Brand Literature
Brand
Brand has become a very important factor is determining the growth of businesses these days around the world. Brand is considered to be adding value to the products and providing meaning, as well communicating standards and quality to the consumers (McCracken, 1993) .Brand plays an important role in selling the product in the market. According to De Chernatony and McDonald (1992) brand names are used by consumers as clues to highlight all the differences between product performances. New brands are always difficult to create, since a lot of money has to be spent on advertising and image creation. Recent researches have shown that enormous amount of money spent on all the image creation and advertising process isn’t really justified by short term sales (Motameni & Shahrukhi, 1998). However, the return on investment is retrieved in the shape of brand knowledge, awareness, differentiation and equity. This whole argument has led researchers to work on the concept of brand and its equity (e.g. Ambler, 1995; Baldinger and Rubinson, 1997; Blackston, 1995; Cook, 1997; Johnson, 1996; Meer, 1995). Murphy (1990) states that brand itself is a unique product with unique features, which a manufacturer markets over time and associates values and attributes with it, in order for it to generate the uniqueness about it. According to Tauber (1988) the brand equity was developed to gauge the real value of the brand in term of its financial rewards.
Brand Equity
The word ‘brand equity’ has been defined by a lot of researchers in various contexts (Park and Srinivasan, 1994). Few have defined it in financial terms as something which generates monetary rewards for an organization (Brasco, 1988, Simon & Sullivan, 1993), while some have argued that it is the value or the importance, a product generates for the consumers (Aaker, 1991; Cobb et al, 1995). Although Keller (1993) stated that brand equity is “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of a brand” but Aaker (1991) defined it by using two different dimensions ‘brand knowledge and brand image’. They used the consumer’s perspective to define brand equity and based their arguments on the experience of the consumer with the products.
Hunt & Morgan (1995) analyzed brand equity by taking the resource based view. They argued that companies succeed only if they provide something of value to the consumers. They stated that equity is an intangible asset which helps create a sustainable competitive advantage in the market. However, it takes time to develop and is highly non transferable (De Chernatony and MacDonald, 1992). Therefore, it is evident when companies make extra profits and high margins (Hooley et al., 2005), good and effective penetrating marketing and cheap products because of economies of scale (Keller & Aaker, 1992).
However, Aaker (1996a) has stated other supporting theories and concepts as well, which seem to be very limited, stating that brand equity itself is established only when consumers buy the product quiet often. Moreover, he has associated brand equity with brand logo, design, perceived quality, loyalty and awareness (Mcdonald & Sharp, 2000) as well. Aaker (1997) has stated that brand awareness or knowledge is also essential whereas quality can only be perceived if awareness is generated amongst the customers (Buzzell & Gate, 1987).
In recent literature equity has been analyzed as something related to relational market based asset (Hunt, 1997). The reason it is being called relational is because according to the literature (Aaker, 1991, 1996a, 1997; Keller, 1993) equity is developed only when the products come into contact with the consumers. The external relation which they form with the consumers has given birth to this concept. Moreover, it has been identified as external because it is something which is intangible, has a lot of value and at the same time is not owned by the company itself. Thus, the relational concept put forth is expressed more generally as a brand consumer bond. However, Morgan & hunt (1994) further added that in any sort of relationship trust has to be built. Brand has to fulfil consumer needs and provide benefits which they are seeking in order to develop and maintain trust. This argument has further been extended into the field of brand loyalty (Ambler, 1995), which itself states that consumer expectations have to be fulfilled for any brand to generate equity and succeed.
Consumer buying process
Consumer buying behaviour is of considerable importance along with the brand name itself when products are being searched and bought. The dissertation itself analyzes this trend and relates the process with the literature of brand. Oliver (1997) attempts to explain this process by suggesting the difference, between ‘transaction specific and overall satisfaction’ of the consumer. The purchase process and the purchase outcome is assessed (Hermann et al, 2007). Even though, there are considerable varying buying processes existing in the world, with the advent of internet shopping (Hermann et al, 2007), the process of analyzing products and evaluating them in the mind has become easy and is something done by consumers unconsciously. According to Bechwati & Xia (2003) the amount of effort people put in to decide about the product purchase, somehow overrides the overall quality perception in their minds. People tend to go with the product which has consumed their time in deciding whether to buy it or not?
However, these influences may exist in markets where consumers come across the products quiet a lot of time (Oliver, 1997). The purchase process of consumer involves a lot of stages. Starting from the consumer needs, product search, comparison of products and eventually buying the product. Hermann et al (2007) believed that once a consumer is satisfied with the result of a particular stage, he/she gradually moves on to the next process. The satisfaction flows through the process, thus influencing consumer to buy the product. However, a successful consumer purchase process is highly dependant upon the first perception a consumer generates about the product (Bechwati & Xia, 2003).
Consumers purchase decisions rely heavily on the price of the products as well. Price of the product has the ability to swing consumer from any point of the buying process to quit the whole idea at once (Bolton et al, 2003). The analysis of the price of the product is sometimes taken as the only criteria for the success of the search attribute (Cobb-Walgren et al, 1995).
The attitude related with the buying process itself, are not only dependant upon finances. It can be based upon highly perceived added quality or emotional attachment developed through any significant encounter occurring in the past (Urbany et al, 1989). This leads consumers to pay premium prices for the products just to get the perceived advantage which they think is unique (Bolton et al, 2003). However, not all products are able to command this respect, and are the reason of a shrewd marketing of the products. Sometimes, an emotional attachment such as having the same country origin as the product has, entices consumer to go for the product. This emotional influence takes over the buying process (Zeithaml, 1988). Whatever the reason, it is evident that an individual evaluates all the stages of the buying process one by one, before reaching a conclusion.
In this dissertation, since the consumer attitude after trial of the product is to be assessed (Srinivasan & Till , 2002), using the three attributes, consumer buying behaviour is of paramount importance, as the literature helps analyze the psychological factors associated with it.
Brand Knowledge
Keller (1993, 1998) has specifically mentioned product knowledge as a key element in shaping consumers’ perception. The knowledge and information a consumer has about a brand can determine the way he/she thinks about it (Keller, 1993). Rossiter & Percy (1987) claim that advertisements can easily meet their goals only I the consumers have good attitude towards the brand. Thus, understanding what consumers want from the brand helps companies achieve effective marketing strategies. However, product knowledge doesn’t have to come specifically from advertisement, but, by having experiences with various products from the same product category and comparing substitute products (Keller, 1998). Thus, signifying the importance of credence and experience attributes.
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) highlighted that online consumer power has really boosted product knowledge amongst consumers. A lot of information is shared over the internet about various products. They further state that consumers commute and discuss products according to their needs and interests. As a result, they share knowledge about products, thus increasing product awareness and doing indirect marketing. Although they are helping in increasing awareness about the product but they raising the bar of the quality in their minds unconsciously (Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000) which can force manufactures to produce high quality stuff.
Apart from the product related attributes, non product related attributes act as external entities providing an insight into the trends of search attribute. Keller (1998) classified them into four categories price, packaging, consumer imagery and usage imagery. They all amalgamate facts to build information about the products, thus increasing familiarity with their design, logo and colour. However, further experience, search and consumer feelings were included in the list of non product related attributes (Keller, 1998). This act also underlined the shift in the literature of the study of brand and its perception and incorporated human feelings and emotional behaviour in the form of factors influencing search and experience attributes (Aaker, 1997). Though price does seem to play a major role in evading consumer to buy a product (Rossiter & Percy, 1987), but it has minimum effect on the search and no effect on the experience and credence attributes (Srinivasan & Till, 2002). Thus, price factor is not used in this research.
As supported by Urbany et al (1989), knowledge about the product and its benefit has really changed the consumer’s perception about the products and have given them more food for thought to analyse products and judge them upon their effectiveness. However, Hutchison (1983) adds that the previous experiences of using similar products further equips consumers to judge products in a more fair way. Although the argument is strong but consumer’s who posses less knowledge are not able to really appreciate the differences between brands, thus, leaving them to base opinions about the quality on more intuitive aspects (Alba & Hutchison, 1987).
Brand Differentiation
In a market where plenty of products are available, brand names themselves are the only source of differentiation for providers of products and services (De Chernatony, 2001). Brand itself allows a product to be differentiated from the rest as highlighted by Porter (1980). Agreeing to the above statement, Shocker et al (1994) has mentioned that brands are differentiated more on their outlook. However, he doesn’t really mention any relationship they develop with the consumers through their unique features. However, brands have the potential to increase the competitive advantage the firms have over each other (Aaker, 1989), specially if the quality of the product actually meets the consumers’ expectations and outlook.
Rossiter and Percy (1987) conceptualized brand differentiation as something which could allow the consumer to recognize it in stores. However, Keller (1993) contrastingly, described it as an individual’s ability to ‘retrieve information from the mind’. Thus, relating more to experience and credence rather than only physical appearance as advocated by Rossiter & Percy (1987). However, previous experiences with products are sure to affect recognition and eventually the search attribute (Srinivasan & Till, 2002). Not only this, the cultural differences existing can also influence consumers differentiate products on various grounds (Saimee, 1994), in which country of origin plays an important role. However, Keller (1993) emphasized more on the image the consumer has in its mind as it helps to persuade them to buying the product. Thus affecting the search attribute.
However, this procedure also affects the experience and credence attribute, as past experiences further mould the product perception. According to (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 3), perceived quality is not what the product offers, but is something which consumer is expecting from the brand name. This in turn leads an individual to develop a bond (Oliver, 1997) with the brand. As stated by King (1991) that it is not necessary that brand name can itself generate customer expectations, while insisting factors such as personal recommendations and other human influences can trigger responses as well.
The literature itself poses doubt over what actually the critical attributes of a brand are that mould consumers expectations and could clarify what role brand name plays in helping consumers decide about products. The whole argument highlights the importance of the intended research, as these three attributes which form the base of any brand have the capability to affect quality perception associated with the brand.
Discussion
The marketing literature has got a lot of examples in which the brand equity and its association with consumers is analyzed. Kim (1990) tried to identify the linkage between brand equity and consumer loyalty by stating that regular buyers value the product more. In spite of the availability of substitute products, consumers’ in effect persist with their brands, which itself signifies what importance the products generate for them (Interbrand, 2007). Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) used this concept to further state that it is actually the benefits not the products which consumers are looking for. However, it has the potential to touch consumers emotionally. Products which form part of people’s life can not only generate value for them but increase their emotional attachment (Piron, 2000).
However, Nedungadi (1990) believes that the equity can only be measured through the amount of awareness the products generate. Researchers such as Cobb-Walgren et al (1995), D’Souza and Rao (1995) Reynolds and Olson (1995) have explored the consumers’ attitude and factors influencing their behaviors. They argue that more awareness depicts familiarity. Macdonald & Sharp (2000) and Hoyer (1990) through their studies identified that consumers are likely to purchase products which they can easily distinguish and recognize. “Consumers perceived quality of brand is due to their perception process involved in their decision making process” (Saxton, 1994). Their conclusion was that high perceived quality had the most effect on consumers’ final decisions. Though seemingly very important, but the factors which associate quality and build all the expectation in the consumers minds needs to be worked. Yoo et al (2000) has argued that surrounding circumstances in which the product is manufactured can force consumers to base their decisions. Further adding to their notion, they state personal incidents, episodes and experiences with the products, can shape up human minds and eventually effect brand equity.
Oliver (1999a) identified that the ‘value’ a product generates is of more importance to the consumer. His work mainly focused on what values products generate to the consumers to make sure that they stick to the products for lifetime. However, he states that satisfaction, values and the expectations both exist before and after the products are tried out. These factors remain constant and they influence each other (Oliver, 1999a), thus helping consumer decide about the product and generates loyalty. Doney & Canon (1997) add that consumers believe that specific products are more competent, consistent, and honest in what they are offering. Thus, underlining the importance of values which are engraved in the all the products.
However, the associations with brands seem to vary from products to products. If consumers’ perception and relation about electrical appliances is observed, it is more of experiential and credence effectiveness. Consumers link aspects such as prestige, style, uniqueness with the products (De chernatony, 2001). Thus, the combinations of these aspects create a sort of brand identity and image in the market, which is bound to affect the aura surrounding it. It is more then likely the consumers are attracted to it as they feel more value is added to the product. The similar can be the case with these products.
Another important aspect which is mostly associated with the products is their origin. Though seemingly not an integral part of this research, but can generate biased opinions about products, if associated with countries (Piron, 2000).People tend to perceive the similar standard of products and associate their quality with their own perception about the country of origin. A product coming from Japan is visualized as a high quality product.
In the existing literature, there are a lot of researches conducted to analyze the factors, but seldom have actually tested the hypotheses on real products (Head & Shoulders, Orabl – B, Pringles). Lury (2001) conducted a similar analysis using ‘unnamed’ and branded products. Like Srinivasan & Till (2002), Lury (2001) highlighted the difference brand generates in consumers minds, by asking participants to rate the taste of the products. His findings are summarized in the table below:
Table 2.1
Source: Lury (2001)
All the findings depicted that consumers though tried out all the products, but the brand B generated more response from the consumers underlining the fact that knowledge and awareness about quality and product does generate value (Lury, 2001). Keller (2003) supporting this argument, further stated that brands can influence consumers behavior through 3 different ways. Firstly, they can use
- Brand names
- Logos
- And design
as a tool to influence decision making. Secondly they can use effective marketing techniques to market their products. By educating customers through good TV campaigns and interesting adverts, they can generate a sense of likeness (Ambler, 1995). And thirdly, harness positive attitude towards the brand through strategic marketing. Although his concept based more or less on marketing activities, it had inadequate material about the tangible and intangible benefits they generate. Ewing (2006) has further elaborated this concept and argued that it is a basic requirement to invest in the designing of the brand name and logo. They generate a distinct identity. In a global market, it is important to have a unique image to communicate with the consumers effectively. In the present world, it is argued that visual images are more powerful and are considered as the ‘universal language’ in brand marketing (Ewing, 2006). This adds to the equity a brand holds. Thus influencing search attribute and increasing expectations from the credence attribute (Srinivasan & Till, 2002). The instant recognition and style would further strengthen the market share and influence the performance of search, experience and credence attribute.
Moreover, a lot of researchers made use of branding, brand equity and brand knowledge as their base to conduct their analysis. MacDonald & Sharp (2000) performed a similar type of research in which they analyzed brand name and its association with product evaluations. Jacoby et al (1971) performed similar research to explore brand loyalty and purchase behaviors. He analyzed that repeat purchases were because of psychological factors. They are not just random acts but occur after specific the occurrence of emotional or situational factors (Jacoby et al (1971). However, Dick & Basu (1994) state that sometimes due to the unavailability of the products consumers are forced to buy the products of the shelves. The relationship between consumer’s researches and the consumer attitude has existed but they are more or less used where there are high involvement scenarios (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Agreeing to other writers, there is literature available which actually analyzes the brand and its positive affect on consumer’s attitude (Feinberg et al, 1992). However, this is more or less based upon psychological factors.
Aaker (1996a, 1997) has analyzed what respect brand commands in the market. However, not much was stated by him about the prices commanded by brands. Dodds et al (1991) and Park & Srinivasan (1994) analyzed this factor and tried to relate it with their perception of product quality. Kotler & Fahey (1982) and De Chernatony &Mcdonald (1992) concentrated more on the advertisement of the products, which build consumers expectations, thus concentrating less on what effect or feelings consumers have after they try out the products. Doney & Cannon (1997) argued that it’s the values and the emotional attachment which the form with the consumer, which eventually they start valuing rather than focusing on price and other factors.
Conclusion
The chapter summarizes the literature and justifies the association it has with the project. In other words, a theoretical framework has been developed and has been backed by quality literature. The literature review conducted in the previous chapter and the analysis conducted here has established all the links with the research question and highlighted the link with the work of Srinnivasan & till (2002). Therefore, It lays a strong foundation to proceed. However, now the question which needs to be answered is what research methodology will be adopted to approach this issue.
In the next chapter the research methodology are discussed in detail.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
Introduction
This chapter clearly elucidates the methodology applied in this research. It starts off by developing and discussing a framework explaining the research methodology which will be used. Using various resources and critically evaluating the research methodologies adopted and the ones that are not used, the credibility of the whole argument is analyzed. The benefits of the deductive and inductive approach, along with the shortcomings are specified. Since the research required qualitative and quantitative analysis of the issue, both the approaches were adopted, however, quantitative approach playing second fiddle to surveys. Not only this, the sample of people selected and the reasons for their selection are depicted which justify the research methodology and at the same time helps point out few limitations in the research. The chapter also explains the format of the questionnaire and its limitations and the sorts of questions used to extract useful consumer data. Since students were the target audience, their profile was stated just to depict the ratio of national and international students taking part in the research. However, in the end, conclusions about the used research methodology are made.
Theoretical framework
The theory evaluation criteria proposed by Zaltman et al (1973) well known as ‘meta-theoretical criteria’ has been used a lot in marketing researches. Using this research develops a theory of brand perception and quality association, including new factors affecting consumers’ perception about product quality.
As stated by Knight (1999) interpretation of data obtained from individuals helps to develop better understanding of the problem. Since people involved in this research are students between ages 18- 25 interpretation is a key aspect. As supported by Kim (1990) interpretation is something which links meaning and data together, thus helping formulate some sense. However, the opinions are built using available information and in order to scrutinize and analyze the trends in more detail, qualitative research methodologies are adopted frequently (Simon & Sullivan, 1993). However, Punch (2003) and Saunders et al (2000) argue that this is more used in the business researches because they are unpredictable, hard and complex which require in-depth analysis.
Basing our argument on this, we can see that the consumers’ perception about products would be different in Sheffield rather than people in London. The living standards, geographical differences, demographic differences all account for this contrast.
However, this research is more related to the attributes associated with brand, brand equity and brand knowledge previously stated as experience, search and credence attribute. Using the Zaltmans et al (1973) concepts However, only the consumers’ attitude towards the products is analyzed.
Deductive & Inductive approach:
Inductive approach is based on developing better understanding of the subject area and then working on the problem (Wikipedia, 2007). It utilises few identified facts to reach a conclusion. As supported by geocities (2007), careful observations and conduct experiments before arriving at conclusion. However, deductive approach is more systematic and follows logical pathway with planned steps to arrive at the conclusion. It is used in research areas where the relationship between unknown variables has to be established (Klebba, 1999). In inductive approach data is gathered through surveys and interpreted accordingly (Bryman, 1996). However, GeoCities (2007) believes that inductive inferences cannot always be justified. There is no logical or planed way of explaining the true validity of the arguments using inductive approach (Roberta et al, 2001). It is believed that in inductive approach, researchers normally rely heavily on large sample size. They maintain this posture that if the number of observations are more their conclusions are more accurate and representative of the population around (Kinnear & Taylor, 1996). However, the problem with this is that it is not possible to establish how probable the conclusion would be because of the lack of the knowledge o the population size (Bryman, 1996). Moreover, Phil & Murray (2006) believes it is very difficult to state as to how many questionnaires or surveys have to be conducted in order to establish concrete conclusions. Not only can this, managing the whole data and various trends be a humungous task.
In deductive approach, researchers adopt a question or a task, and try to answer it (Wikipedia, 2007). The argument moves from premises to a solid conclusion. However, the biggest issue with deductive approach is that it requires the assistance of inductive approach (Kinnear & Taylor, 1996). The reason being, to test previously established theories and analyzing their results to state them as something appropriate for use in future casts the doubt over its self existence (Phil & Murray, 2006). Deductive methodology limits the people to focus on ‘logic of knowledge’ rather than ‘psychology of knowledge’ (GeoCities, 2007). The process lacks creativity and emphasizes a lot on testing the falsification in concepts (Klebba, 1999). Another argument put forth by Phil & Murray (2006) is that no statement can be conclusively stated as illogical and wrong, because of discrepancies with the testing environment. There is a possibility that the observations themselves might be wrong and based on false evidences (GeoCities, 2007).
Although both seem to be used effectively by the researchers, it is the inductive approach which has been adopted in this dissertation and was used by Srinivasan & till (2002) in their research. In order to draw conclusions with less established facts a direct input from the customers was required, thus, a survey was used in the early part of the research. Though there is need of the theory but to develop proper understanding of the attributes and their effect on brand and consumer perception, information has to be extracted from the consumers (Masberg and Silverman, 1996).
As stated by Knight (1999) one always learns new ways through inductive studies and comes across perhaps, unknown trends and habits adopted by others. But this outcome cannot be generalized as various inferences vary from person to person, which itself undermine the inductive approach. However, deductive proposition are added to the inductive research, so that arguments could be supported with solid literature (Heady & Smith, 2000). However, in deductive approach arguments stated by others are mentioned again, in order to link the societal factors. Although one can highlight that by using deductive approach a research is carried forward into a new dimension linking the previously generated hypothesis in a particular society (Kinnear & Taylor, 1996). However, positivists disagree with it, because the environment is evolving all the time and political, social, cultural factors influence studies enormously and researchers use their own deductions to reach conclusions rather than test the already established concepts (Patton, 1991).
Qualitative & Quantitative
Qualitative research is the way of analyzing behaviors and trends of humans by asking them specific questions about the factors which influence their decision making (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Surveys and focused interviews are used for such researches. While on the other hand, Quantitative research involves the employment of numerical methods to analyze the data (Wikipedia, 2007). Statistical methods such as correlation, means and standard deviations are calculated. However, qualitative analysis is more often used to help build theory (Punch, 2003), by gathering data through surveys. It is believed sometimes researchers aren’t sure what they are looking for (James, 2007). The interpretation is the key to the analysis; however, it’s limited more to the researches which are in their infant stages (Roberta et al, 2001). Moreover, Reeves (1992) argued that using qualitative data is a very time consuming exercise and contains so much information that generalization is difficult to do. Kirk & Miller (1986) supporting to the previous notions adds that there is a huge possibility that the researches him/her self involves into the qualitative research emotionally, thus can have negative effects on the eventual outcome of the issue. Its all about the way data obtained from the surveys is interpreted. Factors that get more attention than the others can tilt the analysis in their favour, thus can change the direction of the research (Bryman, 1996). Survey methodology is the one adopted in this dissertation to gather data.
While on the other hand, quantitative approach is beneficial for clearing any ambiguities encountered in interpreting the results gathered through the survey, by using numerical techniques (Collis & Hussey, 2003). However, one drawback of it is that it cannot be used as a starting point of any research, thus underlining the fact that it alone cannot exist and requires assistance of qualitative analysis (Patton, 1991). Contrasting to the qualitative approach, the design and plan to conduct the research is done even before the data is collected (Reeves, 1992). Another critique of quantitative methodology is that it doesn’t really bring the literature close enough to the data being interpreted and remains segregated from the subject matter mostly (Gill & Johnson, 2002).
The concepts and hypothesis are created and analysed by using a survey to generate categories and statements indicating relationships (Kirk & Miller, 1986). Since an opinion is to be formulated in the intended research, a qualitative approach is adopted to gather data though surveys, as it provides a ‘first hand description’ of the factors which influence consumers’ (Hastings and Perry, 2000). In order to analyze and develop concepts about brand perception, a direct feedback from the customers is required.
According to Patton (1991) quantitative methodology is being replaced by qualitative way. There has been a considerable increase in the number of researches performed using qualitative approach and it provides a thorough insight into the issues and provides a very practical way to test the theory against it (Woodruff and Schumann, 1993). Another argument put forth by Cooper (1999) is that since brands are not commodities, relationships with consumers which require more careful examination, should be based on updated feelings.
However, Wells (1993) disagrees and states that there is hardly any research available which uses only one of them. Even case studies use tables and stats to represent their findings (Wilson & Vlosky, 1997). Quantitative research consists of numerical which support observations. They allow an individual to measure or quantify in actual terms rather than using vague terms such as few, less etc. However, it is limited in use especially in environment where actual human behavior and their response have to be quantified. Moreover, due to various different interpretations of data resulting, a lot of disagreements tend to occur while conducting qualitative research (Wells, 1993). Thus, questioning which method is better out of the two. Despite the qualitative work generating good insight knowledge about the consumer trends, it is made sure that it is performed in a transparent way. This would help generate independent deductions in a much unbiased way.
Similar to Srinivasan & till (2002, we need a thorough understanding of the thinking process which moulds the consumers’ decisions of actually buying the products, we will be adopting the qualitative methodology to test what effect search, experience and credence attributes have, while using quantitative approach just to represent graphically the results obtained.
Sampling
Even though random sampling is used during this research, it was not haphazard, but a very calculated and a systematic sampling approach were adopted (Collis & Hussey, 2003). However, to launch this sampling approach, the important critical parameters which could affect the outcome of this research were identified and separated (Hines, 2000). In order to achieve this, students of the age of 16 -25 were considered for this research. Though the idea of using students in the specified age range was to cover a particular segment of population of students in Sheffield, moreover, it would also allow an insight into the possible future trend of buying behavior, by using the youth today. With more product awareness and knowledge possessed by students, it seemed a very sound idea. Students around the university and living in the university accommodation were targeted and the data was extracted as a result.
Questionnaire (Appendix 1.1)
Design
The questionnaire designed for this research was simple and covered all the factors required in the research. It is divided into 3 sections comprising of ‘general questions, product related questions, and ‘pre and post trial attribute performance questions’ (Appendix 1.1).
General Question
It starts off by enquiring from users about their sex, student status and age which is required (Appendix 1.1) to segregate the type of respondents on the basis of their sex and student status.
Product Related Questions
The product related questions are further categorized into the three sub categories belonging to each of the products which comprise questions enquiring about the attitudes of consumers associated with the three attributes accordingly (Appendix 1.1).
Pre & Post Trial Attribute performance questions:
The third part of the questionnaire consists of question related to the attribute, specifically designed to calculate the value of the effectiveness of the attributes on a scale of 1-7 (Appendix 1.1).
Limitations
The questionnaire designed was concise and comprised of questions only specifically related to the attributes and products used in the dissertation. The reason being long questionnaires tend to bore the respondents and data gathered can be a misrepresentation of the actual intended output.
Data collection
The data for this research was collected in the city of Sheffield during a two week period in the month of July 2007. Due to geographical limitations, and limited access to individuals from other sectors, only students in Sheffield were involved in the research. Since the research was not pointing towards any living being an open ended questionnaire was created and used in this research (Buckingham and Saunders, 2004). The names of the respondents were not made public in compliance with the ethical code of conduct. Moreover, Students are being seen as potential future buyers of products, perhaps allowing us to analyze what trends could emerge in future.
The crux of this research methodology was not to gather data for the sake of statistics, but to use the literature available and test and challenge the deductions of the base research conducted by Srinivasan & Till (2002). The respondents were given ample time to fill in the questionnaires. The research was conducted in an open area. Moreover, they were assisted if encountered any sort of ambiguities. The design of the questionnaire (Appendix 1.1) was such that clear and simple questions were put forth to the consumers (Hoinville et al, 1978). However, the questions utilized the literature review and used specific questions using factors that were linked with the experience, search and credence attributes.
This all helped analyze the concepts put forth by Srinivasan & Till (2002) in real terms with proper products used in markets. Due to the relevance of the products and their common use around, along with the known brand names, allowed the respondents to provide more reliable and sound output.
There were about 100 questionnaires distributed on 17 & 18 July and the response obtained was with 86 questionnaires were completed. However, 14 were answered but the questions where the reasons were asked was left unanswered and required further probing, thus leaving the success rate of input extracted to 86%. The responses included in the analysis were the only ones who had actually tried out head & shoulders, Pringles and Oral – B. Although we had responses which only answered questions specific to one or two products. The questions which had a response ‘don’t know’ were not included in the final output. Moreover, students not willing to provide reasons about few decisions were enquired about what prompted them to do this. Once the data started converging the survey was stopped and the data analysis was started.
Profile of Respondents:
The students who filled in the questionnaire were classified into the ‘local’ and ‘foreign’ categories. They were further classified into male and female categories just to provide the reader with the figures that both sexes were equally investigated. Foreign students used in the research were considerably less in amount because the research is focusing more on the local residents of Sheffield. International students from various cultural backgrounds would provide a different perspective which might not have been the ideal depiction of local students. However, the overall response was taken in equal proportions to add balance to the investigation. The table below depicts the overall profile of respondents for the information.
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Limitations of the Methodology
The nature of the questionnaire is highly objective and there is not much room for the consumers to express their views beyond the defined criteria. Moreover, due to the degree of importance of each of the related attributes associated with each of our products varies the method of summing up all the factors and calculating an average is limited. In an ideal situation, further surveys need to be conducted to judge the importance of each of the factors relative to each other and then based on those results the weights should be determined and the weighted average should be calculated.
By doing so, this will apply more value to the factors with a greater influence on the consumer perception.
Conclusion
After going through the chapter we can deduce that inductive approach is a better proposition to use for this sort of research as theory has to be linked with the findings which are probably unexplored in this environment. In addition to this, survey is the method used to gather data which is used mostly with inductive approach as fresh input from consumers is required. However, quantitative methodology will provide assistance in order to analyze graphs and tables. The focus will be on the youth from Sheffield. The sorts of questions asked specifically relate to the three attributes i.e. search experience and credence and cover all the three products so that no factor is missed which could cast a shadow on the legitimacy of the outcome of the research.
By using the stated research methodologies the findings are mentioned in the following chapter.
Chapter 4: Findings & Analysis
Introduction
The findings and analysis chapter highlights the results obtained after actually getting feedback from the consumers. It starts off by giving a background about the way the data was obtained. In order to portray fairness and clarity in the results few gauges and anchors used in the survey are stated for specific products and question types. In the findings section, the obtained data has been thoroughly analyzed, by building upon the data that was gathered in detail and by giving an idea of the trends that are apparent from our research, through the use of figures. With the aide of bar charts and tables, the results are made available to give the reader a more clearer picture abut what effects the way the consumers’ think about the product quality both before and after the trial; and by allowing the reader to develop an understanding of the data themselves through observation. By using the results obtained, a comparison with the conclusions and base journal is conducted. This is then followed by an analysis of the effects of all three of our attributes on the products which are under observation. Finally the managerial implications associated with the research have been highlighted and which is explained through a discussion. This helps towards concluding the chapter effectively.
Measures
The questionnaire itself had 3 different sorts of question set. Before and after the trial of products was measured using the scale of Shimp et al (1991) which has also been used by Srinivasan & Till (2002). The questions specifically used the anchors ‘good, attractive, superior, pleasant, interesting, worse, bad’ which are based on the anchors proposed by Shimp et al, (1991). The same anchors were used in our base journal (Srinivasan & Till, 2002). To judge the degree of these anchors a scale of 1 – 7 was used; where 1 has been taken as the most negative and ‘7’ being the most positive response. For example, if we take the attribute ‘good’, then a 1 depicts a sense of ‘not at all good’ in fact can be thought of as ‘bad’ (‘bad’ has been mentioned on the scale on the questionnaire for clarity); whereas a 7 shows ‘as good as it can get’ and gives a sense of a feeling of being ‘excellent’. Questions which specifically were testing consumers pre and post trial features used these scales. When the value for any specific attribute for a particular product was obtained, the value assigned by the consumer to that product was added with the other response from consumer. The average of both the values gave the result for a specific attribute; as shown in the table below. E.g. for search criteria consumer’s rated the bottle design as ‘good’ which had value 7. Another consumer said the design was ‘attractive’ which had value 6. The mean of both the values was taken i.e. (6+7)/2 to give the result 6.5 as a mean value for the search attribute. So that we can get an effective comparison between both of the results (pre and post trial analysis) the same method was used for both questionnaires. The same questions have been used to enquire about the consumer’s feelings once they were told to recall their feelings after trying out the product. Table 4.1 hold the results of our findings
Table 4.1
A few basic questions were also asked to help determine the category of the consumers we were approaching. These questions all three of our attributes (namely, search, experience and credence). A three scale approach has been used for these questions using the anchors yes, no, and don’t care. A variety of questions have been covered such as; ‘What is your age?’ and ‘Do you read the ingredients when you buy the product? ’. The search attribute had few questions specifically using factors such as ‘packaging, effectiveness and brand name’ to identify which are the important things that actually attract customers. The general questions enquiring about factors related to each of the search attributes have been accumulated respectively. The percentage representation has been adopted and it is calculated by using the number of respondents selecting particular factors related to one specific attribute divided by the overall response attained by the consumers to depict the amount of people responding. These questions have helped to give an overall picture of the respondents and the thoughts which they had about the products and attributes on the whole.
Table 4.2
Data Analysis: Techniques Implied
In order to interpret the qualitative data obtained through the surveys that were conducted, it is necessary to represent it in appropriate way so that it can be easily understood by the readers. A bar chart has been used for this purpose. It helps to represent the data for all the attributes separately. The chart shows the pre and post trial mean values (Table 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5) taken for all the three products plotted against them. It helps show the relative rise or fall in the attributes and also helps compare the effects of all three products before and after the trial. However, the overall response can be seen from the table helps us get an idea of the ‘overall response’ from the consumers.
Findings
Search Attribute (H1a & H1b)
Table 4.3: Search Attribute Analysis
Key: Head & Shoulders, Pringles, Oral - B
Through the data resulting from the attribute H1a we can see that prior to the trial; consumers have shown a great interest and liking towards ‘branded’ products, and that the packaging also plays a significant role in influencing the consumer. We do have to keep in mind that this interest is ‘relative’ to the interest that was shown after the trial. As depicted in Table 4.1 & 4.3, the percentage of consumers looking for Head & Shoulders, Pringles and Oral – b products before the trial is quite high; which depicts the significance of factors such as colors, designs and packaging used towards their perception of the product. However, for products such as Head & shoulders and Oral – B the fall in their search criteria after trial is considerably more than for Pringles. This can be seen from Tables 4.1 & 4.3 that it between 18-19% less that what was found before the trial. Pringles on the other hand shows a minor 1% decrease which is next to nothing in relation to the considerable decrease in the other two products. This might be because of the unique image on the pack and the style of flavor formatting on the cover. However, consumers’ did mention the fact that Pringles had a unique brand and packing if compared with all the other crisps, whereas head & shoulders and Oral – B offered products in more or less similar bottles and packages in comparison to their substitutes. After the trial the change in the consumer’s attitudes towards both products has shown a considerable change, hence changing the attraction and pre built image that was previously developed when they were spotted on the shelves. However, Oral –B suffered the most as consumers’ showed a preference for toothbrushes that had a more ‘simple and colorful look’. Though often the reason put forth for Oral – B is that it seems a lot more complicated to use and the packaging ‘scares’ consumers.
After testing H1b it was analyzed that the products used in the research still attracted consumers considerably and despite having tried them out, they preferred them over other products, which depicts the brand name to them was a sign of recognition. However, there was a little dip in the mean value and the overall percentage of people thinking like this (Table 4.1 & 4.3).
Experience attribute (H2a & H2b)
Table 4.4: Experience Attribute Analysis
Key: Head & Shoulders, Pringles, Oral - B
When H2a and H2b were tested, the results showed (Table 4.1 & 4.4) that consumers’ expectations about the quality from the products were very high. The consumers tried out the products and although there was some drop in their quality perception but it remained pretty much the same as what was expected prior to the testing. Both the products head & shoulders and Oral-b showed drop in the mean values for the experience attribute ranging between 4-13 %. However, Pringles showed an increase of 2%. Although this increase is very minor but the mere fact that it has ‘increased’ not ‘decreases’ holds a lot of value because it plays a positive role on the experience of the consumer. This brings us back to the question of what is the differentiating factor that has caused this positive rise. Once again, from this it can be stated that only the exterior of the product makes an impact but the actual product itself plays a very important role by offering a unique taste. The dip in head & shoulders is very minor and maybe need not be taken into consideration whereas the drop in Oral –b is much greater and indeed quiet significant. This cleanly show, that Oral –B, even after using the product, has not lived up to be a product it promised it would.
Credence Attributes (H3a & H3b)
Table 4.5: Credence Attribute Analysis
Key: Head & Shoulders, Pringles, Oral - B
When H3a and H3b were analyzed, we noticed quiet similar trend in the results. Here again head & shoulders and Oral-B showed decrease ranging between 4-22 %, whereas Pringles shows an increase of 1%. Similarly, the increase in the Pringle attribute is very minor but plays a significant role due to its positive nature. The decrease in head & shoulder is small and therefore, is relatively tolerable, whereas the decrease in Oral – b is much greater and in fact, the credence attribute depicts the greatest negative change between pre and post trial experiments with this specific case. Clearly, Pringles has managed to fulfill the promise it has made, whereas Oral –B has let the consumers down and not managed to live up to be everything it promised it would.
Discussion
This study examines the role of search, experience and credence attributes in determining whether consumers do value Pringles, head & shoulders and Oral – B in high esteem even after the trial of the product. It has been identified that brand equity, awareness, consumer purchasing behavior and differentiation; play a major role in this area. From the research it is evident that the eventual decision of consumers of buying the product is based upon brand equity, awareness and differentiation not only through physical appearance, but through actual product effectiveness. The attraction and distinctiveness of the products also highlights the fact that brand equity exists and the three attributes depict that high correlation exists between consumer decision making and the attributes. However, the more knowledge and awareness consumers have, the more high quality brand has to be if it wants to maintain its strong image.
The analysis of this research highlights the fact that the ‘positive brand equity’ (Srinivasan & Till, 2002) for head & shoulders, Pringles and Oral – B operates in a unique way for the three attributes when tested for the three mentioned products. In this research, it was found that the branded products had ‘a perception advantage’ in the search, experience and credence attributes for all the three products before they were tried out. However, contrastingly, Srinivasan & Till (2002) concluded that only the experience and credence attributes generated advantage for branded products before trial. Since the products used where established brands, the deductions of Srinivasan & Till (2002) were challenged in a more logical way. Moreover, the research seems more authentic as real life products are tested.
Although the products tested were compared with all the other products in their categories, I realize that there might be some other established brands which could even perform in a better way than the three used products. The aim of this research was to test whether the brand itself was an influencing force on search experience and credence attributes or not. The responses from the consumers were rated for 1 week on different extremes (Srinivasan & Till , 2002) so that a credible opinion could be generated. This was the reason; anchors such as ‘very effective’ and ‘disagree’ were used. Although Srinivasan & Till (2002) stated that comparing low equity brands with high equity brands was worthwhile, but I believed, comparing established brands with others in their specific product categories would further highlight the real difference the three attributes generate for the brands in maintaining advantage over others. One more argument is that, specifying brand names narrowed down the scope of the research, whereas, Srinivasan & Till (2002) focused on product category. The results obtained were the ones anticipated.
Managerial Implications
After going through the research, implication for managers can be highlighted. Keeping in context with the research, it can be analyzed that brands have to be managed according to the equity they generate. Since advertising is a way of generating brand awareness, for managers they need to focus on various attributes which vary according to the product and the category they belong. Specifically products such as shampoos’ rely heavily on credence and experience in order to generate consumer loyalty. Although the research does highlight the fact that established brands are in a better position in the market, but after analyzing the deductions, unknown brands can take hearty feelings, as they can see that if they improve quality and generate effective brand awareness, they can become forceful brands in their product category respectively.
Although renowned brands have gained a lot on reasonably less known products, the managers can easily identify which factors or attributes needs focus if they wish to improve their image. Perhaps, a more close evaluation of the target market segment could help them analyze this in a better way. Since this research focused on young consumers, a more thorough analysis on the middle aged users etc can generate a different perspective, thus, managers can target different segments accordingly. According to the findings, the brands do have an advantage but for managers maintaining the established brand equity, awareness in the market is of paramount importance. If they are lacking in search claims, immediately it can be identified that something is not right for the packaging and design of the product. Although, credence factor is not evident, but it is one of the ways to maintain and outperform your competitive products by improving the quality and effectiveness of the product (Rao & Ruekert, 1994).
The managerial implications are summarized in the table below:
Table 4.6
Conclusions
After going through the paper, it can be deduced that the effective marketing of products does generate expectations about the good quality and unique features of the products, but they seem to die down for products on which credence attributes are difficult to measure. Though seemingly, for the products whose credence value can be evaluated easily, would influence the experience factor eventually. Therefore, consumers remember their experiences and this then plays a major role in the products expansion and association with its claims of good quality unique features. The search attribute does seem to dominate in the pre trial stages and continues to be in a much stronger position for branded products after trial. However, the search attribute decreases, and is over ridden by the experience and credence attribute as consumers tend to go for the product which they remember as ‘good’ in their mind. Although, the search factor does initially helps distinguish the products amongst each other, contrasting to what Srinivasan & Till (2002) discovered, well known brands do have an edge in the market over other products when they are being searched even after trial. However, it’s the credence and the experience attributes which eventually have a big impact and remain in consumer’s minds.
The same happened with the three products. Head & shoulders struggled as compared to Pringles, because its credence attribute is difficult to measure comparative to the other two and may even not be felt by consumers as they would evaluate Pringles. Similarly, Oral- B struggled because its credence value was the hardest to measure, and consumers couldn’t feel the change in the cleanliness of their teeth after using it. Moreover, after trial branded products did maintain an edge with their experience and credence attribute claims, thus undermining the claim of Srinivasan & Till (2002) in this regard as well.
This whole helps summarize the fact that pre trial perceptions always exist which are depicted by ‘search’ attributes importance, and branded products do command extra respect than other products. However, after trying out the products, the eventual experience remains in the mind (formulated by feeling credence) and takes over other things, since most consumers go into the shop to look for products they want to buy rather than good brands with fancy packaging and design bottles.
Future Research
Another new research can be conducted in the same context which actually explores the factors which govern the level of importance of the three attributes analyzed in this research e.g. various factors such as colorful design, price, packaging, etc add weight to the search attribute. Now which factor out of all these are of more value to the search attribute for the products can be analyzed? This can be generalized for all the three attributes accordingly. It is believed that it would vary from product to product, thus raising questions about the factors which actually form part of the attribute analyzed. The research would explore this topic further, thus generating more concrete evidence of the relationship of the product with the consumers and the factors which enhance quality perception.
However, the limitations surrounding this topic have to be taken into account as it might vary for different age groups, geographical & geo demographic regions. The choice of the products would also be a key aspect in this research as it was in this one. The benefit of this research would be that it would very closely scrutinize a particular product and its association with consumers in a specific region, providing readers an opportunity to develop proper brand consumer understanding and its association with quality.
References
- Aaker, D.A. (1989), “Managing assets and skills: the key to a sustainable competitive advantage”, California Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 91-106.
- Aaker, D., (1990), 'Brand extensions: the good, the bad and the ugly', Sloan Management Review, Summer, 31(4), pp. 47-56.
- Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY
- Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.
- Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-56.
- Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of expertise”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 411-54
- Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
-
Ambler, T. (1995), “Building brand relationship”, December 1, Financial Times.
-
Baldinger, A.L. and Rubinson, J. (1997), “In search of the holy grail: a rejoinder”, Journal of Advertising Research, January-February, pp. 18.
- Bechwati, N.N. and Xia, L. (2003), “Do consumers sweat? The impact of perceived effort of online decision aids on consumers’ satisfaction with the decision process”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1 and 2, pp. 139-48.
- Biel, A.L. (1993), “Converting image into equity”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 67-81.
-
Blackston, M. (1995), “The qualitative dimension of brand equity”, Journal of Advertising Research, July-August, p. RC2.
- Bolton, L.E., Warlop, L. and Alba, J.W. (2003), “Consumer perceptions of price (un)fairness”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, March, pp. 474-91.
- Bryman, A. (1996). Quantity and quality in social research. London, Routledge.
- Buckingham A and Saunders P (2004), The survey methods workbook : from design to analysis, Oxford, Polity A strong emphasis on social science research
- Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24, Fall, pp. 25-40.
-
Cook, W.A. (1997), “Walking down the aisle”, Journal of Advertising Research, January- February, pp. 6-7.
- Collis J and Hussey R (2003), Business Research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students., Palgrave Macmillan
- Cooper, P. (1999), “Consumer understanding, change and qualitative research”, Market Research Society, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-9. de Ch
- De Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
-
De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1992), Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
- Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, pp. 99-113.
- Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-19.
- Doney, P. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, April, pp. 35-51.
- D’Souza, G. and Rao, R.C. (1995), “Can repeating an advertisement more frequently than the competition affect brand preference in a mature market?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 32-47.
- Ewing, M., (2006), Brands, artifacts & Design Theory: A call to action, Journal or product and brand management, Vol 15 (4), pp 255-256.
- Ford, G.T., Smith, D.B., Swasy, J.L., (1990), Consumer Skepticism of advertising claims:testing hypothesis from economics of information, Journal of consumer research, Vol 16, March, 433-41
- Guba, E.G. and Lincoln. Y.S. (1994), ``Competing paradigms in qualitative research'', in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 105-17.
- Hastings, K. and Perry, C. (2000), “Do service exporters build relationships? Some qualitative perspectives”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 207-14.
-
Heady, Ron and Mark Smith (2000), “Business Policy Case Content: A Fit with Theory and Practice?” Journal of Education for Business, 75 (January/February), 138-141.
- Hermann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, K.B., Huber, F., (2007), The influence of price fairness on customer satisfaction: An empirical test in the context of automobile purchases, Journal of product and brand management, Vol 16(1), pp 49-58
- Hines, T. (2000), “An evaluation of two qualitative methods (focus group interviews and cognitive maps) for conducting research into entrepreneurial decision making”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 7-16.
- Hoinville G, Jowell R et al (1978) Survey Research Practice, London, Heinemann, 301.072HO A good, readable analysis of major problems and difficulties, but make sure you are clear what you want to ask about and why before consulting this.
- Hooley, G.I., Greenley, G.E., Cadogan, J.W. and Fahy, J. (2005), “The performance impact of marketing resources”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 18-27.
- Hoyer, W.D. (1990), “The effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase product”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 141-8.
- Hunt, S.D. (1997), “Competing through relationships: grounding relationships marketing in resource-advantage theory”, Journal of Marketing Management, No. 13,pp. 431-45.
- Hutchinson, W.J. (1983), “On the locus of range effects in judgment and choice”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 305-8
- Jacoby, J., Olson, J.C. and Haddock, R.A. (1971), “Price, brand name and product composition characteristics as determinants of perceived quality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 570-9.
-
James Neill, (2007), , Accessed, 21 July, 2007, 5:11 pm.
-
Johnson B. (1996), “New No.1 Packard Bell NEC faces trio of PC challenges”, Advertising Age, 10 June, p. 44.
- Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
- Keller, K. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
- Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1992), “The effects of sequential introductions of brand extensions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, February, pp. 35-50.
- Kim, P. (1990), “A perspective on brands”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 63-7.
- King, S. (1991), “Brand-building in the 1990s”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 43-52
- Kinnear, T.C. and Taylor, J.R. (1996), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
- Kirk, J. and Miller, M.L. (1986), Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
-
Klebba, Joanne M. (1999), “Structured Case Analysis: Maximize Experiential Learning in the Introductory MBA Marketing Course,” Proceedings of the Society for Marketing Advances, 141-146.
- Knight, G.A. (1999), “Consumer preferences for foreign and domestic products”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
-
Kotler, P. and Fahey, L. (1982), “The world’s champion marketers: the Japanese”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 2, Summer, pp. 3-13
-
Lury, Giles., (2001), Luxuries, Marketing, Terrorism: Brand Strategy, Dec2001 Issue 154, p7, 1p
- McCracken, G., (1993), “The value of the brand: An anthropological perspective”, in Aaker, D.A., Biel, A.L., (Eds), Brand Equity & Advertising, Laurance Associated, NJ.
- Macdonald, E.K. and Sharp, B.M. (2000), “Brand awareness effects on consumer decision making for a common, repeat purchase product: a replication”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 5-15.
- Masberg, B.A. and Silverman, L.H. (1996), “Visitor experiences at heritage sites: a phenomenological approach”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 20-8. Nichol
-
Meer, D. (1995), “System beaters, brand loyals, and deal shoppers: new insight into the role of brand and price”, Journal of Advertising Research, May-June, pp. RC2.
- Morgan, R.P. (2000) 'A consumer-oriented framework of brand equity and loyalty', Journal of the Market Research Society, 42 (1), pp. 65-78.
- Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38.
- Motameni, R., & Shahrukhi, M., (1998), Brand Equity Valuation: A Global Perspective, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol 7(4),pp 275-290
- Nedungadi, P. (1990), “Recall and consumer consideration”, sets: influencing choice without altering brand evaluations”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 263-76.
- Nelson, P., (1970), Information & consumer behavior, Journal of political economy, Vol 78, March-April, 311-29
- Gill J and Johnson P (2002), Research methods for managers, Sage.
- Nelson, P., (1974), Advertising as information, Journal of political economy, Vol 83, July Aug, 729-54.
- Oliver, R.L. (1997), A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
- Oliver, R.L. (1999a), “Value as excellence in the consumption experience”, in Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge, New York, NY.
- Piron, F. (2000), “Consumers’ perceptions of the country-oforigin effect on purchasing intentions of (in)conspicuous products”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 308-21.
- Patton, M.Q. (1991), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
- Park, C.S., & Srinivasan, V., (1994), A survey based method of measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility, Journal of Market research, Vol 31, May, pp 271-88
- Phil Johnson and Murray Clark, (2006), Business and management research methodologies, SAGE, London
- Piron, F. (2000), “Consumers’ perceptions of the country-oforigin effect on purchasing intentions of (in)conspicuous products”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 308-21.
- Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V.K. (2004), The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
- Punch K.F., (2003), Survey Research: The basics, A focus on small-scale quantitative work, Sage 300.723, London
- Reeves, C.C. (1992), Quantitative Research for the Behavior Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
- Rossiter, J.R. and Percy, L. (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
- Roberta H. Markman, Peter T. Markman, Marie L. Waddell, (2001), 10 steps in writing the research paper, 6th ed, Hauppauge, N.Y. : Barron's
- Saimee, S., (1994), Customer evaluation of products in a global market, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol 25(3), p 579-604
- Saxton, J. (1994), “A strong brand comes from strong beliefs”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 211-21.
- Shimp, T.A., Stuart, E.W and Angel, R.W., (1991), A program of classical conditioning experiments testing variation in the conditioned stimulus and contents, Journal of consumer research, Vol 18, June, pp-1-12.
- Shocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Ruekert, R.W. (1994), “Challenges and opportunities facing brand management: an introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 149-58.
- Simon, C.J. and Sullivan, C.J. (1993), “The measurement and determinants of brand equity: a financial approach”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12, pp. 28-52.
- Srinivasan, S., Srini. & Brian D., Till., (2002), Evaluation of search, experience and credence attributes: Role of brand name and product trial, Journal of product and brand management, Vol (11)7, 417-433
- Sawhney, M. and Prandelli, E. (2000), “Communities of creation: managing distributed innovation in turbulent markets”, California Management Review, Summer.
- Urbany, J.E., Dickson, P.R. and Wilkie, W.L. (1989), “Buyer uncertainty and information search”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, pp. 120-35
- Wells, W.D. (1993), ``Discovery-oriented consumer research'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 489-503.
- Wilson, E.J. and Vlosky, R.P. (1997), ``Partnering relationship activities: Building theory from case study research'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 59-70.
- Woodruff, R.B. and Schumann, D.W. (1993), “Understanding value and satisfaction from the customer’s point of view”, Survey of Business, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-42. Yoo, B
- Wright, A.A. and Lynch, J.G., Jr., (1995), Communication effects of advertising versus direct and both search and experience attributes are present, Journal of consumer research, Vol 21, March, 708-18
- Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 195-211.
- Zaltman, G. (1997), “Rethinking market research: putting people back in”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 424-37, November. Exec
- Zeithaml, V. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of the evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
-
Interbrand, (2007), , Accessed on 20 July 2007, 9:56 pm.
-
GeoCities, (2007), , Accessed on 1 Aug 2007, 11:27 pm.
-
Wikipedia, 2007, , , Accessed 2 Aug, 2007, 12:23 am.
, Accessed 14 July, 2007, 7:43 pm.
Appendices
Appendix 1.1 – Questionnaire Sample
General Questions:
Are you
▢ Male ▢ Female
What is your age?
▢ 16-20 ▢ 21-25
What type of student are you?
▢ Local ▢ International
What are the factors that attract you when you are buying the products?
▢ Color ▢ Packaging ▢ Brand name ▢ Effectiveness ▢ Price
When you go for shopping, do you specifically look for well known brands?
▢ Yes ▢ No
If yes, then why?
Product related Questions:
Search Attribute
#
Are you aware of ‘Head & shoulders’ Shampoo?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you like the packing of the bottle?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Why?
Do you like the design of the bottle?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Why?
If the Colour or Design of the bottle is changed will you still buy ‘Head & shoulders’?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you think the brand name has fulfilled your expectations after use?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
#
Are you aware of ‘Pringles’ Crisps?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you like the packing of the bottle?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Why?
Do you like the design of the bottle?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Why?
If the Colour or Design of the bottle is changed will you still buy ‘Head & shoulders’?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you think the brand name has fulfilled your expectations after use?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
#
Are you aware of ‘Oral- B tooth brush?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you like the packing of the brush?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Why?
Do you like the design of the brush?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Why?
If the Colour or Design of the brush is changed will you still buy it?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you think the brand name has fulfilled your expectations after use?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Experience Attribute
#
Have you ever tried Head & shoulders?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you really feel the change after using it?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
After using the Shampoo, will you buy it again?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Why?
#
Have you ever had Pringles?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you really feel a unique taste after having it?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
After having Pringles, will you buy it again?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Why?
#
Have you tried Oral - B?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you really feel that your teeth are clean after using Oral- B?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
After Oral - B, will you buy it again?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Why?
Credence Attribute
#
Do you read the ingredients used in the product?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you think ‘head & shoulders’ reduce Dandruff?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
What makes you feel like this?
#
Do you read the ingredients used in Pringles?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you think ‘Pringles contains same ingredients as stated?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
What makes you feel like this?
#
Do you read the directions to use the product?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
Do you think ‘Oral – B cleans teeth properly?
▢ Yes ▢ No ▢ don’t care
What makes you feel like this?
For experience, search and credence attributes: Please rate to what extent you think Pringles
I think head & shoulders is: Similarly was created for Pringles and Oral -B
Search
Good Bad
Scale: 7. ___ 6. __x__ 5. ____ 4.____ 3. ____ 2. ____ 1. ____
Attractive Unattractive
Scale: 7. _x__ 6. ____ 5. ____ 4.____ 3. ____ 2. ____ 1. ____
Credence
Superior Inferior
Scale: 7. ___ 6. _x___ 5. ____ 4.____ 3. ____ 2. ____ 1. ____
Experience
Pleasant Unpleasant
Scale: 7. ___ 6. ____ 5. __x__ 4.____ 3. ____ 2. ____ 1. ____
Interesting Uninteresting
Scale: 7. ___ 6. ____ 5. __x__ 4.____ 3. ____ 2. ____ 1. ____