“Brand Promotion Antecedents, Customer Attitudes, and Brand Preference in Egyptian Hyper-Markets”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“Brand promotion antecedents, customer attitudes, and brand preference in Egyptian hyper-markets” AUTHORS Ahmed Yehia Ebeid ARTICLE INFO Ahmed Yehia Ebeid (2013). Brand promotion antecedents, customer attitudes, and brand preference in Egyptian hyper-markets. Innovative Marketing , 9(3) RELEASED ON Friday, 27 December 2013 JOURNAL "Innovative Marketing " FOUNDER LLC “Consulting Publishing Company “Business Perspectives” NUMBER OF REFERENCES NUMBER OF FIGURES NUMBER OF TABLES 0 0 0 © The author(s) 2021. This publication is an open access article. businessperspectives.org Innovative Marketing, Volume 9, Issue 3, 2013 Ahmed Yehia Ebeid (Egypt) Brand promotion antecedents, customer attitudes, and brand preference in Egyptian hyper-markets Abstract This study aimed to investigate the potential relationship between brand promotion (built on its antecedents) and brand preference. The results indicated that brand loyalty, value consciousness, store loyalty, and smart shopper self- perception increased the attitude toward brand promotion. In addition, the study demonstrated that brand promotion increased consumer brand preference. These findings suggested that the use of promotions on the basis of their antecedents (i.e. brand loyalty, value consciousness, store loyalty, and smart shopper self-perception) would enhance brand preference. Accordingly, the study provided evidence against the idea that brand promotion had a negative effect on brand preference. Keywords: shoppers’ characteristics, brand promotion, brand preference, customer attitude. Introduction brand preference. Firstly, this study seeks to provide empirical evidence of the relation- According to Steenkamp and Dekimpe (1997) it is ships between the different variables of the proposed more important to own markets than to own factories. model: namely, brand promotion antecedents; value This can be achieved by holding a competitive consciousness (VC); smart shopper self-perception advantage which helps an organization to continue in (SP); brand loyalty (BL); store loyalty (SL); and the business environment. Manzur et al. (2011) stated customers’ brand promotion attitudes (BA). Secondly, that one of the most influential factors, to holding a it examines the role of brand promotion attitudes (BA) competitive advantage, was a brand which could be in reinforcing brand preference (BP). defined either as a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of these. In doing so, these The following section reviews different theories and identified the products or services of one seller or studies on VC, SP, BL, SL, BA, BP in order to group of sellers and differentiated them from those of develop the research hypotheses. Then, the research their competitors (Kotler and Armstrong, 2008). method is presented, followed by the data analysis and the findings. Finally, there is a discussion of the In fact, in the marketing domain, many researchers implications of the results; the research limitations; investigated the importance of brand and addressed a presentation of the recommendations for further different issues related to brand concept such as research. brand loyalty (e.g. Allender, Richards, 2012; Sanjay et al., 2012; Jones, Kim, 2011); brand equity (e.g. 1. Literature review Huang and Sarigollu, 2012; Dwivedi et al., 2012; The consumers’ responses, relating to promotions, Kim and Ko, 2012), and brand promotion (e.g. were an attractive issue for marketing researchers. The Manzur et al., 2011; Garretson et al., 2002; previous work by Ailawadi et al. (2001), Garretson et Ailawadi et al., 2001). al. (2002), and Manzur et al. (2011) categorized the In fact, many researchers examined the effect of the antecedents of consumer promotion attitudes into: antecedents of brand promotion (e.g. value conscious- price-related variables (e.g. value consciousness) and ness; smart shopper self-perception) on customer non-price-related variables (e.g. loyalty). attitudes toward brand promotion (Manzur et al., 2011; The following section deals with the different Garretson et al., 2002). In the same vein, others were antecedents and the consequences included in the interested in conducting the relationship between model presented in this study. promotions and brand preference, long-term marketing decision, brand evaluation, brand switching (e.g. Del 1.1. Value consciousness. According to Thaler Vecchio et al., 2006; Keller, 1993; Davis et al., 1992; (1985) the customer’s consciousness of the product’s Dodson et al., 1978). In the best of the author`s value represents a stronger psychological drive than knowledge, there was limited research which utility. Recently, the term, value consciousness was investigated the combined effect of both the defined as “a concern for paying low prices, subject antecedents and consequences of promotion. This to some quality constraint” (Pillai & Kumar, 2012). Lichtenstein et al. (1990, p. 56) interpreted quality paper attempts to fill the previous gap. It proposes a constraint when they stated “the quality of the model which includes shoppers’ characteristics; product may exceed the consumer’s specific quality customer attitudes toward brand promotions; and requirements, therefore the highest value for the particular consumer is viewed as the lowest priced Ahmed Yehia Ebeid, 2013. product that meets his or her specific quality 27 Innovative Marketing, Volume 9, Issue 3, 2013 requirements”. The value consciousness would be seen (DelVecchio et al., 2006), its effectiveness raises as a comparison between the quality of the product and considerable debate (Kwok & Uncles, 2005). In this its price (Manzur et al., 2011; Lichtenstein et al., respect, a fundamental consideration is how to get the 1993). Sethuraman and Cole’s (1999) study applied to consumer to respond to promotions (Chandon et al., the grocery products (the same interest of this study). It 2000). It is worth mentioning that there is limited revealed that such a comparison might lead the agreement on the benefits of promotions. Previous consumer to afford price premiums. In order to ensure research reffered that the main result of promotions the importance of value consciousness nowadays, was consumer stockpiling of products which could be Nielsen (2011) stated that, since the recent economic defined as purchasing additional quantities and slowdown in developed markets, shopper value accelerating the timing of purchases (Ailawadi et al., consciousness was observed more than ever. 2005). Based on the economic-versus-hedonic perspe- 1.2. Smart shopper self-perception. This term was ctive, promotions provide not only economic but, also, defined as “an ego-based construct that relates to the hedonic benefits such as exploration and self- shopper’s need to achieve internal compensation by expression (Ailawadi et al., 2001). Based on the obtaining price savings through the purchase” (Manzur customer-promotion-experience, promotion benefits et al., 2011, p. 287). Smart shoppers are concerned may be seen as the value which the consumer usually with saving money (Garretson et al., 2002), perceives, whether by exposure, namely, by realizing and they would be entertained when they purchase the brand promotion or by usage, i.e., buying the brand products offered them lower than normal prices which is being promoted (Chandon et al., 2000). (Chandon et al., 2000). 1.6. Brand preference. In order to distinguish 1.3. Brand loyalty. According to Jacoby and Kyner between attitudes and preferences, Kardes et al. (2006, (1973, p. 2) brand loyalty would be defined as “the p. 137) stated that “attitudes are overall evaluations of biased (i.e., nonrandom), behavioral response (i.e., a single target product, whereas preferences are purchase), expressed over time, by some decision- relative evaluations that require the comparison of a making unit, with respect to one or more alternative target product to competing brands”. This would lead brands out of a set of such brands, and is a function of us to infer that the input of brand preference is the psychological (decision-making, evaluative) process- difference(s) which a brand holds relative to other ses”. Olive (1999, p. 33) argued that “It will not suffice competing ones. The differentiation between brands is to have customers that are merely satisfied”. The a very important issue in the marketing domain. Levy consumers, who show loyalty to specific companies, (1959) supported this idea by stating that, if there was are less willing to change the brand which they no real difference between brand (x) and other purchase and, unlike non-loyal consumers, more likely competing brands, such a brand would be out of to pay full price for their favourite brands (Garretson, business. In other words, if a certain brand does not et al., 2002). have a reason to be preferred, it does not last. At this 1.4. Store loyalty. In this context, store loyalty can be point, the question is: how to differentiate? As seen as the most important variable for the retailer, explained in the next section, this research aimed to (Rabbanee et al., 2012). Bloemer and Schroder (2002, answer this question by investigating the potential p. 71) defined store loyalty as the “biased (i.e. non- relationship between brand promotion and brand random) behavioral response, expressed over time, by preference. some decision making unit, with respect to one store 2. Hypotheses out of a set of stores, which is a function of psychological (decision-making and evaluative) 2.1. Value consciousness and customer attitudes