

1244

show that the influence of price and brand-packaging are specific to the productcategory analyzed, based on its degree of differentiation. The influence ofbrand-packaging occurs in the most differentiated category, whereas the effect ofprice is greater in the generic category.

It is also important to point out that the product with the best evaluation forbrand-packaging does not always receive the highest taste evaluation. The agreementbetween taste and brand-packaging occurs in the most differentiated category.Further, we see high negative utility in taste and brand-packaging for store brands inboth categories analyzed. Only in price do store brands achieve their competitiveadvantage.

On the cola market, the leading brand maintains its leadership in both taste andbrand-packaging. The consumer preferences expressed for taste are considerablyaffected by brand-packaging. Consumers resolve similar preference for taste in twobrands, one a manufacturer brand and the other a store brand, in favor of thewell-known manufacturer brand. Consumers make this choice because they have ahigh degree of knowledge of this category due to the social character of itsconsumption and the existence of two very well-known manufacturer brands thatcontinually update their packaging design.

The results obtained in this category show noticeable differences for the consumersegments identified. The consumer segments who prefer the leading brand, whetherfor its taste (Segment 3) or for its brand-packaging (Segment 2), value the overallquality of manufacturer brands consistently in their estimated preferences. However,those who prefer the store brands taste (Segment 1) change their preference structureentirely when they know that the preferred taste corresponds to the store brand. Thissegment, which represents 33.3 percent of the sample, relegates store brands to lastplace in the overall quality evaluation.

The fact that a highly differentiated category has a consumer segment that prefersthe store brand taste when it does not know the extrinsic cues is interesting for storebrand management in these categories. Store brands should make a significantmarketing effort in highly differentiated categories to strengthen their image andgenerate brand equity and hence consumer confidence. Only so can they takeadvantage of their products having similar quality in its intrinsic attributes and thuscompete with manufacturer brands in specific segments.

Some store brands on the Spanish market, such as that of the retailer Mercadona,generate a high degree of consumer satisfaction. Consumers trust the quality ofMercadonas store brands and inform other consumers of their advantages overmanufacturer brands. This fact favors store brand loyalty, which encourages ratherthan discourages establishment loyalty.

For stuffed olives, the preferences are less pronounced. Price affects consumerpreference to a greater extent than brand-packaging, and store brands are betteraccepted. This category has a low level of differentiation and lower consumption, andone does not usually detect the brand in social consumption.

In this category, the consumer segment (Segment 2) that shows clear preferences forthe second manufacturer brand, El Serpis, based on taste assigns values of overallquality and estimated preferences in the conjoint analysis that are consistent with thepreferences declared on the blind taste test. Brand-packaging and price mainly affectthe consumer segments that assign higher values to the store brand on the blind taste


price and taste

1245

test of the product (Segments 1 and 3). However, when we compare this category tocola drinks, we find that knowing the brand-taste correspondence does not affect thequality evaluation of the store brand as negatively.

Consumers acceptance of store brands is usually wider in slightly differentiatedcategories than in highly differentiated categories. In the former, extrinsic cues alsoaffect the quality evaluation, but consumers trust their own perceptions of intrinsicquality more once they have tasted the product. Retail firms should take advantage ofthis fact and encourage tasting of the store brand in these categories. Further,promoting an image of value could also favor the growth of store brands in lessdifferentiated categories.

Although we have only analyzed two product categories with three brands in each,and although we must be careful when drawing conclusions, this study has shown:

. the clear importance of taste in the choice of mass consumption products;

. the different influence, according to the product category, of brand-packagingand price in establishing preferences between manufacturer and store brandswhose taste the consumer perceives as similar;

. the distinct importance of price and differentiation as strategic tools for favoringstore brands according to the product category; and

. the existence of consumer segments that justify the strategy of segmented storebrands currently being developed by distributors.

Among the limitations of this paper, we must consider sample size, the number ofcategories and the attributes evaluated. The three basic factors that made it difficult toobtain a larger sample size were:

(1) the fact that the same consumers had to provide information on the two productcategories examined;

(2) the time it took to obtain information due to the taste test; and

(3) the fact that the consumers had to be regular shoppers at Carrefour and toconsume products from both of the categories under study regularly.

This last condition was established in order to control for distortion in the result basedon the consumers different experiences of the category or the store. Future researchshould achieve a larger sample size. A higher number of categories and attributeswould also enrich the information, although it would make the work of those surveyedmore difficult, as they would have a greater number of stimuli to rank.

We used only one store brand, Carrefour, a brand that has a substantial marketpresence in Madrid. We used the information of consumers who shop at Carrefourregularly. Further research could include store brands belonging to different retailersor with different market positioning, information on regular and non-regularconsumers at the chains under analysis, and different locations.

The final limitation of this research is the use of a compensatory model to estimateconsumer preferences, since there may be consumers whose levels of attributes leadthem to eliminate a certain brand from consideration. In the future, it would be usefulto try other, non-compensatory methods.

BFJ113,10

1246

Notes

1. We can observe inTable I that the price intervals between manufacturer and store brandsvary considerably from one category to the other. For colas, the price differences for thelowest (store brand) and the highest-priced brands are 131.25 percent and 100 percent. Forolives, the differences are 76.92 percent and 40 percent. Several authors in the academicliterature have developed explanations for the differences observed between manufacturerand store brand prices by product category. Connor and Peterson (1992) find that productdifferentiation is the main explanatory factor of price differentials between manufacturerand store brands. The higher the manufacturer brand differentiation, the lower the degree ofsubstitutability between manufacturer and store brands in the product category (Lal andNarasimhan, 1996). In categories with highly differentiated manufacturer brands, therefore,retailers apply higher price differentials between manufacturer and store brands to motivatepurchase of store brands (Raju et al., 1995).

2. The Appendix (Table AI) provides an example of a card used in the conjoint analysis.

3. Appendix (Table AI) shows the fractional factorial design and the holdout cards used foreach of the categories analyzed.

4. Publicaciones Alimarket, S.A. is a firm that specializes in economic and market informationon the sectors and firms in Spain. Its journal, Alimarket Revista, publishes an annualmonograph on commercial distribution in the consumer goods sector (food, beverages andnon-food products). More information is available at: www.alimarket.es

5. We first obtained two market segments: consumers guided by intrinsic cues and brandconsumers. We considered the possibility of applying TwoStep cluster analysis specifyingthree market segments, and the segment of consumers guided by intrinsic cues divided intotwo segments: consumers guided by intrinsic cues who prefer the store brand andconsumers guided by intrinsic cues who prefer the leading brand. We chose the solution ofthree segments because we believe it makes more theoretical-practical sense. In the area ofstore brands, it makes theoretical sense that there is a segment that prefers the store brandfor its taste. There is great practical interest in knowing what happens when this segmentrealizes that it prefers the store brand (which is traditionally perceived as having lowerquality and worse extrinsic cues). This is crucial in categories such as cola drinks, in whichthere are prestigious manufacturer brands.

References

Apelbaum, E., Gerstner, E. and Naik, P.A. (2003), The effects of expert quality evaluationsversus brand name on price premiums, Journal of Product and Brand Management,Vol. 12 Nos 2/3, pp. 154-65.

Bellizzi, J.A., Krueckeberg, H.F., Hamilton, J.R. and Martin, W.S. (1981), Consumers perceptionsof national, private and generic brands, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 56-70.

Bettman, J.R. and Park, C.W. (1980), Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of thechoice process on consumer decision processes: a protocol analysis, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 7, pp. 234-48.

Christopher, M., Majaro, S. and McDonald, M. (1987), Strategy Search, Gower, Aldershot.

Chung, J-E., Yu, J.P. and Pysarchik, D.T. (2006), Cue utilization to assess food product quality:a comparison of consumers and retailers in India, International Review of Retail,Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 199-214.

Connor, J.M. and Peterson, E.B. (1992), Market structure determinants of national brand privatelabel price differences of manufactured food products, The Journal of IndustrialEconomics, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 157-71.


price and taste

1247

Corstjens, M. and Lal, R. (2000), Building store loyalty through store brands, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 281-91.

Cox, D.F. (1967), The sorting rule model of the consumer product evaluation process,Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, Graduate School ofBusiness Administration, Harvard University, Boston, MA, pp. 324-69.

Cunningham, I.C., Hardy, A.P. and Imperia, G. (1982), Generic brands versus national brandsand store brands, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 25-32.

Davies, G. and Brito, E. (2004), Price and quality competition between brands and own brands:a value systems perspective, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 1/2, pp. 30-55.

De Chernatony, L. and Knox, S. (1990), How an appreciation of consumer behavior can help inproduct testing, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 329-47.

De Souza Monteiro, D.M. and Ventura Lucas, M.R. (2001), Conjoint measurement of preferencesfor traditional cheeses in Lisbon, British Food Journal, Vol. 103 No. 6, pp. 414-24.

Dunne, D. and Narasimhan, C. (1999), The new appeal of private labels, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 41-52.

Ferjani, M., Jedidi, K. and Jagpal, S. (2009), A conjoint approach for consumer- and firm-levelbrand valuation, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46, December, pp. 846-62.

Fernandez, A. and Gomez, M. (1999), Estrategias de las marcas de distribuidor, Distribucion yConsumo, Vol. 45, pp. 30-49.

Gil, J.M. and Sanchez, M. (1997), Consumer preferences for wine attributes: a conjoint approach,British Food Journal, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 3-11.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Analysis, 5th ed.,Prentice Hall International Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hoch, S.J. (1996), How should national brands think about private labels?, Sloan ManagementReview, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 89-102.

Holbrook, M.B. (1986), Aims, concepts, and methods for the representation of individualdifferences in esthetic responses to design features, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13No. 3, pp. 337-47.

Jacoby, J., Szybillo, G. and Busato-Schach, J. (1977), Information acquisition behavior in brandchoice situations, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 209-16.

Kotler, P., Lane, K., Camara, D. and Molla, A. (2006), Direccion de Marketing, 12th ed., Pearson,Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Lal, R. and Narasimhan, C. (1996), The inverse relationship between manufacturer and retailermargins: a theory, Marketing Science, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 132-51.

Mendez, J.L., Oubina, J. and Rubio, N. (2008), Expert quality evaluation and price of store vsmanufacturer brands. An analysis of the Spanish mass market, Journal of Retailing andConsumer Services, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 144-55.

Ness, M. and Gerhardy, H. (1994), Consumer preferences for quality and freshness attributes ofeggs, British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 6, pp. 53-278.

Olson, J.C. (1972), Cue utilization in the quality perception process: a cognitive model and anempirical test, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Olson, J.C. and Jacoby, J. (1973), Cue utilization in the quality perception process: a cognitive andempirical test, in Venkatesan, M. (Ed.), (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Conferenceof the Association for Consumer Research, pp. 167-79.

BFJ113,10

1248

Purwar, P.C. (1982), The role of price cue in product quality perception: a comprehensive modeland an empirical investigation, Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York,Buffalo, NY.

Raju, J.S., Sethuraman, R. and Dhar, S.K. (1995), National brand-store brand price differentialand store brand market share, Pricing Strategy and Practice: An International Journal,Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 17-24.

Richardson, P.S., Dick, A. and Jain, A.K. (1994), Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptionof store brand quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 28-36.

Sendim, A. (1995), La percepcion de calidad de la canal de cordero ligero tipo TernascoAragones, Doctoral dissertation, CIHEAM-IAMZ, Zaragoza.

Seok, J. (2001), Shoppers alternative choice of store and manufacturers brand: an examinationof the attraction and compromise effects toward retailers profit optimization, Doctoraldissertation, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX.

Skytte, H. and Blunch, N. (2001), Food retailers buying behaviour: an analysis in 16 Europeancountries, Journal on Chain and Network Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 133-45.

Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (1987), Conjoint measurement in ham quality evaluation, Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 473-80.

Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. (1990), Conceptual model of the quality perception process, Journal ofBusiness Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 309-33.

Zeithaml, V. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value. A means end model andsynthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.

Further reading

Anderson, N.H. (1974), Information integration theory: a brief survey, in Krantz, D.H.,Atkinson, R.C., Luce, R.D. and Suppes, P. (Eds), Contemporary Developments inMathematical Psychology, Vol. 2, Freeman, San Francisco, CA.

Dick, A., Chakravarti, D. and Biehal, G. (1990), Memory based inference during consumerchoice, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 82-93.

Loudon, D.L. and Della Bitta, A.J. (1995), Comportamiento del Consumidor: Conceptos yAplicaciones, McGraw-Hill, Mexico City.

Lutz, R. (1986), Quality is as quality does: an attitudinal perspective on consumer qualityjudgment, presentation to the Marketing Science Institute Trustees Meeting, Cambridge,MA.


price and taste

1249

Appendix

Col

ad

rin

ks

Oli

ves

stu

ffed

wit

han

chov

ies

Bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

Tas

teP

rice

Bra

nd

-pac

kag

ing

Tas

teP

rice

Car

d1

Gol

d1

(Gol

d)

0.16e

(Gol

d)

Car

refo

ur

1(S

erp

is)

0.52e

(Car

refo

ur)

Car

d2

Coc

aC

ola

3(C

oca

Col

a)0.

32e

(Pep

si)

La

Esp

anol

a3

(La

Esp

anol

a)0.

92e

(Ser

pis

)C

ard

3G

old

3(C

oca

Col

a)0.

37e

(Coc

aC

ola)

Car

refo

ur

3(L

aE

span

ola)

0.73e

(La

Esp

anol

a)C

ard

4C

oca

Col

a2

(Pep

si)

0.16e

(Gol

d)

La

Esp

anol

a2

(Car

refo

ur)

0.52e

(Car

refo

ur)

Car

d5

Pep

si3

(Coc

aC

ola)

0.16e

(Gol

d)

Ser

pis

3(L

aE

span

ola)

0.52e

(Car

refo

ur)

Car

d6

Gol

d2

(Pep

si)

0.32e

(Pep

si)

Car

refo

ur

2(C

arre

fou

r)0.

92e

(Ser

pis

)C

ard

7P

epsi

1(G

old

)0.

32e

(Pep

si)

Ser

pis

1(S

erp

is)

0.92e

(Ser

pis

)C

ard

8P

epsi

2(P

epsi

)0.

37e

(Coc

aC

ola)

Ser

pis

2(C

arre

fou

r)0.

73e

(La

Esp

anol

a)C

ard

9C

oca

Col

a1

(Gol

d)

0.37e

(Coc

aC

ola)

La

Esp

anol

a1

(Ser

pis

)0.

73e

(La

Esp

anol

a)C

ard

10(h

old

out)

Gol

d1

(Gol

d)

0.32e

(Pep

si)

Car

refo

ur

1(S

erp

is)

0.92e

(Ser

pis

)C

ard

11(h

old

out)

Pep

si1

(Gol

d)

0.37e

(Coc

aC

ola)

Ser

pis

1(S

erp

is)

0.73e

(La

Esp

anol

a)C

ard

12(h

old

out)

Pep

si3

(Coc

aC

ola)

0.37e

(Coc

aC

ola)

Ser

pis

3(L

aE

span

ola)

0.73e

(La

Esp

anol

a)C

ard

13(h

old

out)

Coc

aC

ola

1(G

old

)0.

16e

(Gol

d)

La

Esp

anol

a1

(Ser

pis

)0.

52e

(Car

refo

ur)

Table AI.Fractional factorialdesign used for thecategories analyzed

BFJ113,10

1250

About the authorsJose Luis Mendez is Associate Professor of Marketing Management, Autonoma University ofMadrid. His research interests are distribution and pricing strategies. He has published articlesin Spanish journals and in several international journals such as the International Review ofRetail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Journal of Product and Brand Management andJournal of Retailing and Consumer Services, among others. He is also author of conferenceproceedings for the EMAC, EAERCD and EIRASS conferences, among others.

Javier Oubina is Associate Professor of Marketing, Autonoma University of Madrid. Hisresearch interests are power relationships in distribution channels and pricing strategies. Hispublications include international journals such as the International Review of Retail,Distribution and Consumer Research, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Managementand Journal of Marketing Channels, among others; and prestigious Spanish journals such asRevista Espanola de Investigacion de Marketing ESIC, Informacion Comercial Espanola andEstudios Sobre Consumo. He has presented papers at the international conferences of EMAC,EAERCD and EIRASS.

Natalia Rubio is Associate Professor of Marketing Management, Autonoma University ofMadrid. Her research interests are brand management, distribution and marketing research. Shehas published articles in the European Journal of Marketing, International Journal of MarketResearch, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services, Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Product andBrand Management and International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. Herresearch has also appeared in prestigious Spanish journals such as Revista Espanola deInvestigacion de Marketing, Informacion Comercial Espanola and Estudios Sobre Consumo. Shehas presented several papers at the annual conferences of EMAC, EAERCD and EIRASS, amongothers. Natalia Rubio is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]


price and taste

1251

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Méndez, Oubiña and Rubio (2011)

Documents

Transcript of Méndez, Oubiña and Rubio (2011)