Brand Management in Hospitality

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research
http://jht.sagepub.com Brand Management in Hospitality: An Empirical Test of the Brisoux-Laroche Model

Michel Laroche and H. G. Parsa Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 2000; 24; 199 DOI: 10.1177/109634800002400205 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/2/199
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education
Additional services and information for Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jht.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 18 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/24/2/199
Downloaded from http://jht.sagepub.com by Gerard Stan on November 14, 2007 2000 ICHRIE. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
JOURNAL Laroche, Parsa OF HOSPITALITY / BRAND MANAGEMENT & TOURISM RESEARCH IN HOSPITALITY
BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY: AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE BRISOUX-LAROCHE MODEL

Michel Laroche Concordia University H. G. Parsa Ohio State University
Consumers brand selection process, purchase behavior, and their impact on brand management are least understood in the hospitality literature. This problem is complicated further by the fact that many hospitality companies prefer to develop and manage multiple brands for growth purposes. This study explores the selection process adopted by consumers in choosing a hospitality brand in multibrand situations. The Brisoux-Laroches (B-L) consumer behavior model of brand categorization was tested with 16 quick service restaurant brands. The B-L model was supported empirically. Further support for the model was provided by the assessment of net utility values for quality and price for the included brands. Results indicated that consumers use evoked, hold, foggy, and reject set in categorizing the available brands. Each of the awareness sets was further analyzed according to three subgroups of brands: leading, intermediate, and low market share. The findings supported the independent nature of these subgroups. Results are discussed in light of brand management in the hospitality field, and consumersbrand choice process and managerial implications are presented. KEYWORDS: consumer behavior; brand categorization; quick service restaurants; brand management; levels of awareness; hospitality.
Traditional economic literature assumes that consumers have complete information in making their choices. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Often consumers have less than complete information, especially when several firms offer different brands and similar products in the same segment of the industry, as in the case of Quick Service Restaurants (QSRs). According to the Nations Restaurant News (Top 100 Chain, 1999), more than 100 restaurant chains with over 163,000 units compete with each other in the marketplace. In addition, restaurant
Authors Note: The authors would like to acknowledge Bob Lewis (Guelph University) and Stowe Shoemaker (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) for patiently reviewing the research instrument, Isabelle Miodek (Concordia University) for her assistance in data analyses, and the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, May 2000, 199-222 2000 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
199
200
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
chains face competition from a number of independent local operators with their own signature brands. Thus, hospitality consumers may experience information overload (Jacoby, Speller, & Kohn, 1974; Malhotra, Jain, & Lagakos, 1982) caused by the national and local marketing efforts of restaurant chains and independent operators. Consequently, even when complete information is available about a brand, consumers have limited capacity to process all the collected information (Miller, 1956; Simon, 1974). Therefore, consumers use only a few critical attributes of a product in making a comparison among the available brands (Bettman, 1979). Moreover, according to Tversky (1969) and Laroche and Sadokierski (1994), factors such as consumers beliefs and perceptions about a brand and the competing brands significantly affect consumers brand selection processes. Then the question arises of how consumers make their choice in selecting a specific brand among the number of available hospitality brands. Consumers brand selection process, purchase behavior, and their impact on brand management is least understood in the hospitality literature. This problem is further complicated by the fact that many hospitality companies prefer to develop and manage multiple brands for growth purposes (Lewis & Chambers, 1989, p. 286). This is more true in the case of hotel companies than restaurant companies. For example, hotel chains such as Holiday Inn, Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, Choice Hotels, Ramada, and Howard Johnson offer several brands targeted to meet the needs of different segments of the population. In fact, by the 1990s, multibrand operations under one umbrella became an accepted norm of the hotel industry in the United States. In contrast, in the North American restaurant industry, multibrand operations were in vogue during the 1970s and 1980s. But marketing (positioning), organizational, and managerial problems such as product cannibalization, intraorganizational conflicts, financial inefficiencies, absence of economies of scale, and inadequate human resources have encouraged many restaurant companies to abandon this practice. The nations leaders in the restaurant business, such as McDonalds and Marriott, have attempted and abandoned the concept of multibrand foodservice operations, though there are few exceptions (Tricon, Darden Group, Wendys, and CKE Restaurants) that still operate multibrand restaurant units. Thus, the purpose of this study is to understand how consumers make their decisions in selecting a particular hospitality brand in multibrand situations.
ROOTS OF BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY In general terms, a brand name is an asset, as long it stands single mindedly for a specific package of value and benefits. Call it a personality. Bloch, senior vice-president of marketing, Four Seasons Hotels (as cited in Lewis & Chambers, 1989, p. 289)
Caesar Ritz, founder of the Ritz hotels and a hospitality pioneer, was a legend in providing hospitality services as the general manager of the Savoy Hotel in London. Later, he operated and franchised several Ritz Hotels (Brush & Schulz, 1995). Now, the name Ritz has become a synonym for opulence. Thus, Caesar
Laroche, Parsa / BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY
201
Ritz was the first hotelier to understand the value of brand management and develop the concept of brand recognition in the hospitality industry. Building on the reputation of Ritz hotels as symbols of opulence and places to be seen at, Ritz sold franchise contracts for Ritz hotels in North America and Europe. Today, the name Ritz still stands for high-quality service and the place for conspicuous consumption. Later, during the early 1900s, Ellsworth M. Statler, founder of the Statler Hotels and the Statler Foundation, followed Ritzs example by opening several hotels bearing his name along the Great Lakes (Brush & Schulz, 1995; Kotler, Bowen, & Maken, 1999). Before Statler, the hotel industry in the United States was fragmented with entrepreneurs operating individual properties. Properties were neither standardized nor carried the same name to build on any brand recognition. The Statler Hotels were the first name-brand hotel chain in America. Thus, Ellsworth Statler was given the credit for applying the concept of brand recognition to the hotel industry. He was later followed by other legends such as Bill Marriott (Marriott Hotels), Conrad Hilton (Hilton Hotels), Ken Wilson (Holiday Inns), and Bob Hazard (Quality Hotels). They all adopted the concept of brand recognition while developing different brands targeting different segments of the society (Brush & Schulz, 1995; Kotler et al., 1999). Similarly, in the restaurant industry, Fred Harvey and Howard Johnson were the pioneers that understood and exploited the value of brand recognition when they opened their respective restaurant chains, Harveys and Howard Johnsons. But the oldest restaurant chain in North America is the White Castle Company, established by Billy Ingram in 1921. He carefully chose the word white to reflect the cleanliness of his restaurants in contrast to the greasy spoon restaurants of his era. He chose the castle motif for distinction and elevation (Hogan, 1997). Thus, the unique name and the castle motif gave White Castle its distinct brand image. White Castle enjoys high brand loyalty, requiring the company to ship its frozen burgers by the bundle nationwide.
BRAND SELECTION PROCESS BY CONSUMERS . . . the brand not as a passive object of marketing transaction but as active, contributing member of the relationship dyad is a matter more deserving note. Fournier (1998, p. 344)
The restaurant industry in America is highly competitive, with numerous brands offering thousands of products targeting different meal times of American consumers. According to the National Restaurant News (Top 100 Chain, 1999), the list of Top 100 Foodservice Chains in the United States includes more than 60 QSR brands. A typical QSR customer in North America, while making choices during a meal period, faces the challenge of evaluating several national, regional, and local brands. In the hospitality literature, brand management is studied primarily from the supplier perspective (Damonte, Rompf, Domke, & Bahl, 1997; Morey & Dittman, 1997), focusing on the financial performance of hospitality organizations. In their
202
comparative study of fast-food franchises, Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Luke (1997) reported that consumers prefer some quick service restaurant brands to others. But their study focused more on the demographics of the respondents than on the consumer brand-selection process. In the hospitality literature, very limited information is available on consumer selection processes and how consumers choose one hospitality brand in multiple brand situations. Howard (1963) postulated that when consumers face the challenge of selecting among numerous brands, they tend to categorize their choices to simplify the choice by process of elimination. Howard and Sheth (1969) later expanded on Howards model and stated that consumers place a selected number of brands as an accepted set (evoked set) and the rest as a rejected set (nonevoked set). This means that consumers categorize available brands into two types, acceptable and unacceptable. Several studies were conducted to identify the nature of evoked and nonevoked sets. Some of the studies indicated that consumers use information search process (Bettman, 1979) or past experiences and behavior patterns (Olshavsky & Granbios, 1979; Sheth, 1979) in developing their purchase preferences. Johnson and Lehman (1997) indicated that the size of the subjects consideration set increases with experiences at the brand level and the category level. Later, Narayana and Markin (1975) introduced a third set, called the inert set. According to them, in multibrand situations, consumers categorize multiple brands into three sets. The first set is the evoked set, composed of accepted brands; the second set is the inept set, made up of brands that are totally unacceptable; and the last set is the inert set, which includes brands that are neither accepted nor rejected. In hospitality tourism literature, Woodside and Sherrel (1977), in their seminal work, applied the concept of the evoked, inept, and inert set to consumers decision-making process in selecting vacation destinations. Woodside and Lysonski (1989) later proposed a general model of traveler leisure destination awareness and choice. Their model included four sets of awareness: consideration set, inert set, inept set, and unavailable/aware set. They were able to provide empirical evidence for the proposed sets of awareness. Um and Crompton (1991) demonstrated that development of evoked set from the awareness set is affected by various internal and external factors. Crotts (1999), in his summary assessment of consumer decision-making process in travel and tourism, presented a model that included an unaware set and three awareness sets (inept set, inert set, and evoked set). In 1980, Brisoux and Laroche proposed an expanded model of consumers awareness and brand categorization process. According to them, consumers awareness consists of four sets: evoked, foggy, hold, and reject. This expanded model of consumer awareness and brand categorization was empirically supported by the study of Laroche and Toffoli (1999). According to Brisoux and Laroche (1980), among the multiple brands that are available, consumers are aware of certain brands and unaware of others. This forms two major sets of brands: awareness set and unawareness set (see Figure 1). The unawareness set consists of brands the existence of which consumers are unaware of, and the awareness set consists of brands about which consumers have some awareness.
203
The awareness set in consumers selection process is further subdivided into processed set and unprocessed set. The foggy set consists of brands that consumers know exist and can classify them with a product class. Often, consumers do not have adequate information about the brands in the foggy set. Though consumers know that the foggy set brands exist, they are not processed further on any salient attribute and only some peripheral cues are known (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). According to Brisoux and Laroche (1980), possible reasons for foggy sets include
[1) consumers] have not seen any advertisement about them or do not remember seeing any, or if they do, it was not informative enough to allow them to judge the brand; 2) they have not tried some of these brands or if they had a personal experience with it, it was inconclusive; 3) they do not remember whether anybody has mentioned it, consumed it, or ordered it. (pp. 112-114)
In contrast to the foggy set, the processed set includes brands that were processed by consumers on at least one salient attribute. The processed set is further divided into three sets: evoked, hold, and reject. Similar to the earlier models, the evoked set includes those brands that were fully evaluated on all salient attributes and considered as the primary source for purchase decisions. Presence of the evoked set was supported by the earlier studies of Silk and Urban (1978), Parkinson and Reilly (1979), Brisoux and Laroche (1981), Alba and Chattopadhyay (1985), and Laroche, Kim, and Matsui (1993), though different authors may refer to them as evoked set, relevant set, or consideration set. The second category of brands in the processed set is called the hold set, consisting of brands that are evaluated by consumers but are either incompletely processed on some important attributes, the brand is not appropriate for the consumption situation, or the price is too high to be included in the evoked set or low enough not to be rejected. These brands are not considered as purchase alternatives, and consumers may hold positive, neutral, or negative opinions about these brands. Brands with positive attitudes may have a chance to move into the evoked set with appropriate marketing effort (e.g., advertising campaign, sales promotion, or price cut). Brands with negative or neutral attitudes may slowly move into the reject or foggy sets if no substantial marketing effort is done to improve their situation. The last set, reject set, is made up of brands that were evaluated on at least one salient attribute and rejected by consumers because they did not clearly meet their minimum expectations on that attribute. Consumers would not accept these brands as purchase alternatives and carry negative (poor) attitude toward these brands. In summary, the Brisoux and Laroche (1980) model shows that when a consumer is faced with a multiple brand situation, he or she would simplify the available information by categorizing the total available brands into four sets. After classifying the brands into four types, one may make a purchase choice from the evoked set. According to Brisoux and Laroche (1980), this is a dynamic model in which brands may move from one set to the other due to various internal and external fac-
Figure 1 Brisoux-Laroches Model of Brand Categorization
204
Source: Brisoux and Laroche (1980). Reprinted with permission.
205
tors. Internal factors include changes in psychographic and demographic matters and personal preferences of consumers. External factors may include situations such as marketing activities of the excluded and included brands, new product introductions, brand withdrawals, changes in competitive intensity, changes in the general and task environment, and life cycle stages of the available brands. The QSR industry in the United States is highly competitive, consisting of aging and large restaurant chains such as McDonalds, White Castle, Taco Bell, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Wendys, and Dominos, and everevolving new concepts and growth of regional and national chains such as Krystals, Starbucks, Chipotles, Fazolis, and Donatos. The QSR industry is very segmented, with 4 major segments and 14 subsegments (Parsa, 1997) and more than 60 brand choices among the Top 100 Chains (Top 100 Chain, 1999) and growing. New concepts and new brands are introduced frequently by the foodservice entrepreneurs. As a result, more and more restaurant operators are facing the challenge of keeping their brands in consumers evoked sets. Bojanic (1996) mentioned that hotels have a choice of low price or high quality to sustain a competitive advantage. When several brands choose to adopt the same low price or high quality strategy, how do the consumers select one brand over the other? Guiltinan and Paul (1988) stated that one of the objectives of brand management is to build consumer awareness about a brand. When they mentioned brand awareness, they did not consider the levels of awareness. Brisoux and Laroche (1980) demonstrated that for any brand to be in consumers awareness is essential but not sufficient, because there are four types of awareness sets. Their empirical study clearly demonstrated that level of awareness of brands could have significant impact on consumers choice of a brand. The model presented by Brisoux and Laroche clearly showed that there are four possible levels of consumer awareness for any specific brand. Purchase intention of a consumer for a specific brand depends on the position of that brand in the type of consumer awareness sets. The probability of purchase will be high if the product is placed in the evoked set, and it will be very low if the product is placed in the reject set. Therefore, it is important to study the consumers brand categorization process and the role of awareness sets in brand management.
BRAND CATEGORIZATION AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY
According to the Nations Restaurant News (Top 100 Chain, 1999), the top 10 restaurant chains in the list of top 100 chains control 46% of the market, and 9 of the top 10 chains are active participants in franchising. In franchise systems, franchisers collect from the franchiseesroyalty fees for the rights to use the brand name and marketing fees to build brand recognition. Typically, both of these fees are calculated as a percentage of gross sales per unit of franchisee operations. Restaurant chains with larger market shares and revenues obviously will have higher levels of marketing resources, paid by the franchisees as marketing fees. With high levels of marketing resources and larger market shares, these chains may continue to build brand awareness that often comes at the expense of weaker
206
operators and local brands. At the same time, companies with low market shares, lacking marketing resources, tend to lag behind the national chains in brand recognition. Consequently, smaller chains and local brands suffer the double jeopardy of lesser marketing resources and lower brand recognition. This is the double jeopardy and downward spiral of market share and brand awareness. Ehrenberg, Goodhardt, and Barwise (1990) provided theoretical and empirical support for this phenomenon. Consumers are exposed more often to the brands with larger market shares than those with lower market shares. Keller (1987) showed that at the point of purchase, consumers use cues to recall the brands in their awareness set. Kellers study clearly demonstrates the importance of consumer memory and brand perceptions in consumer retrieval of that information at the time of purchase. His study showed that brands in the evoked set could have greater probability of being retrieved when external cues are provided at the point of purchase. Therefore, brands with smaller market shares and lower brand recognition will have a lesser chance of being selected at the point of purchase. This means that companies with greater market shares have an advantage in brand categorization process over the brands with smaller market shares. The process of categorization may continue beyond the number of brands and into the sets of awareness, depending on the size of an awareness set. Woodside and Lysonski (1989) indicated that the average size of consideration set is smallthree to five destinations on average. When the size of an awareness set is large and there is enough variance among the brands in a set, then consumers may further subdivide each set into high, medium, and low levels. Bliemel and Laroche (1984) showed that the reject set could be further subdivided into high reject set and low reject set. That means the other sets of Brisoux and Laroches (1980) model could also be further subdivided into high, medium, and low levels of awareness. These conclusions have some marketing implications. Companies whose brands are in low or medium evoked set could enhance their chance of being selected at the point of purchase by providing more effective external cues than the brands in the high evoked set. Thus, this study was extended to assess how market presence affects the three sets of awareness: evoked set, hold set, and reject set.
METHODOLOGY Measurement
A survey instrument was developed to measure consumers attitudes toward selected quick service restaurant brands. The survey instrument was pretested with a subsample of 58 students. Appropriate modifications were implemented based on the results from the pretest. No major flaws were detected in the instrument. Three hospitality and two marketing (consumer behavior) researchers reviewed the final draft of the instrument for semantics, content validity, and editorial improvements. Reliability of the pretested instrument was measured with Cronbachs alpha, and the values are 0.72 to 0.90 for confidence and 0.45 to 0.64 for intention to purchase.
207
The pretested survey instrument comprised a set of 16 QSR brands representing various subsegments of the industry (McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, Teds Hot Dogs, Pizza Hut, Dominos, La Nova Pizza, Subway, John and Marys, Taco Bell, Mighty Taco, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Swiss Chalet, Andersons Frozen Custard & Roast Beef Inc., Tim Hortons, and Manhattan Bagels). These brands were carefully selected to reflect the QSR industry consisting of national and local brands, franchised and nonfranchised brands, urban and suburban chains, and ethnic and nonethnic chains. The data for this study were collected from the target population of young adults between the ages of 18 and 25, commonly identified as the heavy users of QSRs in surveys conducted by the National Restaurant Association and others. Students from a large public university in the Northeastern United States formed the population base for this study. The survey was administered in classroom situations where students had the option to participate or not to participate in the study. It was a self-administered, closed ended, survey instrument measuring demographic and psychographic profiles of respondents and their attitudes and opinions about QSRs. Because students volunteered to participate in the study at the request of the researchers in a classroom setting, it could be better described as a convenience sample rather than a random sample. The question of response rate did not arise, because students volunteered to participate in the study. About 27 responses were discarded for incompleteness and other methodological violations such as intentional skewing. Respondents were debriefed immediately on completion of the survey. The data was collected over a period of 8 weeks (late September to early November) during a fall semester. The first and last 3 weeks of the semester were excluded to minimize the noise level in the data due to semester-beginning activities and semester-ending traditional holiday celebrations involving food. The final sample set included 501 responses. The survey instrument consisted of five major sections: Section A, psychographic profile; Section B, measurement of awareness sets; Section C, attitudes, opinions, and behaviors about QSR brands, measurement of attributes, and their importance; Section D, criteria for selecting various QSR brands; and Section E, demographic information. Sections B, C, and E, relevant to the validation of the Brisoux-Laroche model, will only be discussed in the following section. The four different awareness sets of the Brisoux-Laroche model were measured with four questions in Section B. The evoked set of the model was measured by the question, From the following fast-food restaurants, indicate which fastfood restaurants you would consider going to next time. Please mark all the appropriate ones. The responses were coded as a series of 16 dummy variables (0, 1). The reject set was measured by asking the respondents to indicate those you definitely do not consider eating at. The foggy set was measured by asking the respondents which restaurants they have not yet formed an opinion about. Finally, the hold set was measured by asking the respondents to indicate the fastfood restaurants they have formed an opinion of, but cannot say whether or not they would be willing to eat at. The selection of 16 QSR brands was held constant while measuring the four sets of awareness.
208
Section C included the measurement of respondents attitude, opinions, and behaviors; assessment of restaurant brand attributes; and importance of the measured attributes in consumer selection of a brand. Respondents attitude (overall satisfaction with the restaurants) toward the included QSR brands was measured using a 9-point semantic differential scale anchored by very satisfactory and very unsatisfactory. Consumer confidence about their evaluations was measured by two 9-point scales anchored by very certain and very uncertain and very confident and not confident at all. The intention to eat at the provided list of QSR brands was measured by a scale ranging from 9 (intend to eat there) and 1 (do not intend to eat there). Information about the included brands was measured by 9 (a lot of information) and 1 (no information at all) as the extreme anchors. Intention to visit a certain brand was measured in a probabilistic manner by asking the respondents to indicate the number of times they plan to visit the following restaurants. Respondents were given a choice of number of visits per week or per month. Respondents assessment of various attributes of different restaurant brands was measured with a 9-point scale. The measured attributes of restaurant brands include speed of service, friendliness of service, variety in menus, taste of food, quality of food, menu pricing, decor of the restaurants, popularity with children, location, and convenience. Importance that respondents attached to the included attributes was measured by the question, How important are the following characteristics when you are considering going to a fast-food restaurant? The respondents had a choice ranging from 9 (very important) to 1 (little importance). Section E consisted of information on demographic variables such as gender, student status (freshman to seniors, full-time or part-time, on-campus or offcampus), ethnicity, marital status, age, family income, and an open-ended question for respondents input. The last open-ended question did not generate any useful information relevant to the current study, but it did allow the respondents to express their opinions, thus affording them some satisfaction. Internal consistency (reliability) was measured with coefficient alpha values with satisfactory results.
RESULTS AND ANALYSES Demographic Data
The respondents were predominantly female (73.8%), between the ages of 19 and 25 years (77.2%), full-time students (95.7%), off-campus (85.7%), mostly Caucasian by ethnicity (76.1%), single (83.6%), and visited fast-food restaurants during the past year (98.0%). The sample was composed of sophomores, juniors, and seniors by their academic standing. The reported family income was distributed over the range of less than $10,000 to $70,000 and higher. The sample consisted of 18.9% heavy users of QSRs (several times a week), followed by moderate consumers of QSRs (once a month or more) at 64.3%, and infrequent users of QSRs (once a quarter or less) at 10.4%. The data reflect the student population of the university in all categories except gender. Percentage of female students in the university was about 56.4. Participa-
209
tion by higher percentage female students may be attributed to the nature of the chosen classes. In three of the larger classes, education and social work, the percentage of female students was about 92, thus affecting the overall gender composition. But we do not believe this will have much effect on the results of the proposed study, because 98% of them visited fast-food restaurants in the past year and 64.3% were moderate users of QSRs.
VALIDATION OF THE BRISOUX-LAROCHE MODEL
Production of frequency tables on demographic data (see Table 1) was followed by an analysis of variance (with Scheffe tests) on attitude, intention, confidence, and information variables using each set of awareness as a group (see Table 2). The set size in Table 2 indicates the number of brands included in each set of awareness. The mean and standard deviation values included in Table 2 indicated that each of the four sets of awareness was meaningful to the respondents. Set size (number of brands in each set) for the evoked set (6.60) was significantly different from the other three sets (3.34, 2.86, and 4.13) at the 5% level ( p < .05). Similarly, the hold and foggy sets were significantly different from the reject set at the 5% level. This clearly demonstrates the presence of four sets of awareness, as proposed by Brisoux and Laroche (1980). On the variable of attitude toward the brand, all possible pairs of awareness sets were found to be significant from each other at the 5% level. Similarly, on the other three variables (intention to purchase, confidence in judging brand, and information about brand), five of the possible six pairs were found to be significant ( p < .05) (see Table 2). The mean value for the evoked (6.97) on attitude toward the brand was significantly higher than the mean values for the other sets: foggy set (5.22), hold set (4.6), and reject set (3.46). As expected, the reject set has received the lowest value. Similarly, the mean values for intention to purchase were significantly higher for the evoked set (7.36) compared to the hold (2.06), foggy (1.46), and reject sets (1.11). Thus, respondents hold more positive attitudes, have higher intention to purchase, have more information about the brands, and have more confidence in the brands included in the evoked set than the brands included in the other three sets (significant at p < .05). The statistically significant results obtained from this study provide preliminary confirmation of the Brisoux-Laroche model of brand categorization and existence of four sets of awareness. As predicted in the theoretical model, the most positive attitudes were reserved for the evoked set (6.97) and the most negative attitudes were held for the reject set (3.46). The intention to purchase was lowest for the reject set (1.11) and statistically significant ( p < .05) compared to the evoked set (7.36). Interestingly, values on information received and confidence in ones judgment for brands in the reject set were lower than the evoked set as expected, but higher than the values for the brands in the hold and foggy sets (significant at p < .05). This indicates that the information received about the brands in the reject set do not meet minimum requirements on specific salient attributes, leading to higher confidence in reject-
210
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH Table 1 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Sample
Variable Gender Male Female Age Younger than 19 19 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 Student status Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate student Special student Residence and term status Live on-campus Live off-campus Full-time student Part-time student Ethnic origin African American Asian-Pacific Islander Caucasian Hispanic Native American Other (unknown) Personal status Single Single with child Married without child Married with child Separated/divorced without child Separated/divorced with child Income level Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $19,000 $20,000 to $29,000 $30,000 to $39,000 $40,000 to $49,000 $50,000 to $59,000 $60,000 to $69,000 $70,000 and over Have you been to a fast-food restaurant in the past year? Yes No How often have you been to a fast-food restaurant in the past year? Several times a week Once per week
n Value
26.2 73.8 5.9 77.2 12.8 3.5 0.6 6.1 23.6 34.4 30.9 1.4 3.5 14.3 85.7 95.7 4.3 8.8 3.9 76.1 4.1 1.6 5.3 83.6 4.5 0.9 6.3 0.4 2.2 9.1 12.7 8.5 15.0 14.4 12.9 10.6 16.9 98.0 2.0 18.9 24.3
211
Table 1 Continued Variable How often have you been to a fast-food restaurant in the past year? Once every 2 weeks Once per month Once every 2 months Once a quarter or less
n Value
21.9 18.1 6.4 10.4
ing the brands. Substantial evidence provided here clearly display the independent presence of the evoked and reject sets, as proposed in the Brisoux-Laroche model. The Brisoux-Laroche model, as stated earlier, denotes that the hold set is not a purchase alternative, but consumers hold this set for other reasons. This statement was supported by the significant differences noted in the purchase intentions between the evoked set (7.36) and the hold set (2.06, p < .05). The mean value for attitude toward the brands in the hold set (4.60) was much higher than the reject set (3.46) but less than the foggy set (5.33). Consumer confidence in judging the brands included in the hold set (5.79) was significantly different than the brands included in the evoked set (7.37) and foggy set (4.82). A similar relationship was observed with the amount of information available about the brands in the hold set (5.01) and the brands in the evoked set (7.30) and the foggy set (2.90). In the last two categories (confidence in judging the brand and information about the brand), the hold set was found to be significantly ( p < .05) different than the evoked set and the foggy set, thus providing further support for the proposed the BrisouxLaroche model. Finally, the foggy set, in set size (2.86), was found to be significantly different from the evoked set (6.60) and reject set (4.13). In attitude toward the brands, the foggy set (5.22) was found to be significantly different from all other sets (6.97, 4.60, and 3.46). It is natural to expect higher attitude scores toward the evoked set and lower scores toward the reject set. But more positive attitude toward the foggy set (5.22) compared to the hold (4.60) was a surprise finding. This may be a reflection of the social values of North America, where consumers hold benefit of the doubt until proven guilty (reject set) or declared innocent (evoked set) toward a brand. The values for intention to purchase for the foggy set (1.46) were significantly different from the evoked set (7.36) and the hold set (2.06), but not from the reject set (1.11). In intention to purchase, the evoked set received the highest values, followed by the hold set, foggy set, and reject set, as predicted in the model. These findings have major marketing implications, especially in positioning, which will be discussed later. The foggy set has received the lowest values for confidence in judging brand (4.82) and information about brand (2.90). Both these values were found to be significantly different from the other three sets at 5% level ( p < .05). Theoretical description of the foggy set, as presented in the Brisoux-Laroche model, justifies the lowest values for the foggy set. The respondents include certain brands in the foggy set because they do not have adequate information about them. In the same
212
Table 2 Mean Set Size, Attitude, Intention, Confidence, and Information for Evoked, Hold, Foggy, and Reject Sets (SE in parentheses)
F
Set size (average number of brands) Attitude toward brand Intention to purchase brand Confidence in judging brand Information about brand 132.29 347.92 720.47 114.68 299.07
Evoked 6.60 (0.17) 6.97a (0.06) 7.36ab (0.13) 7.37ab (0.06) 7.30ab (0.07)
ab
Hold 3.34 (0.15) 4.60a (0.10) 2.06ab (0.13) 5.79a (0.11) 5.01a (0.12)
a
Foggy 2.86 (0.12) 5.22a (0.12) 1.46a (0.10) 4.82ab (0.14) 2.90ab (0.12)
b
Reject 4.13ab (0.13) 3.46a (0.08) 1.11b (0.08) 5.99b (0.10) 5.06b (0.11)
Note: p = .00. Pairs of means with the same superscript are significantly different at the .05 level.
vein, the lack of adequate information may result in less confidence in judging that brand. The values obtained for the foggy set and their statistically significant difference from the other three sets provide further empirical support for the Brisoux-Laroche model.
NET-UTILITY SCORES AND BRAND PREFERENCES
Many studies indicated that quality and price are two of the most important factors that determine consumer purchase intentions at QSRs. In their study with QSR brands, Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Luke (1997) showed that food quality and price are ranked as two of the top four attributes used by consumers in choosing a QSR. In mature markets, such as QSRs in the United States, price and service become the two most important factors of competitive advantage (Parsa & Khan, 1993). Frequent surveys conducted by the Gallup organization and the National Restaurant Association also denoted that quality, price, and convenience are the primary forces behind consumer selection of foodservice outlets in the QSR industry. Cranage and Page (1995), in their classification of foodservices, noted that price, convenience, and limited service are the primary characteristics of QSRs. When one considers the perspective of the QSR industry, it is apparent that the pursuit of quality, service, cleanliness, and value (QSCV) has been the primary driving force in growth and development of the QSR industry. According to Love (1986, p. 114), McDonalds was the first company to formally incorporate evaluation of QSCV factors in its regular unit inspection format of the McDonalds restaurants. The combined scores on the attributes of QSCV determine the overall quality of a restaurant. Many QSRs later adapted the mantra of QSCV with few modifications. Wendys uses quality, service, and cleanliness (QSC) as the top three criteria in evaluating its unit operations. Furthermore, the motto of Wendys hamburger states that quality is our recipe. Again, the overall quality of a Wen-
213
Table 3 Difference in Net-Utility by Brand Set Implied From Brand Ratings (SE in parentheses)
F
Overall quality Price rating Raw scores of net-utility Adjusted score after calibration 231.76 5.66 94.33
Evoked 6.55 (0.04) 4.52ab (0.06) 2.03ab (0.08) 1.38

ab
Hold 5.35 (0.07) 4.72 (0.07) 0.65a (0.12) 0.0

a
Foggy 5.46 (0.08) 4.91a (0.09) 0.60b (0.15) 0.05

b
Reject 4.65ab (0.06) 4.80b (0.07) 0.19ab (0.11) 0.84
Note: p = .00. Pairs of means with the same superscript are significantly different at the .05 level.
dys restaurant is determined by the combined scores of the top three attributes of QSC. From above-mentioned studies and the industry examples, it is evident that quality and price (value) are some of the most notable criteria used in evaluating QSR brands. Hence, the role of overall quality and price in consumer selection process and their role in selecting QSR brands were assessed. In the present study, the overall quality was measured by multiplying the importance of 11 different attributes (excluding price), measured on a scale ranging from 1 (little importance) to 9 (very important), with the attribute evaluation scores. Thus, the overall quality is treated as an index that includes all attributes excluding price, weighted by their importance. This method of assessing the overall quality of a QSR is consistent with the practices noted in the hospitality industry. The results showed that the brands in the evoked set have received higher mean value (6.55) than the brands in the foggy (5.46), hold (5.35), and reject (4.65) sets (see Table 3). The obtained values for overall quality for the evoked set were found to be statistically significant at 5% level ( p < .05) when compared to the other sets of awareness. Similarly, the reject set was also found to be significantly different from the rest (see Table 3). The hold and foggy sets were significantly different from the evoked and the reject set, but not from each other. One of the main characteristics of QSRs is their ability to offer higher quality at a lower price. Therefore, one would expect the brands in the evoked set to have lower prices compared to the brands in the other sets. Presented results provide support for this statement. Brands in the evoked set received a mean value of 4.52 on pricing followed by the hold (4.72), reject (4.80), and foggy (4.91) sets. The perceptions of price for brands in the evoked set were significantly different from the brands in the foggy and reject sets at 5% level (see Table 3). The QSR consumers typically prefer to maximize their net utility value by paying the lowest price possible to receive the best possible overall quality. Therefore, the net utility value is the difference between the preference for overall quality and the price one is willing or able to pay. Brands that offer the highest net utility value will have the greatest probability of being selected for the evoked set. Conversely, brands that offer the lowest net utility values will be selected for the reject set. And
214
one may expect the net utility values for hold and foggy sets to be couched between the two extremes of the evoked set and the reject set. In the present study, the net utility value for the evoked set was 2.03, followed by the hold (0.65), foggy (0.60), and reject (0.19) sets. The adjusted scores after calibration by keeping the hold set to zero reveal that the evoked set has the highest net utility value (1.38), the reject set has the lowest net utility value ( 0 .84), and the foggy set is in between the two (0.05), as expected theoretically. These results are consistent with the proposed model (see Table 3). The net utility values for the foggy set ( 0 .05) were almost neutral, indicating respondentsindifference to the foggy set. Observations from the net utility value calculations provided an additional empirical support for the Brisoux-Laroche model from the perspective of the price-quality relationship, as reviewed by Monroe (1973), proposed by Bliemel (1984), and supported by Hagerty (1978). Levin and Johnson (1984) further supported this empirically in the study with Canadian quick restaurant franchises by Laroche and Toffoli (1999). Finally, the obtained four sets of awareness were further examined according to three groups: leading, intermediate, and low market share (based on intention to purchase). Bliemel and Laroche (1984) suggested that the obtained sets of awareness could be separated into subgroups on the basis of their net utility values. This process of subdividing the sets of awareness into three subgroups further refines the proposed Brisoux-Laroche model and enhances its precision, thus allowing greater use of the model in brand management. This subdivision process allows one to study how leading brands are positioned compared to the low brands in each set of awareness. When analyzed for the intention to purchase, the brands included in the leading group (top one third) were McDonalds, Burger King, Manhattan Bagels, Pizza Hut, and Mighty Taco. Four of the five brands in this group are national brands and market share leaders (see Tables 4 and 5). The local brand, Mighty Taco, has been in business more than 23 years with market leadership in the quick service Mexican segment ahead of Taco Bell, a national brand. The intermediate group (middle one third) included brands such as Anderson Ice-cream Inc., La Nova Pizza, Subway, Taco Bell, Tim Hortons, and Wendys Hamburgers. This group was a mixed batch of national and local brands, with lower market share than the brands in the leading group. The low group (bottom one third) consisted of brands like Dominos, John & Marys, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Swiss Chalet, and Teds Hot Dogs. Though Dominos and Kentucky Fried Chicken are national brands, they did not have presence in this specific market. As a matter of fact, Dominos was a new entrant to this market. The Swiss Chalet was a preferred brand, but it was considered a more expensive place for QSR consumers. Teds Hot Dogs, an old, local brand with several outlets, was a victim of the changing consumer trend toward healthy menus (see Tables 4 and 5). The data on sets of awareness were further analyzed according to the three groups of brands (leading, intermediate, and low group on set size), attitude toward brand, confidence in judging the brand, and information about brand. The data in the Table 4 reveal that the brands in each subgroup of the evoked set were different from each other. This effect was more pronounced with the set size, intention to
Table 4 Mean Set Size, Attitude, Intention, Confidence, and Information for Leading, Intermediate, and Low Market Share Brands in Brisoux-Laroche Model
Evoked Hold Foggy Reject Low
a
F
Leading Intermediate Low
a a a a a
p
Intermediate Low Leading Intermediate
p Leading
Leading Intermediate Low

ab b a
Set size (average number of brands) 80 .00 7.4 .00 154 .00 6.2 .00 3.4 .03 6.0 .00 2.5 .08 6.9 .00 89 .00
37 0.44 0.23
.00 .64 .79
Attitude toward brand
Intention to purchase
2.76 (0.06) ab 7.10 (0.07) a 6.77 (0.21) 7.67 (0.06) 7.72 (0.07)
ab a
2.28 (0.07) b 6.96 (0.08) a 3.95 (0.14) 7.25 (0.07) 6.99 (0.09)
b a
1.56 (0.07) a 6.69 (0.09) a 2.76 (0.14) 6.96 (0.09) 6.72 (0.11)
a a
0.94 (0.07) 5.10 (0.18) 1.47 (0.16) 6.49 (0.15) 6.24 (0.18)
ab ab
1.28 (0.06) 4.67 (0.13) 1.13 (0.10) 5.66 (0.14) 4.66 (0.16)
a a
1.12 (0.06) 4.35 (0.14) 0.90 (0.08) 5.79 (0.14) 5.01 (0.15)
b b
0.44 (0.04) 5.56 (0.24) 0.76 (0.12) 5.41 (0.27) 4.59 (0.16)
1.42 (0.06) 5.36 (0.13) 1.01 (0.09)
1.01 (0.06) 4.99 (0.16) .68 (0.08)
0.98 (0.05) 3.37 (0.13) 0.61 (0.08) 4.84 (0.19) 14 .00
1.58 (0.06) 3.45 (0.11) 0.61 (0.06) 6.67 (0.13)

ab
1.57 (0.06) 3.53 (0.10) 0.67 (0.07) 5.85 (0.12)

b
Confidence in judging the brand 22 .00 8.5 .00 3.7 .03
5.84 (0.12) .00 4.05 (0.27)

ab
Information about brand 34 .00 24 .00 17
2.61 (0.13)
2.80 (0.14)
33
.00
6.27 (0.16)
ab
4.73 (0.13)
4.87 (0.13)
Note: Pairs of means with the same superscript are significantly different at the .05 level.
215
216
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH Table 5 Quick Service Restaurant Brands Classified According to the Industry Subsegments Based on the Respondents Intention to Purchase
Subset of Awareness Leading brands Intermediate brands
Sandwiches and Hamburgers
Pizza
Mexican
Breakfast
Chicken
Low group brands
McDonalds, Pizza Hut Mighty Taco Manhattan Burger King Bagels Wendys, La Nova Taco Bell Tim Hortons Andersons (roast beef), Subway John & Marys, Dominos Kentucky Fried Teds Hot Dogs Chicken, Swiss Chalet
Note: Subsegments of the quick service restaurant industry based on menu offerings.
purchase, and confidence in brand; statistically significant at the 5% level; and less pronounced in the attitude toward brand and information about brand (see Table 4). The mean scores for attitude toward the brand, confidence in judging the brand, and information about the brand was highest for the leading groups in the evoked, hold, and foggy sets. The mean scores for purchase intention were highest for the leading brands in the evoked and the hold sets but not in the foggy set. These results validate the presence of subgroups in each set of awareness, as described in the Brisoux-Laroche model.
DISCUSSION
Brand management is an issue of prime importance in the hospitality industry. When mismanaged, a national brand could lose its identity very quickly. An example of this can be seen in the demise of well-established restaurant brands such as Howard Johnsons, Sambos, Victoria Station, Burger Chef, Burger Queen, Roy Rogers, Harveys, and Sisters Chicken & Biscuits. They all became victims of poor brand management practices. Numerous examples of similar incidents can be noted in the hotel and tourism side of the hospitality industry. Understanding consumer selection processes involved in selecting a hospitality brand in multibrand situations is an important step in enhancing brand management practices. To achieve that goal, it is necessary to learn the brand categorization process and the role of consumer awareness involved in the selection process. Models presented earlier in consumer behavior (Bettman, 1979; Fishbein, 1963; Howard, 1963; Howard & Sheth, 1969; Narayana & Markin, 1975) were limited in their scope in explaining the total phenomena of brand categorization. The Brisoux-Laroche model is a refinement of the earlier models, as it builds on previously presented evoked set and reject set and better defines the hold set, and introduces another set of awareness, the foggy set. Existence of four sets of awareness as proposed by Brisoux-Laroche was empirically supported by this study. Results from the current study validate the proposed model based on differ-
217
ent attributes measuring consumer attitudes, opinions, and behaviors. It also establishes existence of the four sets of awareness with the aid of net utility values obtained from the preferences expressed for quality and price on various brands in the quick service industry. The brands in each set of awareness are heterogeneous on consumer attitudes, opinions, behaviors, and net utility values. These brands, in the consumer mindset, carry different values in intention to purchase, confidence in judging a brand, information about brand, and attitude toward brand. These results have significant implications in the hospitality industry. Well-established national brands and market share leaders with deeper pockets and greater marketing resources could influence this brand categorization process in their favor at the expense of local and weaker brands. To succeed in this competitive environment, marketing strategies for local brands and lesser-known brands should be different from that of the market share leaders. Local brands can compete with the national brands and market share leaders if they would adapt niche marketing and other appropriate marketing strategies. The leading group of the evoked set in the present study could illustrate this point as it includes national brands such as McDonalds, Pizza Hut, Manhattan Bagels, and Burger King and a local brand and niche operator, Mighty Taco. This study has provided empirical support to the existence of four awareness sets and the relationships among the three brand groups in each set. Providing further support to the proposed model using net utility values is one of the major contributions of this study. Use of net utility values to identify various brands and their level of acceptance by the consumers is a major finding. These results concur with the results reported earlier by Laroche and Toffoli (1999). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt in hospitality literature to use utility values to differentiate various QSR brands for understanding consumer selection process. This model could also be used in conjunction with various brands from the hotel and tourism segments of the hospitality industry. Brands included in the reject set were significantly different from the evoked, hold, and foggy sets, thus establishing independence of each set. These sets were found to be independent on multiple criteria as presented in Tables 2 and 4. In intention to purchase, the leading and intermediate groups of the reject set have received the lowest value (0.61) than any other group, followed by the low group (0.67). At the same time, the leading group of the evoked set has received the highest value (6.77) that was statistically significant from the rest. This clearly demonstrates the value of the Brisoux-Laroche model and its extension into subgroups of sets of awareness in brand management. Information about the differences between the subgroups could be very useful in managing hospitality brands. Previous studies in hospitality did not consider this perspective. Kotler (1988, p. 367) indicated that brand management is one of the critical factors in mature industries. In his chart, he describes characteristics of the maturity stage of product life cycle as diversity brands models, stress brand differences and benefits, and increase to encourage brand switching. Robert Lewis, a leading hospitality researcher, noted that In the mature stage, the product (brand ) has to run harder just to stand still. . . . The best defense at this stage is to have built the
218
(brand ) loyalty and fortification in the growth stage. . . . One (brand ) must always go on the offensive (Lewis & Chambers, 1989, pp. 323-324, italics added). From these statements it is evident that brand management plays a prominent role during the maturity stage of the product life cycle. Considering the current mature stage of the quick service industry (Emerson, 1979, 1990; Parsa & Khan, 1991), understanding brand management and consumer choice processes is critical for the hospitality marketers. During the maturity stage, to show increased revenues over the previous accounting periods as expected by the investment community, QSR companies continue to attempt different techniques such as brand repositioning, brand extensions, brand revivals (nostalgic), brand modifications, brand terminations, and new brand introductions. Thus, during the mature stage of product life cycle, brand management becomes the core activity of a QSR firm. It is interesting to note that each brand included in the leading group (top score on intention to purchase) represents a specific subsegment of the QSR industry menu selection. For example, McDonalds and Burger King represent the sandwich segment, Pizza Hut the pizza segment, Manhattan Bagels the bagels and breakfast segment, and Mighty Taco the Mexican segment (see Table 5). These findings have some marketing implications in managing hospitality brands. First, the results presented in Table 5 indicated that the consumer selection process involves brand categorization along the lines of industry subsegments based on menu offeringsproduct differentiation strategies based on menu offerings could be an effective marketing tool in managing QSR brands. Second, brands that were included in the leading group were considered leaders of market share in those specific industry subsegments. This means that consumers tend to include market share leaders from each subsegment of QSR industry in the leading group of the evoked set. In other words, QSR firms that occupy market leadership in a specific subsegment of the industry have the higher probability of being selected for the top group of the evoked set. Finally, four of the five leading brands were national brands and the fifth was a local brand. Mighty Taco, a local brand, has been in business for more than two decades with a high level of customer loyalty, and in this market Mighty Taco is considered a market leader in the quick service Mexican segment. Taco Bell, the leading national brand in Mexican subsegment, was in this market for a while but left the market due to financial difficulties. As a result, Mighty Taco established itself as a market leader. Later, Taco Bell reentered the market with selected franchises. Therefore, the current findings indicate that local brands can compete with the national brands successfully if they can identify their niche and quickly become a market share leader. The delineated objectives of this study did not include exploration of subsegments of the foodservice industry along the menu offerings. This is a serendipity finding. Therefore, further studies with larger sample size and adequate number of QSR brands are recommended to explain some of the gaps found in Table 5, especially with the chicken segment. Any further discussion about the data in Table 5 would be outside the scope of this study. In sum, consumers selection process involves categorization of available brands as four distinct sets of awareness (evoked, hold, reject, and foggy). These available sets can be further examined according to three subgroups of brands
219
(leading, intermediate, and low). Furthermore, consumersawareness sets include national and local brands in their brand categorization process. Brands with market share leadership tend to occupy the top group of the evoked set when measured for intention to purchase. Brand categorization process involves selection of brands from each subsegment of the industry along the lines of menu offerings.
CONCLUSION
The QSR segment is the growth leader in food service industry, with over $121 billion in annual revenues and worldwide acceptance of numerous QSR brands. The economic impact of this industry is well documented by Emerson (1990). But how consumers make their choice of brands in multibrand situations is one of the least understood yet important phenomenon in the marketing of QSRs. Lack of adequate knowledge about brand management has led many QSR firms to abandon the idea of multibrand management during the 1970s and early 1980s in the United States. As stated by Kotler (1988), during the mature stage of life cycle, brand management becomes the central focus of marketing. This study makes an effort to understand brand management in the QSR industry. The Brisoux-Laroche model of brand categorization was tested with 16 QSR brands, and was empirically supported. Results indicated that consumers categorize the available brands into four distinct sets: evoked, hold, foggy, and reject. Additional empirical support for the model was provided with the net utility values calculated with the consumer preference for quality and price. The obtained sets of awareness were further examined according to three subgroups of brands. The independent nature of these subgroups was empirically demonstrated. Marketing implications of brand categorization and assessment of subgroups was discussed in light of brand management. Understanding consumer behavior with reference to multibrand situations is one of the contributions of this study. This study is a small step forward in exploring the role of consumer awareness in brand categorization. It extends the previous models of consumer behavior, elaborating the hold set and including the foggy set of awareness. Results of this study support the findings reported by Laroche and Toffoli (1999). The serendipity finding of this study shows that the evoked set of brand categorization process by consumers includes market leaders of the subsegments of the QSR industry along the lines of menu offerings. Further studies with larger brand sample size are recommended to confirm these findings. Future studies may include extension of this Brisoux-Laroche model to the hotel and tourism sectors of the hospitality industry. From a methodological point of view, some purists may disagree with the single-item measurement of awareness sets. Probing of sets of consumer awareness with a multi-item questionnaire may add methodological rigor, as some researchers may claim, but it does not change the direction or validity of the theoretical propositions or the current empirical validations. Because the Brisoux-Laroche model is considered a dynamic model, future studies may include direction, intensity, frequency, and causality of movement of
220
the brands between the sets of awareness. Researchers may further consider the movement of the brands between the subgroups of awareness sets. Exploration of causality of brand movements between and within the sets of consumer awareness would be a major contribution.
REFERENCES Alba, J. W., & Chattopadhyay, A. (1985, August). Effects of context and post-category cues on recall of competing brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 340-349. Bettman, J. R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice. New York: Addison-Wesley. Bliemel, F.W.A. (1984). Brand choice under price-quality considerations: An integrative theory (Working Paper No. 84-18). Kingston, Canada: Queens University, School of Business. Bliemel, F.W.A., & Laroche, M. (1984). Consumer brand categorization and price-quality evaluation. (Working Paper No. 84-041). Montreal, Canada: Concordia University. Bojanic, D. C. (1996). Consumer perception of price, value and satisfaction in the hotel industry: An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 4(1), 5-22. Brisoux, J. E., & Laroche, M. (1980). A proposed strategy of simplification for categorizing brands. In J. D. Summey & R. D. Taylor (Eds.), Evolving marketing thought for 1980 (pp. 112-114). Carbondale, IL: Southern Marketing Association. Brisoux, J. E., & Laroche, M. (1981). A proposed consumer strategy of simplification for categorizing brands. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 357-361. Brush, R. L., & Schulz, T. M. (1995). Pioneers and leaders of the hospitality industry. In R. A. Brymer (Ed.), Hospitality management: An introduction to the industry (pp. 2433). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Cranage, D. A., & Page, G. S. (1995). Food service operations and management. In R. A. Brymer (Ed.), Hospitality management: An introduction to the industry (pp. 141-146). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Crotts, J. C. (1999). Consumer decision making and prepurchase information search. In A. Pizam & Y. Mansfield (Eds.), Consumer behavior in travel and tourism (pp. 149-168). Binghampton, NY: The Haworth Hospitality Press. Damonte, L. T., Rompf, P. D., Domke, D. J., & Bahl, R. (1997). Brand affiliation and property size effects on measure of performance in lodging properties. Hospitality Research Journal, 20(3), 1-16. Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Goodhardt, G. J., & Barwise, T. P. (1990, July). Double jeopardy revisited. Journal of Marketing, 54, 82-91. Emerson, R. L. (1979). Fast food: The endless shakeout. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Emerson, R. L. (1990). The new economics of fast food. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude towards the object. Human Relations, 16, 233-240. Fournier, S. (1998, March). Consumer and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373. Guiltinan, J. P., & Paul, G. W. (1988). Marketing management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
221
Hagerty, M. R. (1978, December). Model testing techniques and price-quality tradeoffs. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 194-205. Hogan, D. G. (1997). Selling em by the sack: White Castle and creation of American food. New York: New York University Press. Howard, J. A. (1963). Marketing management, analysis and planning. New York: Irwin. Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley. Jacoby, J., Speller, D. E., & Kohn, C. A. (1974, Winter). Brand choice behavior as a function of information overload. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 63-69. Johnson, M. D., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). Consumer experience and consideration sets for brand and product categories. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 295-300. Keller, K. L. (1987, December). Memory factors in advertising: The effect of advertising retrieval cues on board evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 316-333. Kotler, P. (1988). Marketing management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Maken, J. (1999). Marketing for hospitality and tourism (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Matsui, T. (1993). An empirical evaluation of decision heuristics in the process of evoked set formation. In M. J. Sirgy, K. D. Bahn, & T. Eren (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Bi-Annual World Marketing Congress (pp. 426-431). Istanbul, Turkey: Academy of Marketing Science. Laroche, M., & Sadokierski, R. (1994, January). Role of confidence in a multi brand model of intentions for a high involvement service. Journal of Business Research, 29, 1-12. Laroche, M., & Toffoli, R. (1999, June). Strategic brand evaluations among fast-food franchises: A test of two frameworks. Journal of Business Research, 45, 221-233. Levin, I. P., & Johnson, R. D. (1984, June). Estimating price-quality tradeoffs using comparative judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 593-600. Lewis, R. C., & Chambers, R. E. (1989). Marketing leadership in hospitality. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Love, J. F. (1986). McDonalds: Behind the arches. New York: Bantam. Malhotra, N. K., Jain, A. K., & Lagakos, S. W. (1982, Spring). The information overload controversy: An alternative viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 46, 27-37. Miller, G. A. (1956, March). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity to process information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. Monroe, K. B. (1973, February). Buyers subjective perceptions of price. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 70-80. Morey, R. C., & Dittman, D. A. (1997). An aid in selecting brand, size, and other strategic choices for a hotel. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 21(1), 71-99. Narayana, C. L., & Markin, R. J. (1975, October). Consumer behavior and pricing performance: An alternative conceptualization. Journal of Marketing, 39, 1-6. Olshavsky, R. W., & Granbios, D. H. (1979, September). Consumer decision makingfacts or fiction. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 93-100. Parkinson, T. L., & Reilly, M. (1979). An information processing approach to evoked set formation. In W. L. Wilke (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 227-231). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. Parsa, H. G., & Khan, M. A. (1991). Menu trends in the quick service restaurants industry during the various stages of the industry life cycle. Hospitality Research Journal, 15, 93-109.
222
Parsa, H. G., & Khan, M. A. (1993). Quick service restaurants of the 21st century: An analytical review of macro factors. Hospitality Research Journal, 17(1), 161-173. Parsa, H. G. (1997). A taxonomical classification of the hospitality-tourism industry (Poster). Providence, RI: Annual Conference of CHRIE. Pettijohn, L. S., Pettijohn, C. E., & Luke, R. H. (1997). An evaluation of fast food restaurant satisfaction: Determinants, competitive comparisons and impact of future patronage. Journal of Restaurant and Foodservice Marketing, 2(3), 3-20. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: Applications to advertising. In L. Percy & A. Woodside (Eds.), Advertising and consumer psychology (pp. 3-23). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Sheth, J. N. (1979). The surpluses and shortages in consumer research: A problem of construct validity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 7(4), 414-427. Silk, A. J., & Urban, G. L. (1978, May). Pre-test market evaluation of new packaged goods: A model and measurement methodology. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 171-191. Simon, H. A. (1974, February). How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482-488. Top 100 chain and company rankings. (1999, June 28). Nations Restaurant News, p. 26. Tversky, A. (1969). Intrasensitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76, 31-48. Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Development of pleasure and travel attitude developments. Annals of Travel Research, 18, 374-378. Woodside, A. G., & Sherrel, D. (1977). Traveler evoked, inept, and inert sets of vacation destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 16, 1-18. Woodside, A. G., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of travel destination choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27, 8-14.
Submitted August 31, 1999 First Revision Submitted November 12, 1999 Second Revision Submitted November 23, 1999 Accepted December 6, 1999 Refereed Anonymously
Michel Laroche, Ph.D., FRSC, is a professor in the Department of Marketing, Concordia University (1455 de Maisonneuve West, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada; e-mail: laroche@vax2.concordia.ca); and H. G. Parsa, Ph.D., FMP, is an associate professor of hospitality management, The Ohio State University (313 Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210; e-mail: parsa.1@osu.edu).

Brand Management in Hospitality

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Brand Management in Hospitality

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

http://jht.sagepub.com Brand Management in Hospitality: An Empirical Test of the Brisoux-Laroche Model

International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education

BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY: AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE BRISOUX-LAROCHE MODEL

JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Laroche, Parsa / BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY

JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Laroche, Parsa / BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY

Figure 1 Brisoux-Laroches Model of Brand Categorization

Source: Brisoux and Laroche (1980). Reprinted with permission.

Laroche, Parsa / BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY

JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Laroche, Parsa / BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY

JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Laroche, Parsa / BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY

Laroche, Parsa / BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY

JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Laroche, Parsa / BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY

Evoked 6.55 (0.04) 4.52ab (0.06) 2.03ab (0.08) 1.38

Hold 5.35 (0.07) 4.72 (0.07) 0.65a (0.12) 0.0

Foggy 5.46 (0.08) 4.91a (0.09) 0.60b (0.15) 0.05

Reject 4.65ab (0.06) 4.80b (0.07) 0.19ab (0.11) 0.84

JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Leading Intermediate Low

.00 .64 .79

Attitude toward brand

1.42 (0.06) 5.36 (0.13) 1.01 (0.09)

1.01 (0.06) 4.99 (0.16) .68 (0.08)

0.98 (0.05) 3.37 (0.13) 0.61 (0.08) 4.84 (0.19) 14 .00

1.58 (0.06) 3.45 (0.11) 0.61 (0.06) 6.67 (0.13)

1.57 (0.06) 3.53 (0.10) 0.67 (0.07) 5.85 (0.12)

Confidence in judging the brand 22 .00 8.5 .00 3.7 .03

5.84 (0.12) .00 4.05 (0.27)

Information about brand 34 .00 24 .00 17

Subset of Awareness Leading brands Intermediate brands

Sandwiches and Hamburgers

Low group brands

Laroche, Parsa / BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY

JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Laroche, Parsa / BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY

JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Laroche, Parsa / BRAND MANAGEMENT IN HOSPITALITY

JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen