ACADEMIC PAPERS Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour: Consumers in the 1824 age group

Received in revised form.

Lisa M. Wood
lectures in Marketing at the University of Kent, UK. She is currently carrying out research that explores the future of brand management in the food and FMCG industries. Prior to working in education, she worked in brand management for a UKbased multinational food company.

Keywords:
Brand loyalty, brand equity, purchasing behaviour

Abstract This paper reports the results of a study of brand selection and loyalty within the 1824 age group. The study explores brand loyalty behaviour across different product categories, and investigates the dimensions that drive loyalty behaviour within this age group. First, the construct of brand loyalty is dened, followed by an overview of key research in the area. Finally, the study itself is detailed. The study concludes that there is a signicant difference in the degree of brand loyalty exhibited by the 1824-year-old respondents across product categories. The dimensions of brand selection also vary by product type. Brand heritage in terms of parental inuence was evident in coffee and toothpaste purchase, with brand as a reection of self-image being something that is important to clothing brands. Value and variety are important attributes of cereal brand selection.

Lisa Wood Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7PE, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1227 827 726 e-mail: l.m.c.wood@ kent.ac.uk

INTRODUCTION Loyalty is an important concept in strategic marketing. Rundle-Thiele and Bennett (2001) consider that a base of loyal customers is advantageous for a company because it reduces marketing costs. It has been suggested that the cost of recruiting a new customer is ve times more than the cost of retaining an existing customer (Barsky, 1994; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). The efciency argument is compelling since it has a direct impact on protability; however, the logic of brand loyalty extends beyond efciency and drives brand extension and market penetration strategies. Farquhar (1989: 24) suggests that the competitive advantage of rms with high brand equity includes: . . . the opportunity for successful extensions, resilience

against competitors promotional pressures, and creation of barriers to competitive entry. The concept of loyalty, however, may not be an absolute in the way it manifests itself in consumer behaviour. McGoldrick and Andre (1997) state that the term loyalty, when used loosely, conjures up various notions of affection, delity or commitment. A brand-loyal person may have a positive attitude towards a brand, buy a brand in preference to others within the market and have continued allegiance to a brand over long periods of time. It may be assumed that these must all be present for true loyalty to exist. The widely used denition of loyalty provided by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) adopts this approach. Cited by East (1997: 31), Jacoby and Chestnut (1978)

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Lisa M. Wood

provided a conceptual denition of brand loyalty as:

. . . the biased behavioral response expressed over time, by some decisionmaking unit with respect to one or more alternative brands which is a function of psychological processes.

The underlying principle of this denition is the covariance of attitudinal and behavioural loyalty. Further studies agree that essentially, loyalty comprises both a behavioural and an affective (or commitment) component (Assael, 1992; Dick and Basu, 1994; McGoldrick and Andre, 1997). Other studies have primarily focused on the behavioural aspect of loyalty (Cunningham, 1956; Bayus, 1992; Fader and Schmittlein, 1993; East et al., 1995). A composite measure of loyalty as proposed by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) is difcult to operationalise. It is likely that few people would be classied as truly loyal when so many criteria have to be met. It is possible for people to regularly buy a brand they dislike because it is the one that is readily available to them. Also, people may make a particular brand a small part of their portfolio, yet continue to buy it for a long time. Brand loyalty is a complex construct and it should not be assumed that behavioural loyalty involves feelings or positive cognitive processes as antecedents. Brand attitude may be one possible determinant of loyal behaviour, but there are others such as distribution, market concentration and promotional activity supporting a brand. Clearly, it is important for brand owners to understand the variables that underpin the construct of loyalty and, in particular, loyalty behaviour for their brands. Each of the studies in the following section seeks to identify consumer characteristics, purchasing attitudes and/or behaviour that go some way to explaining brand loyalty. The study that is the focus of this paper also seeks to take another small step in the pursuit of

understanding. It explores brand loyalty and brand purchasing behaviour in the 1824 age group. The rationale for this and the specic research objectives that the work addresses are outlined in detail below. The broad basis for the investigation is that, while the 1824 age group is widely identied as low loyal when compared with other age groups, it should not be assumed that the group is low loyal per se. BRAND LOYALTY BEHAVIOUR Early work on brand loyalty failed to nd any demographic correlates of brand loyalty (Cunningham, 1956; Frank, 1967). More recently, Hammond et al. (1993) found that demographic factors failed to discriminate between buyers of different brands within a category. Other studies have identied a relationship between age and the degree of brand loyalty. Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) identied six studies, including Day (1969), which indicated that older people were more brand loyal. More recent work by Uncles and Ehrenberg (1990), however, found similar purchasing habits among younger and older consumers. East et al. (1995) identied a curvilinear relationship between age and loyalty that was mainly attributed to the fact that income is low among the young and the old. They also indicated that shoppers who are more concerned about price are less loyal, with high income groups being more loyal than low income groups. They further reported that, in the multiple regressions where income is represented, age is positively associated with loyalty, suggesting that older people are disposed to be loyal but the lack of money obliges them to seek bargains. Their evidence indicated relatively higher loyalty in the 2544 age group. Evidence from Wright and Sparks (1999) suggested high loyalty in 3544 year olds, and McGoldrick and Andre (1997) state that loyal shoppers are more likely to be an unspecic middle age group.

10

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour

It is difcult to know from the varying results of these studies whether younger consumers (under 25) are less loyal than older consumers due to situational factors such as income, or whether the age group has a predisposition to be low loyal. Additionally, loyalty may vary depending on product category. The issue of the importance of product category was explored by RundleThiele and Bennett (2001). They suggested that the characteristics of the product and market shape brand loyalty. They indicated that fast-moving consumer goods markets are characterised by multi-brand purchasing, whereas in durable goods markets buyers do not frequently brand switch. Cunningham (1956), Palumbo and Herbig (2000) and Carmen (1970) also suggested a relationship between product type and brand loyalty. The issue of loyalty in younger consumers and the degree to which this is dependent on product category led to the rst objective of the study presented in this paper:
Objective 1: To measure brand loyalty among 1824 year olds across six product categories.

product type was not an inuence on loyalty behaviour. They identied loyalty-proneness among respondents based on averaged correlation coefcients. This effect is not assumed in this study as East et al. (1995) themselves note that their correlations could have been affected by bias borne from questionnaire design. It is clear from the published work cited that brand loyalty is complex and probably multi-dimensional. Many of the works outlined above were overview studies. As such, an additional contribution may be achieved by investigating a specic group in more depth. In this study (the methodology of which is outlined below), it was considered that if loyalty can vary by age group then the drivers of purchasing behaviour also may be very specic. This led to the second objective of the study:
Objective 2: To identify the dimensions that underpin brand selection in the 1824 age group.

The aim was to see how brand loyal 18 24 year olds (the group previously identied as low loyal) are, and whether or not there was a difference in loyalty by product type. The issue of loyaltyproneness (ie the tendency for individuals to be loyal across products) was not specically addressed by the study, although the data collected could be used to investigate this phenomenon. Where studies have measured loyaltyproneness there have been mixed results. Cunningham (1956) found little evidence for loyalty-proneness, whereas Farley (1966) identied it to a small degree. Evidence supporting the phenomenon has also been found by Olson and Jacoby (1971), Snyder (1991) and East et al. (1995). It should be noted that East et al. (1995) implied that

Published work has indicated various contributors to brand purchasing behaviour. For example, Howard and Sheth (1969) acknowledged that consumers are inuenced by people in their social circle. Miller (1975), Moschis (1985) and Moore-Shay and Lutz (1988) identied parental and family inuence as important to brand loyalty. The inuences of peer group and parents are drivers that are further explored in the study outlined below. The inuences of situational factors such as price and promotion were also addressed, as was the role of multi-brand purchase behaviour discussed above. Inertia in buying behaviour was also considered in this study. Some researchers (most notably those in the area of risk research, eg Roselius, 1971) consider the consumers concern to save time is an inuence on purchasing behaviour and may lead to a degree of inertia. Mitchell (1999) noted that consumers might remain loyal to a

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

11

Lisa M. Wood

brand to avoid mistakes rather than to maximise utility in purchasing, which can lead to a degree of habit in buying behaviour. Other additional drivers of purchasing behaviour were highlighted by the survey piloting process and included in the investigation. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS The sample was selected from students in higher education. Figures from the UK Higher Education Authority (HESA, 2001) state that there are around 1.9 million students in the UK. Carmichael (2000) suggests that the total spend of this group is about 10bn. This in itself makes students a consumer group worth investigating. It is not suggested that this group is entirely representative of all 1824-year-old consumers, although they may share many common characteristics. The participation rate in higher education is indicated by the DFES (2002) at around 48 per cent for the higher social groups (non-manual), with all groups showing an increase in participation. Increasingly, students in higher education are becoming a reasonable surrogate for the population of 1824 year olds. It is recognised that representation has not been proven, however, and certainly the lower social groups are under-represented at present. The sample was selected from ten courses, including science, social science and applied business and management students. Chi-square analysis was conducted to see if there were statistical differences by course, gender, year of study etc. As no signicant statistical differences were found, subsequent statistical tests were conducted using all respondents, except where there were missing cases. The following details the methodology and results for objectives 1 and 2. Objective 1: To measure brand loyalty among 1824 year olds across six product categories A total of 268 undergraduate degree students within the 1824 age band

completed the study, which was analysed using SPSS for Windows (where removing missing cases in the analyses reduces the n gure, this is noted in the tables). Brand loyalties for toilet soap, toothpaste, coffee, breakfast cereal, trainers and jeans were measured using proportion-of-spend percentages. This approach treats brand loyalty as the degree to which the usual or favourite brand within a product category is purchased, eg 50 per cent of purchases going to the rst brand. Cunningham (1956) called this rst brand loyalty. A category for do not buy the product was also included. The products were selected to reect broadly those chosen by other studies looking at product-specic loyalty. Additionally, the product categories were distinct enough to identify differing degrees of brand attachment, eg students may be more concerned about their trainers brand than their soap brand, and products that are ingested may be more emotive than, for example, toothpaste. Product usage by the age group under study was also considered. Respondents who did not buy the product were counted as missing values. The mean proportion of spend on the preferred brand for each product category is shown in Table 1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted in order to identify whether or not there was any signicant statistical difference, p , 0.05, between the mean responses across product categories. The F ratio indicated a signicant difference in rst brand loyalty. In order to locate differences between two categories based on their means, post hoc tests consisting of pairwise comparisons were applied using the Bonferroni method as recommended by Field (2000). This approach was used throughout, where ANOVA was conducted. The results are indicated in Table 1. It can be seen from Table 1 that coffee has the highest degree of rst brand loyalty and jeans have the lowest. There

12

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour

Table 1 First brand loyalty by product category Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 Product Coffee Toothpaste Breakfast cereal Trainers Soap Jeans Mean proportion spent on preferred brand 63.97 62.19 60.23 54.29 49.93 48.94 + + + + + +

+ +

+ + +

NB: Where there are crosses (+) in a column that link means, there is no signicant statistical difference between them, p , 0.05.

is no signicant difference in loyalty between coffee, toothpaste and breakfast cereal; however, coffee has signicantly greater brand loyalty than trainers, soap and jeans. Furthermore, toothpaste and breakfast cereal have signicantly greater brand loyalty than soap and jeans. These results indicate that rst brand loyalty among the 1824 age group differs by product type. The decision as to whether a mean gure constitutes high or low loyalty is largely arbitrary. If a mid-point gure of 50 per cent is taken then all except soap and jeans show high rst brand loyalty gures. Even soap and jeans are only just below this break point. All means indicate an average purchase rate above one in three purchases devoted to a preferred brand, with coffee, toothpaste and breakfast cereal nearer to two out of three purchases devoted to the preferred brand. In order to get a richer picture of brand loyalty among the 1824 age group, a slightly different measure was taken. Respondents were asked to rate the statement I make my purchase of (toilet soap, coffee etc) according to my favourite brand regardless of price on an interval scale anchored at each end with very strongly agree (valued at 9) and very strongly disagree (valued at 1). The rank order of price insensitive brand loyalty by product type is shown in Table 2. Taking any means above 5.00 as high agreement and any below as low agreement, it can be seen that respondents showed price insensitive brand loyalty to all products. As no

Table 2 Price insensitive brand loyalty Rank Product 1 2 3 4 5 6 Toothpaste Breakfast cereal Coffee Trainers Soap Jeans Mean 6.20 6.12 5.89 5.51 5.39 5.21 + + + + + +

+ + + +

NB: Where there are crosses (+) in a column that link means, there is no signicant statistical difference between them, p , 0.05.

means were towards the upper end of the scale, however, it should be considered that no category brands had a very high degree of price insensitivity. There is a signicant difference at the p , 0.05 level in the degree of price insensitive brand loyalty across categories. Respondents showed a signicantly higher degree of price insensitive brand loyalty to toothpaste than to trainers, soap and jeans. The rank order of brand loyalty is identical to that in Table 1 with the exception of coffee, which was rst in Table 1 and third in Table 2. This may indicate that respondents are brand loyal to lower priced coffee brands so do not consider that their purchases are made regardless of price. From both Tables 1 and 2 it is evident that there is a signicant statistical difference in the degree of brand loyalty exhibited across product categories. Objective 2: To identify the dimensions that underpin brand selection in the 1824 age group Having identied that brand loyalty and price sensitivity differ signicantly by product category, it was important to

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

13

Lisa M. Wood

explore the dimensions that underpin brand purchasing behaviour within the age group under study. This was achieved using a two-step process, the rst applying ANOVA and the second applying factor analysis. Eleven statements (derived from the brand loyalty literature and the piloting process) regarding brand selection were rated by respondents according to the interval scale outlined above. Summarised (with abbreviations for further discussion), the statements were: I make my purchase according to my favourite brand, regardless of price (loyalty) I have more than one preferred brand (multi) I like to change brands for the sake of novelty and variety (novelty) My choice of brand is largely based on price (price) I buy the brand my parents buy (parents) My choice of brand says something about me as a person (image) My choice of brand is inuenced by promotions (promotion) I stick with my usual brand as this saves me time (time) Quality is my primary concern when buying a brand (quality) My choice of brand is based on what my friends buy (friends) I choose my brand because it has a good reputation (reputation). NB: Aspects of the quality construct
Table 3 Soap (n 257) Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Variable Promotion Quality Multi Reputation Price Loyalty Time Novelty Parents Image Friends Mean 6.77 6.20 6.05 5.63 5.43 5.23 4.66 4.44 4.28 3.26 2.25 + + + +

(including both functional, eg avour in the case of coffee, and symbolic attributes, eg brand image) that inuence purchase were investigated. A summary of this part of the study is in the Discussion and Conclusions, as it is useful for elucidation. ANOVA was conducted in order to assess whether or not there was any statistically signicant difference between the levels of agreement with these statements, which represent variables that inuence purchase. The F ratios indicated that there was a signicant statistical difference in the responses to the statements. The means generated by ANOVA indicated the order of strongest agreement by statement for each product category. Tables 3 and Tables A1A5 from Appendix 1 summarise the rank order of agreement with these statements across all six products, indicating where there is a signicant difference in agreement between statements. It is immediately apparent that there is a distinct break between the agrees (above 5.00) and the disagrees (below 5.00). This indicates a statistically signicant difference between the statements with which respondents agreed and those with which they disagreed. The range of means shows comprehensive coverage of the scale avoiding the error of central tendency that Oppenheim (1997) suggests is often a problem with questionnaire scales. It

+ +

+ + +

+ + + + + + + + +

NB: Where there are crosses (+) in a column that link means, there is no signicant statistical difference between them, p , 0.05.

14

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour

can be seen that respondents most strongly disagreed with brand choice being a reection of self image, and friends being an inuence on purchase. The strength of this disagreement may be regarded as a lack of importance of these criteria as a basis for soap brand selection. The highest level of agreement with a statement was promotion as an inuence on soap brand selection and this was signicantly stronger than any other statement except quality. Importantly, it should be noted that all statements with means on the agree half of the scale could be regarded as having some inuence on soap purchase. The factor analysis outlined later shows the relationship between these statements/ variables. It is clear from the ANOVA that no single variable drives soap brand selection and this is the case for all product categories. Table A1 in Appendix 1 shows the ANOVA for coffee purchase. The statement with which respondents most strongly agreed with respect to their coffee purchase was quality, and agreement with this statement was signicantly ( p , 0.05) greater than with any other. Additionally, the ANOVA indicates that the variables of reputation, loyalty, multi, promotion, parents, time and price could be regarded as having some inuence on coffee purchase. Buying brands for novelty and image may be considered unimportant as drivers of coffee purchase. Friends as an inuence was the statement with which respondents most strongly disagreed, so may be considered the least important driver of coffee purchase among this group. It should be noted that although quality was the statement with which respondents most strongly agreed, it does not mean that on its own quality is the strongest driver of coffee brand selection. It is possible that other variables collectively may be more important, or quality, together with other variables, provides the best

explanation of brand selection, as shown in the factor analysis later in this paper (Consequently, multiple regression, although widely used, was not used in this study.) Table A2 in Appendix 1 shows the ANOVA for trainers purchase. Respondents most strongly agreed with brand quality and reputation as being the basis of their trainers purchases. They also indicated multi-brand preference. These statements had signicantly (p , 0.05) higher levels of agreement than any other. The strongest disagreement was with friends, time saving and parents as the basis of trainers brand purchases. With regard to the purchase of breakfast cereal brands (Table A3 in Appendix 1), most important to note are those statements with which respondents most strongly disagreed, ie image and friends as the basis of cereal brand purchase. There was signicantly less agreement with these criteria as drivers of brand purchase than any others. They may be considered as unimportant in brand selection of breakfast cereal. The statements with which respondents agreed were quality, multi-brand preference, loyalty, promotion, novelty and reputation as drivers of purchase. All therefore may be considered important inuences on the purchase of breakfast cereal brands. Respondents most strongly agreed that quality was the basis of their purchase of jeans (Table A4 in Appendix 1). The level of agreement with this statement was signicantly greater than any other. The strength of agreement with having multi-brand preference was signicantly greater than with any other driver except quality as the basis of brand purchase. There was signicant disagreement that friends, time saving and parents were drivers of jeans brand purchase. The strength of this disagreement may be regarded as a lack of importance of these criteria as the basis for jeans brand

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

15

Lisa M. Wood

selection. The issue of friends not being a driver is explained later in the Discussion section. All the statements with which respondents agreed may be considered inuences on jeans purchase. There was strongest agreement that quality was the basis of toothpaste brand selection (Table A5 in Appendix 1). This was signicantly greater than for any other selection criterion except brand reputation. Novelty, image and friends may be considered unimportant in toothpaste brand selection, while all other variables have some inuence. In all product areas there is a distinct statistical break between the statements with which respondents agreed and those with which they disagreed. Where there is no statistically signicant difference in the levels of agreement between statements, there may be some underlying relationship(s). This was explored using factor analysis. It can be seen from the ANOVA that even when one variable is shown as highly inuential in a product category, it does not mean that it is the sole driver of brand selection. Factor analysis groups the inuences (variables) showing which collectively best explains purchase behaviour. In order to discover the main underlying dimensions of brand selection across the six product categories, factor analysis was applied. Following a principal component analysis the factors were rotated using the varimax rotation. The Eigenvalue used applied Kaisers criterion of 1. Only those statements with factor loadings . +0.4 or 0.4 were regarded as substantive (when squared) and used in interpretation. Stevens (1992), in Field (2000), suggests that this is appropriate for a sample size of between 200 and 300 respondents. From the results of the ANOVA it was apparent that some statements/ variables were unimportant as attributes of brand selection. Therefore

it was considered that they were unlikely to contribute to an explanation of the underlying dimension(s) of brand selection within a product category. This was tested by running factor analyses with and without the inclusion of these variables. In all cases (with the exception of toothpaste), excluding these variables increased the variance explained in the factor analysis. The exception of toothpaste was due to setting the Eigenvalue at Kaisers criterion of 1, which excluded a component at 0.947. Had Jolliffes recommendation of 0.7 (in Field, 2000) been used, the variance explained in toothpaste would have increased also. In fact, the variance explained would have been greater in all product categories. An Eigenvalue of 1 was selected in order to increase the robustness of the model at the expense of the variance explained. The factors representing the underlying dimensions of brand selection for the six product categories are shown in Table 4 and Tables A6 A10 in Appendix 2. All product categories have more than one factor, indicating that there is more than one group of inuences on brand selection. The terms factor(s) and dimension(s) are used synonymously. It can be seen from Table 4 that there are two opposing dimensions of soap brand purchase, collectively explaining 69.2 per cent of the variance. The variance explained by the two factors is almost equal. Factor 1 represents the dimension outer directed brand loyalty. It is characterised by a price insensitive brand preference associated with the
Table 4 Dimensions of soap brand selection Factor 1 Loyalty Multi Price Promotion Quality Reputation % variance explained Factor 2

0.667 0.517 0.234 0.694 0.370 0.764 7.961E-02 0.847 0.866 3.108E-02 0.841 6.178E-03 34.985 34.177

16

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour

quality and reputation of the brand. The term outer directed is based on loyalty being connected to product and brand evaluation rather than purchase being related to brand as a reection of selfimage (see trainers Table A7 in Appendix 2). Factor 2 represents the dimension value seeking. It is characterised by multi-brand preference associated with price and promotion sensitivity, and negatively associated with brand selection made regardless of price. Time, novelty, parents, image and friends were the variables excluded from the factors. Table A6 (Appendix 2) indicates that, unlike soap, coffee has a dominant dimension. Factor 1 is the dominant dimension of coffee brand selection. As with soap, it is characterised by a price insensitive brand preference associated with the quality and reputation of the brand. There is an additional aspect to this dimension, however, which is absent from that for soap: loyalty is associated with parental purchasing patterns and also with time saving behaviour. This could indicate a degree of habit as well as positive brand associations in coffee brand loyalty and represents habitual brand loyalty. Factor 2 represents the dimension value seeking. It is characterised by multibrand preference associated with price and promotion sensitivity. The total variance explained by the factors was 66.9 per cent with novelty, friends and image being excluded from the dimensions. There are three dimensions of trainers brand purchase (Table A7 in Appendix 2) that collectively explain 67.9 per cent of the variance. Factor 1 is characterised by a price insensitive brand preference associated with the quality and reputation of the brand. Importantly, in this factor, loyalty is also associated with brand as a reection of self-image and represents the dimension inner directed brand loyalty. Although not dominant, factor 1 is clearly the major dimension for trainers. The second

dimension, factor 2, represents bargain orientation and is characterised by price and promotion sensitivity. This factor is not associated with either brand preference regardless of price (not unexpectedly) or having more than one preferred brand. It is very clearly a price and promotion orientation. Factor 3 accounts for the lowest percentage of variance explained and represents the dimension variety seeking. It is characterised by multi-brand preference associated with novelty and variety seeking. Time, parents and friends were the variables excluded from the factors. There are three dimensions of cereal brand purchase (Table A8 in Appendix 2) that collectively explain 67.6 per cent of the variance. Factor 1 represents the dimension value and variety seeking. It is characterised by multi-brand preference associated not only with variety seeking behaviour, but also with price and promotion sensitivity. This is the major dimension of cereal brand purchase. Factor 2 represents the dimension outer directed brand loyalty and is characterised by a price insensitive brand preference associated with the quality and reputation of the brand. The lowest percentage of variance explained is by factor 3. Factor 3 represents the dimension inertia in that purchase is associated with parental buying patterns and time saving, and not with positive brand associations. Friends and image were excluded from the factors. There are three dimensions of jeans brand selection (Table A9 in Appendix 2) that collectively explain 67.2 per cent of the variance. There is no dominant factor with the variance explained being relatively equal for each. Factor 1 represents value seeking. It is characterised by multi-brand preference associated with price and promotion sensitivity, and negatively associated with brand selection made regardless of price. Factor 2 represents the dimension outer directed brand loyalty. It is

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

17

Lisa M. Wood

characterised by a price insensitive brand preference associated with the quality and reputation of the brand. Factor 3 represents the dimension image variety seeking and is characterised by multi-brand preference associated with variety seeking and brand as a reection of self-image. Time, parents and friends were excluded from the dimensions. This is perhaps the most complex of the products and is discussed more fully in the Discussion and Conclusions section below. Table A10 in Appendix 2 indicates that there are two dimensions of toothpaste brand selection that collectively explain 61.6 per cent of the variance. Factor 1 represents the dimension habitual brand loyalty. It is characterised by a price insensitive brand preference associated with the quality and reputation of the brand. It is also associated with parental purchasing patterns and time saving behaviour, indicating a degree of habit as well as positive brand associations in toothpaste brand selection. Factor 2 represents the dimension value seeking. It is characterised by multi-brand preference associated with price and promotion sensitivity. It is negatively associated with price insensitive brand loyalty. Novelty, friends and image were excluded from the dimensions. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS From both Tables 1 and 2 it is evident that there is a signicant statistical difference in the degree of brand loyalty exhibited by 1824-year-old students across product categories. The implication of this nding is that when studies explore loyalty differences between age groups, the results would be strongly inuenced by the product categories chosen. Any conclusions drawn should be constrained to the product under study as not to do so would provide simplistic generalisations. The dimensions of brand selection shown in Table 4 and Tables A6A10 in Appendix 2 also vary

by product type. Although the differences in the dimensions across product categories are in some cases subtle ones, they are nonetheless important because they show the complexity of purchase behaviour in this target group. With the exception of breakfast cereal and jeans, all product categories have loyalty behaviour (whether it is habitual brand loyalty with parental inuence being important, or loyalty based on outer-directed criteria such as the reputation of the brand) as their primary dimension. Breakfast cereal and jeans have value and variety seeking and value seeking respectively as their primary dimension. Typically, the percentage of variance explained by primary and secondary dimensions is broadly similar, meaning that both are important in explaining brand selection, although coffee had the dominant dimension of habitual brand loyalty. It is important to note that all products had multi-brand preference within either their primary or secondary dimension. That is, respondents indicated that they had more than one preferred brand within a product category and their choice was based on criteria such as availability. This may explain the proportion-of-purchase gures shown in Table 1. With the exception of soap, all products had quality as the statement with which respondents most strongly agreed in the ANOVA. In the case of coffee and jeans, there was a signicant statistical difference in agreement with quality when compared with other inuences. This does not suggest that this is the single most important driver of brand purchase, but that it is a highly important variable in brand selection of these products. It is in either the primary or secondary dimension for all product categories. Although not the focus of this paper, attributes of the quality construct were also investigated in this study. For each product the functional attributes as well

18

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour

as symbolic attributes were explored. Respondents were asked to rate variables in terms of their importance to the purchase of the product category. For example, soap included the importance of scent, colour, performance qualities (moisturising, hypoallergenic etc), packaging performance (such as no mess dispensers against bars), symbolic factors (such as the inuence of packaging and brand image), ethical issues such as not tested on animals, and environmental factors such as biodegradable packaging. The interval scale outlined earlier was used, anchored at each end with of the utmost importance (valued at 9) and of no importance at all (valued at 1). ANOVA was conducted on the mean scores to identify the most important attribute(s) of the product. Interestingly, there were very clear statistical breaks for the attribute that was most important to each product, ie the top attribute was statistically more important than any other. The top quality attribute for each product is shown in Table 5. It should also be noted that the mean scores for the top quality attribute were near the upper end of the scale (ie well above the mid-point) and therefore should be considered as very important to purchase. Table 5 helps to explain the dimensions that were identied in the factor analyses. Some product categories exhibited a similar prole in the factor analyses. Coffee and toothpaste were the closest in their underlying dimensions. The primary dimension in both these
Table 5 Most important attribute for each product Product Soap Coffee Trainers Breakfast cereal Jeans Toothpaste Attribute Scent Flavour Appearance Flavour Fit Flavour Mean score 7.30 7.50 8.29 8.17 8.63 7.80

products was habitual brand loyalty, which identied a relationship between responses to the statements: I make my purchase according to my favourite brand, regardless of price Quality is my primary concern when buying a brand I choose my brand because it has a good reputation I buy the brand my parents buy I stick with my usual brand as this saves me time. It is clear that in the purchase of coffee and toothpaste brands, respondents indicated the underlying importance of quality and brand reputation to their loyalty; however, brand familiarity is also relevant to their purchase behaviour. It is important to note that these were the only two product categories where respondents indicated the relationship to parental buying behaviour, and the relevance of time saving when buying the brand. Familiarity with the brand and brand satisfaction may have developed as a result of usage in the parental home. If one is satised with the performance of a brand then there may be no reason to waste time switching. Additionally, it is reasonable to suggest that the attributes required from these products are similar to those desired by ones parents. For example, in the case of toothpaste, parents may be as concerned about tooth protection, whitening and breath freshening attributes as their 1824year-old children. In the case of toothpaste and coffee, signicantly the most important quality attribute specied by respondents was taste. Taste preference may well be developed in the family home. It may be asked why parental buying behaviour was not a similar inuence on soap brand selection. Possibly, needs and wants in soap purchase are more individual, for example, someone may need a product that suits their individual skin type. The attribute that

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

19

Lisa M. Wood

was of greatest importance to the purchase of this product was scent. It may be, therefore, that while respondents may care about their parents they do not necessarily want to smell like them. Soap was distinctive because it had two relatively equal, but opposing, dimensions. One dimension focused on price insensitive brand preference associated with the quality and reputation of the brand, and the other represented a multi-brand preference with price and promotion sensitivity. These could represent two market segments of consumers and would be worth further investigation. Time saving and parental buying patterns were considered by respondents as unimportant to their purchase of jeans and trainers. This is perhaps not unexpected since it is unlikely that students would wish to emulate their parents fashion choices. Additionally, it may be expected that browsing and shopping around are important to the purchase of these items. These product categories were also distinct in the agreement by respondents that their jeans and trainers say something about them as a person, ie brand as a reection of self-image. Image was not a relevant aspect of brand purchase in any other product categories. In the case of trainers, image was associated with price insensitive brand loyalty, quality and reputation of the brand. This was the primary dimension in trainers selection. The importance of both branding and brand as a reection of self-image were very specic to trainers in this study. This differed from jeans where image was associated with variety seeking and multi-brand preference. This may indicate that respondents like to vary their products and brands to reect different images. The issue of multi-brand preference is very important. It can explain why respondents suggested that they do not buy the brands their friends buy. There are several brands that are socially

acceptable, so respondents do not perceive they are buying on the basis of what their friends buy, but on other criteria. It does not mean that peer group is not important, otherwise respondents would not have indicated that their jeans say something about them as a person. The primary (although not dominant) dimension of jeans brand selection was value seeking. Clearly, price and promotion are important in this product category as would be expected in a high value item. The importance of quality was strongly reected in the second dimension of jeans purchase. The aspect of the quality construct that was most important in jeans purchase was t, followed closely by appearance, which supports the view that self-image is important. Brand image (another aspect of the quality construct investigated) received a higher importance rating in jeans and trainers than with the other products but was not the top ranked attribute in any product category. Overall, both jeans and trainers were distinct from the other product categories in that both self-image and brand image were important in understanding what drives brand selection. This supports the ndings of studies such as Auty and Elliott (1998) and Noesjirwan and Crawford (1982) focusing on the importance of clothing brands. Breakfast cereal had dimensions that were distinct from any other product category. The primary dimension of cereal was value and variety seeking. This may be as much a reection of the market itself as it is of consumer behaviour. Recently, the breakfast cereal market has become characterised by heavy sales promotion activity as well as product innovation and diversication. These are borne out of necessity in order for major brands to remain competitive. It is difcult to assert that value and variety seeking behaviour has been created by this marketing activity, since marketing

20

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour

activity may also be driven by consumer demands, but either way it is likely that they are related. Overall, it can be seen that to suggest that younger consumers have low loyalty would be to miss the richness of their complexity. Opportunities in marketing also may be overlooked. The brand heritage that is evident in coffee and toothpaste purchase could be something that manufacturers might reect in their positioning. For example, taste as a reminder of home, might be a successful message in coffee promotion targeting this demographic group. Brand as a reection of self-image is something that is clearly important and specic (among the products investigated) to clothing brands. Again, this could be reected in promotional activity; however, the advertising of trainers might differ from that of jeans. With trainers, creating the brand reputation as a reection of self-image, and quality positioning, would be key to success. Although these are also important in jeans selection and should not be overlooked, product performance is also critical. Ultimately, when selecting jeans (from the brands that are socially acceptable) the consumer may make decisions on how the t of their jeans affects their physical appearance. Also, the marketing of trainers needs to reect their relative price insensitivity compared with jeans. Value and variety are important attributes of cereal brand selection and so sales promotion will be successful in this product category. In the longer term, however, marketers may wish to consider which brand-switching promotions will best protect their margins, so they can continue to invest in product innovation. FURTHER WORK While students increasingly may be a good representation of the 1824 age group, further work would need to be conducted on the non-student

population to identify any differences. Survey work frequently asks respondents to recall aspects of their behaviour. Auditing actual behaviour of this group could provide further insights.

REFERENCES
Assael, H. (1992) Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, 4th edn, PWS-Kent, Boston, MA. Auty, S. and Elliott, R. (1998) Fashion involvement, selfmonitoring and the meaning of brands, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7 (2), 109123. Barsky, J. (1994) World-class Customer Satisfaction, Irwin Professional Publishing, Burr Ridge, IL. Bayus, B. L. (1992) Brand loyalty and marketing strategy: An application to home appliances, Marketing Science, 11 (1), 22. Carmen, J. M. (1970) Correlates of brand loyalty, Journal of Marketing Research, 7, 6776. Carmichael, M. (2000) Degrees of spending, The Grocer, 19th August, 4244. Cunningham, R. M. (1956) Brand loyalty What, where, how much?, Harvard Business Review, 34, Jan/Feb, 116128. Day, G. S. (1969) A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty, Journal of Advertising Research, 9, 2935. DFES (2002) www.dfes.gov.uk/trends/index (accessed 18th November, 2002). Dick, A and Basu, K. (1994) Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2), 99113. East, R. (1997) Consumer Behaviour: Advances and Applications in Marketing, Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead. East, R., Harris, P., Willson, G. and Hammond, K. (1995) Correlates of rst-brand loyalty, Journal of Marketing Management, 11 (5), 487497. Fader, P. S. and Schmittlein, D. C. (1993) Excess behavioral loyalty for high-share brands: Deviations from the dirichlet model for repeat purchasing, Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (4), 478499. Farley, J. U. (1966) A test of loyalty proneness hypothesis, Commentary, 8, 3542. Farquhar, P. H. (1989) Managing brand equity, Marketing Research, 1 (September), 2433. Field, A. (2000) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows, Sage Publications, London. Frank, R. E. (1967) Correlates of buying behavior for grocery products, Journal of Marketing, 31, 4853. Hammond, K. A., Ehrenberg, A. S. C. and Goodhardt, G. (1993) Brand segmentation: A systematic study, Proceedings of the Marketing Education Group Conference, Loughborough, UK, 439448. Higher Education Statistics Agency (2001) Table 0a All students by institution, mode of study, level of study, gender and domicile, available at www.hesa.ac.uk (accessed 13th November, 2002). Howard, J. A. and Sheth, J. N. (1969) The Theory of Buying

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

21

Lisa M. Wood

Behaviour, John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, NY. Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R. W. (1978) Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management, Wiley, New York, NY. McGoldrick, P. and Andre, E. (1997) Consumer misbehaviour, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 4 (2), 7381. Miller, B. (1975) Intergenerational patterns of consumer behavior, Proceedings, Association for Consumer Research, 93101. Mitchell, V.-W. (1999) Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models, European Journal of Marketing, 33 (1/2), 163195. Moore-Shay, E. S. and Lutz, R. J. (1988) Intergenerational inuences in the formation of consumer attitudes and beliefs about the marketplace: Mothers and daughters, Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 461467. Moschis G. P. (1985) The role of family communication in consumer socialization of children and adolescents, Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (4), 898913. Noesjirwan, J. and Crawford, J. (1982) Variations in perception of clothing as a function of dress form and viewers social community, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54 (1), 155163. Olson, J. C. and Jacoby, J. (1971) A construct validation of brand loyalty, Proceedings of the American Psychological

Association, 6, 657658. Oppenheim, A. N. (1997) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, Pinter, London. Palumbo, F. and Herbig, P. (2000) The multicultural context of brand loyalty, European Journal of Innovation Management, 3 (3), 116124. Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W. E. Jr (1990) Zero defections: Quality comes to services, Harvard Business Review, 68, Sept/Oct, 105111. Roselius, T. (1971) Consumer rankings of risk deduction methods, Journal of Marketing, 35, Jan, 5661. Rundle-Thiele, S. and Bennett, R. (2001) A brand for all seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty approaches and their applicability for different markets, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10 (1), 25. Snyder, D. R. (1991) Demographic correlates to loyalty in frequently purchased consumer services, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 8 (1), 4555. Uncles, M. D. and Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1990) Brand choice among older consumers, Journal of Advertising Research, 30 (4), 1922. Wright, C. and Sparks, L. (1999) Loyalty saturation in retailing: Exploring the end of retail loyalty cards?, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 27 (10), 429439.

APPENDIX 1
Table A1 Coffee (n 210) Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Variable Quality Reputation Loyalty Multi Promotion Parents Time Price Novelty Image Friends Mean 6.45 6.06 5.90 5.40 5.10 5.07 4.72 4.46 3.66 3.66 2.70 + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + +

+ + +

+ + + + +

NB: Where there are crosses (+) in a column that link means, there is no signicant statistical difference between them, p , 0.05.

Table A2 Trainers (n 252) Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Variable Quality Reputation Multi Novelty Price Loyalty Image Promotion Friends Time Parents Mean 6.99 6.80 6.69 5.62 5.56 5.50 5.43 5.23 3.56 2.97 1.67 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + +

NB: Where there are crosses (+) in a column that link means, there is no signicant statistical difference between them, p , 0.05.

22

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour

Table A3 Breakfast cereal (n 244) Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Variable Quality Multi Loyalty Promotion Novelty Reputation Price Time Parents Image Friends Mean 6.51 6.31 6.12 5.94 5.82 5.34 4.99 4.63 4.36 3.42 2.36 + + + + + + +

+ + +

+ + +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ + + +

NB: Where there are crosses (+) in a column that link means, there is no signicant statistical difference between them, p , 0.05. Table A4 Jeans (n 250) Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Variable Quality Multi Reputation Price Promotion Novelty Image Loyalty Friends Time Parents Mean 7.07 6.93 6.29 5.80 5.61 5.38 5.14 5.09 3.45 3.31 1.89 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + +

+ + + + +

NB: Where there are crosses (+) in a column that link means, there is no signicant statistical difference between them, p , 0.05. Table A5 Toothpaste (n 268) Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Variable Quality Reputation Loyalty Promotion Multi Parents Time Price Novelty Image Friends Mean 6.81 6.52 6.12 6.05 5.72 5.44 5.30 5.26 4.08 3.13 2.37 + + + + +

+ + +

+ + + +

+ + + +

+ + + + + +

NB: Where there are crosses (+) in a column that link means, there is no signicant statistical difference between them, p , 0.05.

APPENDIX 2
Table A6 Dimensions of coffee brand selection Factor 1 Loyalty Multi Price Parents Promotion Time Quality Reputation % variance explained Factor 2

0.837 0.181 0.114 0.828 3.865E-03 0.886 0.621 0.161 5.952E-02 0.884 0.717 3.792E-02 0.826 7.870E-02 0.848 0.141 37.718 29.212

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838

23

Lisa M. Wood
Table A7 Dimensions of trainers brand selection Factor 1 Loyalty Multi Novelty Price Image Promotion Quality Reputation % variance explained 0.619 4.028E-02 0.195 5.005E-02 0.670 5.281E-02 0.741 0.828 26.403 Factor 2 0.380 0.266 2.784E-02 0.890 9.507E-02 0.888 0.192 2.895E-02 23.029 Factor 3 0.161 0.793 0.853 0.100 0.266 8.956E-02 4.832E-02 4.596E-02 18.448

Table A8 Dimensions of breakfast cereal brand selection Factor 1 Loyalty Multi Novelty Price Parents Promotion Time Reputation Quality % variance explained 0.251 0.822 0.765 0.774 0.121 0.789 7.457E-02 9.859E-02 8.729E-02 28.696 Factor 2 0.737 0.109 0.208 0.218 7.355E-02 0.110 0.314 0.802 0.841 23.466 Factor 3 0.313 0.148 9.151E-02 9.404E-02 0.843 0.256 0.650 0.232 1.187E-02 15.447

Table A9 Dimensions of jeans brand selection Factor 1 Loyalty Multi Novelty Price Image Promotion Quality Reputation % variance explained 0.605 0.408 1.022E-02 0.849 0.117 0.796 0.145 0.133 24.234 Factor 2 0.404 2.824E-02 4.776E-02 2.989E-02 0.289 0.168 0.845 0.858 21.622 Factor 3 0.289 0.644 0.834 4.827E-02 0.669 0.166 2.583E-02 0.183 21.321

Table A10 Dimensions of toothpaste brand selection Factor 1 Loyalty Multi Price Parents Promotion Time Quality Reputation % variance explained Factor 2

0.683 0.457 6.314E-02 0.819 0.151 0.868 0.544 3.647E-02 3.545E-02 0.882 0.598 0.173 0.807 5.181E-02 0.828 3.152E-02 31.068 30.579

24

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 4, 1, 924 #Henry Stewart Publications 1479-1838