retail emperical study

Determinants of Consumer Buying Behaviour:An Empirical Study of Private Label Brands in

Apparel Retail*

C.V.Krishna1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Consumers Buying Behaviour in ApparelIndustry

India is a young nation with majority ofpopulation being young people, and also therising income levels are changing the consumerattitudes and buying behavior to a great extent.The shift in cultural practices also has impacton change in the behavior of the consumers. Theconsumers while making buying decisionsregarding apparel are affected by many factors,viz., brand awareness of store, brand image ofstore, brand awareness of, private label brand,brand image of private label brand, price,discounts, comfort, durability etc. As the privatelabels offer the best available choice to theconsumers, majority of them are purchasingprivate label apparel brands. In Indian organized

Abstract

Indian retail is in an expansion spree and many companies are joining the retail landscape. After food andgroceries segment apparel is the next large retail segment and the consumption of apparel is also very large involume. Previously the manufacturing brands used to lead the apparel category in the early days and thepenetration of the private label brands was very small. But now things have changed and private label brandsare leading in every segment. In the apparel segment also many private label brands are leading the competition.

Consumer buying behavior is mainly affected by many determinant factors and this paper aims at understandingand identifying the important determinant factors affecting the consumer buying behavior towards privatelabel apparel. Private label brands are very successful because they offer many advantages to the consumers.Consumers are mainly affected by many internal factors like demographic, personality and lifestyle and manyother factors while purchasing apparel. Consumers are also affected by many external factors like brand image,price, design and quality while buying private label apparel brands.

Key Words: Consumer Behavior, Empirical Study, Private Label Brands, Apparel Retail.

* Received May 28, 2010; Revised September 7, 20111 Research Scholar, Department of Business Administration, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar

Email: [email protected]

retail, all the big players have their own privatelabel brands, posing threat to the manufacturerbrands.

1.2 Apparel Retail in India: Industry Profile

The Indian retail market is the fifth largest retailmarket in the world; it has been ranked thesecond most attractive emerging market forinvestment in the retail sector by AT Kearney’sseventh annual Global Retail DevelopmentIndex (GRDI) in 2008. The share of retail tradein the country’s gross domestic product (GDP)was between 8–10 per cent in 2007 and had beenestimated to reach 22 per cent by 2010.

In the overall retail pie, food and grocery wasthe dominant category with 59.5 per cent share,valued at Rs 792,000 crore, followed by clothingand accessories with a 9.9 per cent share at Rs131,300 crore. Interestingly, out-of-home food

44 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management ; September, 2011

(catering) services (Rs 71,300 crore) is the thirdlargest retail category, with a 5.4 per cent marketshare – this largely reflects the massiveemployment opportunities to youngsters in theservices sector and accompanying changes inconsumer lifestyles and others at 25.2% (seeGraph 1).

Graph 1: Overall Retail Pie Market Share ofMajor Segments

Source: Images Retail Report 2009

In organized retailing, however, clothing andfashion accessories is the largest category with

a market share of 38.1%, at Rs 29,800 crore,followed by food and grocery with 11.5% (Rs9,000 crore), footwear 9.9% (Rs 7,750 crore) andconsumer durables 9.1% (Rs 7,100 crore andothers at 31.4%.

India has emerged as the third most attractivemarket destination for apparel retailers,according to a new study by global managementconsulting firm A.T. Kearney. India comes afterBrazil and China in the A.T. Kearney RetailApparel Index (See Table 1), which looks at tendrivers, including apparel consumption andclothing imports/exports, to rank among the top30 emerging markets for retail apparelinvestments.

In India, apparel is the second largest retailcategory, representing 10 percent of the $37billion retail market. It is expected to grow at12-15 percent per year according to AT KearneyConsulting firm.

Table 1: A.T. Kearney Retail Apparel Index, 2008

Rank Country Absolute

Market Size

Growth

Prospects

Consumer Affluence Score

1 Brazil 44.5 33.4 42.1 48.2

2 China 74.0 22.1 35.7 47.0

3 India 57.4 37.4 31.1 46.6

4 Turkey 29.4 36.8 58.9 46.2

5 Chile 22.3 46.7 44.2 45.9

6 Romania 21.1 53.8 33.7 45.1

7 Argentina 20.6 43.7 38.8 41.1

8 Thailand 22.0 24.6 57.0 40.0

9 Russia 51.7 21.9 38.7 38.7

10 United Arab Emirates 31.2 41.9 27.9 38.1

Source: AT Kearney-Emerging Opportunities for Global Retailers-The 2008 Global Retail Development Index Report"

1.3 Indian Apparel Market

The apparel retail industry consists of the saleof all men's wear, women's wear and infant'swear. The menswear sector includes all

garments made for men and boys. It includesboth outer and under garments. The women'swear sector consists of the retail sale of allwomen's and girls' garments including dresses,suits and coats, jackets, tops, shirts, skirts,

45

blouses, sweatshirts, sweaters, underwear etc.The infants wear sector is calculated as sales ofgarments for children between the ages of 0-2years. The market value is calculated at retailselling price (RSP), and includes all taxes andlevies. All currency conversions used in thisreport have been calculated at constant 2005annual average exchange rates. For the purposeof this report, Asia Pacific consists of China,India, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singaporeand Australia.

The Indian apparel retail industry generated atotal revenues of $18.3 billion in 2005, thisrepresenting a compound annual growth rate(CAGR) of 10.6% for the five-year periodspanning 2001-2005.

Menswear sales proved the most lucrative forthe Indian apparel retail industry in 2005,generating total revenues of $8.4 billion,equivalent to 45.9% of the industry's overallvalue.The performance of the industry isforecast to follow a similar pattern, with ananticipated CAGR of 9.8% for the five-yearperiod 2005-2010.

1.4 Apparel Market Segments

Revenues from the menswear sector generate45.9% of the total Indian Apparel Industry'svalue. Women's wear accounts for a further35.2% of the industry's value (see Graph 2).

Source: Data Monitor

2.0 PRIVATE LABELS

Private labels are brands created by retailers.The products sold under these brands are

comparable in quality to the more popularbranded products, though very often they arepriced lower than the top end brands. The riseof private labels can be attributed to retailerssuch as Pantaloon, Big Bazaar, Shoppers' Stopand Vishal Megamart who were some of the firstfew companies to put forward these brands.

The primary reason a consumer buys a privatelabel is usually price, but with improving qualityof the products as well as labels and marketing,consumers tend to stick with these productsrather than going back to branded labels. Mostprivate label products are priced 5-20% lowerthan regular items.

Globally, private label brands contribute to 17percent of retail sales with a growth of 5 percentper annum. International Retailers like Wal-Mart of USA and Tesco of UK have 40 percentand 55 percent own label brands representationin their stores, respectively.(see Graph 3).

Graph 2: Indian Apparel Industry SegmentsMarket Share

Graph 3: Private Label Penetrations

Source: Images Retail Report 2009

In India there is an increasing trend towardsacceptance of private label brands and thus theirpenetration is on the rise especially in theapparel, consumer durables, home care andFMCG segments. Overall, in India, private labelsconstitute 10% of the organized retail productmix and by 2012 it will increase to 13%. (seeGraph 4).

3.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCHOBJECTIVES

3.1 Review

Private Label Brands are defined as the“products owned and branded by theorganizations whose primary objective is

Krishna, Determinants of Consumer ......


Graph 4 Private Label Penetrations India

Source: AC Nielson Report

distribution rather than production” (Schutte,1969). PLBs, also called own labels or storebrands can also be defined as “any of productsover which a retailer has exercised total sourcingand market control” (Mintel, 2005a, b).

The Private Label Manufacturers’ Association(PLMA) defines PLBs as: “PLBs are Private labelproducts that encompass all merchandise soldunder a retailer’s brand. That PLB can be theretailer’s own name or a name createdexclusively by that retailer. In few cases, aretailer may belong to a wholesale group thatowns the brands that are available only to themembers of that group.

The development of PLBs affects competitionbetween retailers because PLBs become anadditional way of differentiating betweenretailers (Berges-Sennou, Bontems, andRequillart 2004).

The rise of national advertising mademanufacturers’ brands or national brands (NBs)to become widely recognized by consumers whobecame loyal to them. Over the time,manufacturers exercised greater influence overthe demand for their products and secured abetter bargaining position by dealing withretailers (Grant 1987). Retailers saw theirmargins drastically reduced, and their power todetermine the prices to consumers depreciated(Borden 1967).

In the Indian retail private label brands are inthe danger of facing the ‘Double Jeopardy’ effect(Goodhardt, Ehrenberg and Chatfield 1984)where the small brands suffer twice – they havefewer customers and these customers buy thebrand less often (Ehrenberg, Goodhardt andBarwise, 1990). This pattern has been observedin a variety of markets, in a variety of conditions(different lengths of time, different points intime) and in various contexts (Pare, Dawes andDriesener 2006).

The main determining factors affectingconsumer buying behavior are: quality, price,trust, availability of alternative packaging,frequent advertising, sales promotions,imitations, availability, brand image, prestige,freshness and habits (Dolekoglu et al. 2008),Packaging (Wells, Farley, Armstrong 2007),perceived risk (Batra & Sinha 2000; Bettman,1973; Dunn et al., 1986; Richardson Jain, & Dick1996; Shannon and Mandhachitra 2005), priceconsciuosness, price-quality association (Batraand Sinha 2000), advertising-pricing (Karrayand Martin-Herran 2008), price, quality, riskperceiption (Ashok Kumar and Gopal 2009),price and quality (Ailawadi, Pauwels andSteenkamp 2008)

3.2 GAP Analysis

As shown above in the review of literature ofprevious studies, there are many determiningfactors towards purchasing the private labels,but there is no specific study to identifydeterminants for private label apparel purchase.So in regard to the gaps existing in the research,the current study aims at understanding thedetermining factors for the purchase of privatelabel apparel brands.

3.3 Problem Statement

Understanding and finding out the determinantfactors affecting the consumer buying behaviortowards private label apparel.

47

3.4 Research Objectives

1. To understand the various factors affectingconsumer buying behavior towards privatelabel brands in apparel retail,

2. To determine the factors affecting consumerbuying behavior towards private labelbrands in apparel retail, and

3. To find out in particular the effect ofoccupation and social class of consumer oncustomer choice of design for private labelapparel.

4.0 HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH METHODS

4.1 Hypotheses for the Study

The null hypotheses for the study are formulatedas follows:

Null Hypothesis 1: All the Attributes areuncorrelated with the population.

Null Hypothesis 2: The comfort offered by theprivate label apparel is not dependent on theoccupation of the consumer.

Null Hypothesis 3: The durability of the privatelabel apparel is not dependent on the occupation ofthe consumer.

Null Hypothesis 4: The comfort offered by theprivate label apparel is not dependent on the socialclass of the consumer.

Null Hypothesis 5: The durability of the privatelabel apparel is not dependent on the social class ofthe consumer.

4.2 Research Design

Exploratory Study

An exploratory study was conducted to identifythe statement of the problem, by interacting withconsumers in order to know their interest inprivate label apparel. There are many factorsaffecting the consumer buying behavior, butonly few of them have a greater impact on theconsumer. Simple random sampling was usedand the sample size was 200 consumers at major

apparel retail outlets in Visakhapatnam city. Aquestionnaire was used to obtain the data. FactorAnalysis was used in the study. A Five PointSemantic Differential Scale was also used in thestudy as a rating tool with value 1 being Poorand 5 being Excellent.

4.3 Pilot Study-Pre Testing

A pilot study was initially conducted for 50respondents to know the determinants ofconsumer buying behaviour towards privatelabel branded apparel. The respondents wereasked to rate 14 variables in terms of the extentthat these variables affect their buying behaviortowards private label apparel. A Five PointSemantic Differential Scale was used in thestudy as a rating tool with value 1 being Poorand 5 being Excellent. After the Pilot Study wasconducted it was reviewed and it was found thatout of the 14 variables 4 variables were droppedand the research was confined to only 10variables.

A total of 230 questionnaires were collected andout of these, 30 were dropped due to incompletedata. Finally, 200 questionnaires were used andprocessed for analysis.

4.4 Data Collection

Primary data were collected by survey methodthrough a structured questionnaire. All theconsumers with different occupations and agegroups who purchased private label apparelwere directly interacted with the retail outletsand first hand data were obtained from them.

4.5 Data Analysis Methods

Factor analysis was used as the main dataanalysis method. Along with this methodPearson’s Chi-Square Test was also used forhypothesis testing. All the tests were conductedusing SPSS version 15.0.

4.6 Factor Analysis

The study explores the important determiningfactors affecting consumer buying behaviour in



purchasing private label apparel and hence thefollowing 10 variables (as shown in table 2) wereselected and Principal Factor Analysis wasconducted. The respondents were asked to ratethese 10 variables on the extent, they think thatthese variables affect their buying behaviourtowards private label apparel.

Table 2: Determinants of Consumer Buying Behaviour

S.No Variable Name

1 Brand Awareness of Store

2 Brand Image of Store

3 Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand

4 Brand Image of Private Label Brand

5 Cheaper Price

6 Discounts

7 Comfort

8 Durability

9 Ambience

10 Visual Merchandising

The factors extracted should account for at least60% of variance (factors with eigen values > 1)(Boyd et al., 1985: and Malhotra, 2004). TheKaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of samplingadequacy is to be used to measure the

appropriateness of the factor model. Valuesbelow 0.5 imply that the factor analysis may notbe appropriate (Malhotra, 2004). The Barlett’sTest of Sphericity (used to examine thehypothesis that the variables are uncorrelatedin the population) should be significant whichimplies that the correlation matrix is notorthogonal, and then it would be appropriatefor factoring.

5.0 DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

5.1 Hypothesis 1: Correlation among theattributes

Null Hypothesis: All the Attributes are uncorrelatedwith the population.

Initially the factor analysis was conducted usingprincipal component analysis method in SPSSwindows. As the results were unsatisfactory,and the variable 3 and variable 4 did not fitminimum level criteria, they were removedfrom the study and again factor analysis wasconducted with 8 variables and these gave a highKMO score.

The KMO and Bartlett’s test value is high at 0.806which was adequate to conduct factor analysis.(see table 3)

Table 3: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .806

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2120.448

Df 28

Sig. .000

After KMO-Bartlett's Test the two Variables;Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand andBrand Image of Private Label Brand wereremoved as they did not fit the test. Finally 8variables were selected for factor analysis (seetable 4). Hence the Null Hypothesis that thefactors are uncorrelated with the population isrejected and the alternate hypothesis that theattributes are correlated with the population isaccepted.

Then Factor Analysis was conducted to find outthe main determinants of consumer buyingbehavior towards private label brands with theeight variables (see Table 4). Principal componentanalysis was employed for extracting the factors.The correlation values of the eight variablesagainst each other are shown in the Table 5. TheTable 6 shows the communalities of the variables.Communality of a variable is the row sum ofsquared factor loadings. The communalities

Table 2: Determinants of Consumer BuyingBehaviour

49

show amount of variance in a variable that isaccounted for by the four factors taken together.The size of the communality is a useful indexfor assessing how much variance accounted bythe factor solution. Large communalities showthat a substantial portion of the variance in a

Table 4: Final Variables List

variable is accounted for by the factors. It is seenthat 4 factors were extracted with highpercentage i.e., 95.401% of the total variance asshown in the Table 7. The results of componentmatrix and rotated component matrix are shownin Tables 8 and 9 respectively.

S.No Variable Name

1 Brand Awareness of Store

2 Brand Image of Store

3 Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand

4 Brand Image of Private Label Brand

5 Cheaper Price

6 Discounts

7 Comfort

8 Durability

Table 5: Correlation Matrix

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 1 0.775 0.842 0.758 0.904 0.717 0.714 0.745

2 0.775 1 0.592 0.739 0.715 0.724 0.905 0.899

3 0.842 0.592 1 0.802 0.69 0.429 0.655 0.488

4 0.758 0.739 0.802 1 0.645 0.535 0.816 0.609

5 0.904 0.715 0.69 0.645 1 0.69 0.632 0.707

6 0.717 0.724 0.429 0.535 0.69 1 0.655 0.813

7 0.714 0.905 0.655 0.816 0.632 0.655 1 0.745

8 0.745 0.899 0.488 0.609 0.707 0.813 0.745 1

Table 6: Communalities

Initial Extraction

Brand Awareness of Store 1.000 .968 Brand Image of Store 1.000 .980

Cheaper Price 1.000 .943

Discounts 1.000 .933

Comfort 1.000 .941

Durability 1.000 .995

Ambience 1.000 .941

Visual Merchandising 1.000 .931

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.



Table 7: Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance

Cumulative %

Total % of Variance

Cumulative %

Total % of Variance

Cumulative %

1 6.002 75.024 75.024 6.002 75.024 75.024 2.323 29.043 29.043

2 .839 10.482 85.506 .839 10.482 85.506 2.197 27.468 56.511

3 .557 6.957 92.463 .557 6.957 92.463 1.805 22.558 79.069

4 .235 2.938 95.401 .235 2.938 95.401 1.307 16.332 95.401

5 .160 1.999 97.400

6 .130 1.628 99.028

7 .049 .606 99.634

8 .029 .366 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 8: Component Matrix(a)

Component 1 2 3 4

Brand Awareness of Store .932 .155 .272 -.033

Brand Image of Store .920 -.207 -.232 -.190 Cheaper Price .791 .555 .075 .049 Discounts .852 .332 -.265 .162 Comfort .865 .046 .404 -.167 Durability .802 -.437 .183 .356 Ambience .886 -.020 -.394 -.009 Visual Merchandising .870 -.399 -.025 -.120 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 4 components extracted.

Table 9: Rotated Component Matrix (a)

Component

1 2 3 4

Brand Awareness of Store .331 .516 .695 .331

Brand Image of Store .824 .340 .331 .274

Cheaper Price .150 .814 .502 .072

Discounts .418 .823 .197 .204

Comfort .325 .319 .802 .301

Durability .392 .182 .310 .844

Ambience .734 .566 .142 .248

Visual Merchandising .735 .140 .402 .459

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Vari max with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 12 iterations.

51

Table 10: Naming of the Factors

Naming of the Factors

Factors were named and their constituent variables are given below (see table 10)

5.2 Demographic factors’ influence on thechoice of design for the private label apparel:

It is very important to know whether thedemographic factors like occupation and thesocial class of the consumer affect the consumerbuying behavior and as the private label apparelis mainly influenced by the choice of its design,the effect of demographic factors on the choiceof design is tested. The four variablesoccupation, social class, comfort and durabilityare cross tested for their interdependency.

Hypothesis 2

Null Hypothesis: The comfort offered by the Privatelabel apparel is not dependent on the occupation ofthe consumer.

The survey Tables 11 a and 11 b and calculationsshow that the null hypothesis that the comfortoffered by the Private label apparel isindependent of the Occupation of the consumercannot be rejected. Hence, the alternativehypothesis cannot be proved.

Comfort Offered Total

Good Very Good Excellent Good

Occupation Employee 0 60 40 100

Business 40 60 0 100

Total 40 120 40 200

Table 11 a: Occupation Comfort Cross Tabulation Count

Table 11 b: Chi-Square Tests

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 80.000(a) 2 .000

Likelihood Ratio 110.904 2 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association 79.600 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 200

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 20.00.


Factor Number Name of the Factor Variables

1

Brand Image Brand awareness of the store Brand Image of Store

2

Sales Promotion Offers Cheaper Price

Discounts

3

Design

Comfort

Durability

4

Store Atmospherics

Ambience

Visual Merchandising


Hypothesis 3

Null Hypothesis: The durability of the Private labelapparel is not dependent on the Occupation of theconsumer.

The survey Tables 12 a and 12 b and calculations

show that the null hypothesis that the durabilityof the Private label apparel is independent ofthe Occupation of the consumer cannot berejected. Hence the alternative hypothesis cannot be proved.

Table 12 a: Occupation Durability Cross Tabulation Count

Durability Total

Bad Good Bad

Occupation Employee 40 60 100

Business 100 0 100

Total 140 60 200


Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 85.714(b) 1 .000

Continuity Correction(a) 82.881 1 .000


Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000

Linear-by-Linear Association

85.286 1 .000


Computed only for a 2x2 table 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 30.00.

Hypothesis 4

Null Hypothesis: The comfort offered by the Privatelabel apparel is not dependent on the Social Class ofthe consumer.

The survey Tables 13 a & 13 b and calculations

show that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected

at the given conditions and hence the alternative

hypothesis that the comfort offered by the

private label apparel is dependent of the Social

class of the consumer cannot be accepted.

Table 13 a: Social Class Comfort Cross Tabulation Count

Comfort Total

Good Very Good Excellent Good

Social Class

Middle Class 0 60 40 100

Upper Middle Class 0 60 0 60

Upper Class 40 0 0 40

Total 40 120 40 200

53



Pearson Chi-Square 240.000(a) 4 .000


Linear-by-Linear Association 130.492 1 .000


0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.00.

Hypothesis 5

Null Hypothesis: The durability of the Private labelapparel is not dependent on the Social Class of theconsumer.

The survey tables 14 a & 14 b and calculations

show that the null hypothesis is not rejected atthe given conditions and hence the alternativehypothesis that the durability of the private labelapparel is dependent of the social class of theconsumer cannot be accepted.

Table 14 a: Social Class Durability Cross Tabulation Count

Durability Total

Bad Good Bad

Social Class

Middle Class 40 60 100

Upper Middle Class 60 0 60

Upper Class 40 0 40

Total 140 60 200



Pearson Chi-Square 85.714(a) 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 109.743 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 68.508 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 200

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.00

5.3 Findings

1) From the study it was found out that thebuying behaviour of the consumers whopurchase private label apparel brands aremainly affected by several variables like,brand awareness of store, brand image ofstore, cheaper price, discounts, comfort,durability, ambience and visualmerchandising. After these variables wereanalyzed through factor analysis they were

classified under the following four factors:1) Brand Image, 2) Sales Promotion offers,3) Design and 4) Store Atmospherics.

2) From the study it was found that thecomfort offered by the private label apparelbrand is independent of the occupation ofthe consumers who purchase private labelapparel brand.

3) From the study it was found that thedurability of the Private label apparel is



independent of the occupation of theconsumer consumers who purchase privatelabel apparel brand.

4) From the study it was found out that thecomfort offered by the Private label apparelis independent of the social class of theconsumers who purchase private labelapparel brand.

5) From the study it was found out that thedurability of the Private label apparel isindependent of the social class of theconsumers who purchase private labelapparel brand

6) The above findings from 2 to 5 show thatthe customer choice of design of the privatelabel apparel is independent ofdemographic factors of the consumers whopurchase label apparel brands.

6.0 CONCLUSION

This study was intended to find out factorsrelated to private level brands affecting theconsumer buying decisions. It was also intendedto specifically study the effect of demographicfactors such as social class of consumer andoccupation of the consumer on the demand forprivate level brands through durability andcomfort offered by such brands. It was foundthat four factors namely brand image, salespromotion offers, design and store atmosphericwere the primary factors affecting consumerpreferences for private level brands.

Demographic factors namely occupation of theconsumer and social class of the consumer hasno effect on the consumer behaviour in choosingprivate levels brands. These findings are likelyto help brand mangers of private level brandsin the apparel sector in designing themanufacturing of their products as well as intheir marketing strategies.

REFERENCES

A.T. Kearney, (2008), “Emerging Opportunities forGlobal Retailers-The 2008 Global RetailDevelopment Index”.-Report, pp.16-18.

Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. and Gedenk, K. (2001)‘Pursuing the value conscious consumers: Storebrands versus national brand promotions’, JournalofMarketing, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 71–89.

Ailawadi, K.L., Pauwels, K. and Steenkamp, E.M. (2008),“Private-label Use and Store Loyalty,” 72(November), pp 19-30.

Ashokkumar, S. and Gopal, S. (2009), “Diffusion ofInnovation in Private Labels in Food Products,” TheICFAI University Journal of Brand Management,6(1), pp 35-56.

Batra, R., Sinha, I. (2000), Consumer-level factorsmoderating the success of private label brands.Journal of Retailing 76 (2), pp175-191.

Berges-Sennou, F., Bontems, P. and Requillart, V (2004),“The Economics of Private Labels: A Survey ofLiterature,”

Bettman, J.R., (1973). Perceived risk and its components:A model and empirical test. JMR, Journal ofMarketing Research (pre- 1986) 10 (2), 184-190.

Borden, Neil H. (1967), “OsEfeitos Economicos daPropaganda,” Revista de Administragdo deEmpresas, 24 (7), 149-185.

Burger, P.C. and Schott, B.(1972). “Can Private BrandBuyers Be Identified?” Journal of MarketingResearch, 9, pp 219- 212.

Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D., Netemeyer, R. and Garretson,J. (1998) ‘A scale for measuring attitude towardprivate label products and an examination of itspsychological and behavioral correlates’, Academyof Marketing Science,26,(4), Fall, pp. 293–306.

Chavadi, Chandan and Kokatnur, Shilpa (2008), “Doprivate brands result in store loyalty? An empiricalstudy in Bangalore”, The Icfai University Journalof Marketing Management, 7(3), pp 6-33

Chernatony, Leslie (1989), “The Impact of the ChangedBalance of Power from Manufacturer to Retailer inthe UK Packaged groceries market,” in Retail inMarketing Channels, ed. Luca

Cohen, J.B., Fishben, M. and Ahtola, O.T. (1972), “Thenature and uses of expectancy-value models in

55

consumer attitude research,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 9(November), pp 456-460.

Corstjens, M. and Lal, R. (2000), “Building store loyaltythrough store brands,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 37 (August), pp 281-291.

Cunningham, Isabella C.M.; Hardy, Andrew P., andImperia, Giovanna. (1982), “Generic Brands VersusNational Brands and Store Brands,” Journal ofAdvertising Research, 22, (Oct/Nov), pp 25-32

Dolekoglu, C.O., Albayrak, M., Kara, A. and Keskin, G.(2008), “Analysis of Consumer Perceptions andPreferences of Store Brands Versus National Brands:An Exploratory Study in an Emerging Market”,Journal of Euromarketing, 17(2), pp 109-125.

Dunn, M.G., Murphy, P.E., Skelly, G.U., (1986). ResearchNote: The Influence of Perceived Risk on BrandPreference for Supermarket Products. Journal ofRetailing 62 (2), 204-216.

Ehrenberg, A. S. C., Goodhardt, G. J., Barwise, T. P.(1990). Double Jeopardy Revisited. Journal ofMarketing, 54 (July), 82-91.

Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998) ‘Brand equity as asignaling phenomenon’, Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 7(2), pp. 131–157.

Fontenelle, S.M (1996), “Private labels and consumerbenefits- The Brazilian Experience”, Advances inConsumer Research, 23, pp 97-103.

Frank, R.E. and Boyd, H.W. (1965). “Are Private-BrandProne Grocery Customers Really Different?”Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 4. pp 27-35.

Goodhardt, G. J., Ehrenberg, A. S. C., Chatfield, C. (1984).The Dirichlet: A Comprehensive Model of BuyingBehaviour. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,147 (part 5), 621-655.

Grant, Robert M. (1987), “Manufacturer-RetailerRelations: The Shifting Balance of Power,” inBusiness Strategy and Retailing,” ed. GerryJohnson, Chichester: John Wiley& Sons, p.43-58.

Hoch, S. and Banerji, S. (1993) ‘When do private labelssucceed?’, Sloan Management

Hofestede, G. (1980). Cultural Consequences:International Differences in Work-Related Values.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Karray, S. and Martin-Herran, G.(2008), “ Investigatingthe relationship between advertising and pricing

in a channel with private label offering: a theoreticmodel”, Review of Marketing Science, 6, pp 1-37.

Mieres, C. G., Martin, A. M. D., and Gutierrez, J. A. T.(2006). Antecedents of the difference in perceived riskbetween store brands and national brands.EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 40(1/2), pp 61-82.

Mintel (2005a), Chilled Desserts–UK, MintelInternational Group Limited, London.

Mintel (2005b), Own-label Food& Drink – UK, MintelInternational Group Limited,London.

Narasimhan, C. and Wilcox, R. (1998) ‘Private labels andthe channel relationship:A crosscategory analysis’,Journal of Business, 71(4), pp. 573–600.

Pare, V.,Dawes.J.,Drisener, C. (2006). Double Jeopardydeviations for small and medium share brands -how frequent and how persistent? Proceedings ofthe Australian & New Zealand MarketingAcademy Conference. Brisbane.

Pellegrini and Reddy K. Srinivas, London: Routledge,pp 258- 273

Review, 34(4), pp. 57–67.

Richardson, P.S., Jain, A.K., Dick, A., (1996). Householdstore brand proneness: A framework. Journal ofRetailing 72 (2), pp159-185.

Saitz, Greg (2004), “Retailers improve quality of theirown brands, while increasing profit margin,” NewJersey Star Ledger, August 17, p B1.

Schutte, T. F. (1969). The semantics of branding. Journalof Marketing, 33, pp5-11.

Sethuraman, R. (1992) ‘Understanding cross-categorydifferences in private label shares of groceryproducts’, Marketing Science Institute, Report No.92–128, Cambridge, UK.

Shannon, R. and Mandhachitara,R. (2005),Private-labelgrocery shopping attitudes and behaviour: A cross-cultural study, Brand Management, 12(6), pp 461-474.

Stanley, John (2002), “Brands vs Private-labels,” AboutRetailing Industry Newsletter,www.retailingindustry.about.com January 2.

Wells, L.E., Farley, H. and Armstrong, G.A (2007), “Theimportance of packaging design for own-label foodbrands,” International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, 35(9), pp 677-690.



APPENDIX IQUESTIONNAIRE

1) Name ______________________________________

2) Age

1) Below 152) 15 to 25 3) 25 to 40 4) above 40

3) Occuupation

1) Employee 2) Business

4) Social Class

1) Middle Class 2) Upper Middle Class 3) Upper Class

5) Rate the following variables whether how far they affect your buying decisions on a 5 pointscale where value 1 being poor and value 5 being excellent

APPENDIX IISample Size collected from various Organized Retail Stores in Visakhapatnam

Sl.No. Retail Store Sample Size

1 Big Bazaar 60

2 RPG Spencers 50

3 Vizag Central 60

4 Reliance Trends 60

Private Label Apparel Brands of Various Retail Stores in Visakhapatnam

S.No Variable Name 1 Brand Awareness of Store 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor 2 Brand Image of Store 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor 3 Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor 4 Brand Image of Private Label Brand 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor 5 Cheaper Price 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor 6 Discounts 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor 7 Comfort 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor 8 Durability 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor

Sl.No. Retail Store Company/Group Private Label Apparel Brands

1 Big Bazaar PRIL-Future Group DJ&C, Knighthood, John Miller, Lombard, Bare

2 Vizag Central PRIL-Future Group Pantaloons, Levi’s, Bare Leisure, Bare Denim, Annabelle, Akkriti, etc

3 RPG Spencers RPG Asankhya, Puddlez, Detailz, Island Monks

4 Reliance Trends Reliance DNMX, Sparsh, Panda, Frendz.

Copyright of Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management is the property of Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of

Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.

retail emperical study

Documents