Private Label Perceptions & its Impact on Store Loyalty: An Empirical Study

Title -

Private Label Perceptions & its Impact on Store

Loyalty: An Empirical Study

Authors -

1. Dr. Shahir Bhatt

Assistant Professor – National Institute of Cooperative Management. Gandhinagar, Gujarat

[email protected], 9687600550

2. Ms. Amola Bhatt

Assistant Professor – L.J. – MBA Program. Ahmedabad, Gujarat

[email protected]

SIESCOMS Journal of Management, Volume 10, Issue 2 (ISSN: 0974-2956)

Page 1

mailto:[email protected]

Abstract

Rationale: Retailing in India is evolving rapidly, indicated by

increase in consumer spending at unprecedented rates and increase

in number of global players investing in this sector. Private

brands, which were once a small part of retailers’ merchandise,

are occupying a significant portion of most retail operations

today. For evaluating any retail store, the first thing customer

takes into account is the brands (merchandize) it carries. This

statement holds true in case of metro cities; however, a similar

trend is evident in the young urban population of Ahmedabad as

well. The current study attempts to discover the consumer

perceptions related to private labels in apparels and its impact

on store loyalty.

Purpose: The study indicates the factors moderating the

perceptions of customers towards private labels and tries to

explore their impact on store loyalty.


Page 2

Design/methodology/approach – The data is collected using a self

administered questionnaire. The sample size for the study is 305

respondents. The focal product was private label apparels sold in

four retail stores of Ahmedabad district. Analysis has been done

by using multivariate technique like Factor Analysis followed by

one way ANOVA and Chi Square test.

Findings – The factors for moderating private label perceptions

include value, proximity, brand loyalty, familiarity, shopping

exploration, sale proneness, store image and variety seeking

behavior. Additionally it was found that value, proximity, brand

loyalty, familiarity, shopping exploration and store image have

relationship with store loyalty. It was also found that

innovativeness and promotional offers have association with store

loyalty.

Research Limitations/implications - A key limitation of this

study is the sampling frame. Future studies should replicate this

study in different context.

Keywords – Private labels (PL), Store Loyalty

Paper type Research paper


Page 3

Introduction

Retailing in India is evolving rapidly, with consumer spending

growing by unprecedented rates and with increasing number of

global players investing in this sector. The Investment

Commission of India has projected a three times growth in retail

market in India by 2016, and organized retail will occupy almost

16% (US $165 billion) of the same. Apparel, along with food and

grocery, will lead the organized retailing in India. The Indian

apparel industry is estimated to be worth Rs. 1,876 billion in

FY11 and is expected to grow at a CAGR of 8.7 per cent till FY16.

The growth would primarily be driven by the surge in demand

for readymade apparels in rural areas, rising income levels and

young population and increasing preference for branded

apparels. Apparel shopping consists of shopping for men’s and

boys’ wear, women’s, children’s, girls’ and infants’ wear,

general clothing businesses, footwear, leather products and

travel goods (Guy 1998).

Perception is a process by which we select, organize, and

interpret information to create a meaningful picture of the world

(Bernard Berelson and Gary Steiner, 1964). The Private Label

Manufacturers Association (2010) provides on its website the

following definition for private labels: “Private label products

encompass all merchandise sold under the retailers’ brand. The


Page 4

brand can be retailer’s own name or a name created exclusively by

the retailer. In some cases, a retailer may belong to a

wholesaler group that owns the brands that are available only to

the members of the group.” A Private Label Brand (PLB) is

defined as “a brand owned by the retailer or a wholesaler for a

line of variety of items under exclusive or controlled

distribution” (Nielsen, 2005). Private labels are also known as

private brands, store brands or own brands.

The introduction and development of private brands is constantly

on the rise. Private brands which were once a small part of

retailers merchandise, account for a significant portion of most

retail operations. For evaluating any retail store, the first

thing customer takes into account is the brands (merchandize) it

carries. This statement holds true in case of metro cities;

however, a similar trend is evident in the young urban population

of Gujarat as well. The current study attempts to discover the

consumer perceptions related to private labels in apparels and

their impact on store loyalty.

Literature Review

Sharma et al. (2010) showed that in India private brands account

for only 5% of the total organized retail market whereas globally

it is 17%, hence, private labels have a huge potential here.SIESCOMS Journal of Management, Volume 10, Issue 2 (ISSN: 0974-2956)

Page 5

Vakariya and Chopde (2011) researched on private label and

national brands for the apparel segment and found out that store

brands provide value for money to the customers and higher margin

to the retailers. Customers have strong brand preference for

national brands. A study conducted by Roy (2005) on factors

governing consumers’ choice of supermarkets, analyzed that

factors such as add on benefits, general services, convenience

and variety influence consumers’ choice of supermarkets.

Krishna & Venketesh (2008) researched on clothing, textile and

fashion accessories segment and showed that the segment occupies

a share of 12% in total retail sales and has been growing at the

rate of 18% per annum. A large number of players have entered in

the organized and unorganized sectors. These players have

realized that in order to attract the customers, they need to

offer a wide variety of merchandize in terms of width, length and

depth and also need to provide intangibles in the form of store

image, experience and ambience.

Conventional wisdom maintains that PL use is associated with

higher store loyalty. For example, Richardson, Jain, and Dick

(1996) state that “store brands help retailers increase store

traffic and customer loyalty by offering exclusive lines under

labels not found in competing stores.” Likewise, the Private

Label Manufacturers Association (2007) Web site states that


Page 6

“retailers use store brands to increase business as well as to

win the loyalty of their customers.” However, empirical evidence

on the subject is mixed. On the one hand, a positive correlation

between PL use and store loyalty has been observed in some

studies (e.g. Ailawadi, Neslin, and Gedenk 2001; Kumar and

Steenkamp, 2007). Corstjens and Lal’s (2000) analytical model

supports PLs’ ability to build store loyalty, and Sudhir and

Talukdar (2004) report indirect support for PLs’ store

differentiating ability. On the other hand, there is evidence

that consumers may not differentiate between different retailers’

PLs; that is, PL users may be loyal to PL products in general,

not to the PL of a particular retailer (Richardson 1997). If this

is the case, it is difficult to understand how PL use would

increase store loyalty.

Empirical research was carried out by Chavadi & Kokatnin (2008)

to investigate whether private label brands result into store

loyalty. As per Marcel and Lal (2000), a research on building

store loyalty through store brands, revealed that when consumers

are sensitive to product quality and brand choice, then quality

store brands introduced by retailers can be used as an instrument

to create store differentiation and thereby develop store loyalty

and store profitability. This holds well for packaged goods

categories and not for cheap private labels. The research

highlights that store brands and national brands playSIESCOMS Journal of Management, Volume 10, Issue 2 (ISSN: 0974-2956)

Page 7

complementary roles, while the former becomes a source of store

differentiation and loyalty; the latter plays the role of

increasing the price of store labels thereby contributing towards

store profitability.

Goswami (2012) investigated from their survey that variables such

as quality, number of categories, innovativeness, price gap, and

promotion have strong association with store loyalty. Gogoi

(2013) explained that purchase intention itself develops a loyal

feeling about the product or service the customer intends to buy

which in turn may transform the customer to become loyal to the

brand. Hence, here the researcher has tried to figure out the

relationship between private label use and store loyalty in

Ahmedabad.

Research Objectives

To bring out the major factors that affect the perception of

consumers related to private label apparels

To analyze whether the following parameters have impact on

store loyalty:

a. Factors brought out from the study

b. Innovativeness of store brand

c. Price differentiation

d. Promotion

Research Methodology SIESCOMS Journal of Management, Volume 10, Issue 2 (ISSN: 0974-2956)

Page 8

The research design for the study is descriptive in nature. The

sampling unit consisted of consumers who were aware of private

labels of major apparel formats located in Ahmedabad (Pantaloon,

Westside, Lifestyle and Shopper Stop). The questionnaire

constructed for the study included several questions which were

continuous and categorical in nature. A scale was constructed

with five point Likert type statements in which respondents were

asked to indicate their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree to

5 = strongly agree). For this study, the scale constructed by Gomez

and Fernandez (2009) was used which comprised 26 Likert scale

statements. The final study involved a survey conducted in

Ahmedabad between December 2013 and February 2014. The sampling

technique used for the study was convenient sampling. Reponses

were obtained from 305 respondents. SPSS 19 was used to analyze

the data. Factor Analysis along with ANOVA and chi square was

used to analyze the data collected.

Data Analysis

The breakup of the sample on demographic variables is provided

below.

Table 1 Demographic Statistics

Particulars Specifications Frequency PercentageGender Male

Female

181

124

59.3

40.7


Page 9

Marital Status Married

Unmarried

45

260

14.8

85.2Education Level Under-graduate

Graduate

Post-graduate

15

104

186

4.9

34.1

61.0Monthly Income Less than 25,000

25,000-50,000

50,000-75,000

More than 75,000

205

56

19

25

67.2

18.4

6.2

8.2Age Less than 25

25-35

More than 35

244

50

11

80.0

16.4

3.6Occupation Service

Business

Housewife

Student

75

41

9

180

24.6

13.4

3.0

59.0

Table 2 Rank Order/Weighted Score

Attributes Weighted Score RankQuality 80.13 1Price 68.4 2Comfort 67.13 3Brand Name 53 4Store Name 36.93 5


Page 10

From the above table 2, we can observe that Quality has been

given 1st rank among the 5 attributes followed by price, comfort,

brand name and store name in the order of their importance given

by consumer during their shopping trips. This ranking order

suggests that consumers of Gujarat are very quality conscious as

well as price conscious.

Factors Affecting Consumer Perceptions

To determine the important factors affecting the perceptions of

consumers, the Principal Component Factor Analysis (PCA) with

varimax rotation was performed for the 26 items measuring

perceptions of consumers. The result indicated that the

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) was significant

(Chi-Square 3053.81, p-value < 0.0001). The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin

(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was high at 0.932. This KMO

value of 0.932 is excellent since it exceeded the recommended

value of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1974). The two results of (KMO and

Bartlett’s) suggest that the data is appropriate to proceed with

the factor analysis procedure (Malhotra, 2010).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed and only those

factors were retained which had an eigen value more than 1 since

they are considered significant. An eigen value represents the

amount of variance associated with the factor. The result wasSIESCOMS Journal of Management, Volume 10, Issue 2 (ISSN: 0974-2956)

Page 11

that there were a total of 8 factors, which explained for 67.806

% of the total variance. The inter-item correlation and inter-

item consistency of each Factor was also measured by calculating

each Factor’s Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach 1951).

Table 3 Factors influencing private label perceptions

Valu

e

Proximi

ty

Brand

Loyal

ty

Fami

liar

ity

Shoppi

ng

Explor

ation

Sale

Pron

enes

s

Stor

e

Imag

e

Varie

ty

Seeki

ngImportance of

information written

on PL in apparels.

0.74

6

Both price and

quality are equally

important while

purchasing PL in

apparels

0.67

1

Style is an

important criteria

for purchasing PL

Brands in apparels

0.50

3

Generally I like to

try new brands

0.49

3I like some variety

from time to time

among known brands

0.48

9

I don’t mind 0.711


Page 12

gifting PLs in

apparels to guestsI don’t mind

admitting that I

buy these PL brands

0.618

Ingredients are

important while

purchasing PL

brands in apparels

0.531

If there were no

PLs in my store, I

would look for them

in other store

0.731

I consider myself

loyal to PLs in

apparels

0.655

PL brands always

meet my expectation

0.531

With PLs in

apparel, I get what

I am looking for

0.435

PL brands in

apparels never let

me down

0.63

8

PL brands in

apparels have a

good reputation

among consumer

0.55

3

Store name is an 0.50


Page 13

important criteria

for purchasing PL

apparels

3

PL brands in

apparels provide me

with security and

trust when I use

them

0.48

3

Expert shoppers

always buy these PL

brands

0.738

Smart shoppers

always buy PL

brands in apparels

0.725

When there are

sales on brands

other than PLs, I

always buy other

brands

0.74

2

Most times I do

shopping in nearby

stores

0.65

5

I always buy brands

that are on sale

0.63

6Store external

aspect are

important when

going for PLs in

apparels purchase

0.64

5


Page 14

Display is an

important parameter

while selecting PLs

in apparels

0.47

2

If the PLs in

apparels that I

usually buy are not

available one day,

I buy another brand

0.707

Although I am

satisfied with some

PL brands, I get

bored always buying

the same ones

0.447

I usually prefer

not to spread my

shopping around

to different stores

0.746

Interpretation

Factor 1 is loaded on 5 variables. This can be labeled as

“Value”, as these 5 variables revealed the perception of

consumers towards the quality indicators like information on PL

brands, price-quality relationship, style, trying new brands and

asking for variety among known brands by consumers. The items

received a mean of 3.33 on a scale of 1 to 5 where majority of

them were neutral that value is an influential factor for the

purchase of PLs. Cronbach alpha for these five items was 0.806.SIESCOMS Journal of Management, Volume 10, Issue 2 (ISSN: 0974-2956)

Page 15

Identical study by Sethuraman (2003) concluded that store brand

consumers are those who: “(i) value price as an important

criterion for purchase, and (ii) do not value brand image as

important, but (iii) may consider quality as an important

determinant when choosing among brands.” Vakariya and Chopde

(2011) researched on private label and national brands for the

apparel segment and also found out that store brands provide

value for money to the customers and higher margin to the

retailers. This study also confirmed that value related measures

are related to private label brand perceptions. Factor 2 is

loaded on 3 variables. This can be termed as “Proximity”, as

these variables describe the closeness of the consumers towards

PL brands in apparels. The given factor name can be derived from

the type of variables included like confidence in gifting the PL

apparels, admitting about their purchase and relying on the

ingredients that PL apparels possess. The items received a mean

of 3.17 which depicted that respondents were neutral towards the

proximity factor. Cronbach alpha for these three items was 0.690.

Though it may sound very elementary, but this closeness factor is

extremely important in influencing the self perception of

consumers. Consumers who usually buy Store Brands (SBs) perceive

these brands to be suitable for “people like me.” Shoppers who

are closer to these brands will be more confident in obtaining

satisfactory performance with them. Research with Spanish


Page 16

customer done by Gomez and Fernandez (2009) suggested that

shoppers who are closer to these brands will be more confident

with them. Consistent with our expectations based on the

literature analysis, it was found that proximity represented a

basis for explaining Store Brand proneness.

Factor 3 includes variables which indicated fulfillment of

expectations by PLs and PLs meeting the consumer preferences.

This factor can be described as “Private Label Loyalty”. This

indicates some consumers prefer PLs when given choice between

national brands and store brands. The items received mean of 3.06

which can be referred as neutral attitude of respondents towards

brand loyalty. Cronbach alpha for these four items was 0.748.

Prior studies on this topic tested the negative influence of

brand loyalty on PL attitude and purchasing (Baltas, 1997; Burton

et al., 1998; Garreston et al., 2002). Factor 4 is loaded on 4

variables. This factor includes the variables that lead to the

knowledge and awareness among the users and potential users of

the PL brands in apparels. So this factor may be labeled as

“Familiarity”. It includes PLs’ ability to serve, reputation,

store name, security and trust. The items received mean of 3.19

and cronbach alpha value of 0.754. Factor 5 is loaded on 2

variables. This can be referred as “Shopping Exploration”. This

is because it is believed that smart shoppers as well as expert

shoppers tend to buy PL brands in apparels. This makes themSIESCOMS Journal of Management, Volume 10, Issue 2 (ISSN: 0974-2956)

Page 17

opinion leader for the rest of the consumer segment to create

positive word of mouth. The items received mean of 2.77 and

cronbach alpha value of 0.717. Baltas (1997) found a negative

relationship between exploration and PL attitude. In contrast,

for Ailawadi et al., (2001) this relationship was not

significant.

Factor 6 is loaded on 3 variables. This can be labeled as “Sale

Proneness”, which describes whether the consumers purchase of PL

brands in apparels is influenced by promotional offers i.e Sales

or discounts or not. This factor includes variables like buying

brands i.e. store brands and national brands, when they are on

sale and shopping only from nearby stores. These items received

mean of 2.77 and cronbach value of 0.608. Consumers’ perception

of the price may also be related to sale proneness. Lichtenstein

et al. (1993) defined sale proneness as “an increased propensity

to respond to a purchase offer because the sale from which the

price is presented positively affects purchase evaluations.”

Those consumers who viewed price as what they gave up for the

product might exhibit sales proneness (Jin et al., 2005). Baltas

(1997) found that consumers who usually search for price cuts and

special offers were not private label brand prone. Factor 7 is

loaded on 2 variables. This might be termed as “Store Image” that

induces and attracts the current as well as potential consumers

of the PL brands towards the store. The store criterion includesSIESCOMS Journal of Management, Volume 10, Issue 2 (ISSN: 0974-2956)

Page 18

the importance of a store’s external aspects and displays. The

item received mean of 3.17 and cronbach value of 0.610. Store

image is reflected in the store’s physical environment, and in

perceptions of its goods and service quality (Semeijn et al.,

2004). Therefore, store image strongly influences store brand

perceptions (i.e. brand image) (Collins-Dodd and Lindley, 2003)

and store brand attitude (Semeijn et al., 2004). However, the

extrinsic cue (store name) is more relevant for store brands than

national brands. Factor 8 is loaded on 3 variables and it has

been labeled as “Variety Seeking Behavior”. This includes

variables like looking for other brands due to lack of

availability, boredom and spreading shopping among different

stores. This suggests consumer’s neutral behavior of trying for

something new at regular intervals and not sticking to only one

thing. This item showed a mean of 2.99 and cronbach alpha of

0.611.

Hypothesis 1

Ho: There is no significant relationship between the factors

brought out from the study and store loyalty

The following Table 4 shows the result of One Way analysis of

variance. Data is normally distributed and variance is

homogenous.

Table 4 ANOVASIESCOMS Journal of Management, Volume 10, Issue 2 (ISSN: 0974-2956)

Page 19

FactorsStoreLoyalty Mean Std Deviation F Sig.

Value Yes 3.47 0.864 9.083 0.003No 3.16 0.952

Proximity Yes 3.27 0.886 4.802 0.029No 3.04 0.898

Private Brand Loyalty

Yes 3.23 0.869 16.835 0.000No 2.85 0.729

Familiarity Yes 3.33 0.819 10.904 0.001No 3.02 0.826

Shopping Exploration

Yes 2.92 0.947 8.784 0.003No 2.59 0.979

Sale Proneness Yes 2.7 0.758 1.109 0.293No 2.8 0.853

Store Image Yes 3.27 0.931 4.136 0.043No 3.03 0.997

Variety SeekingBehavior

Yes 3.02 0.814 0.4 0.528No 2.96 0.828

There is a statistically significant difference between groups as

determined by one-way ANOVA for Value, Proximity, Private Brand

Loyalty, Familiarity, Shopping Exploration and Store Image. Hence

we can reject the null hypothesis for the above factors. It can

be inferred that Value, Proximity, Private Brand Loyalty,

Familiarity, Shopping Exploration and Store Image have

relationship with store loyalty. Sale proneness and variety

seeking behavior have no relationship with store loyalty.

Hypothesis 2


Page 20

Ho: There is no association between the following factors and

store loyalty

a. Innovativeness of store brand

b. Price differentiation

c. Promotion

The following Table 5 shows the result of Chi Square.

Table 5 Chi Square

Store LoyaltyPearson Chi

SquareValue

SignificanceYes No

Innovativeness Innovative 155 106

8.103 0.005Traditional

16 28

Price Difference between Private Brand and Store Brand

More 120 88

0.703 0.458Less 51 46

Promotional Offers Yes 114 687.913 0.003No 57 66

A rejected null hypothesis is reflected for innovativeness and

promotional offers, where the significance value is less than

0.05. Hence there is an association between innovativeness and

store loyalty; and promotional offers and store loyalty.

Retailers should come up with innovative private labels, and also

go for promotional campaigns in order to make the customers loyal

to the store.


Page 21

Conclusion

Private labels have come a long way over the last three decades.

Retailers of Private labels brands in apparels should mainly

focus on providing products that are valuable to customers and

that would be beneficial for satisfying customer needs and

retailers profitability. This can even lead to good image

building for the retailers in the long run. The factors

moderating private label perceptions include value, proximity,

and brand loyalty, familiarity, shopping exploration, sale

proneness, store image and variety seeking behavior. Additionally

it is found that value; proximity, brand loyalty, familiarity,

shopping exploration and store image have relationship with store

loyalty. It is also found that innovativeness and promotional

offers have association with store loyalty. Hence, a retail

format should focus on the above-mentioned factors so as to

expect loyalty from their customers.

References

Aaker, D. A. (1991) Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on

the Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press.

Abhishek, Koshy Abraham (2008) Quality Perceptions of

Private Label Brands. Conceptual Framework and Agenda for

Research.W.P. No.2008-02-04.

A C Nielsen (2005). The Power of Private Label, Report.


Page 22

Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S.A. and Gendenk, K. (2001).

Pursuing the value conscious consumer: store brands versus

national brand promotions. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No.

1, pp. 71-89.

Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005).

Antecedents and consequences of customer company

identification: expanding the role of relationship

marketing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, pp.574-585.

Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin , S. A. and Gedenk, K. (2001).

Pursuing the Value-Conscious Consumer: Store Brands Versus

National Brand Promotions. Journal of Marketing, 65:71-89.

Ailawadi, K. L., Pauwels, K., Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2008).

Private-Label Use and Store Loyalty. Journal of Marketing,

72:19-30.

Amrouche, N. and Zaccour, G. (2007). Shelf-space Allocation

of National and Private Brands. Euro-pean Journal of

Operational Research, 180:648–663.

Anselmsson, J. and Johansson, U. (2009). Third Generation of

Retailer Brands - Retailer Expectations and Consumer

Response. British Food Journal, 111(7):717-734.

Aurier, P., & Lanauze, G. S. (2011). Impacts of in-store

manufacturer brand expression on perceived value,

relationship quality and attitudinal loyalty. International


Page 23

Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , 39 (11), 810-

835.

Baltas, G. (1997). Determinants of Store Brand Choice: A

Behavioral Analysis. Journal of Product & Brand Management,

5(6):315-324.

Baltas, G. and Argouslidis, P. C. (2007). Consumer

Characteristics and Demand for Store Brands. International

Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(5):328-341.

Bao, Y., Bao, Y and Sheng, S. (2011). Motivating Purchase of

Private Brands: Effects of Store Image, Product Signatories,

and Quality Variation. Journal of Business Research, 64:220–

226.

Barlett, M.S. (1954). A note on multiplying the factors for

various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal

Statistical Society, 16 (Series B): 296-298.

Batra, R. and Sinha, I. (2000). Consumer-level factors

moderating the success of private label brands. Journal of

Retailing. Vol. 76(2). Pp.175-191.

Binninger, A.-S. (2008). Exploring the relationships between

retail brands and consumer store loyalty. International

Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , 36 (2), 94-

110.


Page 24

Chavadi, C., & Kokatnur, S. (2008). Do Private Brands Result

in Store Loyalty? An Empirical Study in Bangalore. Journal

of Marketing, VII (3).

Collins-Dodd, Colleen and Lindley, Tara (2003). Store Brands

and Retail Differentiation: the Influence of Store Image and

Store Brand Attitude on Store Own Brand Perceptions. Journal

of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10, pp. 345-352

Corstjens, M., & Lal, R. (2000). Building store loyalty

through store brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3),

281–291. Am Marketing Assoc. Retrieved from

http://www.journals.marketingpower.com/doi/pdf/10.1509/jmkr.

37.3.281.18781

Chronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal

Structure of Tests. Psychometrika, 22(3), pp 297-334.

Gogoi, B. J. (2013). Study of antecedents of purchase

intentionand its effect on brand loyalty of private label

brand of apparel. International Journal of Sales & Marketing

, 2249-6939.

Gomez, M., & Fernandez, A. (2009). Consumer level factors

that influence store brand proneness: An empirical study

with Spanish consumers. Journal of Euromarketing , 1049-

6483.


Page 25

http://www.journals.marketingpower.com/doi/pdf/10.1509/jmkr.37.3.281.18781

http://www.journals.marketingpower.com/doi/pdf/10.1509/jmkr.37.3.281.18781

Guy, C.M. (1998). Classification of Retail Stores and

Shopping Centers: Some Methodological Issues. Geojournal,

45, pp 255-264

Hariprakash. (2011). Private label in India retail industry.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research , 1 (8).

Jin, B., & Suh, Y. G. (2005). Integrating effect of consumer

perception factors in predicting private brand purchase in a

Korean discount store context. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 22(2), 62-71. doi:10.1108/07363760510589226.

Lichtenstein, Donald R., Nancy M Ridgway, and Richard G.

Netmeyer (1993). Price Perceptions and Consumer Behaviour: A

Field Study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (May): 234-

245.

Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An Index of Factorial Simplicity.

Psychometrica, 39, 31-36.

Kremer, F., & Viot, C. (2012). How store brands build

retailer brand image. International Journal of Retail &

Distribution Management , 40 (7), 528-543.

Krishnan, N. & Venkatesh, S. (2008). Challenges of

Merchandising Strategies in Fashion Retailing – A Study on

Private Labels Vs Manufactured Brands. Indian Journal of

Marketing, 38(3): 14-21.


Page 26

Kumar, Nirmalya and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2007).

Private Label Strategy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business

School Press.

Liljandera, V., Polsaa, P., & Riel, A. v. (2009). Modelling

consumer responses to an apparel store brand: Store image as

a risk reducer. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ,

16 (4), 281-290.

Malhotra Naresh (2010). Marketing Research: An Applied

Orientation, New Delhi, Pearson Education.

Martos-Partal, M., & González-Benito, Ó. (2009). Store brand

and store loyalty: The moderating role of store brand

positioning. 297-313.

Mittal, V., Kamakura, W. (2001). Satisfaction, Repurchase

Intent, and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the

Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics. Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 1.

MoisescuOvidiu I., Allen Brad. The Relationship between the

dimensions of Brand Loyalty. An empirical investigation

among Romanian Urban Consumers. Management & Marketing

Challenges for Knowledge Society (2010), Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.

83-98.

Myers, J. G. (1967). Determinants of Private Brand Attitude.

Journal of Marketing Research, 4(1):73-81.


Page 27

Narasimhan, C. and Wilcox, R.T. (1998). Private Labels and

the Channel Relationship: A Cross-Category Analysis. The

Journal of Business, 71(4):573–600.

Olsen, SveinOttar (2002). Comparative Evaluation and the

Relationship Between Quality, Satisfaction, and Repurchase

Loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30

(3), 240-49.

Paulwels, K. and Srinivasan, S. (2004). Who Benefits from

Store Brand Entry. Marketing Science, 23(3): 364-390.

Private Label Manufacturers Association (2007). Store Brands

Achieving New Heights of Consumer Popularity and Growth,

(accessed June 12, 2009), [available at http://plma.com/

storeBrands/sbt07.html]56

PLMA (2010). PLMA publishes the 2010 private label year

book: my private label, Retrived from

www.mypbrand.com/2010/06/28plma-publishes-the-2010-private-

label-yearbook.

Quelch, J.A. and Harding, D. (1996). Brands versus Private

Labels: Fighting to Win. Harvard Busi-ness Review, 74(1):99-

109.

Richardson, P., Jain, A.K. and Dick, A.S. (1996). Household

store brand proneness: A framework. Journal of Retailing,

72(2):159–185.


Page 28

Richardson, P., Jain, A.K., Dick, A.S. (1996). The influence

of store aesthetics on the evaluation of private label

brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management. Vol. 5(1).

pp. 19-28.

Roy S. (2005). Factors governing consumer’s choice of

supermarkets and segmenting them into Identifiable Groups –

A Multivariate Approach, The IUP Journal of Service

Marketing.

Rzem, H., & Debabi, M. (2012). Store Image as a Moderator of

Store Brand Attitude. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly

, 4 (1), 130-148.

Semeijn, Janjaap, Riel, Allard C. R. van and Ambrosini,

Beatriz (2004). Consumer Evaluation of Store Brands: Effects

of Store Image and Product Attributes. Journal of Retailing

and Consumer Services, Vol. 11, pp. 247-258.

Sethuraman, R. (1992). Understanding cross-category

differences in private label shares of grocery products.

Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute. pp.92-128.

Sprott, D.E. and Shimp, T.A. (2004). Using Product Sampling

to Augment the Perceived Quality of. Store Brands. Journal

of Retailing, 80(4): 305–315.

Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2010). Brand community: drivers and

outcomes. Psychology & Marketing,27(4), 347-368.


Page 29

Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Johnson, L.W. (1999). The

Role of Perceived Risk in the Quality-Value Relationship: A

Study in a Retail Environment. Journal of Retailing,

75(1):77-105.

Talukdar, D. (2004). Does Store Brand Patronage Improve

Store Patronage? Review of Industrial Organization, 143-160.

Tellis, G.J. and Gaeth, G.J. (1990). Best value, price-

seeking, and price aversion: the impact of information and

learning on consumer choices. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 55.

pp. 34-45.

Vakhariya S. & Chopde V. (2011). A Study of Consumer

Preference of Private Labels over National Brands in Apparel

Segment of Departmental Stores in Nagpur Region.

International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing,

1(1): 1-13.

Walker, J. (2006). Bye-bye big brands. Journal of Marketing.

Vol. 28 (17). pp.23.

Yang, D., & Wang, X. (2010). The Effects of 2-tier Store

Brands’ Perceived. Front Business Research , 4 (1), 1-28.

Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. et al.

(1990), Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer

Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.


Page 30

Private Label Perceptions & its Impact on Store Loyalty: An Empirical Study

Documents