Master Thesis

“Each cultural background has it’s own grocery retail format”

Student: Jihane Naji Student Number: 5802822 Date: 5 February 2014 (Final Version) First Supervisor: Drs. A.C.J. Meulemans Second Supervisor: Prof. Dr. J.H.J.P Tettero

Preface ‘Hakuna matata’.

I never thought that I could make it this far. I never dreamed that I could make the switch to economics after gaining my degree in molecular biology. Hard work, faith, belief in yourself, vision, determination, and dedication are the keywords to achieve anything what you ever want to accomplish in life. I shall be honest that it wasn’t easy at all, especially the fear of not be able to finish on time or whether my subject is well defined to receive an excellent grade, choked me up in a way that I never expected. In the end when the going gets tough the tough kept me going.. I want to thank first of all God for giving me the strength, enlightment and power, where shall I be without thou? Also I am very grateful with the beautiful people surrounding me giving me lots of energy, laughter and happiness to continue and never stop. Especially, the perfect guidance of Drs.Ing.Toon Meulemans helped me where I am now, finished and happy. Oh yeah, I mustn’t forget that music, my soul healer, also helped me a lot to keep on writing whilst singing. During my internship for the the Netherlands Consulate General in New York someone ever told me that a wise woman will make more opportunities than she finds.. Nevertheless I say we are all inventors, each sailing out on a voyage of discovery, each guided by a private chart, of which there is no duplicate. The world is all gates, all opportunities. And if you do not hope, you will not find what is beyond your hopes…Now I have that song in my mind of the rock band ‘Journey’; don’t stop believing, hold on to the future… In the end all things are possible for those who just believe..

2

Abstract Although the dynamics in the grocery retail business has decreased, doesn’t mean that they all use the same positioning strategy. In this master thesis the preferences of a culture category to certain grocery retail formats (full service, service discount and hard discounters) by questioning which driver of Customer Equity is important for each culture category are researched. First, the Customer Equity concept of Rust, Lemon and Zeithmal (2000, p. 57) is researched followed by examination of the 5 cultural dimensions of Hofstede (2001, p. 24). In this study we used the survey strategy by sending out questionnaires via email and social media. Factor Analysis was conducted to identify dimensions of Customer Equity and its constructs. Principal Component Analysis with subsequent rotation (Varimax) was conducted on all constructs of the questionnaire. Constructs with a loading below 0,6 and eigenvalues below 1 were excluded from further analysis. The results showed that there are no significant differences between the choice of a grocery retail format and a culture category. Therefore is chosen to continue this research only with the format of Albert Heijn (full service). The only two culture categories who were eligible for data analysis in this research are Dutch and Moroccans. Each of these remaining two culture categories valued the grocery retail format Albert Heijn differently. The overall score of Customer Equity for Albert Heijn on a 5 point Likert-scale for the Dutch customers is lower (3,87) than the Moroccan customers (4,20). This means that Moroccan customers of Albert Heijn value this grocery retailer more or better than its Dutch customers. The hard part of this thesis was to link these outcomes with the dimensions of Hofstede to gain an alternative explanation. Unfortunately, we didn’t raise any questions concerning the relationship between Hofstede’s dimensions and Customer Equity; therefore it was hard to give an alternative explanation concerning the dimensions of Hofstede. This thesis presents a study on an aggregate level as well as a more practical analysis on a level of a retailer. We get additional insights between grocery retail formats and given cultural dimensions. Overall, this study contributes to the literature in general as well as practical issues to optimize a retailer’s grocery format.

3

Table of contents

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 6 1.2 Problem statement…………………………………………………………………... 8 1.3 Research Question…...... 8 1.4 Structure of the thesis...... 9

Chapter 2 Theoretical framework 2.1 What is Culture? ...... 10 2.2 Cultural dimensions………………………………………………………………….. 11 2.3 Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions…………………………………………………….. 12 2.3.1 Individualism –Collectivism……………………………………………….. 13 2.3.2 Uncertainty avoidance…………………………………………………….. 14 2.3.3 Power distance…………………………………………………………….. 14 2.3.4 Masculinity-femininity……………………………………………………… 14 2.3.5 Long-term orientation……………………………………………………… 14 2.3.6 Indulgence versus Restraint……………………………………………… 15 2.4 Grocery retail formats classification………………………………………………... 15 2.5 The 8 P’s of services marketing……………………………………………………. 16 2.6 Customer Equity……………………………………………………………………… 18 2.6.1 Value Equity………………………………………………………………… 20 2.6.2 Brand Equity………………………………………………………………... 23 2.6.3 Retention Equity…………………………………………………………… 25 2.7 Conceptual model……………………………………………………………………. 28

Chapter 3 Research design 3.1 Grocery retail industry in the Netherlands…………………………………………. 30 3.1.1 Albert Heijn (full service format)………………………………………….. 32 3.1.2 Jumbo group (service discount format)………………………………….. 32 3.1.3 Lidl (hard discount format)………………………………………………... 33 3.1.4 Aldi (hard discount format)………………………………………………... 34 3.2 Research model (concept)………………………………………………………….. 35 3.3 Survey strategy…………………………………………………………………...... 36 3.4 Instrument & Sampling……………………………………………………………..... 36 3.4.1 Sampling…………………………………………………………...... …. 37 3.4.2 Variables ...……………………………………………………………...... 38 3.5 Questionnaire structure and design……………………………………………...… 38 3.6 Data analysis………………………………………………………………………..... 40

Chapter 4 Results 4.1 Sample characteristics………………………………………………………………. 41 4.2 Grocery retail choice per category…………………………………………………. 45 4.3 Reliability, Validity and conditions of Factor Analysis……………………………. 48 4.4 Factor analysis………………………………………………………...……………… 51 4.5 Differences between factors………………………………………………………… 57 4.6 Calculating Customer Equity Performance………………………………………... 58

4

Chapter 5 Conclusion 5.1 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..... 60 5.2 Discussion………………………………………….……………………………….... 61 5.3 Limitations and Future Research……………………………………….....……….. 63

References...... 65

Appendix A: Survey Rust, et al., (2000)...... 70

Appendix B: Survey Dwivedi et al., (2012)…...... 71

Appendix C: Questionnaire……...... 72

Appendix D: Reliability Analysis……………………………………………….…….. 79

Appendix E: SPSS output of Factor Analysis……………………………………... 80

Appendix F: SPSS output of Descriptives…………………...………………………. 96

Appendix G: SPSS output of the Means………………………………………...... 108

5

1.1 Introduction Shifts in consumer needs and shopping behavior, and a growing tendency for internationalization have changed the rules of the competitive game (Ahlert, Blut and Evanschitzky, 2006; Dawson, 2000; Lewis, Turcsik and Janoff, 2001). Since more and more grocery retailers are having the same products and the price differences are small, it is interesting to see how the top grocery retailers excel from each other. Especially with local specialty stores disappearing, the number of stores and the shop square meters keep increasing. Also long opening hours, demographical change, change of format retailing (like multi-outlet retailing or multi-format retailing) and technological developments in grocery retail (like RFID, self scanning) puts enormous pressures on profitability and budgets of a grocery retailer (Rabobank; cijfers & trends supermarkten, 2013) (Bolton, Venkatesh and Detra, 2006; Kaufman, 2000). In other words it becomes more challenging for grocery retailers to keep up with the customer needs in order to attract more customers and retain current ones and above all staying in all circumstances profitable. In order to keep a piece of the pie in the market, retailers have to respond to these shifts and trends. They face the challenge of not only improving the appeal of their offer to customers but also of increasing the efficiency of their operations to preserve profitability.

In the annual GfK (Growth from Knowledge) retail report 2012 it is stated that the food retail in the Netherlands is a vital branch. The total consumer spending in the Netherlands is € 278 billion in 2011 whereas € 55.5 billion is spend in the food sector (foodservice, grocery retailers and specialty stores) of which € 26.9 billion is spend only on grocery retailers. It is expected that the revenue growth of grocery retailing in 2013 will be approximately 2%. In the Dutch market, the grocery retailing faces intense competition and struggle for market shares. Continues search of innovation for grocery retailers plays an important role in retaining a share in the competitive market. It’s always a big challenge for each retailer to surprise and attract more and retain current customers. After the take-over of Super de Boer by Jumbo in 2009, Jumbo announced in November 2011 that they will take over the second largest supermarket chain in the Netherlands, ‘c1000’. However, this doesn’t mean that the c1000 stores will disappear, but that many of them will continue by carrying the name Jumbo. Nowadays the big players in the grocery retailing in the Netherlands are Albert Heijn

6

and other excellent domestic famous players such as c1000/Jumbo, PLUS etc. The international grocery retailers like Aldi and Lidl also join this heavy battle to get a piece of the market share (Distrifood marktaandelen, 2013). In general the retailers can be divided among six types: the full service retailer, neighbor super, the value-for-money retailer, the service discount retailer, the brand discount and the hard discount retailers (EFMI Business School, 2011 and 2013). Although the dynamics in the grocery retail business has decreased, doesn’t mean that they all use the same positioning strategy. In this research is it interesting to study what kind of format different grocery retailers use to stand out of competition. Also interesting is to know since we are living in a multicultural society what kind of format is appealing to those with a different background. For this, essential information can be gained by using the Customer Equity concept of Rust, Lemon and Zeithmal (2000, p. 57) combined with the Hofstede’s 5 cultural dimensions (2001). Geert Hofstede created five dimensions of cultural values and rated 53 countries on indices for each dimension, normalized to values of 0 to 100. His theory of cultural dimensions describes the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior. The five dimensions of Hofstede are; individualism-collectivism, Uncertainty avoidance, Power distance, Masculinity- femininity and the Long-term orientation. Research of Hofstede (2001) gives us insight into how other cultures work, and gives explanation of people’s attitudes towards different countries. Customer Equity is defined as ‘the total of the discounted lifetime value of all the firm’s customers and is according to Balan (2007) directly related with the viability and future performance of the company. The Customer Equity is based upon three drivers: Value Equity, Brand Equity and Retention Equity (Rust, Lemon and Zeithmal, 2000, p. 57). Every driver of the Customer Equity has a sub driver which influences the strength of each connection. When implemented in the right way and at the right time each of these drivers can increase the overall value of Customer Equity by giving a company a road map for effective strategy. The Customer Equity concept as well as the Hofstede framework will be further explained in the theoretical framework.

7

1.2 Problem statement According to numbers of the Dutch bureau for statistics (CBS, 2013), the Netherlands has an estimated population of 16.778,806 whereas 3.494,193 persons have a foreign background. Although 21% of the Dutch population has a foreign background I wonder whether this group differs from the autochthon group, in consumer evaluation. In other words do customers with different cultural backgrounds evaluate a certain supermarket differently? In today’s globalized business world it is important for a firm to understand the different cultures within countries. Many firms attempt to analyze their supermarkets, without first analyzing their customers. Customer Equity, like previously mentioned, is a perfect tool to evaluate the customer needs and their different cultures. That’s why research on Customer Equity has already become a hot subject in the marketing field. There are many studies conducted by marketing scholars on Customer Equity drivers, measurement and promotion however, the research results of what the influence is of a customer with a foreign background on Customer Equity drivers are exceptional.

1.3 Research question The research question for this thesis has been formulated as follows: “To what extent do different population groups prefer certain grocery retail formats and how can such retailer optimize this format?” In order to analyze the cultural background of the customer and to measure consumer evaluations in the grocery retail industry, the Customer Equity concept and the Hofstede’s framework are applied to answer this research question. The Customer Equity concept will be hereafter analyzed and explained. It will also become clear why this concept is a good approach to answer this research question. The grocery retail formats are as mentioned before, divided in six types, however in this research only the formats of Albert Heijn, Jumbo/c1000 and Lidl/Aldi will be explored by using the Customer Equity concept by Rust et al. (2001). The EFMI Business School (2011) stated in the report “Consumenten trends 2011” that the format of Albert Heijn is a full service format, Jumbo/C1000 has a service discount format and Lidl/Aldi a hard discount format. Since Jumbo took over c1000 in 2011 the format of Jumbo will be before the end of 2013 applied to all c1000 retailers (Distrifood, 2011). The classification of the grocery formats will be further explained in the theoretical framework (chapter 2).

8

In order to answer the main question a series of sub-questions will be answered: - What is Customer Equity and how can it be measured? - How to interpret the culture dimension of Hofstede? - What are the Hofstede’s cultural dimension scores of the participated respondents in this research? - What are the most important attributes according to the Customer Equity analysis of different culture groups for the three grocery retail formats? - What are the strategic positioning implications of the Customer Equity Analysis of different culture groups for the grocery retailers? Customers of grocery retailers, living in the Netherlands, are requested to complete an online survey. This survey consists of both demographic questions about personal information (like age, schooling, cultural background, marital status etc.) as questions about customers motives for shopping at a grocery retailer with a different format. With questions concerning cultures on the one hand and Customer Equity approaches on the other hand, we investigate whether there is a significant influence on the consumer’s choice for a certain grocery retail format.

1.4 Structure of the thesis To accomplish the objectives of this master thesis the structure of this report is organized as follows. This chapter is the introduction to the report and the executed research. In the next chapter, the theoretical framework will be presented. In this framework the five dimensions of Hofstede (2001), grocery retail format classification, 8 P’s of service marketing and Customer Equity concept will be comprehensively discussed. Over here we also present the extensive conceptual model. Hereafter, chapter three, we describe the research design followed by explaining the Dutch grocery retail business in general but also pinpoints the grocery retailers Jumbo/c1000, Albert Heijn, Lidl and Aldi. Also, in this chapter a final research model concept is outlined, the research method, survey development and data collection are further explained. The fourth chapter contains the analysis of the data, where the findings are comprehensively discussed, and the general findings are summarized. In the fifth chapter of this research, the conclusions, discussions and limitations are given, followed by the references.

9

2. Theoretical framework In this chapter the literature that has been studied will be comprehensively discussed. First, the cultural aspect in general is explained followed by the approach of Hofstede (2001). Paragraph 2.4 is continued by the classification of the grocery retail formats. Hereafter the 8P’s of service marketing are briefly argued to make clear that this approach is not relevant for this research. In paragraph 2.6 the Customer Equity theory by Rust et al. (2000) is reviewed. After the literature review, the conceptual model will be formulated in paragraph 2.7.

2.1 What is culture? Culture is a fuzzy concept. Although people know what it means, still there’s no one universal accepted definition. According to Olie (1995, p.128), is one of the earliest definition of culture given by Taylor (1871) as “the complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, custom and any other capabilities and habit acquired by man as a member of society”. Olie (1995, p. 128) also stated that culture is according to the anthropologist Robert Redfield (1948) a “shared understandings made manifest in art or artifact”. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (Olie 1995, p.128) made after finding 164 different culture definitions one comprehensive definition:

“Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and specially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning elements of further action.”

Matsumoto (1996) defines culture in short as the set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by a group of people, but different for each individual, communicated from one generation to the next”. In 2005 Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, and Gibson came with more or less the same definition by saying that culture is the total of “values, beliefs, norms and behavioral patterns of a national group. However in 1991 Hofstede defined culture in general as ‘the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another’ (Hofstede website, 2013). He further elaborated in his book that the mind stands for the head, heart, and hands (for thinking, feeling, and acting), with consequences for belief, attitudes, and skills (Hofstede, 2001, p.10). What personality is to an individual is culture to a human collectivity according to Hofstede. Usually the 10

word ‘culture’ is reserved for societies (operationalized as nations or as ethnic or regional groups within or across nations) (Hofstede, 2001, p. 10). According to Jones & Alony (2007) culture is not something that is easily acquired, it is a slow process of growing into a society. This includes:

• learning values (dominant beliefs and attitudes),

• partaking of rituals (collective activities),

• modeling against heroes (role models), and

• understanding symbols (myths, legends, dress, jargon, lingo…)

Hofstede (2010, p. 34) compares in his research cultural differences based on 70 countries. Although Hofstede is been criticize by academics, his observations and analyses provide scholars and practitioners highly valuable insights into the dynamics of cross-cultural relationships. In this research the word “culture” can be perceived as a nation or a country. For this reason ‘culture’ and ‘country/nationality’ are interchangeable.

2.2 Cultural dimensions What are the relevant aspects of culture and how can culture be measured? These kinds of questions have stimulated a lot of researches to find “one best way” for conceptualizing and operationalizing culture. Due to this several scholars derived different cultural frameworks which in turn stimulated the critics to discuss the shortcomings of these frameworks. Nevertheless due to these several studies it is now possible to make use of several frameworks. Thereby the researches have obtained abundant achievement in cross-cultural patterns and differences. But still there is no “one best way” to measure culture. Although each cultural framework has been widely discussed it is the researcher that selects a suitable cultural framework or creates a new conceptual cultural framework for his/her research. As described above culture can be conceptualized at different levels. This includes the national level (Dawar and Parker, 1994).

According to Hall (1973) and Gannon (2001) a cultural dimension characterizes particular groups of people, which take on a supra-identity that constitutes the framework for each individual in the group (Pallab, Abhijit, and Kausiki, 2006). Indentifying the components of culture has been very useful for explaining the cultural 11

differences. It makes it possible to conceptualize and measure culture as a complex, multidimensional structure rather than a simple category. Geert Hofstede created six dimensions of cultural values and rated 53 countries on indices for each dimension, normalized to values of 0 to 100.

In order to simplify the operationalization of culture and to allow at least some aspects of culture to be more easily applied, researchers suggested the use of cultural indices or individual level self reports (Wan, Hui and Tiang, 2003). These cultural indices have often been turn into cultural distance scores. The cultural distance scores measure the extent to which one country’s culture is similar to -or different from- another country’s culture (Clark and Pugh, 2001; Shenkar, 2001). In approximately 90 articles in the Proquest Online Database cultural distance scores are mentioned. From these studies 75 percent used an index that was based on Hofstede’s dimensions as operationalized by Kogut and Singh (Ng, Lee and Soutar, 2007). The (cultural) index is according to the articles of Kogut and Singh the most popular approach to measure cultural distance (Ng et al., 2007). This shows that Hofstede is perhaps the most influential researcher in the cultural classification (Ng et al., 2007). Due to his excellent work we gained important insights in the cross cultural research. According to Social Science Citations Index Hofstede’s work is most cited by other researchers.

2.3 Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions Geert Hofstede used 11.600 detailed interviews from over 60.000 respondents in 70 countries and found distinct cultural differences among people from different countries. After analysis of his findings he created five dimensions of cultural values (assigned indexes on each to all nations). Subsequently he linked each dimensions with demographic, economic, geographic and political aspects of a population. The framework of Hofstede has a high level of convergence across other different cultural models (Soares, Farhangmehr and Shoham, 2007). This justifies the work of Hofstede to be usable for cross cultural research. The five dimensions of Hofstede are; individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity-feminity and last but not least the long-term orientation. The sixth dimension ‘indulgence – restraints’ was later developed based on Bulgarian sociologist Minkov’s label (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010, p. 280) (see figure 2.1).

12

Power Long-term distance orientation

Uncertainty Masculinity- avoidance femininity

Individualism/ Cultural Indulgence versus Collectivism Differences Restraint

Figure 2.1: Culture dimensions of Hofstede (2001)

2.3.1 Individualism –Collectivism The first dimension of Hofstede’s framework is individualism-collectivism. The opposite of individualism is collectivism; together they form the first dimension in the framework of Hofstede. Individualism is a society where the ties between individuals are loose. It’s a culture where everyone is expected to look after him/her-self and his/her immediate family (Hofstede, 2011). While collectivism describes “the societies in which the ties between individuals are close: it pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede, 2011). This means that collective cultures think more in terms of “we” as a group. Asian cultures are good examples of a high collectivist culture, whereas the U.S. and the western European cultures are good examples of a low collectivist community or a more individualistic community.

2.3.2 Uncertainty avoidance Uncertainty avoidance is defined as “the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations” (Hofstede, 2011). A nation with a high level of uncertainty avoidance indicates that the country has a low tolerance for uncertainty or blurriness. The culture of a high rate of uncertainty avoidance can be

13

describes as a rule orientated society where law, rules and regulations are very important to reduce the amount of uncertainty (Hofstede, 2011). A low level ranking in uncertainty avoidance in a nation stands for a society with less concern about uncertainty and vagueness. This kind of society has more tolerance for different opinions and is less rule-orientated, accepts easily changes and takes great risks.

2.3.3 Power distance Hofstede defines power distance as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 2011). A society with a high rate of power distance is a society wherein inequalities of power and wealth exist, as the less powerful members of this society accept this way of living. The low power distance is related to a society that doesn’t tolerate the differences between citizen's power and wealth (Hofstede, 2011). Equality and opportunity for everyone is very important for this kind of society.

2.3.4 Masculinity-femininity This dimension is defined as “societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct, Hofstede (Hofstede, 2011) elaborated this dimension by saying that “men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life”. The contrast between masculinity and femininity depends on the nature of a society. High ranking in masculine pertain to a competitive, success- and achievement- orientated society, here the assertive and aggressive 'masculine' traits predominate (Hofstede, 2011). A low masculinity society refers to a nurturing and caring society where the feminine traits predominate.

2.3.5 Long-term orientation In 1988 Michael Harris Bond and Hofstede developed a fifth dimension to optimize the framework for explaining the cross cultural differences. The fifth dimension, long-term orientation, refers to “the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 351). This dimension was formerly called Confucian dynamism due to a series of confusion like values in this dimension. However Hofstede (2001) was not satisfied with this name so he changed it into ‘long-term orientation’. A high ranking in long-term orientation means that the society focuses on future-orientated values such like respect for tradition, persistence 14

and thrift (Hofstede, 2001, p. 353). Such a culture expects long-term rewards as a result from today’s hard work. A low rate in long-term orientation refers to a society that focuses on the here and now or a near future situation (short- term focus). This society is past- and present– oriented. People expect a short term reward from their work; such society has a low rate in long-term orientation.

2.3.6 Indulgence versus Restraint Indulgence stands for a society which allows relatively free gratification of natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun for instance merrymaking with friends, spending, consumption and sex. Its opposite pole Restraint stands for a society which is more likely to believe that such gratification needs to be curbed and regulated by strict norms; where people feel less able to enjoy their lives. Indulgent cultures will tend to focus more on individual happiness and well being, leisure time is more important and there is greater freedom and personal control (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010, p. 280). In contrary to restrained cultures where positive emotions are less freely expressed and happiness, freedom and leisure are not given (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 296).

2.4 Grocery retail formats classification Two decades ago consumers had a relatively limited choice of stores for their major weekly grocery-shopping trip. This has changed dramatically. Nowadays consumers have the ability to choose from a large variety of retail formats (Ahlert et al., 2006). The concept of ‘retail format’ can be interpreted in many different ways. However there are two broad categories of format classifications described in current literature. The first category of classification separates EDLP (Every Day Low Price) from Hi-Lo (High-Low) formats, and is primarily based on differences in pricing strategies (Bell and Lattin 1998). The second category of classification is that the store outlets can be classified in different formats according to (size and – related to this – assortment), service and accessibility, resulting in format such as convenience stores, supermarkets and hypermarkets (Haans, 2007, p. 2). Since this master thesis concerns only the grocery retail industry in the Netherlands, the focus will be on these three format classifications to distinguish each retailer. There are limited studies about the grocery retail formats in the Netherlands. However in this master thesis the latest research of classification of the formats will be used. According to the latest study of EFMI; Consumententrends 2011, there are six kinds of

15

grocery retail formats in the Netherlands which are: the full service retailer, neighbor super, the value-for-money retailer, the service discount retailer, the brand discount and the hard discount retailers.

Table 2.1: classification of the grocery retail formats in the Netherlands

Format type Description Retailer Full-service High service with above average Albert Heijn, Plus pricing Neighbor super Fairly service oriented, in the Coop, Golff and Spar neighborhood, with above average pricing Value-for-money Average service with an average c1000*, Dekamarkt, EMTÉ Jan pricing Linders, Sanders, MCD, Poiesz and Vomar Voordeelmarkt Service discount Above average service and an Deen, Hoogvliet, Jumbo and attractive pricing Supercoop Brand discount Average service with an attractive Boni, Digros, Dirk van den Broek, pricing Bas van der Heijden en Nettorama Hard discount Low service and low pricing Aldi en Lidl

In table 2.1 are the formats of grocery retailers displayed. The format of Albert Heijn is a full service while Aldi and Lidl have the same hard discount format. Since Jumbo took over c1000 grocery chain in 2011, and announced that all c1000 stores will not disappear but will only carry the Jumbo format, the c1000 format classified the same as Jumbo namely service discount. Before Jumbo took over c1000, the c1000 retailer had a value for money format. So hereafter the grocery retail format of Jumbo will also include the retailer c1000. This means when the Jumbo format is mentioned in this thesis, c1000 grocery retailer is also included.

2.5 The 8 P’s of services marketing Since services are not tangible and completely different from products, is it necessary to market a service or a product in a different way. This changes the classical 4 Ps structure of the Marketing Mix. This marketing mix is modified to the 8 Ps for services marketing. The provided services can range from hospitality services by restaurants, to financial services by the banks, to technology services by the IT-company or even a 16

blog where an author provides a service (information presentation, interesting reading etc.) to his audience (Kar, 2011). It is for a retailer important to follow the marketing mix in order to deploy their marketing strategy as effectively as possible to fulfill the consumers’ need and optimize the overall profitability. Thereby it’s important for a retailer to focus on the top-line by improving sales and on the bottom-line by lowering over-all cost of delivering services (Kar, 2011). The 8 P’s of marketing mix comprises of Product, Price, Place & Time, Promotion & Education, People, Process, Physical Environment and Productivity & Quality (see figure 2.2). These elements of the marketing mix will be hereafter briefly described (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2007, pp. 22-23). Product: The core and periphery service elements at the centre of the company's marketing strategy. Product may be tangible (goods) or intangible (services). Price: Includes the pricing strategy of the company for its products. This also has a lot of impact on the service buyer’s satisfaction level. Place & Time: delivering product elements to customers can be done physically and/or electronically, depending upon the service. Speed and convenience are essential to the customer and are important value-adds. Promotion & Education: this speaks for itself, but the marketer must make sure communications not only provide information, but also persuade the customer of the service's relevance to the customer's particular 'problem'. People: front-line staff will have a direct impact on perceptions. Processes: the means by which the firm delivers product elements. Physical Environment: the appearance of the place where the services are delivered may have a significant impact upon whether the service was satisfactory. Productivity & Quality: improving productivity is a requisite in cost management; but quality, as defined by the customer, is essential for a service to differentiate itself from other providers.

17

Figure 2.2: the 8 P’s of the marketing mix

The 8 P’s of marketing mix is a great tool to measure the customer’s satisfaction for each grocery retailer. In this case it is interesting to see how each grocery retail format performs and how to optimize their marketing strategy by analyzing these 8 P’s. Unfortunately, this approach is not suitable for this research since some grocery retailers operate in multi-formats. Most grocery retailers (for instance Lidl, Jumbo and Aldi) operate in a single format, which adhere to one dominant format, while multi- format retailers operate using several different formats simultaneously. Albert Heijn is a good example of a Dutch grocery retailer that applies within the same brand multi- formats for example AH to go, Albert Heijn Web Store and AH XL. Therefore another approach is needed whereby a multi-format grocery retailer like Albert Heijn can be compared to the single format grocery retailers (Lidl, Jumbo and Aldi) without questioning the validity of the measurement. In this case the Customer Equity concept by Rust et al. (2001) is an effective solution.

2.6 Customer Equity In order to address the issues like - How will customers of the company react to changes in the product or service offering? How does a company manage the brand? Is the chosen formula of the company effectively? Should a company raise or cut price? What is the best way to enhance the relationships with the current customers? Where should the company focus their efforts regarding customer/product/service? – can the answers be found by focusing on Customer Equity. In 1996 (p.137-138), 18

Blattberg and Deighton proposed the concept of Customer Equity and their viewpoints had been widely noticed in marketing theory circle and became a hot issue (Singh, 2002). Customer Equity is defined as the total of the discounted lifetime values of all the firm’s customers (Lemon et al., 2001). Each customer’s lifetime value results from the frequency of category purchases, average quantity of purchase, and brand- switching patterns combined with the firms’ contribution margin (Rust et al., 2000, p. 38). In other words; a change in Customer Equity is a change in the current and future customer’s lifetime value for all the customers of the industry (Rust et al., 2000, p. 39). This means that Customer Equity is critical to a firm’s long-term success.

Figure 2.3: Customer Equity framework as defined by Rust et al. (2000, p.57).

The Customer Equity framework (see figure 2.3) has been one of the first to bring together customer value management, brand management and relationship/retention management (Vogel, Evanschitzky & Ramaseshan, 2008). While Customer Equity will not be responsible for the entire value of the firm (e.g., physical assets, intellectual property, and research and development competencies), its current customers provide the most reliable source of future revenues and profits (Lemon et al., 2001). Gupta Lehman, and Stuart (2004) supported the statement of Lemon et al. (2001) that by understanding the value of customer assets to the firm, and by applying appropriate strategy, the company could finally increase the overall value of the firm, as well as the value of the shareholders. This means that the focal point for marketing strategy of the Customer Equity concept should be focusing on current customers. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of grocery retailers from the

19

customer’s perspective, by using the Customer Equity concept which is developed by Rust et al. (2001). This concept is a part of the conceptual model (see figure 2.8). Lemon, Rust and Zeithaml (2001) described the three dimension drivers of Customer Equity in detail. The three dimensions of Customer Equity are: Value Equity, Brand Equity and Retention Equity (see figure 2.3). To determine an appropriate customer management strategy is it important to understand which of the three drivers of Customer Equity is the most critical to the development of the firm’s Customer Equity (Rust et al., 2001). It is for a company important to understand; which of the three drivers of Customer Equity is the most critical to the development of the firm’s Customer Equity; which has the greatest impact on a firm’s performance; which will give the best return on investment (ROI); and where the company should focus its marketing and management efforts (Rust et al., 2001). In figure 2.4 is a schematic overview of Customer Equity presented. In the next paragraphs the three divers of Customer Equity will be explained in detail.

Figure 2.4: Customer Equity framework and its driving forces (Rust et al., 2000 p. 64)

2.6.1 Value Equity Value Equity is a dimension of Customer Equity resulting from the value perceptions of consumers. In other words the Value Equity is based on an objective, cognitive and rational evaluation. Customers use to evaluate the value of a product or service on the basis of a combination of quality and price, but nowadays convenience is also 20

assumed to be an important part of the concept of value (Rust et al. 2000, p. 74). Value Equity is defined as “the customer’s objective assessment of the utility of a brand which is based on the perceptions of what is given up for what is received” (Rust et al. 2000 p. 68). What Rust et al. (2000) tries to say is to strengthen the Value Equity, the firm has to meet or exceed customers’ needs. It is not enough to concentrate only on the quality of the services to build Value Equity, as other drivers such as price and convenience also play a significant role. Value Equity is about the added value of a product and consists of three sub drivers which Rust et al. (2000, p. 74) described: convenience, price and quality (figure 2.5).

Figure 2.5: Sub drivers of Value Equity (Rust et al., 2000 p.74)

Convenience The convenience driver is about the location of products or services, ease of use of a product and availability (Rust et al. 2000, p.78). For example a company can increase convenience by taking actions that help reduce the customer’s time costs, search costs, and efforts to do business with the firm (Lemon et al., 2001). Areas in which these actions can be planned are location, using convenience and availability (Rust et al., 2000, p. 78).

Price Price in economy or business world is defined as numerical monetary value of a product or service. This element represents the aspects of ‘what is given up by the customer’ (Lemon et al. 2001). According to Rust et al. (2000, p. 77) there are several ways to compete on price, these are: (1) everyday low pricing, (2) discounts and sales and (3) payment by installments (Rust et al. 2000, p. 77). The actual price does not always correspond with the price in consumers´ minds. In this case, it is about a

21

reference price, which is ‘the consumer’s perceived current price of a brand. It can also be termed as an anticipated price, since it is the price a consumer expects to observe at point-of-purchase. Kotler and Keller (2006, p. 431-432) claimed that adjusting the price is much easier than other elements of the marketing mix (e.g. product features or promotion); however it is a very important, complex and difficult process.

Quality The last driver of Value Equity, quality, is defined as ‘the totally of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on this ability to satisfy stated or implied needs’ (Kotler & Keller 2006, p.146). Rust et al. (2000, p.76) divides quality into four components; the physical product, the service environment, the service product and service delivery. A company that focuses on quality systematically studies its performances on each of those four components. It is also necessary for a company to understand the importance of quality and maximize this, as it is the main feature of value creation and customer satisfaction (Kotler & Keller 2006, p.147). In conclusion, each company needs to find out which of these drivers and their sub- drivers have the greatest influence to its business, and concentrate on them when building a strategy to enhance a company’s Value Equity. Value Equity can be the most important driver of Customer Equity in the next situations (Lemon et al. 2001, p. 23):

1. Value Equity will be most critical when discernable differences exist between competing products. In commodity markets, for example, where differences are small, Value Equity is hard to build. When there are differences between competing products, influencing customer perceptions of value will help grow the influence on the firm value.

2. Value Equity will also be very important for purchases with complex decision processes. Here the decision-making process of the customers is very intense and the trade-off of costs and benefits is very important.

3. Value Equity will be critical for most business-to-business purchases, because of the involvement of long-term commitment and partnership.

4. Value Equity matters when innovative products and services are involved. In considering the purchase of a new and innovative product or service, customers must pay considerable attention to the new components of the product and its key attributes.

22

2.6.2 Brand Equity Brand Equity is the second driver of the Customer Equity framework and is one of the most studied subjects in marketing research (Rust, et al., 2000, p. 80). Important issues regarding Brand Equity are the strength of the brand name and the brand communication. Rust et al., (2000, p. 81) states that clients have perceptions of a brand that are of subjective nature and that concoct irrational feelings. As discussed before is Value Equity about customer’s objective assessment while Brand Equity is about the customer’s subjective and immaterial assessment of a brand above and beyond its value (Rust, et al., 2000, p. 81). The brand of the company plays a significant role, as its awareness and recognition can attract new customers, and for existing clients it can work as a reminder and emotional tie to the firm (Rust, et al., 2000, p. 81). To strengthen a firm’s Brand Equity it should try to build a positive customer evaluation of the brand as this can assure constant customer purchases from this particular company rather than its rivals (Rust, et al., 2000, p. 81-84). Keller (1993) states that ‘customer-based Brand Equity occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in memory’. If the customer has a positive feelings and attitude towards the brand, it is more likely that the customer will recommend the brand to others, who will also try it. According to Rust et al. (2000, p.84), the role of the brand in building Customer Equity is threefold; (1) to built a reputation and attract customers (2) to built emotional relations with customers and (3) to remind customers to repurchase the product. Rust et al. (2000) specify three sub drivers of the Brand Equity driver which are: customer brand awareness, customer brand attitude and customer perception of brand ethics (Rust et al., 2000, p. 84). Each of these drivers also has separate sub drivers which can be used differently by every company (see figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6: Sub drivers of Brand Equity (adapted from Rust et al., 2000 p. 84)

23

Customer brand awareness Brand awareness is defined as ‘consumers’ ability to identify the brand under different conditions, as reflected by their brand recognition or recall performance’ (Kotler and Keller 2006, p. 288). The customer has to be aware of the brand before it is possible for a company to build Customer Equity. In order to recognize a brand it is important that consumers correctly discriminate the brand as having been heard or seen before, and brand recall requires that consumers correctly generate the brand from memory. Brand awareness covers all the tools a company has and all the actions that a company can undertake to increase the brand knowledge by the consumer, mostly companies make use of marketing communications to achieve this (Lemon et al., 2001). According to Rust et al. (2000, p. 88), there are three drivers behind brand awareness; the communication mix, the media and the message. The communication mix encompasses communication tools used by the company. Before choosing a specific media channel it is important to know in what degree the target market pays attention to mass advertising whereas the message are conveyed to the target audience and if this message aligns with the complete communication strategy of the company. To decide which medium is most beneficial for a company, it is important to know what kind of media the projected customers give their attention to (Rust et al., 2000, p. 88).

Customer brand attitude Brand attitude refers to the emotional attachment of the brand/company with the consumer. The better the connections between a brand and a consumer, the more loyal a consumer will be towards this brand. In other words, Brand Equity could be built by linking the company’s brand to other meaningful information in a consumers’ memory (Kotler and Keller 2006, p. 287). To achieve this goals there could be taken action on the following specific driving sub-forces (Rust et al., 2000, p. 89); the communication message, special event, brand extensions, brand partners, product positioning and celebrity endorsements. According to Rust et al. (2001, p. 93) the brand associations should be strong, positive and uniquely tied to the brand.

Customer perception of brand ethics Brand ethics can also be of importance for a company. Clients considering doing long term business with a company want to know to what extent the values of a company concur with their own values (Rust et al. 2000, p. 91). Thus, it is important for a

24

company to build on the ethics concerns of the companies’ clients. Of course these ethics can differ per company. Before doing business with the company, the customer will take into account if his/her values are consistent with the brand or firm values. So every company has to understand the ethics of its customers’ as those ethics and beliefs relate to its brand when determining the best way to increase Brand Equity (Rust et al. 2000, p. 91). Brand ethics include such sub drivers as community event sponsorship and a strong record of giving to the community, development and maintenance of a privacy policy for use of customer information, clean environment record, ethical hiring and work practices, as well as strong product or service guarantees (Rust et al. 2000, pp. 92-93). Also trust is an important element of this sub driver. A company gains trust by being clear about privacy policy of client details (Rust, et al., 2000, p. 92) and with that lowers the risk of consumers in using their product. In summary, companies have to identify the most important drivers and sub-drivers of Brand Equity and implement strategies to improve customer perceptions towards the company, hereby a company can build and strengthen their Brand Equity.

Brand Equity is especially important in the next situations (Lemon et al. 2001, p. 23):

1. Purchases with low involvement and easy decision processes.

2. When the product is also visible for other individuals.

3. When it is hard to judge the quality of the product or service before consumption.

2.6.3 Retention Equity Retention Equity goes beyond the subjective and objective evaluation of a customer concerning a brand. Retention Equity refers to the customer’s tendency to stick with the brand. In other words, this component equals that amount of discounted (gu)es(s)timated cash flow of a consumer, initiated by the strength of the relationship between customers and the company (Rust et al., 2000 p. 95). Retention Equity focuses on items such as: last purchase, benefit to client and company by existing relationship, result of breaking the relationship (Rust et al., 2000 p. 95). According to Duncan and Moriarty (1998), increased retention is the primary benefit of focusing on relationships. Thus, it is important for a company to have a good relation with their customers and keep them away from competition. There are several strategies (or 25

actions) which are identified by Rust et al. (2000, pp. 99-100) whereby a company can retain its customers: loyalty programs, special recognition programs, affinity programs, community building programs and knowledge building programs (see also in figure 2.7). The degree of effectiveness of these five sub drivers is dependent on the nature of the product or service, the purchasing frequency and the motivations of the

customers (Rust et al. 2000, p.100).

Figure 2.7: Sub drivers of Retention Equity (Rust et al. 2000 p. 100)

Loyalty programs According to Kotler and Keller (2006, p. 143), customer loyalty is described as ‘a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product or service in the future despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior’. Lemon et al. (2001) states that loyalty programs include which reward customers with tangible benefits, for specific behaviors. In this case a customer gets a discount for doing repeating purchases. Loyal customers are for sure valuable to every company, as they guarantee future revenues. Thus it is important for companies to make customers loyal, by providing them superior value prepositions through various loyalty programs like: loyalty cards, bonus points, free gifts, financial rewards, coupons and so forth (Rust et al. 2000, p. 101). The effectiveness of those loyalty programs depends on the market in which the programs are delivered. If the 26

switching costs are high then loyalty programs could increase Retention Equity. However loyalty programs will be less effective in markets where switching costs are low, this means that a costumer can switch easy to another company (Rust et al. 2000, p. 101).

Special recognition and treatment Special recognition and treatment refers to actions that recognize customers for specific behavior with intangible benefits (Rust et al. 2000, p. 102). An example of this is the special treatment of the best customers of airline companies, which gain the advantage of early boarding or other special treatments like birthday or Christmas cards, ‘golden client’, ‘best customer’ or VIP cards (Rust et al., 2000, p.102).

Affinity programs Affinity programs seek to create strong emotional connections with customers by linking the customer's relationship with the companies to other important aspects of the customer's life (Rust et al. 2000, p. 103). Affinity programs try to incorporate the product or service of the company in a strong interest or emotional ties of the customer (Rust et al., 2000, p. 103). An example of affinity and emotional connection programs are music, associated lifestyle or personality.

Community-building programs To create customer community the firm has to build the personality of the brand or company itself, and convince customers that they will benefit from being part of this community (Rust et al. 2000, p.105). A creation of a customer community exists when the company is able to convince the customers that they benefit from the contact with other customers of the company (Rust et al., 2000, p. 105).

Knowledge-building programs Knowledge-building programs ‘increase relationship equity by creating structural bonds between the customer and the firm, making the customer less willing to recreate a relationship with an alternative provider’ (Rust et al. 2000, p. 107). Thus these programs are not only important to company, but to customers as well, as this builds learning relationships between them. A good example of where the knowledge building program is visible is the website Amazon.com. The information provided through serving-behavior and ‘click-behavior’, gives a company enough information to build a relationship with the customer, which would in the end lead to less customers

27

who are switching (Rust et al., 2000, p. 107). To sum up, in order to be successful every company has to strengthen these aspects of relationships that are valued and appreciated by the customer. According to Szmigin and Bourne (1998) customer retention has a positive effect on the profitability of a company. Moreover, the positive effect will be mostly seen in service orientated companies where building retention is the key instrument to distinguish themselves from competitors and in most cases it is their main tool of driving Customer Equity.

Retention Equity will be the most important aspect of Customer Equity in the next specific situations (Lemon et al., 2001, p. 24);

1. When the benefits, perceived by the customer, of the loyalty programs are greater than the ‘cash value’ of the benefits received.

2. Retention Equity will be the key when the community associated with the product or service is as important as the product or service itself. Some products are continually purchased by customers to maintain ‘membership’ in the community,

3. When a company has the opportunity to create learning relationships with customers, Retention Equity will be very important.

2.7 Conceptual model In order to answer the research question of this thesis in general terms, combining the theoretical overviews we described till now, we can use the following conceptual model (see figure 2.8). In this model we assume a direct relation between cultural groups and Customer Equity. In other words; the value of Customer Equity could vary along different cultural groups given a certain grocery retail format. In my opinion this grocery retail format (to interpret as a function of a relationship between the 8 P’s) can be seen as a moderator. The model is rather complex, because it contains a lot of variables to relate with each other. That’s why we explore a more simplified model (less variables) in the next chapters (see paragraph 3.2).

28

Figure 2.8: Conceptual model of relation between cultural groups and Customer Equity

29

3. Research design In the first paragraph of this chapter we describe the grocery retail industry in general. Also the grocery retail formats of Aldi, Lidl, Albert Heijn and Jumbo are explained. In paragraph 3.2 the research model concept will be presented followed by paragraphs about the methodology, survey structure and the data analysis of the actual study.

3.1 Grocery retail industry in the Netherlands In the Netherlands the grocery retail industry is much consolidated. Also the grocery retail density is very high. This means that there are a lot of grocery retailers settled in a small area. Over the past years the differences between grocery retailers faded away since the higher segment of the market came up with private label (cheaper) products, while the lower segment introduced products with more quality in their assortment. This caused that the market narrowed down whereby grocery retailers moved towards each other. There are approximately 4.400 grocery retailers nationwide with an average surface area of 516m2 (Rabobank Cijfers & Trends, 2013). Although the competition within the retailers is very fierce, the amount of grocery retailers in the Netherlands is rather stable. It even slightly increases each year (Rabobank Cijfers & Trends, 2013). On average, the consumers are 9 minutes away from a grocery retailer (Stelder, 2013). In the annual GfK (Growth from Knowledge) retail report 2012 it is stated that the grocery retailers had in total a turnover of 32,6 billion Euros in 2012; 1,1% more than in 2011. The increase of the turnover is caused by an increase (+2,3%) in the amount of visitations of consumers to the grocery retailer. However, in 2012 consumers spend on average 1,2% less money per visit to a grocery retailer than in year 2011 (22,14 euro > 21,88 euro). In spite this decrease the CBS (2013) noted, that the Dutch grocery retailers in 2012 realized a turnover growth of 3,0%. As already said a general trend over the recent years, is the increasing demand of private labels. CBL and EFMI (2011) stated in their report that, differences between private labels and A-brands decreases as the private labels are generally cheaper, subsequently the demand increases. This aspect contributed a positive effect on the turnover of the grocery retailers. The Dutch grocery retail industry can be marked as an oligopoly with a few dominant retailers. The current top 3 food retailers in the Netherlands are Albert Heijn, Jumbo (c1000, Jumbo and Super de Boer) and Aldi, together they have a market share of 63

30

percent (see table 3.1). However, the market share of the hard discounter Lidl grew in the last three years so rapidly that the difference between Aldi and Lidl is just 0,1%. Aldi has become a serious competitor since the market for hard discounters like Aldi and Lidl has decreased to 13.5 percent (EFMI, 2013). A footnote has to be made; some competitors united themselves in the so called “Superunie” (Bestedingen en Marktaandelen, 2013). This is a purchasing organization that connects 14 grocery retailers to increase their buying power and to compete against the larger grocery retailers. Together they account for 29.0% of the market. In this master thesis the leading grocery retailer formats of Albert Heijn (full service format), Jumbo group (Super de Boer + c1000) (service discount format) and Lidl & Aldi (hard discount format) are researched.

Table 3.1; Market share of grocery retailers in the Netherlands (source: Distrifood, 2013)

31

3.1.1 Albert Heijn (full service format) Albert Heijn (part of the Royal Ahold concern) is the largest and most famous grocery retailer in the Netherlands. During the 125 years development, Albert Heijn made several but crucial movements. Albert Heijn was founded in 1887 in the Dutch village Oostzaan. Nowadays it has 936 (of which more than 227 franchise) stores with 8.000- 22.000 products in the Netherlands (Albert Heijn, 2013). The market share of Albert Heijn was 33,7% in 2012 (Distrifood, 2013). The stores are full service grocery retail formats known for their focus on quality stores and products. This focus on superior products is part of the reason that Albert Heijn is regarded as one of the more expensive supermarkets (Wikipedia Albert Heijn, 2013). Furthermore Albert Heijn often created special and different format concepts compared with other grocery retailers- like in 1952, Albert Heijn opened the first self-service supermarket in Schiedam. The customer could now select and pick their own goods by walking along the shelves with a shopping basket. Albert Heijn saved in this way costs and provided better shopping environment. In 1999, “Albert Heijn to go” was introduced for customers to eat or drink at work or on the way. It was an easy store with healthy and quick solutions and mostly settled at the central stations or in the centers of the cities. Two years later in 2001, Albert Heijn web store was created. In October 2003 Albert Heijn started a price war because it was losing market share and lowered the prices of more than 1000 products, selling goods below the cost (GfK retail rapport, 2012). Other grocery retailers reacted by also lowering their prices to sustain their customer base. Albert Heijn reacted again by lowering its prices even more to maintain their customers (Distrifood, 2009). Because of this behavior many small grocery retailers could not keep up with the price war and had to end their businesses. The private label assortment of Albert Heijn consists of 4.600 products (AH Puur & Eerlijk, AH Excellent, AH Huismerk and Euroshopper). After all, regarding this thesis we can conclude that Albert Heijn has in total four formats in the Netherlands namely; the regular Albert Heijn, Albert Heijn XL, Albert Heijn to go and Albert Heijn Web Store.

3.1.2 Jumbo group (service discount format) Jumbo group (c1000 + Super de Boer) is a serious competitor in the grocery retail industry. Especially after the takeover of c1000 (market share 12,1%, in 2011 the 32

second leader in the grocery retail industry) makes Jumbo a significant player in the current market. Jumbo group had in 2012 a total market share of 21,7% (Distrifood, 2013). Like previously mentioned Jumbo announced their takeover of the c1000 stores and reformulate these stores to the Jumbo format within 5 years (Distrifood, 2013). Although the takeover is realized recently in this study the grocery retailers c1000 and Jumbo are combined by using just one format, the Jumbo format. This means that although c1000 has a Value-for-money format, the format of Jumbo a Service discount format will be used in this study. Jumbo group is a part of the privately owned Van Eerd Group. Van Eerd was originally a grocery wholesale company, established in 1921 in Veghel. The first Jumbo grocery retail opened their doors in 1983 (Wikipedia Jumbo, 2013). The Jumbo format focuses on above average service and an attractive pricing this format is extracted from the everyday low pricing strategy. This strategy is promising consumers the lowest price without the need to wait for sale price events (Distrifood, 2013). However Jumbo made the past years some concession by adding weekly promotions in their format also known as “Jumbo deals”. Jumbo continuously changes the price of the assortment to keep the lowest price guaranty and works with multiple price lines of certain assortments. After all, Jumbo has in total 347 stores in the Netherlands with 32.000 products. The average turnover of the Jumbo retailer alone is 3.228 million Euros (Wikipedia Jumbo, 2013). The grocery retail c1000 still exists, as the Jumbo group announced that the takeover will happen gradually without mentioning when all C1000 stores will be reformulated to the Jumbo format (Wikipedia Jumbo, 2013). In 2013 there are still 350 c1000 stores with approximately 11.000 available products, eventually these stores will disappear and be rebuild into the Jumbo format.

3.1.3 Lidl (hard discount format) Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG is a German global discount supermarket chain, which operates over 10,000 stores across Europe (Lidl, 2013). It belongs to the holding company Schwarz Gruppe, which also owns the store chains Handelshof and hypermarket Kaufland (Wikipedia Lidl, 2013). The first Lidl grocery retailer in the Netherlands opened its hard discount store in 1997 in a place called Uden. In that same year (1997) Lidl opened 32 stores spread around the Netherlands (Lidl, 2013). Two years before opening the grocery retail store (in 1995), the headquarters of Lidl Nederland GmbH in Huizen started to plan and set-up a strategy to enter the Dutch market. Lidl Netherlands has nowadays a total of 368 grocery store locations that operate 33

nationwide. The average turnover of Lidl is 2.7 billion Euros (Distrifood, 2013). The format of the grocery retailer Lidl is as mentioned before a hard discounter. This format offers quality products within the framework of low prices. Opinions about the quality of their products are divided, but generally it is accepted that their products are of a lower quality than the grocery retailers with another formats (Distrifood, 2010). Recent figures of Lidl have shown a strong growth in market share. While the market share in 2007 was 4% it rose to 7,5% in 2012 (Distrifood, 2013). Analysts forecast that this market share will grow even more since the grocery retailer c1000 will disappear.

3.1.4 Aldi (hard discount format) Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Company, short for Albrecht Discount, is a global discount grocery retailer chain established in 1946 in Germany. The founders of this grocery retail chain are the brothers Karl and Theo Albrecht. Aldi is made up of two separate groups, Aldi Nord and Aldi Süd. Both operate independently from each other within specific areas. There are in total more than 9.235 Aldi stores worldwide. Aldi Nord is for in the regions Denmark, France, The United States, the Benelux countries, the Iberian Peninsula, and Poland. Aldi Süd is responsible for operating in the regions Ireland, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Switzerland, The United States, Australia, Austria, and Slovenia (Wikipedia, Aldi, 2013). Aldi opened in the Netherlands its first store in 1975. In the Netherlands there are in total of 498 Aldi stores with its headquarters in Culemborg. The average turnover of Lidl is 2.5 billion Euros (Distrifood, 2010). The format of the grocery retailer Aldi is, as mentioned before the one of hard discounter. This format focuses mainly on the cost price of their products. Since Lidl has the same format as Aldi, Lidl is seen as the direct competitor of Aldi. Behind these two discounters, there is another discount formula namely Dirk van den Broek (Distrifood, 2010). However the format of Dirk van den Broek is a brand discount, which means that the focus is not only on attractive pricing but also on average service. In 2012 the market share of Aldi is 7,6%. Unfortunately since the rising of Lidl in 1997 Aldi is slowly losing market share as it was in 2007 a percentage 8,9 (Distrifood, 2013). An important reminder is that this thesis emphasizes only the grocery retailer formats of the hard discount, service discount and the full service formats.

34

3.2 Research model (concept) In this section the research model is presented in figure 3.1, this model shows in detail what is searched and which drivers of Customer Equity are investigated. The first part of this model is the cultural part. This part shows that there are different kinds of cultures living in the Netherlands. Based on different cultural background of consumers we try to investigate, if there are different preferences for a certain grocery retail format. Obviously after data collection the different culture categories in this sample will be presented. After that we investigate the relationship between respondent’s culture category and the preference of certain grocery retail formats (the moderator). During setting up the survey, we used a questionnaire derived from the questionnaires of Rust et al. (2000) and Dwivedi, Merrilees, Miller and Herington (2012) who did research about the Australian supermarket industry by using the Customer Equity tool, as this is tested. We decided to do research for all three chosen grocery retail formats namely Albert Heijn (full service), Jumbo (service discount) and Aldi/Lidl (hard discount). In this case we wonder if every different culture category has its own preferences of a certain grocery retail format and which driver of Customer Equity is important for each culture category. The Customer Equity concept consists of three drivers Value, Brand and Retention (or Loyal) Equity and is a good tool to evaluate the customer needs and their different cultures. The Value driver has three sub-drivers namely; Quality, Price and Convenience. Figure 3.1 presents the simplified research model concept.

Figure 3.1: Concept of the simplified research model of this master thesis

35

3.3 Survey strategy The conducted research for this study is a deductive approach, this means that the testing of a theoretical proposition by the employment of a research strategy is specifically designed for the purpose of its testing. Like mentioned before, the purpose of this study is to explore the formats of Albert Heijn, Jumbo and Lidl/Aldi by using the Customer Equity concept of Rust et al. (2001). Because the cultural aspect plays a significant role in choosing a format, we take into account the cultural dimensions of Hofstede. Since this study seeks new insights, ask questions and assess phenomena in a new light, it can be considered as an exploratory study. An exploratory study is particularly useful if you wish to clarify your understanding of a problem, such as if you are unsure of the precise nature of the problem (Saunders Lewis and Thornhill, 2009, p. 170). In order to collect data the survey research strategy is used. A survey allows obtaining a large amount of data from a sizeable population in a highly economical way and gives more control over the research process (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 175). These data are standardized, allowing for easy comparison. A survey strategy is also an effective method to conduct information about attitudes, opinions, motives and socio-demographic characteristics (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 270). To effectively apply the framework competing companies should be compared (Rust et al. 2000). With the survey strategy the formats of Albert Heijn, Jumbo and Lidl/Aldi are compared and researched. The survey strategy is a popular and common strategy in business and management research. Often a questionnaire is used in a survey strategy to administer a sample. However the questionnaire is not the only data collection technique that belongs to the survey strategy, the other techniques that also fall into this strategy are: structured observation and structured interviews (Saunders et al. 2009, p. 176). The survey strategy also allows a researcher to collect quantitative data which can be analyze quantitatively using descriptive and inferential statistics, and this data can be used to suggest reasons for particular relationships between variables and to produces models of these relationships (Saunders et al. 2009, p. 175).

3.4 Instrument & Sampling As mentioned before the instrument of this thesis is a questionnaire. The questionnaire is largely derived from the questionnaire provided by Rust et al. (2000) and Dwivedi et al. (2012) as this is tested. Rust et al. (2000) collected data of customers in five different industries. In their book “Driving Customer Equity; How Customer Lifetime Value is Reshaping Corporate Strategy”, they present the results of 36

the airline industry. Consumers were asked questions related to the three drivers of Customer Equity. For this research, the context of the questions of the original survey provided by Rust et al. (2000) is modified into what’s applicable for grocery retail industry (see appendix A). The context of the questionnaire of Dwivedi et al. (2012) is already about the grocery retail industry but in Australia (see appendix B). The final questionnaire for the Dutch grocery retailer formats of Albert Heijn, c1000, Jumbo, Lidl and Aldi is a combination of two questionnaires of Rust et al. (2000) and Dwivedi et al. (2012). Before sending out the questionnaire, we pre-tested this questionnaire by a test panel of two persons to make sure the survey was understandable. But also to evaluate new questions and to allow some assessment of the questions’ validity and reliability (Saunders et al., 2009). The surveys are conducted and send out via an online website www.qualtrics.com. Through this link respondents are allowed to fill in, whenever they feel like it, this questionnaire online. The survey has been distributed among a personal network (through email) and the use of social networks like Instagram and Facebook. In total there were 83 emails send out to personal contacts inviting persons to participate. The link of the survey was also posted on the wall of the Facebook and Instagram page of the researcher. When distributing the online survey the main goal was reaching out to a broad public, therefore it was asked to share the survey link with others to create a snowball effect.

3.4.1 Sampling The sample for this research is a mixed group of consumers from different age and gender like students, people with and without a job, entrepreneurs, housewives, retirees, and high and low educated people. The research population for this study concerns all consumers who do groceries at a grocery retailer in the Netherlands. The sample size of this research is a very large sample, namely larger than 1 million. If a sample is larger than 1 million the minimum sample sizes (with a 95% level of certainty) required for the survey must be more than 384 respondents (Saunders et al. 2009, p. 250). However, for this research it is not possible to reach that many respondents. In the period of May 20th till July 11th 2013 respondents (consisting of people from random places in the Netherlands) were addressed to fill in the questionnaire, as previously said, via the online tool www.qualtrics.com. In total there were 188 surveys started by respondents whereas 130 were completed by respondents. This means that 69,1% of the participants effectively completed the whole questionnaire. 37

The study of a particular phenomenon at a particular time is called a cross-sectional study (Saunders et al. 2009, p. 155). Cross-sectional studies often employ the survey strategy. This study was executed over a period of 53 days. It was during this period the opinion of the respondents about the grocery retail industry was formed.

3.4.2 Variables A dependent variable changes in response to changes of other variables while an independent variable causes changes in the dependent variables, and the extraneous variables causes changes in dependent variables (Saunders et al. 2009, p. 367). In this thesis the depended variable is the customers’ intentions of grocery retailer choice. This means that the dependent variables are the factors of Value, Brand and Retention Equity. This research - like mentioned before- uses also the dimensions of Hofstede to cover the culture stimulus. The six cultural dimensions of Hofstede are; individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation, and ‘indulgence– restraints’. Like the variables concerning the grocery retail formats these cultural dimensions can all be pointed as independent variables.

3.5 Questionnaire structure and design An online questionnaire has as previously mentioned lots of advantages such as, accurate data-capture (Dillman, 2007, p. 40) and elimination of interviewer and research biases that could appear in face-to face surveys (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 251). The online questionnaire provides also the option of survey completion at respondents’ leisure (Dillman, 2007, pp. 88-92) and eliminates the nuisance value for respondents that are likely to occur in telephone or mall-intercepts (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 253). Moreover, the essential factor of an online questionnaire is that this design provides complete respondent anonymity, which is unlikely with a paper-based or a face to face survey (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 258). With this the changes of socially desirable responding are reduced. The questionnaire of this research is based on the top three grocery retail formats of the Dutch market namely hard discount, service discount and the full service. In the questionnaire, different variables and the relation between these variables are tested in order to answer the research question. The questionnaire consisted of 46 questions of different types; 15 multiple choice questions, 1 open question and 30 statements which had to be rated by a five-point- Likert-style scale and semantic differential rating scale which is often used in

38

consumer research to determine underlying attitudes (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 419). All questions were compulsory, except for the last question which offered the respondent the possibility to enter his/her email address to receive a copy of the results concerning this research. The questionnaire for this research is divided in seven parts see figure 3.2. The first part of the questionnaire is the introduction, where the purpose of this thesis is stated to potential respondents and clarified that the survey is completely confidential. Followed by the general part that consist questions concerning personal characteristics of the respondents like age, gender, education, marital status, employment, household composition and nationality. The question about nationality will indirectly say something about the culture of the respondent (an important variable in this research which might influence the preference or rejection of a certain grocery retail format). The income level question has been left out because this may be for some people objectionable to give information about their income level, this could lead to biased responses (Taylor-Powell, Rossing and Geran, 1998). The ‘general’ part of the questionnaire gives essential insights of the background of the participants, not only to see whether the data set is representative or to make the results more persuasive but also to explore if culture plays a significant role in this research. Customer Equity

General Retention General Value equity Brand equity Final - Thank Introduction grocery retail equity questions questions questions you note questions questions

Figure 3.2: Structure of the questionnaire

The third part of the questionnaire contains general questions concerning grocery retailing. In this part information about the amount of weekly visitations to a grocery retailer, weekly expenditure, motivation, and the driving force behind choosing a certain (favorite) grocery retailer for the weekly groceries are gathered. The fourth, fifth and the sixth parts of the questionnaire covers the Customer Equity part where the top three grocery retail formats of the Dutch market are measured. Participants were asked questions related to the three drivers of Customer Equity. In these parts statements are given, respondents can answer the statements like previously mentioned by choosing one out of five options from the Likert scale, ranging from 5 → strongly agree to 4 →agree to 3 → neutral to 2 → disagree to 1 → strongly disagree. The 39

Likert scale is according to Saunders (2009, p. 378) an effective way to measure the opinion of respondents about statements. The Value Equity part, the fourth part of the questionnaire, focuses on price, quality and convenience. The Brand Equity part, fifth part of the questionnaire, focuses on brand attitudes, brand ethics and brand awareness. The Retention Equity part, the sixth part of the questionnaire and the third driver of Customer Equity covers questions concerning customer’s tendency to stick with the brand as was defined in the Customer Equity theory founded by Rust et al. (2000). Prior to sending out the questionnaire, it is important that all Dutch respondents understand the exact meaning of all questions. To avoid misunderstandings is the questionnaire of this research translated into Dutch (see appendix C).

3.6 Data analysis The data analysis part is followed after collecting all digital questionnaires through the online survey building tool, www.qualtrics.com. In order to answer the research question statistical analyses are carried out by using SPSS statistics software version 21. The software functions such as Frequency distribution, Descriptive statistics, Compute variables, Reliability statistics and Factor analysis were used. Firstly, the reliability and validity of the questionnaire is tested. In generally, the term reliability refers to the consistency of a measure. Reliability is defined as the extent to which a questionnaire, test, observation or any measurement procedure produces the same results on repeated trials (Miller, 2013). In this thesis it’s of vital importance that reliability of the questionnaire is tested. Internal consistency (or homogeneity) is an aspect of reliability, which measures whether several items that propose to measure the same general construct produce similar scores. In other words it measures how closely related a set of items is to a group. In this research the internal consistency is estimated via the coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) index. According to Miller (2013) the coefficient alpha is – also known as Cronbach’s Alpha- typically used to estimate the internal consistency. The validity of the questionnaire is about the instrument measures what it purports to measure. With factor analysis the researcher attempts to identify underlying variables, or factors, that explain the pattern of correlations within a set of observed variables. Also the Customer Equity and the importance performance for each culture category Dutch (1) and Moroccan (3)) of the grocery retailer Albert Heijn are determined.

40

Chapter 4 Results This chapter presents the SPSS analysis results in order to answer the research question of this thesis. First the profile of the respondents and their buying behavior/expenditure of the respondent are outlined. Statistical analyses are followed in order to determine a conclusion. General findings derived from the analyses will be comprehensively discussed in the next chapter.

4.1 Sample characteristics First the answers on the questions that have derived background information of the consumer will be analyzed. Approximately 400 people were approached through social media and email to participate in this survey. For the descriptives part only 130 out of the returned 188 surveys were sufficiently completed for futher data analysis. The division between male and female participants is that 69,23% are women and 30,77% are male (see table 4.3). This is largely consistent with gender representation of supermarket shoppers (Noordhoff, Pauwels, and Odekerken-Schröder, 2004). The sub-sample of different ethnicity is categorized and coded as followed;

1. Dutch 2. Turkish 3. Moroccan 4. Eastern Europe 5. Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban 6. Asian 7. Others (including multiracial) In this research (n=130) the majority of 39,2% have only a Dutch ethnicity this means according to CBS that both parents are born in the Netherlands, followed by 30% only Moroccan and 15,4% with another ethnicity which isn’t listed above (note that this also could be respondents with multiracial ethnicity). The 7,7% of the respondents have a Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban ethnicity while 1,5% are Turkish and the other 1,5% of the respondents Eastern Europe, the remaining 4,6% contains respondents with only an Asian ethnicity. The sample demographics for the total sample as well as the seven (sub) samples (which is culture categorization) are presented in table 4.1.

41

Table 4.1: Different culture categories of the sample Culture category n=130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total 39,2% 1,5% 30,0% 1,5% 7,7% 4,6% 15,4% 100,0%

In order to answer the research question the scores of Hofstede’s dimensions for each culture category as mentioned above must be presented. The three groups Eastern Europe (4), Asian (6) and Others (7) contain a collection of different countries whereby it is hard to assign one score, for example the score of Bulgaria, Albania and Czech Republic differ from each other so it is not correct to assign one score for Eastern Europe. Therefore culture categories Eastern Europe (4), Asian (6) and Others (7) are excluded in this research since it is hard to obtain Hofstede’s dimension scores for these groups. The scores of the countries Dutch Antilles and Aruban are not published by Hofstede. Only the scores of the country Surinam are available for research. Since the countries are approximately similar to each other we decided to continue with only the scores of Surinam for the culture category Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban. On the website of www.geert-hofstede.com all dimensions are score for more than 93 cultures are presented (Hofstede’s website). Table 4.2 presents all dimension scores by Hofstede for the culture categories Dutch (1), Turkish (2), Moroccan (3) and Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban (5). Because the sixth dimension is quite new the score of this dimension for all culture categories is not available. This is the same for the fifth dimension however this dimension is only present for the culture category Dutch (1). This makes it hard to compare with the other culture categories since this score is not available.

Table 4.2: Results of the scores of Hofstede dimension for each culture category Surinam/Dutch Hofstede’s Dimensions Dutch (1) Turkish (2) Moroccan (3) Antilles/Aruban (5) Power distance (PDI) 38 66 70 85 Individualism (IDV) 80 37 25 47 Masculinity / Femininity (MAS) 14 45 53 37 Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) 53 85 68 92 Long term orientation (LTO) 44 - - - Indulgence versus Restraint (IND) - - - -

42

The largest category of this sample (n=130) is that of 20-35 years old with 54,62%, followed by the age range of 36-50 years old with 26,15%. Furthermore, 10% of the sample population was younger than 20 years old. The category of 65 years or older was in minority (0,77%) in this sample, followed by the category of 51-64 years old with 8,46%. Also in all different culture categories, the group of 20-35 years old was the largest group. The majority, 40% of the total respondents (n=130) were highly educated (Bachelor (or HBO) level), followed by 32,3% vocational training (or MBO) level. The minority (7,7% of the respondents) stopped at the level of high school with education (see table 4.3). The highest level of education attained, is also for the sub- sample (culture) fairly alike, with the majority following Bachelor (HBO) or a vocational training (MBO). However, respondents who have the highest level of education in masters degree is higher in the culture category 1 and 5 (Dutch (31,4%) and Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban (30%)), compared with the other categories (table 4.3). The majority, 41,5% of the total response (n=130), are employed. 6,9% of the respondents are working as a zzper/freelancer and 15,4% is self employed. Besides these working people, 23,1% of the sample are a student, and 0,8% is retired. A total of 12,3% of the sample is unemployed. Comparing the different culture categories with the total sample gives fairly the same results, there were no extreme differences. An analysis to the material status of the respondents shows that almost half (52,31%) of the respondents are single and 25,38% are married. 16,15% of the participants are living together, and not married. The minority (0,769%) of the participants in this research is widowed followed by 5,385% divorced or separated people (table 4.3). The results are in contrast to the sub samples (culture categories) fairly the same. Approximately all participants in this research had an equal distribution in the number of household. However the majority (28,68%) of the participants consists of a household of four or more, followed by a household of two people with a percentage of 26,36%. The households with only one and with only three people have the same frequency, namely 29 of the 130 participants, that is 22,31%. Also here the data of all different culture categories are relatively homogeneous (there are no outliers) (see table 4.3).

43

Table 4.3: Demographics of the total sample and of the culture categories

Culture category n=130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Gender: Male 43,1% 23,1% 40,0% 25,0% 30,8% Female 56,9% 100,0% 76,9% 100,0% 60,0% 100,0% 75,0% 69,2% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Age: 20 or younger 3,9% 7,7% 50,0% 10,0% 33,3% 20,0% 10,0% 20-35 39,2% 100,0% 71,8% 50,0% 70,0% 33,3% 55,0% 54,6% 36-50 33,3% 20,5% 20,0% 33,3% 25,0% 26,2%

51-64 21,6% 8,5%

65 or above 2,0% ,8%

100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Educational High school 11,8% 2,6% 50,0% 10,0% 7,7% level: MBO 21,6% 38,5% 50,0% 40,0% 66,7% 35,0% 32,3% HBO 35,3% 100,0% 48,7% 30,0% 16,7% 45,0% 40,0%

Master/ WO 31,4% 10,3% 30,0% 16,7% 10,0% 20,0%

100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Occupation: Student 13,7% 50,0% 33,3% 50,0% 10,0% 16,7% 30,0% 23,1% Employed 49,0% 33,3% 60,0% 83,3% 25,0% 41,5%

Zzper/freelancer 11,8% 2,6% 50,0% 5,0% 6,9% Self employed 13,7% 17,9% 10,0% 25,0% 15,4%

9,8% 50,0% 12,8% 20,0% 15,0% 12,3% Unemployed Retired 2,0% ,8%

100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Marital Married 27,5% 33,3% 30,0% 15,0% 25,4% status: Living together 31,4% 30,0% 16,7% 5,0% 16,2% (unmarried) Divorced/seperated 5,9% 50,0% 5,1% 10,0% 5,4%

Widowed 2,6% ,8%

Single 35,3% 50,0% 59,0% 100,0% 30,0% 83,3% 80,0% 52,3% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Persons per 1 23,5% 23,1% 50,0% 33,3% 25,0% 22,3% household: 2 31,4% 50,0% 12,8% 50,0% 50,0% 30,0% 26,2% 3 19,6% 25,6% 40,0% 16,7% 20,0% 22,3%

4 or more 25,5% 50,0% 38,5% 10,0% 50,0% 25,0% 29,2% Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

The average expenditure of all the respondents who participated in this research is € 89,51. However, if the same analysis is done but divided for each culture category, the amount of expenditure varies. Table 4.4 shows that the culture category 1 (Dutch), 2 (Turkish) and 3 (Moroccan) are the ones who spend in average the most on their weekly groceries. To the question ‘if their weekly expenditure of a certain grocery retail format would change comparing to last year’, the majority of the (total) respondents answered for Albert Heijn format (73,1%) yes and for Jumbo(/c1000) format 61,7% answered yes. This in contrast to the Lidl/Aldi format whereby only 49,2%of the respondents answered yes to spend this year more or the same on their 44

groceries (results of this question are included in appendix F). If each culture categories are compared, we notice a small difference within the outcome of this question, actually it is slightly comparable with the total outcome as mentioned above. A note must be made, the culture categories 1, 3, 5 and 7 have more respondents, than the other categories (2, 4, and 6). For instance, culture group 2 (Turkey) and 4 (Eastern Europe) have each only 1 respondent who participated in this research, that doesn’t justify to make a conclusion for a whole culture group. As explained before, the culture categories Eastern Europe (4) and Others (7) include a collection of different countries, which are not specified. So for these groups in this research it is not possible to use the Hofstede’s dimensions scores.

Table 4.4: Weekly expenditure (in Euros)

Culture category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mean 102,14 117,00 91,72 63,00 62,40 67,17 73,15 89,51 N 51,00 2,00 39,00 2,00 10,00 6,00 20,00 130,00 Std. Deviation 48,68 125,87 59,38 16,97 43,68 53,51 48,48 53,68

4.2 Grocery retail choice per category All the participants are asked to fill in if they are familiar with the grocery retail formats Albert Heijn, Jumbo(/c1000) and Aldi/Lidl and their favorite grocery retailer. Almost 99,2% of total respondents (n=130) are familiar with the grocer retail format Albert Heijn. All seven culture categories are familiar with Albert Heijn (100%), except category 7 (whereby 1 participant answered not to be familiar with Albert Heijn) (see Appendix F). The grocery retail formats of Jumbo and Lidl/Aldi scored both a 93,1%. This means that 121 out of 130 respondents do know these formats (see Appendix F). At least 90% or more of the participants of culture categories 1, 3 and 5 are all familiar with Jumbo and Aldi/Lidl. Respondents nominated Albert Heijn as their number one preference grocery retailer (54,62%), followed by Jumbo (20%), Lidl/Aldi (13,85%) and other formats (9,22%). However, 2,31% stated to have no preferences for a certain grocery retailer (outcome of open-question 10, see Appendix C and F). These preferences are fairly consistent with respective grocery retail market-shares: Jumbo having 21,7% share, Lidl and Aldi combined with 15,1% share and Albert Heijn with 33,7% share in 2012 (Distrifood,

45

2013). The outcome of question 10 indicates that most respondents favor the grocery retailer Albert Heijn since it has more shares (54,62%) than the actual marketing share of 33,7% (see appendix F). Also, as shown in table 4.5 is Albert Heijn (with 57,7%) the highest nominated grocery retailer to do their daily if not weekly groceries. In turn, comparing the seven culture categories to the outcome of this question results Albert Heijn in the highest score of each category (table 4.5). After Albert Heijn, the remaining culture categories 1 (Dutch) and 7 (Others) ranked Jumbo/c1000, respectively 25,5% and 25%, as the second highest to do their groceries. The culture categories 3 (Moroccan) and 5 (Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban) had others, not specified, grocery retailers as the second frequent visited grocery retailer, respectively 12,8% and 30% (table 4.5). The motivation behind the frequent visitation of the chosen grocery retailer as mentioned above is for all participants’ convenience with 63,1% followed by quality with 20% and price with 14,6%. The culture categories 1 (Dutch) and 3 (Moroccan) show equivalent scores, but category 5 (Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban) shows a very high rate on convenience namely 80% while price and quality score both 10% (see table 4.5). A majority, namely 40,8% of all consumers visits at least once or twice a grocery retailer, while 37,7% of the respondents go weekly three or four times to a grocery retailer. Followed by 13,9% of the participants answered that they visit a grocery retailer at least four a five times a week. A minority of the participants (1,5%) go at least seven or more times a week to a grocery retailer. The culture category 1 (Dutch) is the only category where a fraction of the participants (3,9%) visit a grocery retailer at least seven or more times a week. While the visitations of culture category 3 (Moroccan) limits at five till six times a week and for the culture category 5 (Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban) are visitations limited to no more than four to five times a week (see table 4.5). Around 56,2% of the consumers visits at least two different grocery retailers a week, followed by 30,8% where the weekly visitations limits to only one grocery retailer. The remaining 13,1% of consumers visit three or more different grocery retailers a week (table 4.5). Again, the culture categories 1 (Dutch) and 3 (Moroccan) have the similar values with the highest score on visitation of two different grocery retailer a week (respectively 52,9% and 59%). The lowest value of these categories scored 13,7% and 7,7% on visitation of three or more different grocery retailers a week. The culture

46

category 5 (Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban) differs with the previous mentioned categories. Although the highest score is 60% on two different grocery retailers visited a week (same as the category 1 and 3), it divers on the second highest score whereby three or more different groceries are weekly visited (30%) (see table 4.5). 70% of all of the respondents (n=130) said to recommend Albert Heijn, while 81,2% of the same participants would recommend Jumbo and 67,7% would recommend Aldi/Lidl (see Appendix F). If the results of each culture category are compared, it is obviously that category 3 (Moroccan) would highly recommend (76,9%) Albert Heijn while category 1 and 5 respectively 58,8% and 60% of the participants would also recommend Albert Heijn. Aldi/Lidl format has the similar outcome as Albert Heijn whereas 67,7% of the total participants would recommend Aldi/Lidl. The culture category 5 (Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban) stands out by resulting in 100% whereas all participants of category 5 would recommend the Aldi/Lidl format. For category 3 (Moroccan) the distribution is slightly lower than the outcome at Albert Heijn (with only 61,5% recommending Aldi/Lidl grocery retailer while the culture category 1 (Dutch) stays the same as Albert Heijn with 58,8%). The most popular formats that all respondents would recommend is Jumbo with an outcome of 81,5% (see Appendix F). Also among all culture categories, recommendation of Jumbo scores the highest at culture category 5 (Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban) with 100%, category 3 (Moroccan) scores 89,7% and category 1 scores not more than 66,7%.

47

Table 4.5: Grocery retail choice & frequency of the sample

n=130 Culture category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Frequent Albert Heijn 43,1% 100,0% 69,2% 100,0% 50,0% 83,3% 60,0% 57,7% visited grocery retailer/format Jumbo (/c1000) 25,5% 10,3% 10,0% 25,0% 17,7% Lidl/Aldi 9,8% 7,7% 10,0% 16,7% 10,0% 9,2% Others 21,6% 12,8% 30,0% 5,0% 15,4% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Motivation Convience 58,8% 50,0% 66,7% 50,0% 80,0% 83,3% 55,0% 63,1% frequently Price 17,6% 12,8% 10,0% 16,7% 15,0% 14,6% visiting Quality 21,6% 50,0% 17,9% 50,0% 10,0% 25,0% 20,0% Brand 2,6% ,8% Loyalty 2,0% 5,0% 1,5% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Weekly 1-2 times 41,2% 48,7% 50,0% 40,0% 66,7% 20,0% 40,8% visitations 3-4 times 33,3% 50,0% 33,3% 50,0% 40,0% 33,3% 55,0% 37,7% 4-5 times 15,7% 50,0% 12,8% 20,0% 10,0% 13,8% 5-6 times 5,9% 5,1% 15,0% 6,2% 7 or more times 3,9% 1,5% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Different 1 33,3% 50,0% 33,3% 10,0% 33,3% 30,0% 30,8% grocery 2 52,9% 50,0% 59,0% 100,0% 60,0% 50,0% 55,0% 56,2% retailers per 3 of meer 13,7% 7,7% 30,0% 16,7% 15,0% 13,1% week Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

But a note must be made. Table 4.5 shows already that there are no big differences between the choice of a grocery retail formats and the different culture categories. Hence, a majority of respondents with Dutch (1), Moroccan (3) or Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban (5) background choose the retail format Albert Heijn as their preference (see Appendix F). This is the main reason to continue only with the grocery retail format of Albert Heijn. Moreover, since Albert Heijn is the frequent visited grocery retailer (57,7%) and the most familiar retailer among the total respondents, we decided to continue this research with only the format of Albert Heijn (see table 4.5). Since the preferences of visiting a certain grocery retail format is similar divided among the culture categories, we decided to go ahead with only the grocery retail format of Albert Heijn. If this was not the case than it was necessary to study the differences of the retail formats between the chosen groceries.

4.3 Reliability, Validity and conditions of Factor Analysis In order to ensure the scale reliability for the measurement of the total score of Customer Equity, the Cronbach alpha values of the grocery retailer Albert Heijn was computed. The table 4.6 presents the results of reliability for Customer Equity scale,

48

whereas value, brand and Retention Equity items are summed up, of the grocery retailer Albert Heijn only. According to Pallant (2007, p. 95) ideally, the Cronbach alpha coefficient of a scale should be above 0.7, however, in short scales with fewer than 10 items it is common to find quite low Cronbach values. However, table 4.6 shows that Cronbach alpha values of Customer Equity for Albert Heijn is 0,906, which is higher than the threshold of 0,7 (see appendix D). Since this scale is the total sum of all values of value, brand and Retention Equity drivers, it therefore can be assumed that the Customer Equity scale is in general fully reliable.

Table 4.6: Result of reliability statistics of Customer Equity- Albert Heijn

Reliability Statistics Albert Heijn Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Based on Standardized Items

,906 ,914 26

The validity of the constructs is justified as the measures were developed based on a theoretical framework that has been derived from extensive literature review. In this study, the factor analysis will be performed for the grocery retailer Albert Heijn only and for each culture category namely Dutch (1), Moroccan (3) and Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban (5). First, in order to precede with the factor analysis the conditions concerning this analysis must be met. The starting out condition, is the existence of metric data, which is in this research given, as we have measured all variables (items) on the five point Likert scale, which can be regarded as metric (Malhotra, Charles and Uslay, 2005). Researchers (e.g. Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black, 1998, p. 4) have recommended that a use of 50 respondents to be the lower boundary, with a preferable size of 100 or more respondents. Since in this study the factor analysis sample size is 124, there was no problem conducting factor analysis with regard to this sample size. There are two ways to determine the factorability of an inter-correlation matrix: Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measuring Sampling Adequacy (Hair et al., 1998). These tests are used to validate the use of factor analysis. The KMO measure of the sample should be greater than 0.5 for a satisfactory factor analysis to proceed (Hair et al., 1998). To be sure that the results of the Bartlett’s tests of sphericity are significant we use the criteria p<.001,

49

resulting in acceptable levels of correlation between items for Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (Field, 2009, p. 671). In table 4.7 we summed up the results concerning the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity of each culture category and each equity driver. For the culture categories Dutch (1) and Moroccan (3) all outcomes were in satisfactory concerning KMO measure and the Bartlett’s test. This indicates that acceptable sampling adequacy has been achieved whereas factor analysis can proceed (table 4.7). The culture category Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban (5) unfortunately did not meet all of these conditions (see table 4.7). For instance, the KMO measure result of Retention Equity showed that this was lower than 0,5. This means that the correlations between pairs of variables cannot be explained by other variables whereas the requirement to do a factor analysis is not appropriate. For the Value Equity, the correlation matrix of factor analysis showed that this matrix is not positive definite. This means that the matrix contain zero or negative eigenvalues, indicating that there are linear dependencies among the variables, as reflected by one or more eigenvalues of 0. From the researcher’s perspective, only variables with eigenvalues of 1.00 or higher are traditionally considered worth analyzing, hence factor analysis is not appropriate. Also the Bartlett’s test outcomes of brand and Retention Equity were not significant. This states that the items are not correlated in which they can’t be a part of the same factor therefore also another reason that factor analysis for this group is not appropriate.

Table 4.7: Outcomes of KMO and Bartlett's Test of each culture category and each driver of Customer Equity (n=124)

Surinam/Dutch Culture category Dutch (1) Moroccan (3) Antilles/Aruban (5) Value Equity Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of 0,780 0,746 - Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Sig. 0,000 0,000 - Brand Equity Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of 0,683 0,573 0,774 Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Sig. 0,000 0,000 0,083 Retention Equity

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of 0,749 0,708 0,325 Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Sig. 0,000 0,000 0,022

50

4.4 Factor analysis After the data collection was completed, descriptive statistics were initially conducted to provide an overview of the sample as described in the previous paragraph. In order to determine the underlying structure among variables in this research, exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Explorative factor analysis (hereafter referred as factor analysis) is a statistical method used to uncover the underlying structure of a relatively large set of variables with a purpose of indentifying the underlying relationships between measured variables. According to Hinkin, Tracey, and Enz (1997, p. 108), the “item evaluation through factor analysis is one of the most critical steps in determining the viability of the scale” (a scale refers to a collection of questions used to measure a specific research subject). This means that factor analysis defines the underlying structure in a data matrix, hence supporting in item evaluation in which the aim of the research is the primary defining factor (Hair et al. 1998). In other words the researcher attempts to identify underlying variables, or factors, that explain the pattern of correlations within a set of observed variables. The factor analysis was performed 26 items for a sample of 124 respondents (6 respondents excluded because of partially/no answer bias), for each of the item scales resulted into a small number of underlying factors. Subsequently, the principal component analysis (PCA) extraction with Varimax rotation was performed by using SPSS version 21. Principal components analysis is a dimension reduction technique and is used to extract factors higher than 1.0. This threshold value is suggested by Hair et al. (1998). Varimax rotation was used to facilitate the interpretation of the factor matrix. The factor loadings should be at least 0.3 but for a variable to unambiguously represent a factor. However in this study factor loading with an eigenvalue greater than .6 was the basis for determining which factors were retained. This means that the Value, Brand and Retention Equity constructs of the two remaining culture categories (Dutch (1) and Moroccan (3)) with a loading below 0.6 are excluded from further analysis. Since results of the factor analysis for this study are very extensive, is decided to make an overview of the results in tables of each driver and each culture category which are discussed next. These tables list the factors in the order in which they were extracted from the data with their explaining variance whereas each factor is labeled based on their loadings of the constructs and extensive literature review. The means from descriptive statistics (see appendix G) and the weighted means, which is extracted by multiplying each

51

factor loadings with each mean, are also shown in the tables because this will be needed for calculating the Customer Equity that is explained in the next chapter.

Factor analysis Value Equity results of culture category Dutch: The principal component analysis revealed the presence of three components (factors) with the eigenvalue exceeding 1 (see table 4.8). The three-component solution explained a total of 64,1% of variance. Furthermore, the component extraction and Varimax rotation was performed (see appendix E). Table 4.8 shows all the factor loadings with an eigenvalue greater than .6 were retained. In total 8 constructs (items) and 3 factors, with reference to the rotation, remained for the Value Equity driver. Factor 1: is loaded on six constructs whereas four of the five items had large positive correlations with quality. Therefore is this factor labeled as Quality and accounted for 33% of the variance. Factor 2: is loaded with one constructs and accounts for 20% of the variance. Factor 2 is labeled as Convenience. Factor 3: is accounted for 11% of the variance and is loaded on one constructs suggesting it is measuring Price.

Table 4.8: Results of Factor Analysis, Factor Variance, Loadings, Means, Weighted Means and Value Equity constructs of the culture category Dutch

Factor Factor Interpretation (% of variance Value Equity constructs Loading Means Weighted explained) Means

The meat section of the supermarket is always fresh- Albert Heijn 0,853 3,53 3,01 There is a big variety of the assortment in the supermarket- Albert Heijn 0,832 4,27 3,55 The overall quality of the following grocery retailer is F 1 Quality (33%) very good- Albert Heijn 0,805 3,94 3,17 The available products at this supermarket are of a high quality- Albert Heijn 0,786 4,02 3,16 The vegetable/fruit (fresh) section of the supermarket is always fresh- Albert Heijn 0,722 3,69 2,66 The grocery retailer is easy to reach- Albert Heijn 0,848 4,18 3,54 F 2 Convenience (20%) The waiting time in queue is acceptable at the grocery retailer -Albert Heijn 0,756 3,67 2,77 What do you think about the overall pricing of the F3 Price (11%) products at the next grocery retailer-Albert Heijn 0,863 3,69 3,18

52

Factor analysis Brand Equity results of culture category Dutch: Two factors were retained accounting for 55,2% of the total variance explained from factor analysis. Also here the principal component analysis using Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization was performed. The loadings of the factors were identified and each factor and its (Brand Equity) constructs (item) were interpreted. Factor 1: Since only one factor is extracted and accounted for 55% of the variance, only the unrotated component matrix is loaded, also here the cutoff point is 0,6. In total there were four constructs loaded which reflects on Brand attitude due to three of the four positive loadings with image and personality constructs (see table 4.9).

Table 4.9: Results of Factor Analysis, Factor Variance, Loadings, Means, Weighted Means and Brand Equity constructs of the culture category Dutch

Factor Weighted Factor Brand Equity constructs Loading Means Interpretation (% of Means variance explained)

The image of this grocery retailer fits my personality well-Albert Heijn 0,820 2,96 2,43

This supermarket has my personal preference-Albert Heijn 0,810 3,49 2,83 F 1 Brand attitude (55%) I often notice and pay attention to the grocery retailer media advertising on TV- Albert Heijn 0,793 2,86 2,27 I like to receive leaflets of the following grocery retailer-Albert Heijn 0,768 2,67 2,05

Factor analysis Retention Equity results of culture category Dutch: These four factors explained 69,1% per cent of the total variance. The table 4.10 lists the factors in the order in which they were extracted from the data. Factor 1: includes the three large positive loadings with (1) emotion and service (In general am I satisfied with the service at this supermarket-), (2) emotion (The staff are friendly and approachable) and (3) combination of service and emotion (If I have a question, the staff helps me promptly at the supermarket). The first factor, accounted for 45%, includes constructs that can be interpreted and named as Emotional bonding. Factor 2: Large positive weightings are correlated with (1) relationship (The relationship I have with the following supermarket is important to me); (2) emotion (I 53

feel relaxed at the grocery retailer); and (3) emotion and relationship (I feel a sense of community at this grocery retailer) Second factor, which is accounted for 24%, incorporates two Brand Equity drivers and can be labeled as Relationship.

Table 4.10: Results of Factor Analysis, Factor Variance, Loadings, Means, Weighted Means and Retention Equity constructs of the culture category Dutch

Factor Interpretation (% Weighted Factor Retention equity constructs Loading Means of variance Means explained) In general am I satisfied with the service at this supermarket- Albert Heijn 0,870 3,78 3,29 The staff are friendly and approachable- Albert Heijn 0,822 3,49 2,87 Emotional bonding F 1 (45%) If I have a question, the staff helps me promptly at the supermarket- Albert Heijn 0,816 3,59 2,93 I feel comfortable at this grocery retailer- Albert Heijn 0,794 3,59 2,85 It is easy to find my way in this supermarket 0,673 3,69 2,48 The relationship I have with the following supermarket is important to me- Albert Heijn 0,887 3,08 2,73 F 2 Relationship (24%) I feel a sense of community at this grocery retailer- Albert Heijn 0,747 2,53 1,89

Factor analysis Value Equity results of culture category Moroccan: Four factors were extracted using the methods of principal component analysis using Varimax rotation. The extracted six factors explained 74% of the total variance. The loadings of the factors identified in factor analysis were stable. Each of the constructs loaded fairly high on a single factor (see table 4.11). Cutoff point was 0.60 for the factor structure matrix, with reference to the rotation. Factor 1: The first factor extracted is accounted for 33% of the variance and is loaded on six constructs. Whereas four of the six constructs involved high positive relations with (1) quality, therefore is this factor labeled as Quality. Factor 2: The second factor is loaded on two constructs and is accounted for 17% of the variance. The two constructs revealed strong positive correlations with convenience and therefore is this factor named Convenience. Factor 3: This factor reveals a strong positive correlation with only one construct namely ‘the overall pricing of a grocery retailer’ and is accounted for 13% of the variance (see table 4.11). Therefore is this factor labeled and named as Price. Factor 4: As shown in table 4.11 reveals strong positive correlations with one construct namely ‘freshness of the meat’ (accounted for 11% of the variance) which 54

can be interpreted as the perceived quality. However factor 1 is already marked and labeled as quality, because of the interface within these two factors, is chosen to embed this factor with factor 1, which is Perceived quality.

Table 4.11: Results of Factor Analysis, Factor Variance, Loadings, Means, Weighted Means and Value Equity constructs of the culture category Moroccan

Factor Interpretation (% Weighted Factor Value Equity constructs Loading Means of variance Means explained) This supermarket has all the products I need for doing my weekly groceries- Albert Heijn 0,837 4,25 3,56 There is a big variety of the assortment in the supermarket- Albert Heijn 0,797 4,31 3,44 In general the most products that I need for my groceries are available at the next grocery retailer- F 1 Quality (33%) Albert Heijn 0,721 4,17 3,01 The available products at this supermarket are of a high quality- Albert Heijn 0,688 4,44 3,05 The overall quality of the following grocery retailer is very good- Albert Heijn 0,686 4,25 2,92 The vegetable/fruit (fresh) section of the supermarket is always fresh- Albert Heijn 0,645 3,89 2,51

The grocery retailer is easy to reach- Albert Heijn 0,900 4,39 3,95 F 2 Convenience (17%) Shopping at the following supermarket is worth the time and effort- Albert Heijn 0,696 4,17 2,90 What do you think about the overall pricing of the F 3 Price (13%) products at the next grocery retailer-Albert Heijn -0,804 3,92 -3,15 Preceived Quality The meat section of the supermarket is always fresh- F 4 (11%) Albert Heijn -0,938 3,22 -3,02

Factor analysis Brand Equity results of culture category Moroccan: Two factors were retained accounting for 63,1% of the total variance explained from factor analysis. Also here the principal component analysis by using Varimax rotation is performed. The cutoff point of every loadings of the factors was also here 0.60, the constructs that each factor loaded were interpreted whereas these factors were labeled and named (see table 4.12). Factor 1: This factor accounted for 40% of the variance and involves high positive relations with image and personality regarding the three loaded constructs (see table 4.12). This factor is therefore named and labeled brand attitude. Factor 2: is based on one constructs in which implies corporate citizenship and ethics, accounted for 24% of the variance, this factor is therefore labeled and named as

55

brand ethics. This customer perception of brand ethics is the extent to which the values of the brand or the firm are consistent with the customer’s value Rust et al. (2000, p.91).

Table 4.12: Results of Factor Analysis, Factor Variance, Loadings, Means, Weighted Means and Brand Equity constructs of the culture category Moroccan

Factor Interpretation (% Weighted Factor Brand Equity constructs Loading Means of variance Means explained) I often notice and pay attention to the grocery retailer media advertising on TV- Albert Heijn 0,874 3,31 2,89 Brand attitude I like to receive leaflets of the following grocery F 1 (40%) retailer-Albert Heijn 0,756 3,28 2,48 The image of this grocery retailer fits my personality well-Albert Heijn 0,691 3,39 2,34 The supermarket is locally as well as nationally an F 2 Brand ethics (24%) active sponsor of social activities and events- Albert Heijn 0,928 2,69 2,50

Factor analysis Retention Equity results of culture category Moroccan Two factors that were retained account for 63,3% of the total variance explained from factor analysis (see table 4.13). The table 4.13 lists the factors for Retention Equity of the culture category Moroccan in the order in which they were extracted from the data. Factor 1: includes the three large positive loadings with (1) service and emotion (If I have a question, the staff helps me promptly at the supermarket), (2) emotion (I feel comfortable at this grocery retailer) and (3) a combination of service and emotion (The staff are friendly and approachable). The first factor, accounted for 36%, includes constructs that can be interpreted and named as emotional bonding. Factor 2: Large positive weightings are correlated with (1) relationship (The relationship I have with the following supermarket is important to me); (2) emotion; (I feel relaxed at the grocery retailer); and (3) emotion and relationship (I feel a sense of community at this grocery retailer) Second factor, which is accounted for 27%, incorporates two Brand Equity drivers and can be labeled as relationship.

56

Table 4.13: Results of Factor Analysis, Factor Variance, Loadings, Means, Weighted Means and Retention Equity constructs of the culture category Moroccan

Factor Interpretation (% Weighted Factor Retention Equity constructs Loading Means of variance Means explained)

If I have a question, the staff helps me promptly at the supermarket- Albert Heijn 0,840 3,97 3,33

Emotional bonding I feel comfortable at this grocery retailer- Albert Heijn 0,735 4,11 3,02 F 1 (36%) The staff are friendly and approachable- Albert Heijn 0,706 3,67 2,59 In general am I satisfied with the service at this supermarket- Albert Heijn 0,699 4,00 2,80 It is easy to find my way at this supermarket 0,693 4,14 2,87 The relationship I have with the following supermarket is important to me- Albert Heijn 0,788 3,19 2,51 F 2 Relationship (27%) I feel relaxed at the grocery retailer- Albert Heijn 0,785 3,94 3,09 I feel a sense of community at this grocery retailer- Albert Heijn 0,757 2,69 2,04

4.5 Differences between factors Now all the factors of each culture category has been labeled and named, it’s time for spotting the differences between these two culture categories. To do that the factor loadings are aggregated into one quantity (factor value). This is done by calculating the total value of weighted means of each factor, than divide this by the total loading of that same factor. This creates one quantity which is the factor value. For instance, all the factor loadings and weighted means of Quality constructs (a sub-driver of Value Equity) are after computing aggregated into one quantity namely Quality. This is done for all the labeled factors and for each culture category (Dutch and Moroccan) which is illustrated in table 4.14. Markedly, the overall results (when compared to each other) are that all the factor values Moroccan are higher than those for the culture category Dutch. The Retention Equity factors show the biggest differences between the two culture categories. For instance, the factor value of Emotional bonding of the Moroccans is at least 0.35 higher than the culture category Dutch. Of all the Value Equity factors only the Price factor of the Moroccan is somewhat similar to the Dutch. Also the Brand Equity factor (Brand attitude) of the Dutch is also roughly similar to that of the Moroccan.

57

The most obvious thing about table 4.14 is that the culture category Moroccan has two extra factors whilst this factor wasn’t present at the culture category Dutch. The extra factors are Perceived Quality (of Value Equity) and Brand Ethics (of Brand Equity). The extra factor of Brand Equity shows that Moroccans value Brand ethics very high, (there is a high positive correlation). The extra factor of Value Equity, Perceived Quality has a particular explanation; this will be explained in the conclusion/discussion part of this research. For now, the Perceived Quality factor value will not be left out of consideration during computation of the Customer Equity. This means that this factor value will be removed.

Table 4.14: Result of the average means of each labeled factor of each culture category

Factor Value Factor Value Factor label Dutch (1) Moroccan (3) Value Equity Quality 3,89 4,23 Convenience 3,93 4,29 Price 3,69 3,92 Perceived Quality - 3,22 Brand Equity Brand attitude 3,00 3,32 Brand ethics - 2,69 Retention Equity Emotional bonding 3,63 3,98 Relationship 2,83 3,28

4.6 Calculating Customer Equity Performance. In this section we analyse the two culture categories, Dutch (1) and Moroccan (3) visiting only Albert Heijn. This analysis is done to investigate how they perform in terms of Customer Equity (Value Equity, Brand Equity and Retention Equity). Hereby we make use of the factor values which are computed in the previous paragraph are of a high importance. The importance of each attribute is already determined by the outcome of question 12 stated in the survey (see appendix C). In this question the respondents were asked to what extent they are motivated to do their groceries at a certain grocery retailer. In this way the importance of each attribute (Convenience, Quality, Price, Brand and Loyalty) is determined in advance. In table 4.5 of paragraph 4.2 the percentages of each attribute is presented for each culture category. Before using these importance

58

percentages to calculate the Customer Equity, the factor values of Brand Equity and Retention Equity must be aggregated into one quantity since we only asked for the attributes Brand and Loyalty, and not for the sub-drivers Brand attitude, Brand ethics, Emotional bonding, Relationship. The recalculated factors of Brand and Retention Equity of both Dutch (1) and Moroccan (3) are presented in table 4.15. A note must be made, the factor value of Perceived Quality, is as previously mentioned, removed from the list and will be comprehensively explained in the discussion/conclusion part of this dissertation. Table 4.15 also shows an extra column which represents the corrected factor value, this is the factor value that is corrected after multiplying this value with the importance percentage of each attribute for each culture category. The results are shown in table 4.15. Subsequently, the corrected factor values for each culture category are summed up to determine the final Customer Equity value as shown in table 4.15. The Customer Equity value for Moroccan with 4.20 is higher than for the Dutch with 3.87. This could hold that the grocery retailer Albert Heijn means to the Moroccans more than to the Dutch. Normally a high Customer Equity involves that a company with this high ranking can earn more money from its customers on average than another company that is identical in all other characteristics but with a lower ranking. Because the results of the Customer Equity concerns only one grocery retailer; Albert Heijn, serving two different culture categories with their own Customer Equity value, the outcome of Customer Equity could be interpreted as how much a certain culture category values a certain grocery retail format (in this case, Albert Heijn). It also can be interpreted as a better match between Albert Heijn and the Moroccans than between Albert Heijn and the Dutch. In the conclusion/discussion part of this thesis we discuss these results.

Table 4.15: Results Factor Value and Corrected Factor Value of culture categories Dutch (1) and Moroccan (3)

Motivation Corrected Factor Value Motivation Corrected Factor Factor Value Factor label Frequency Factor Values Morrocan (3) Frequency Values Dutch (1) visits Dutch (1) visits Morrocan (3) Value Equity Quality 3,89 0,261 0,84 4,23 0,179 0,76 Convenience 3,93 0,588 2,31 4,29 0,667 2,86 Price 3,69 0,176 0,65 3,92 0,128 0,50 Brand Equity 3,00 0,000 0,00 3,14 0,026 0,08 Retention Equity 3,39 0,020 0,07 3,71 0,000 0,00 Customer quity 3,87 4,20 59

5. Conclusion In this final chapter we highlight the conclusions of this research and try to answer the research question. Also we discuss over here the limitations and recommendations for future research.

5.1 Conclusion Many researchers have emphasized that customers are vital assets for the success of firms. One of the key’s for gaining a more successful performance is driven by Customer Equity. Customer Equity is defined as the total discounted lifetime value of all the firm’s customers (Lemon et al., 2001). A Customer Equity framework (see figure 2.3) developed by Rust et al. (2000) was the guideline for this dissertation. The research question for this master thesis is “To what extent do different population groups prefer certain grocery retail formats and how can such retailer optimize this format?”. We answer this question based on reviews of literature and empirical research. The research question starts with “To what extent”. This stands for the proportion between Value, Brand and Retention Equity interfaced to the importance of these Equities expressed in corrected factor value for the culture categories Dutch (1) and Moroccan (3) in the Netherlands (see table 4.15). The second part of the research question states “do different population groups prefer certain grocery retail formats?”. Table 4.5 shows that there are no big differences between the choices of grocery retail formats among the different culture categories. Moreover, in this research Albert Heijn is the most familiar grocery retailer among all the different culture categories. Therefore we chose to continue this research with Albert Heijn as the only grocery retail format. This is previously explained in paragraph 4.2. Also the research question states that this is researched for different population groups in the Netherlands that visiting these chosen grocery retail formats. In paragraphs 4.1 and 4.3 we explain why is chosen to conduct this research with only the culture categories Dutch (1) and the Moroccan (3). Firstly, the three groups Eastern Europe (4), Asian (6) and Others (7) contain a collection of different countries whereby it is hard to assign just one Hofstede’s dimension score. The Turkish (2) and Eastern Europe (4) (a second reason to deny this group) had only one respondent each who participated in this research, that doesn’t justify a conclusion for a whole culture group. So we decided to leave these groups out of consideration. The culture category Suriname (5) is also left out for further analysis because this group didn’t qualify to the conditions to continue

60

with factor analysis. After all, table 4.15 shows that there is a difference between the proportion of the corrected factor value of the two culture categories, Dutch (1) and Moroccan (3). This difference is obviously not due to the difference in grocery retail format but the culture differences. This table also shows that the quality experience for the products of Albert Heijn is stronger for typical Dutch people than for Moroccan people. In this case the corrected factor values are respectively 0,84 and 0,76. On the other hand, the Moroccan customers of the Albert Heijn experience Albert Heijn as a convenient grocery retailer, while the Dutch customers don’t and score low namely 2,31 versus the 2,86 score of the Moroccans. Concerning the pricing perception, the Moroccan customers (with a corrected factor value score of 0,50) do perceive Albert Heijn more expensive than the Dutch customers, who scored 0,65. Remarkably, is that the Moroccan customers score higher on Brand Equity of Albert Heijn (0,08), while the Dutch customers do perceive this of any importance at all (score 0,00). On the other hand the Moroccan customers score very low on the loyalty driver of Retention Equity namely( 0,00), while the Dutch customers score 0,07. That means (in one way or another) the Dutch have more a bond with Albert Heijn than the Moroccans.. In the end the overall score of Customer Equity for Albert Heijn on a 5 point Likert- scale for the Dutch customers is lower (3,87) than the Moroccan customers (4,20). Thus, like we already mentioned Moroccan customers of Albert Heijn value this grocery retailer more or better than its Dutch customers.

5.2 Discussion In this section the second part of the main research question “....and how can such retailer optimize this format?”, will be discussed. Again, in order for a retailer to optimize their format, the results that are presented in table 4.15 are of essential importance. In other words each corrected factor value is a key to optimize the grocery retailer’s format. For instance, Albert Heijn should pay attention towards the different culture categories of its customers. The Dutch customers value Albert Heijn differently from the Moroccan customers. So if Albert Heijn establishes a new store in a certain neighborhood where the culture category Dutch dominates, the (corrected) factor values of Brand Equity and Retention Equity should be optimized. Also, they have to reconsider the Convenience experience of Dutch customers. Obviously, this is different if Albert Heijn establishes a store in a Moroccan neighborhood. Thus, for Albert Heijn to optimize its format the attitude and image towards its customers should 61

be adjusted for each culture category, whereby the Customer Equity of Albert Heijn automatically will be improved. Another discussion point -as previously mentioned in paragraph 4.5- is perceived quality. Perceived quality was the only extra factor loaded during factor analysis of Value Equity for the culture category Moroccans. This factor loaded highly negative (- 0,938) on one Value Equity construct namely “The meat section of the supermarket is always fresh”. This high negative loading could be clarified since a large number of the Moroccans in the Netherlands are Muslim and eat only ‘halal meat’ (meat that is permissible according to Islamic law). The other negative loading during factor analysis of Value Equity for the culture category Moroccans is price (-0,804). An explanation for this negative loading is that Moroccan customers of Albert Heijn think that the pricing might be right, but it’s just too expensive. All this could also be explained by using the dimensions of Hofstede see table 4.2. Table 5.1 presents again the results of Hofstede dimensions but only for the culture categories Dutch and Moroccan.

Table 5.1: Results of the scores of Hofstede dimension for culture category Dutch and Moroccan

Hofstede's Dimensions Dutch (1) Moroccan (3)

Power distance (PDI) 38 70 Individualism (IDV) 80 25 Masculinity / Femininity (MAS) 14 53 Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) 53 68 Long term orientation (LTO) 44 - Indulgence versus Restraint (IND) - -

This table shows that the culture category Moroccan score high on Power distance, Masculinity and Uncertainty avoidance. The score of Power distance is 70. So this society is a hierarchical society and people accept a hierarchical order, in which everybody has a place without any further justification. Morocco scores 53 on the Masculinity dimension and has according to Hofstede (2001) a masculine society. In masculine countries people “live in order to work” managers are expected to be decisive and assertive, the emphasis is on equity, competition and performance and conflicts are resolved by fighting them out (Hofstede website, 2013). The Uncertainty avoidance score is 68. This society has a very high preference for avoiding uncertainty. Countries exhibiting high uncertainty avoidance maintain rigid codes of belief and behavior and are intolerant of unorthodox behavior and ideas (Hofstede 62

website, 2013). Unfortunately, for both categories Moroccans and Dutch, there is no score on Indulgence. So it’s not possible to make a comparison at this point. The Dutch score 80 on Individualism. This society is an Individualistic society. In other words there is a high preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. Maybe the results of table 4.15 could be partly explained by the dimensions of Hofstede. We leave this discussion out of consideration, since we didn’t raise any questions concerning the relationship between Hofstede’s dimensions and Customer Equity.

5.3 Limitations and Future Research A limitation of this research could be the fact that the majority of the respondents are between 20 and 35 years old. Taken into account the expected general ageing of the total population in the Netherlands, this sample is not (according to the Dutch bureau for statistics, CBS) the perfect representation of the reality. The latest figures from the CBS state that the largest population group in the Netherlands is the group of 38-64 years old (39%). Also not all people of this (ageing) population do have internet access, and as a result, this may have contributed to some element of a non-coverage bias in the data. Another limitation of this research is that of each culture category the response rate was low although the total usable questionnaires equaled 124. The third limitation of this study is the cross-sectional nature of this research. The findings provide a snapshot of consumer perceptions at a given time. Hofstede (1991) and Schwartz (1994) have found conceptual and empirical evidence that there are greater cultural differences between countries than within countries, claiming the frameworks could be used to compare countries (Smith and Dugan, 1996). This could also be a limitation in this research since we compared cultural differences within countries. A final limitation of this research is, given the recent recessionary economic conditions of the marketplace, that consumers are changing their grocery spending patterns, showing greater preference for cheaper home brands over national brands in supermarkets (Knight, 2011). Thus the inertia, which means reluctance of consumers to switch away from the brand purchased in the previous occasion, was not controlled in this study. Future research should consider adding an inertia variable (Vogel, Evanschitzky and Ramaseshan, 2008) to explore further robustness to the research. Another point for future research could be collecting more questionnaires for each culture category, to gain better insights of the preferences of each culture category for 63

a certain format. A note that must be made is that of all respondents who participating a study, whereby specific cultures are researched, combining of culture category must be avoided (like instead of naming China and Japan separately coding them as Asia in the questionnaire). Subsequently, the questions in the survey must be more formulated in a way that the relation between dimensions of Hofstede and Customer Equity could be explained. What’s even more interesting is to conduct the same research for one grocery retailer and different culture categories of which the cultural differences are measured according (for instance) Schwartz (1999) and Trompenaars (1997), instead by Hofstede’s dimensions (Erez and Gati, 2004). Than you may wonder if the results in the end will generate the same conclusions?

64

References

Ahlert, D., Blut M., and Evanschitzky H., (2006). "Current Status and Future Evolution of Retail Formats," in Retailing in the 21st Century, Manfred Krafft and Murali K. Mantrala, Eds. Berlin: Springer, 289-308.

Balan, C., (2007). “The measurement of Customer Lifetime Value and Customer Equity”, Management and Marketing, pp. 771-775.

Bell, D.R. and Lattin, J.M. (1998). Shopping behavior and consumer preference for store price format: Why “large basket” shoppers prefer EDLP. Marketing Science, 17(1), pp. 66-88.

Bestedingen en Marktaandelen, (2013). Accesible via

Blattberg, R.C., & Deighton, J. (1996). Manage Marketing by the Customer Equity Test. Harvard Business Review, (July–August), pp. 136–144.

Bolton, R.N., Venkatesh S., and Detra Y. M., (2006). "Recent Trends and Emerging Practices in Retail Pricing," in Retailing in the 21 Century, Manfred Krafft and Murali K. Mantrala, Eds. Berlin: Spinger, 255-69.

CBL and EFMI (2011). Consumententrends, accessible via: http://www.efmi.nl/Pdf/Hand-out%20EFMI- presentatie%20Laurens%20Sloot%20(ConsumentenTrends%20- %2013%20juni%202013).pdf, viewed 9.7.2013

Centraal Bureau van de Statistiek (CBS) (2013). Annual figures 2012, 2013, accessible via , viewed 29.05.2013.

Clark, T., and Pugh, D. S., (2001). Foreign country priorities in the internationalization process: a measure and an exploratory test on British firms. International Business Review, 10(3), pp. 285–303.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika, Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.

Dawar, N., and Parker, P., (1994). “Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality.” Journal of Marketing 58 (April): 81-95.

Dawson J., (2000), "Retailing at Century End: Some Challenges for Management and Research," International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, 10 (2), 119-48.

65

Dillman, D.A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2007 update with new internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Distrifood (2009), Klant ziet AH Excellent als A-merk, Accessible via http://www.distrifood.nl/web/Assortiment/Assortimentsnieuws/Assortiment- artikel/132573/Klant-ziet-AH-Excellent-als-Amerk.htm viewed 17-7-2013

Distrifood (2010). Marktaandelen: Ah en Lidl winnaars. Accessible via , viewed 20.06.2013

Distrifood (2011). “Jumbo neemt c1000 over”, accessible via http://www.distrifood.nl/Formules/Algemeen/2011/11/Breaking-Jumbo-neemt-C1000- over-DIS141459W/, viewed 15.04.2013

Distrifood (2013), Marktaandelen 2007-2012 Nielsen. Retrieved from http://www.distrifood.nl/Service/Marktaandelen/, viewed 30.06.2013

Duncan, T. & S.E. Moriarty (1998): A Communication-Based Marketing Model for Managing Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 1-13.

Dwivedi A., Merrilees B., Miller D. , Herington C., (2012), Brand, Value and Relationship Equities and Loyalty-intentions in the Australian supermarket industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. Vol. 19, pp. 526-536

EFMI (2011). Consumententrends. Retrieved from http://www.supermarkt.nl/cblopleidingen/bronnen/Consumententrends2011.pdf, viewed 30.06.2013

EFMI (2013). Consumententrends. Retrieved from http://www.efmi.nl/Pdf/Hand- out%20EFMI-presentatie%20Laurens%20Sloot%20(ConsumentenTrends%20- %2013%20juni%202013).pdf, viewed 30.06.2013

Erez, M., and Gati, F., (2004), A Dynamic, Multi-Level Model of Culture: From the Micro Level of the Individual to the Macro Level of a Global Culture Applied Psychology: An International review, Vol. 53 (4), pp. 583 –598.

Field, A. P., (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, England : SAGE.

GfK retailrapport (2012), Retrieved from http://www.gfk.com/imperia/md/content/ps_benelux/publicaties/toptopics2012_retail.p df, viewed 30.06.2013

Gonzalez-Benito, Oscar (2005), "Spatial Competitive Interaction of Retail Store Formats: Modeling Proposal and Empirical Results," Journal of Business Research, 58 (4), pp. 457-66.

Gupta, S., D. R. Lehman, and J. A. Stuart (2004), ‘Valuing customers’. Journal of Marketing Research XLI, pp. 7–18.

66

Haans, A.J. (2007). Multi-Outlet/Multi-Format Grocery Retailing: Some Issues and Insights. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., and Black, W. C., (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B., and Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 21(1), pp. 100-120.

Hofstede website (2013): Accessible via www.geert-hofstede.com, viewed 10.11.2013.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage:

Hofstede, G. (2002), “Dimensions do not exist: a reply to Brendan McSweeney”, Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 11.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307- 0919.1014

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Rev. 3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill: pp. 15-550 For translations see www.geerthofstede.nl and “our books”.

Jones, M. L., Alony, A., (2007). The cultural impact of information systems –through the eyes of Hofstede – a critical journey, Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, vol. 4, pp. 407-419.

Kar, A., (2010). The 7 Ps of services marketing, accessible via http://business- fundas.com/2010/the-7-ps-of-services-marketing/, reviewed on 05.07.2013

Kaufman, P.R., (2000). "Grocery Retailers Demonstrate Urge to Merge," FoodReview, 23 (2), 29-34.

Keller, K.L., (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Knight, E., (2011). Trickle-down Shopping Habits Boost Discount Stores, But No Good News for Retail. The Sydney Morning Herald, Accessible via: /http://www.smh.com.au/business/trickledown-shopping-habits-boost-discount-stores- but-no-good-news-for-retail-20110720-1hoy8.htmlS#ixzz1UlLfHglP. Viewed 20.12.2013

Kotler, P., and Keller, K.L., (2006). Marketing Management (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lemon, K.N., Rust, R.T., & Zeithaml, V.A. (2001). What drives customer equity. Marketing Management, 10(1), pp. 20-25. 67

Leung, K. Bhagat, R.S. Buchan, N.R. Erez, M. and Gibson, C.B., (2005). ‘Culture and international business: recent advances and their implications for future research’, Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4): 357–378.

Lewis L., Turcsik R., and Janoff B., (2001), "68th Annual Report of the Grocery Industry," 5-31.

Lidl, Fact & Figures, (2013), Accessible via http://www.werkenbijlidl.nl/cps/rde/xchg/lidl_nl/hs.xsl/5309.htm, Viewed 20.06.2013

Lovelock, C . and Wirtz , J . (2007) ‘ Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy; Pearson, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA .

Malhotra, N. K., Charles B., and Uslay C., (2005). “Correspondence Analysis: Methodological Perspectives, Issues and Applications,” Review of Marketing Research, pp. 285-316.

Matsumoto, D., (1996). “Culture and Psychology”. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole publishing: p.13-17

Miller J.M., (2013). Reliability and Validity, Accessible via http://michaeljmillerphd.com/res500_lecturenotes/reliability_and_validity.pdf, viewed on 20.08.2013

Ng, S.I., Lee, J.A., Soutar, G.N., (2007). Are Hofstede's and Schwartz's value frameworks congruent? Int. Mark. Rev. 24 (2), pp. 164–180

Noordhoff, C., Pauwels, P. en Odekerken-Schröder, G., (2004), The Effect of Customer Card Programs: a Comparative Study in Singapore and the Netherlands, International Journal of Service Industry Management vol. 15, 3/4, pp. 351-364.

Olie, R. (1995). The 'Culture' Factor in Personnel and Organization Policies. International Human Resource Management: An integrated approach. A. Harzing and V. R. J. London, Sage Publications: 124-143.

Pallab P., Abhijit R., and Kausiki M., (2006) The Impact of Cultural Values on Marketing Ethical Norms: A Study in India and the United States. Journal of International Marketing: December 2006, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 28-56.

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Rabobank Cijfers en Trends (2013), branche Supermarketen, retrieved from https://www.rabobankcijfersentrends.nl/index.cfm?action=print.printPdf&id=88d146be- 7ac5-4e68-ba61-26bac2e211c8, viewed 30.6.2013

Rust, R.T., Lemon, K.N. and Zeithaml, V.A. (2001). ¨Modeling Customer Equity”, Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series, Number 01-108. Rust, R.T., Lemon, K.N., and Zeithaml, V.A. (2000), Driving Customer Equity: How Customer Lifetime Value Is Reshaping Corporate Strategy. The Free Press: New York. 68

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. fifth edition, Edinburgh: Pearson Education.

Smith, P.B., & Dugan, S., (1996). National Culture and the Values of Organizational Employees. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 27 Issue 2, pp. 231- 250

Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Toward a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), pp. 519–536.

Singh, D.J.S.S., (2002). Customer Lifetime Value Research in Marketing: A review and a future directions, Journal of Interactive Marketing vol. 16, pp. 34-46

Smith, P.B., & Schwartz, S.H., (1997). Values. In J.W. Berry, M.H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 3, 2nd Edn. (pp.77– 118). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Soares, A. M., Farhangmehr, M., and Shoham, A., (2007). ‘Hofstede’s dimensions of culture in international marketing studies’, Journal of Business Research, Vol.60, 277- 284.

Stelder, D., (2013), Spatial monopoly of multi-establishment firms; an empirical study for supermarkets in the Netherlands. Viewed 22.06.2013, retrieved from; http://regroningen.nl/stelder/doc/spatial%20monopoly%20of%20supermarkets.pdf

Szmigin, I.; Bourne, (1998) H. Consumer equity in relationship marketing, Journal of Consumer Marketing, v.15, n.6, 544-557.

Taylor-Powell, E., Rossing B., and Geran J., (1998). Evaluating Collaboratives: Reaching the Potential. Madison, accessible via: http://cf.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/pdf/G3658_8.PDF, viewed 20.08.2013

Vogel, V., Evanschitzky, H., and Ramaseshan, B., (2008). Customer Equity Drivers & Future Sales, Journal of Marketing vol. 72., pp. 98-108.

Wan, D., Hui, T. K., and Tiang, L., (2003). Factors affecting Singaporeans' acceptance of international postings. Personnel Review, Vol.32 (6), pp. 711-732.

Wikipedia Albert Heijn, (2013). Accessible via http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Heijn_(supermarkt), viewed 20.06.2013

Wikipedia Aldi, (2013). Accessible via < http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldi>, viewed 20.06.2013

Wikipedia Jumbo, (2013). Accessible via , viewed 20.06.2013

Wikipedia Lidl, (2013). Accessible via , viewed 20.06.2013

69

Appendix A

Survey: Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon (2000)

Example Survey Items (Airline Survey)

Market Share and Transition Probabilities (the headings in this Appendix are for explanatory purposes, and would not be read to the respondent)

1. Which of the following airlines did you most recently fly (please check one)? (provide a list of relevant airlines, including the focal firm and key competitors) 2. The next time you fly a commercial airline, what is the probability that you will fly each of these airlines? Probability (please provide a percentage for each airline, and have the percentages add up to 100%)

Size and Frequency of Purchase 3. When you fly, how much on average does the airline ticket cost? _____less than $300 _____between $300 and $599 _____between $600 and $899 _____between $900 and $1199 _____between $1200 and $1499 _____between $1500 and $1799 _____between $1800 and $2099 _____$2100 or more

4. On average, how often do you fly on a commercial airline? _____once a week or more _____once every two weeks _____once a month _____3-4 times per year _____once a year _____once every two years, or less

Value Equity Drivers 5. How would you rate the overall quality of the following airlines? (5=Very High Quality, 1=Very Low Quality) 6. How would you rate the competitiveness of the prices of each of these airlines? (5=Very Competitive, 1=Not at All Competitive) 7. The airline flies when and where I need to go. (5=Strongly Agree, 1=Strongly Disagree)

Brand Equity Drivers (5=Strongly Agree, 1=Strongly Disagree) 8. I often notice and pay attention to the airline's media advertising. 9. I often notice and pay attention to information the airline sends to me. 10. The airline is well-known as a good corporate citizen. 11. The airline is an active sponsor of community events. 12. The airline has high ethical standards with respect to its customers and employees. 13. The image of this airline fits my personality well.

Relationship Equity Drivers (5=Strongly Agree, 1=Strongly Disagree) 14. I have a big investment in the airline's loyalty (frequent flyer) program. 15. The preferential treatment I get from this airline's loyalty program is important to me. 16. I know this airline's procedures well. 17. The airline knows a lot of information about me. 18. This airline recognizes me as being special. 19. I feel a sense of community with other passengers of this airline. 20. I have a high level of trust in this airline. 70

Appendix B

Survey: Dwivedi, Merrilees, Miller and Herington (2012)

Example Survey Items (Australian supermarket industry)

71

Appendix C

Survey of this research:

Introduction:

Geachte heer/ mevrouw,

Allereerst wil ik u bedanken voor uw bereidheid mee te werken aan dit onderzoek. Uiteindelijk helpt dit mij om mijn Master Business Studies aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam af te ronden.

Het doel van dit onderzoek is om de winkelformules van verschillende supermarktketens te evalueren en te optimaliseren.

De enquete bestaat uit algemene vragen en stellingen. Wij verzoeken u de antwoordmogelijkheid te kiezen die het beste bij u past. Het invullen van deze vragenlijst neemt ongeveer 10 minuten van uw tijd in beslag. De verwerking van uw antwoorden is volledig anoniem. Neem rustig de tijd om elke vraag te beantwoorden. Er bestaan geen juiste of foute antwoorden.

Verder is het van belang dat alle vragen worden ingevuld; gedeeltelijk ingevulde vragenlijsten kan ik helaas niet gebruiken..

Indien u bereid bent om deel te nemen, gelieve onderaan op deze pagina "Volgende" aan te klikken. Voor meer informatie kunt u mij contacteren via email (zie hieronder).

Bij voorbaat bedankt voor uw medewerking!

Met vriendelijke groeten,

Jihane Naji E-mail: [email protected]

Scriptie begeleider: Prof. dr. ing. A.C.J. Meulemans E-mail: [email protected]

LET OP: Gebruik niet de 'back' of 'terug' functie van je browser. Anders gaat het mis en worden de antwoorden die je hebt ingevuld niet opgeslagen. Je moet dan helemaal opnieuw beginnen met het onderzoek.

72

Algemeen

Q1. Wat is uw geslacht? man/vrouw

Q2. Wat is uw leeftijd? < 20 20-35 36-50 51-65 65>

Q3. Wat is de hoogst genoten opleiding die u volgt/ heeft gevolgd? Basisschool Middelbare school MBO HBO Master/ WO

Q4. Bent u momenteel... een student in loondienst zzper/freelancer eigen baas/eigen bedrijf werkloos met pensioen

Q5. Wat is uw burgelijke staat? Gehuwd Samenwonend met partner Gescheiden (niet samenwonend) Weduwe/weduwnaar (niet samenwonend) Alleenstaand/ongehuwd

Q6. Uit hoeveel personen bestaat uw huishouden? 1 2 3 4 >

73

Q7. Wat is uw etnische afkomst? Nederlands Turks Marrokaans Oost Europees Surinaams/Antilliaans/Arubaans Aziatisch Anders

Algemene supermarktvragen:

Q8. Hoeveel verschillende supermarkten bezoekt u in 1 maand? 1 /2\ >3

Q9. Kent u de volgende supermarkten? Albert Heijn ja vs nee C1000/Jumbo ja vs nee LidL/Aldi ja vs nee

Q10. Wat is uw favoriete supermarktketen? open antwoord

Q11. Bij welke supermarkt doet u uw dagelijks dan wel wekelijks boodschappen? Albertheijn Jumbo/C1000 LidL/Aldi Anders….

Q12. Wat motiveert u om uw booschappen bij de hierboven geselecteerde supermarkt te doen? (kies één van de volgende opties) Gemak (denk hierbij aan locatie/openingstijden) Prijs Kwaliteit Merk Loyaliteit

Q13. Hoeveel geeft u gemiddeld uit aan de wekelijkse boodschappen (in euros)? 0 - 49 50 - 99 100 - 149 150 - 199 > 200

74

Q14. Hoe vaak gaat u gemiddeld naar de supermarkt? 1 -2 keren per week 3-4 keren per week 4-5 keren per week 5-6 keren per week meer dan 7 keren per week

Value Equity vragen:

Q15. Hoe beoordeelt u de algehele kwaliteit van deze supermarkten? Albert-Heijn 1 t/m 5 ( met 1 heel slecht en 5 heel goed) C1000/Jumbo/Super de Boer 1 t/m 5 LidL/Aldi 1 t/m 5

In hoeverre bent u het eens met de volgende stellingen? (5 helemaal mee eens en 1 helemaal oneens)

Q16. De supermarkt is gemakkelijk te bereiken. Albert-Heijn 1 t/m 5 C1000/Jumbo/Super de Boer 1 t/m 5 LidL/Aldi 1 t/m 5

Q17. De beschikbare producten in de volgende supermarkten zijn van een hoge kwaliteit.

Albert-Heijn 1 t/m 5 C1000/Jumbo/Super de Boer 1 t/m 5 LidL/Aldi 1 t/m 5

Q18. De supermarkt heeft een breed assortiment.

Albert-Heijn 1 t/m 5 C1000/Jumbo/Super de Boer 1 t/m 5 LidL/Aldi 1 t/m 5

Q19. Groenten & fruit van deze supermarkt zijn altijd vers. Albert Heijn 1 t/m 5 C1000/Jumbo 1 t/m 5 LidL/Aldi 1 t/m 5

75

Q20. Het vlees van deze supermarkt is altijd vers. Albert Heijn 1 t/m 5 C1000/Jumbo 1 t/m 5 LidL/Aldi 1 t/m 5

Q21. In het algemeen zijn de meeste producten bij de volgende supermarkt makkelijk verkrijgbaar. Albert Heijn (helemaal niet mee eens1 t/m 5 (helemaal mee eens) C1000/Jumbo 1 t/m 5 LidL/Aldi 1 t/m 5

Q22. De kwaliteit van de volgende supermarkt is erg goed. Albert Heijn (helemaal niet mee eens1 t/m 5 (helemaal mee eens) C1000/Jumbo 1 t/m 5 LidL/Aldi 1 t/m 5

Q23. Het is de moeite & tijd waard om mijn boodschappen bij de volgende supermarkt te doen. Albert Heijn 1 t/m 5 C1000/Jumbo 1 t/m 5 LidL/Aldi 1 t/m 5

Q24. Hoe meer aanbiedingen bij deze supermarkt hoe groter de kans dat ik bij deze supermarkt mijn wekelijkse boodschappen ga doen. Albert Heijn 1 t/m 5 C1000/Jumbo 1 t/m 5 LidL/Aldi 1 t/m 5

Q25. Wat vind u van de prijsstelling van de hierna genoemde supermarkten? (met 5 erg laag en 1 erg hoog) Albert Heijn 1 t/m 5 C1000/Jumbo LidL/Aldi

Q26. De supermarkt heeft alle producten voor mijn wekelijkse boodschappen. Albert Heijn C1000/Jumbo LidL 1.niet alle producten vs 5.alle producten

76

Q27. De wachttijd bij de kassa in de supermarkt is acceptabel. 1 onacceptabel vs 5 acceptabel Q28. De aanbiedingen bij de volgende supermarkten zijn erg aantrekkelijk. 1.niet aantrekkelijk vs 5. erg aantrekkelijk

Q29. Ook additionele producten zoals tandenpasta, scheermesjes, haarverzorging, luchtverfrissers, deo etc. koop ik bij deze supermarkt. ja vs nee

Brand-Related Drivers

Q30. Ik let vaak op de reclame (tv) van de volgende supermarkt. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Q31. Ik ontvang graag folders van deze supermarkt. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Q32. De supermarkt staat bekend als een maatschappelijk verantwoorde onderneming. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Q33. De supermarkt is lokaal dan wel nationaal een actieve sponsor van maatschappelijke activiteiten en evenementen (sport/cultuur). 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Q34. Het imago van de supermarkt past bij mijn persoonlijkheid. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Q35. Deze supermarktketen heeft mijn persoonlijk voorkeur. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Relationship-Related Drivers

Q36. Mijn gevoelsband met de supermarkt is erg belangrijk. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Q37. De medewerkers van de supermarkt zijn vriendelijk en toegankelijk. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Q38. Als ik een vraag heb word ik meteen geholpen door een medewerker van de supermarkt. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Q39. Ik voel me betrokken bij het gebeuren van deze supermarkt. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens 77

Q40. In het algemeen ben ik tevreden over de service van deze supermarkt. 1. Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens Q41. Ik voel me comfortabel in deze supermarkt. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Q42. Ik kan gemakkelijk mijn weg vinden in de supermarkt. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Q43. Ik voel me ontspannen in deze supermarkt. 1 Helemaal oneens vs 5. Helemaal eens

Q44. Ik kan deze supermarkt aan mijn vrienden aanbevelen. ja vs nee

Q45. Ik zal dit jaar bij deze supermarkt hetzelfde bedrag of meer uitgeven aan mijn wekelijkse boodschappen dan vorig jaar. ja vs nee

Q46. Ik zou graag over een klantenkaart van de volgende supermarkt willen beschikken. ja vs nee

Dit is het einde van de vragenlijst, hartelijk dank voor uw deelname. Als u een samenvatting van de onderzoeksresultaten wenst te ontvangen kunt u hieronder uw emailadres invullen. Nogmaals hartelijk bedankt voor het invullen van de vragenlijst!! me = happy!

Vergeet niet op "volgende" te klikken om de vragenlijst te verlaten

78

Appendix D

SPSS output: Reliability Analysis of Customer Equity (total) Scale Albert Heijn only

Case Processing Summary

N %

Valid 124 95,4

Cases Excludeda 6 4,6

Total 130 100,0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Cronbach's N of Items Alpha Alpha Based on Standardized Items

,906 ,914 26

79

Appendix E

(n=124) SPSS output Factor Analysis:

Factor Analysis Value Equity Dutch (1)

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,780

Approx. Chi-Square 244,017

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 66

Sig. ,000

a. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 1 are used in the analysis phase.

Total Variance Explaineda

Component Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Cumulative % Total % of Cumulativ Variance e %

1 39,869 4,001 33,34 33,34 2 54,145 2,404 20,036 53,375 3 64,128 1,29 10,752 64,128 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a

a. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 1 are used in the analysis phase.

80

Rotated Component Matrixa,b

Component

1 2 3

Het vlees van deze supermarkt is altijd vers.- ,853 Albert Heijn

De supermarkt heeft een breed assortiment.- ,832 ,128 Albert Heijn

De kwaliteit van de volgende supermarkt is erg ,805 ,413 goed.-Albert Heijn

De beschikbare producten in de volgende supermarkten zijn van een hoge kwaliteit.-Albert ,786 ,216 Heijn

Groenten & fruit van deze supermarkt zijn altijd ,722 vers.-Albert Heijn

De supermarkt heeft alle producten voor mijn ,507 ,408 ,231 wekelijkse boodschappen.-Albert Heijn

81

In het algemeen zijn de meeste producten bij de volgende supermarkt makkelijk verkrijgbaar.- ,435 ,427 ,185 Albert Heijn

De supermarkt is gemakkelijk te bereiken.- ,848 Albert Heijn

De wachttijd bij de kassa in de supermarkt is ,111 ,756 acceptabel.-Albert Heijn

De aanbiedingen bij de volgende supermarkten ,371 ,513 -,503 zijn erg aantrekkelijk.-Albert Heijn

Het is de moeite & tijd waard om mijn boodschappen bij de volgende supermarkt te ,383 ,498 -,447 doen.-Albert Heijn

Wat vind u van de prijsstelling van de hierna ,214 ,118 ,863 genoemde supermarkten?-Albert Heijn

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a,b a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. b. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands = 1 are used in the analysis phase.

82

Factor Analysis Value Equity Moroccan (3)

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,746

Approx. Chi-Square 196,913

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 66

Sig. ,000

a. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 3 are used in the analysis phase.

Total Variance Explaineda

Component Extraction Rotation Sums of Squared Sums of Loadings Squared Loadings

Cumulative % Total % of Cumulative Variance %

1 42,32 3,963 33,023 33,023 2 53,829 2,077 17,308 50,331 3 64,261 1,518 12,649 62,98 4 73,939 1,315 10,959 73,939 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a

a. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 3 are used in the analysis phase.

83

Rotated Component Matrixa,b

Component

1 2 3 4

De supermarkt heeft alle producten voor mijn wekelijkse boodschappen.- ,837 ,204 Albert Heijn

De supermarkt heeft een breed ,797 ,310 ,143 assortiment.-Albert Heijn

In het algemeen zijn de meeste producten bij de volgende supermarkt ,721 ,332 ,373 makkelijk verkrijgbaar.-Albert Heijn

De beschikbare producten in de volgende supermarkten zijn van een ,688 ,423 -,323 hoge kwaliteit.-Albert Heijn

84

De kwaliteit van de volgende ,686 ,398 ,127 ,267 supermarkt is erg goed.-Albert Heijn

Groenten & fruit van deze supermarkt ,645 -,289 zijn altijd vers.-Albert Heijn

De supermarkt is gemakkelijk te ,900 bereiken.-Albert Heijn

Het is de moeite & tijd waard om mijn boodschappen bij de volgende ,559 ,696 -,125 supermarkt te doen.-Albert Heijn

Wat vind u van de prijsstelling van de hierna genoemde supermarkten?- -,804 ,113 Albert Heijn

De aanbiedingen bij de volgende supermarkten zijn erg aantrekkelijk.- ,534 ,559 ,266 Albert Heijn

Het vlees van deze supermarkt is altijd ,107 -,938 vers.-Albert Heijn

De wachttijd bij de kassa in de ,383 ,478 ,375 ,482 supermarkt is acceptabel.-Albert Heijn

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a,b a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. b. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 3 are used in the analysis phase.

85

Factor Analysis Brand Equity Dutch (1)

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,708

Approx. Chi-Square 82,597

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 10

Sig. ,000

a. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 1 are used in the analysis phase.

Total Variance Explaineda

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance

1 2,762 55,231 55,231 2,762 55,231

2 ,924 18,472 73,703

3 ,701 14,021 87,724

4 ,363 7,261 94,985

5 ,251 5,015 100,000

86

Component Matrixa,b

Component

1

Het imago van de supermarkt past bij mijn persoonlijkheid.-Albert Heijn ,820

Deze supermarktketen heeft mijn persoonlijk voorkeur-Albert Heijn ,810

Ik let vaak op de reclame (tv) van de volgende supermarkt.-Albert Heijn ,793

Ik ontvang graag folders van deze supermarkt.-Albert Heijn ,768

De supermarkt is lokaal dan wel nationaal een actieve sponsor van ,462 maatschappelijke activiteiten en e...-Albert Heijn

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a,b

a. 1 components extracted.

b. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 1 are used in the analysis phase. (Only one component was extracted. The solution cannot be rotated)

87

Factor Analysis Brand Equity Moroccan (3)

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,573

Approx. Chi-Square 34,482

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 10

Sig. ,000

a. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 3 are used in the analysis phase.

Total Variance Explaineda

Component Rotation Sums of Squared Extraction Loadings Sums of Squared Loadings Cumulative % Total % of Cumulativ Variance e %

1 42,413 1,977 39,547 39,547 2 63,082 1,177 23,535 63,082 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a

a. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 3 are used in the analysis phase.

88

Rotated Component Matrixa,b

Component

1 2

Ik let vaak op de reclame (tv) van de volgende ,874 ,212 supermarkt.-Albert Heijn

Ik ontvang graag folders van deze supermarkt.-Albert Heijn ,756 ,136

Het imago van de supermarkt past bij mijn ,691 persoonlijkheid.-Albert Heijn

De supermarkt is lokaal dan wel nationaal een actieve sponsor van maatschappelijke activiteiten en e...-Albert ,928 Heijn

Deze supermarktketen heeft mijn persoonlijk voorkeur- ,398 ,496 Albert Heijn

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a,b a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations. b. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 3 are used in the analysis phase

89

Factor Analysis Brand Equity Surinam/Dutch Antilles/Aruban (5)

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,774

Approx. Chi-Square 23,053

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 15

Sig. ,083

a. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 5 are used in the analysis phase.

90

Factor Analysis Retention Equity Dutch (1)

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,749

Approx. Chi-Square 212,195

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 28

Sig. ,000

a. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 1 are used in the analysis phase.

Total Variance Explaineda

Component Rotation Sums of Squared Extraction Loadings Sums of Squared Loadings Cumulative % Total % of Cumulative Variance %

1 52,962 3,613 45,163 45,163 2 69,077 1,913 23,914 69,077

91

Rotated Component Matrixa,b

Component

1 2

In het algemeen ben ik tevreden over de service van deze ,870 ,106 supermarkt.-Albert Heijn

De medewerkers van de supermarkt zijn vriendelijk en ,822 ,204 toegankelijk.-Albert Heijn

Als ik een vraag heb word ik meteen geholpen door een ,816 medewerker van de supermarkt.-Albert Heijn

Ik voel me comfortabel in deze supermarkt.-Albert Heijn ,794 ,320

Ik kan gemakkelijk mijn weg vinden in de supermarkt.-Albert ,673 ,281 Heijn

Ik voel me ontspannen in deze supermarkt.-Albert Heijn ,591 ,578

Mijn gevoelsband met de supermarkt is erg belangrijk.-Albert ,887 Heijn

Ik voel me betrokken bij het gebeuren van deze supermarkt.- ,282 ,747 Albert Heijn

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a,b a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations. b. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 1 are used in the analysis phase.

92

Factor Analysis Retention Equity Moroccan (3)

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,708

Approx. Chi-Square 109,156

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 28

Sig. ,000

a. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 3 are used in the analysis phase.

Total Variance Explaineda

Component Extraction Rotation Sums of Squared Sums of Loadings Squared Loadings

Cumulative % Total % of Cumulativ Variance e %

1 44,572 2,886 36,073 36,073 2 63,256 2,175 27,183 63,256

93

Rotated Component Matrixa,b

Component

1 2

Als ik een vraag heb word ik meteen geholpen door een ,840 medewerker van de supermarkt.-Albert Heijn

Ik voel me comfortabel in deze supermarkt.-Albert Heijn ,735 ,392

De medewerkers van de supermarkt zijn vriendelijk en ,706 toegankelijk.-Albert Heijn

In het algemeen ben ik tevreden over de service van deze ,699 ,346 supermarkt.-Albert Heijn

Ik kan gemakkelijk mijn weg vinden in de supermarkt.-Albert ,693 ,282 Heijn

Mijn gevoelsband met de supermarkt is erg belangrijk.-Albert ,160 ,788 Heijn

Ik voel me ontspannen in deze supermarkt.-Albert Heijn ,371 ,785

Ik voel me betrokken bij het gebeuren van deze supermarkt.- ,757 Albert Heijn

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a,b a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations. b. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 3 are used in the analysis phase.

94

Factor Analysis Retention Equity Surinam/Dutch Antilles/ Aruban (5)

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,325

Approx. Chi-Square 45,005

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 28

Sig. ,022

a. Only cases for which Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands = 5 are used in the analysis phase.

95

APPENDIX F

SPSS Output of Descriptives:

(n=130)

Uitgaven

Hoeveel geeft u gemiddeld uit aan de wekelijkse boodschappen? (u kunt hieronder in het balkje scroll...-wekelijkse uitgaven

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands Mean N

1 102,1373 51

2 117,0000 2

3 91,7179 39

4 63,0000 2

5 62,4000 10

6 67,1667 6

7 81,8750 8

8 70,6250 8

9 75,0000 1

10 56,0000 3

Total 89,5077 130

Q10. SPSS Output grocery format preference:

Consumers format Grocery retail preferences format (n=130) (Question 10) in % Albert Heijn 54,62 Jumbo/c1000 20,00 Lidl & Aldi 13,85 No Preference 2,31 Other Formats 9,22

96

Familiarity:

Familiarity Albert Heijn

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ja 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Familiarity Albert Heijn nee

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Familiarity Albert Heijn *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische Total afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

7

Ja 95,0% 99,2% Familiarity Albert Heijn nee 5,0% 0,8%

Total 100,0% 100,0%

Familiarity C1000/Jumbo

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

1 2 3 4 5 6

Familiarity C1000/Jumbo Ja 94,1% 100,0% 92,3% 100,0% 90,0% 100,0%

97

nee 5,9% 7,7% 10,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Familiarity C1000/Jumbo

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische Total afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

7

Ja 90,0% 93,1% Familiarity C1000/Jumbo nee 10,0% 6,9%

Total 100,0% 100,0%

Familiarity LidL/Aldi *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ja 90,2% 100,0% 94,9% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Familiarity LidL/Aldi Nee 9,8% 5,1%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Familiarity LidL/Aldi *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

98

Wat is uw etnische Total afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

7

ja 90,0% 93,1% Familiarity LidL/Aldi nee 10,0% 6,9%

Total 100,0% 100,0%

Expenditure

Change in weekly expenditure Albert Heijn *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

1 2 3 4

Ja 66,7% 100,0% 87,2% 100,0% Change in weekly expenditure Albert Heijn nee 33,3% 12,8%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Change in weekly expenditure Albert Heijn *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee Total antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

5 6 7

ja 60,0% 83,3% 60,0% 73,1% Change in weekly expenditure Albert Heijn nee 40,0% 16,7% 40,0% 26,9%

99

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Change in weekly expenditure C1000/Jumbo *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

1 2 3 4

ja 65,3% 50,0% 61,5% Change in weekly expenditure C1000/Jumbo nee 34,7% 50,0% 38,5% 100,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Change in weekly expenditure C1000/Jumbo *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee Total antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

5 6 7

ja 70,0% 83,3% 50,0% 61,7% Change in weekly expenditure C1000/Jumbo nee 30,0% 16,7% 50,0% 38,3%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Change in weekly expenditure LidL/Aldi *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

1 2 3 4

Change in weekly expenditure LidL/Aldi ja 50,0% 50,0% 46,2%

100

nee 50,0% 50,0% 53,8% 100,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Change in weekly expenditure LidL/Aldi *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee Total antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

5 6 7

ja 60,0% 66,7% 47,4% 49,2% Change in weekly expenditure LidL/Aldi nee 40,0% 33,3% 52,6% 50,8%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Recommendation

Recommendation Albert Heijn *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

1 2 3 4 5

ja 80,4% 100,0% 94,9% 100,0% 90,0% Recommendation Albert Heijn nee 19,6% 5,1% 10,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Recommendation Albert Heijn *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

101

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? Total (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

6 7

ja 100,0% 85,0% 87,7% Recommendation Albert Heijn nee 15,0% 12,3%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Recommendation C1000/Jumbo *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

1 2 3 4 5

ja 66,7% 100,0% 89,7% 50,0% 100,0% Recommendation C1000/Jumbo nee 33,3% 10,3% 50,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Recommendation C1000/Jumbo

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? Total (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

6 7

ja 83,3% 95,0% 81,5% Recommendation C1000/Jumbo nee 16,7% 5,0% 18,5%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

102

Recommendation LidL/Aldi *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

1 2 3 4 5

Ja 58,8% 50,0% 61,5% 50,0% 100,0% Recommendation LidL/Aldi nee 41,2% 50,0% 38,5% 50,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Recommendation LidL/Aldi *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? Total (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

6 7

ja 100,0% 80,0% 67,7% Recommendation LidL/Aldi nee 20,0% 32,3%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Wishing customer card

Wishing customer card Albert Heijn *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

1 2 3 4 5

103

ja 58,8% 100,0% 76,9% 100,0% 60,0% Wishing customer card Albert Heijn nee 41,2% 23,1% 40,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Wishing customer card Albert Heijn *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? Total (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

6 7

ja 83,3% 80,0% 70,0% Wishing customer card Albert Heijn nee 16,7% 20,0% 30,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Wishing customer card C1000/Jumbo *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

1 2 3 4

ja 25,5% 100,0% 51,3% Wishing customer card C1000/Jumbo nee 74,5% 48,7% 100,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Wishing customer card C1000/Jumbo *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

104

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee Total antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

5 6 7

ja 60,0% 50,0% 55,0% 42,3% Wishing customer card C1000/Jumbo nee 40,0% 50,0% 45,0% 57,7%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Wishing customer card LidL/Aldi

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

1 2 3 4 5

ja 21,6% 50,0% 25,6% 40,0% Wishing customer card LidL/Aldi nee 78,4% 50,0% 74,4% 100,0% 60,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Wishing customer card LidL/Aldi

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? Total (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

6 7

ja 66,7% 40,0% 29,2% Wishing customer card LidL/Aldi nee 33,3% 60,0% 70,8%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

105

Additional products

Buying additional products Albert Heijn *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

1 2 3 4

ja 52,9% 48,7% 50,0% Buying additional products Albert Heijn nee 47,1% 100,0% 51,3% 50,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Buying additional products Albert Heijn *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee Total antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

5 6 7

ja 50,0% 66,7% 45,0% 50,0% Buying additional products Albert Heijn nee 50,0% 33,3% 55,0% 50,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Buying additional products LidL/Aldi *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

1 2 3 4 5

ja 13,7% 5,1% 30,0% Buying additional products LidL/Aldi nee 86,3% 100,0% 94,9% 100,0% 70,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

106

Buying additional products LidL/Aldi

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? Total (twee antwoorden mogelijk)- Nederlands

6 7

ja 16,7% 5,0% 10,8% Buying additional products LidL/Aldi nee 83,3% 95,0% 89,2%

100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Buying additional products C1000/Jumbo *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

1 2 3 4

ja 29,4% 17,9% Buying additional products C1000/Jumbo nee 70,6% 100,0% 82,1% 100,0%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Buying additional products C1000/Jumbo *

% within Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

Wat is uw etnische afkomst? (twee Total antwoorden mogelijk)-Nederlands

5 6 7

ja 50,0% 50,0% 15,0% 25,4% Buying additional products C1000/Jumbo nee 50,0% 50,0% 85,0% 74,6%

Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

107

APPENDIX G

Output of the Means of Albert Heijn:

Dutch (1) Moroccan (3) Questions Std. Mean N Mean N Std. Deviation Deviation De supermarkt is gemakkelijk te bereiken.-Albert 4,18 49 ,905 4,39 36 ,994 Heijn De beschikbare producten in de volgende supermarkten zijn van een hoge kwaliteit.-Albert 4,02 49 ,629 4,44 36 ,607 Heijn De supermarkt heeft een breed assortiment.-Albert 4,27 49 ,700 4,31 36 ,980 Heijn

Groenten & fruit van deze supermarkt zijn altijd 3,69 49 ,847 3,89 36 ,919 vers.-Albert Heijn Het vlees van deze supermarkt is altijd vers.-Albert 3,53 49 ,938 3,22 36 ,832 Heijn In het algemeen zijn de meeste producten bij de volgende supermarkt makkelijk verkrijgbaar.-Albert 4,06 49 ,517 4,17 36 ,775 Heijn

De kwaliteit van de volgende supermarkt is erg 3,94 49 ,719 4,25 36 ,770 goed.-Albert Heijn Het is de moeite & tijd waard om mijn boodschappen bij de volgende supermarkt te 3,65 49 ,855 4,17 36 ,737 doen.-Albert Heijn Hoe meer aanbiedingen bij deze supermarkt hoe groter de kans dat ik bij deze supermarkt mijn 3,18 49 1,302 3,72 36 1,186 wekelij...-Albert Heijn

Wat vind u van de prijsstelling van de hierna 3,69 49 ,683 3,92 36 ,692 genoemde supermarkten?-Albert Heijn

De supermarkt heeft alle producten voor mijn 3,84 49 ,986 4,25 36 ,770 wekelijkse boodschappen.-Albert Heijn

De wachttijd bij de kassa in de supermarkt is 3,67 49 ,851 3,58 36 ,906 acceptabel.-Albert Heijn

De aanbiedingen bij de volgende supermarkten 3,39 49 ,759 3,86 36 1,046 zijn erg aantrekkelijk.-Albert Heijn Ook additionele producten zoals tandenpasta, scheermesjes, haarverzorging, luchtverfrissers, 1,49 49 ,505 1,50 36 ,507 deo etc...-Albert Heijn

Ik let vaak op de reclame (tv) van de volgende 2,86 49 1,399 3,31 36 1,470 supermarkt.-Albert Heijn Ik ontvang graag folders van deze supermarkt.- 2,67 49 1,390 3,28 36 1,504 Albert Heijn De supermarkt staat bekend als een maatschappelijk verantwoorde onderneming.- 2,90 49 ,797 3,50 36 ,878 Albert Heijn

108

De supermarkt is lokaal dan wel nationaal een actieve sponsor van maatschappelijke activiteiten 3,08 49 1,038 2,69 36 ,980 en e...-Albert Heijn

Het imago van de supermarkt past bij mijn 2,96 49 1,060 3,39 36 ,994 persoonlijkheid.-Albert Heijn

Deze supermarktketen heeft mijn persoonlijk 3,49 49 1,102 4,17 36 ,775 voorkeur-Albert Heijn

Mijn gevoelsband met de supermarkt is erg 3,08 49 1,115 3,19 36 1,238 belangrijk.-Albert Heijn

De medewerkers van de supermarkt zijn vriendelijk 3,49 49 1,023 3,67 36 ,793 en toegankelijk.-Albert Heijn Als ik een vraag heb word ik meteen geholpen door een medewerker van de supermarkt.-Albert 3,59 49 ,814 3,97 36 ,910 Heijn

Ik voel me betrokken bij het gebeuren van deze 2,53 49 1,101 2,69 36 1,117 supermarkt.-Albert Heijn

In het algemeen ben ik tevreden over de service 3,78 49 ,715 4,00 36 ,717 van deze supermarkt.-Albert Heijn Ik voel me comfortabel in deze supermarkt.-Albert 3,59 49 ,956 4,11 36 ,820 Heijn

Ik kan gemakkelijk mijn weg vinden in de 3,69 49 ,895 4,14 36 ,798 supermarkt.-Albert Heijn Ik voel me ontspannen in deze supermarkt.-Albert 3,55 49 ,738 3,94 36 ,715 Heijn

Ik kan deze supermarkt aan mijn vrienden 1,20 49 ,407 1,06 36 ,232 aanbevelen.-Albert Heijn Ik zal dit jaar bij deze supermarkt hetzelfde bedrag of meer uitgeven aan mijn wekelijkse 1,35 49 ,481 1,11 36 ,319 boodschapp...-Albert Heijn Ik zou graag over een klantenkaart van de volgende supermarkt willen beschikken.-Albert 1,43 49 ,500 1,25 36 ,439 Heijn

109