A Comparative Study on Consumers Attitude Towards Private Labels: A Focus on Gujarat

Amit R Pandya* and Monarch A Joshi**

With many international, national and regional players trying to tap the market, retail is one of the most dynamic, fast paced upcoming sectors in India. One of the routes to succeed in retail business is to focus on own brands/store brands/Private Label brands (PLs), as the financials of retail firms are very sensitive to margins on the brands they sell. Further, PLs also offer retailers greater control over the supply chain, negotiating margins with National Brands (NBs) manufacturers or companies; opportunity to launch customized and innovative products. Hence, they build a platform for store loyalty and increase footfalls. As managing PLs is quite a critical function, they are to be managed professionally. This paper focuses on determining and comparing the customers attitude towards NBs and PLs with respect to different attributes in two major cities of Gujarat. Further, it also discusses the preference pattern of respondents for PLs in different categories of products.

Introduction
Global retail sales crossed US$12 tn in 2007. Almost reflecting the growth in the world economy, the global retail sales grew strongly during the previous five years (2002-07) at an average nominal growth of about 8% per annum in terms of dollars (Planet Retail Database). In the developed economies, organized retail is in the range of 75-80% of the total retail, whereas in the developing economies, the unorganized sector dominates the retail business (www.scribd.com/doc/29311391). The Indian retail market, which is the fifth largest retail destination globally, has been

ranked the second most attractive emerging market for investment after Vietnam in the retail sector (AT Kearneys Annual Global Retail Development Index, 2007). Hence, retailers as well as manufacturers can tap the opportunity in an upward trend, and the sector can contribute to the economic development of the country. The current (2009) estimated trend of $450 bn, is expected to touch $833 by 2013 and $1.3 tn by 2018. The organized retail sector which is currently estimated to be at $63 bn (14% of the total) will however, grow much faster at 40% to reach $90 bn by 2010 (www.scribd.com/Rishikesh). The overall Indian retail market is growing at

About the Authors

* Reader, Faculty of Commerce Including Business Administration, The M S University of Baroda, Vadodara, India. E-mail: pandya.amit1@yahoo.com

* * Assistant Professor, Indu Management Institute, Vadodara, 31/B Vishvamitry Dham Society; Nr. Vanlila Society, Manjalpur, Vadodara 390011, India. E-mail: Monarch_joshi@rediffmail.com

A Comparative Study on Consumers Attitude Towards Private Labels: 2011 IUP. All Rights Reserved. A Focus on Gujarat

19

30%; the annual rate of growth for the organized sector is going to be at around 40%. The organized retail market is growing at the rate of 40% and is anticipated to grow at a faster pace over the next three years, especially in view of the fact that major global players and Indian corporate houses are entering the fray in a big way. The current growth rate is expected to touch $90 bn by 2010 (http://economictimes. indiatimes.com/news). In 2009, the retail sector accounted for 12% of the countrys GDP and is likely to reach 22% by 2010. It employs around 9% of its workforce, and is well on its way to become a boom sector of the economy (Indian Retail Research, 2009). According to FICCI Earnest & Young, the Indian organized retail sector accounts for only 5% in the country. And it is expected to contribute 15.5% by 2016 (Investment Commission of India). Research on store brands or Private Label Brands (PLs) has been of substantial interest to the retailers as well as the academicians. Research in this area was conducted by few researchers, viz. the factors associated with PLs adoption, the consumer attitude towards store brands and its relationship with customer satisfaction and store loyalty (Amit and Ruchi, 2009). Private labels are defined as the products owned and branded by the organizations whose primary objective is distribution rather than production (Schutte, 1969). Store brands or PLs are also defined as brands owned, controlled and sold exclusively by retailer (Baltas, 1997). The Private Label Manufacturers Association
20

(PLMA) defines it as, Private label products encompass all merchandize sold under a retailers brand. That brand can be the retailers own name or a name created exclusively by that retailer. In some cases, a retailer may belong to a wholesale group that owns the brands that are available only to the members of the group. The above definitions suggest two things. First, it is the retailer who owns and controls the brand, whereas this was traditionally the role of the producer. Second, the retailer has exclusive rights over the product. This means that different retailers do not sell identical PLs, which is not the case when retailers sell name-brands (Amit and Ruchi, 2009). Thus, the development of PLs does not only alter the relationship between producers and retailers, but also affects the competition between retailers because PLs become an additional way of differentiating between retailers (Berges-Sennou et al., 2004). The two main advantages derived from the adoption of PLs by retailers are: bigger margins, and increased store loyalty (Fontenelle, 1996). In order to be truly successful, retailers must advance from the generic or store brand mindset of the past to a new private label paradigm. Many retailers have begun to describe their PLs as own brands because there is recognition that these proprietary, exclusive offerings are tools that represent momentous power and potential for the retail store. The sale of PLs, also called store brands, have been growing rapidly in recent years. Retailers like PLs because of their potential to increase store loyalty, chain profitability, control over shelf space, bargaining power

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. X, No. 1, 2011

over manufacturers, and so forth. Among the consumers, one obvious reason for their popularity and growth is their price advantage (averaging 21%) over National Brands (NBs). Nevertheless, high quality seems to be more important in determining PL success than lower price. PLs are articulated and developed in a way that they not only fit with the brand promise of the retail store, but if effective, they also give the consumer a key point of departure to enhance and celebrate the overall retail brand proposition to keep consumers coming back for more. One of the interesting phenomena concerning PLs is the fact that their growth has been highly uneven across product categories. The present study is undertaken to gain an insight into the Indian customers attitude towards PLs as well as NBs, the effect on preference pattern and variations with respect to location of respondents for PLs versus national label brands across two product categories. For this purpose respondents from Ahmedabad and Surat city were studied.

also depends on the technology requirements in manufacturing that varies across categories (Hoch and Banerji, 1993). Some researchers studying consumer-level factors for PL proneness such as Richardson et al. (1996)have not studied cross category variations. They have chosen instead to aggregate data across categories. Sethuraman and Cole (1997), for instance, did not measure and model the crucial effect of the level of perceived risk in the product category (Richardson et al., 1996; and Narasimhan and Wilcox, 1998). In this research, we focus upon the attitudes of the consumers towards inter category and demographic differences. By doing so, we hope to shed light on what has made PLs successful overall, drawing implications both for retailers marketing PLs, as well as the NBs that compete with them. Any examination of the consumer-level factors that moderate PLs success across product categories should start with a framework to explain consumers susceptibility for buying PLs. Richardson et al. (1996) present what is probably the most extensive framework offered to date. They argue that consumers propensity to purchase PLs depends on (a) certain demographic factors, such as income, family size, age and education; (b) certain individual difference variables, such as the degree of reliance by the consumer on extrinsic cues (those more reliant on such cues preferring NBs) and the consumers tolerance of ambiguity (intolerants preferring safer national buys); and (c) certain consumer perceptions of the particular category (degree of perceived quality variation, level
21

Literature Review
In studying the retailer economics of PLs programs, researchers have mostly examined the factors such as technology, necessary investments, size of the category, categor y margins, national brand advertising and promotional activity levels and so forth (Sethuraman, 1992; and Hoch and Banerji, 1993). Thus, Hoch and Banerji (1993) find that PLs have higher shares in large categories offering high margins, and where they compete against fewer national manufacturers who spend less on national advertising. The gap between NBs and PLs in the level of quality

A Comparative Study on Consumers Attitude Towards Private Labels: A Focus on Gujarat

of perceived risk, and perceived value for money), as well as the degree of consumer knowledge about the category (greater knowledge increasing PLs choice). But any study related to category-level variations in these factors was not found. Researchers have examined the difference in quality perceptions for NBs and PLs. Initial study by Bellizzi et al. (1981) gathered perceptions of NBs, PLs and generic brands, through a series of Likerttype scales. Respondents showed significant perceptual differences for the three types of brands and consistently rated PLs below the NBs on attributes related to quality, appearance, and attractiveness (Abhishek and Abraham, 2008). Similarly, Cunningham et al. (1982) observed that consumers rate NBs as superior to PLs and generic brands in terms of taste, appearance, labeling, and variety of choice. Rosen (1984) conducted a telephonic survey of 195 households and obtained ratings for generic, PL, and NBs and grocer y products on three quality perceptions: overall quality, quality consistency over repeat purchases, and quality similarity across stores. Data gathered across nine product categories showed that PLs had lower scores in comparison to NBs for overall quality as well as quality consistency over repeat purchases. Omar (1994) conducted a similar quality test for PLs and NBs across three product categories. The results showed that consumers did not perceive any difference among the brands during a blind taste test but revealed taste test indicated that shoppers assigned superior ratings to NBs. Thus, private label offers were rated much lower in revealed taste test than in blind taste test. Invariably, all these studies indicated that PLs suffer from
22

low quality image when compared to NBs despite improvements made in the quality. This spawned the efforts of academicians and practitioners to examine ways to improve the quality perceptions of PLs (Abhishek and Abraham, 2008). Sethuraman and Cole (1997) did model category level variations in many factors. They examined the effect on willingness to pay a price premium for a national brand of: (a) several categor y level variables, including the quality perception of PLs, average price, purchase frequency, and the degree to which the category gives consumption pleasure; (b) individual demographics such as income, age, family size, gender and education; and (c) individual difference perceptual variables such as the belief of a price-quality relationship, perceived deal frequency, and familiarity with PLs. But, the above list of variables did not include the list of perceived risk. Price consciousness, defined as the degree to which the consumer focuses exclusively on paying low prices (Lichtenstein et al., 1993, p. 235), has been found to be a predictor of PLs purchase (Burger and Schott, 1972; and Rothe and Lamont, 1973). Previous research has shown that the consumers level of price-consciousness rises with lower incomes (Gabor and Granger, 1979; and Lumpkin et al., 1986), and is higher among deal-prone consumers (Babakus et al., 1988) who believe less in price-quality associations (Lichtenstein et al., 1988). Research has for long talked of the level of perceived risk in the category as being a crucial factor in PLs purchases (Bettman, 1973; and Richardson et al., 1996), though this variable has either not been studied at the individual category level

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. X, No. 1, 2011

(Richardson et al., 1996), or has been omitted in some recent category-level studies (Sethuraman and Cole, 1997). Such perceived risk can be gauged using performance, financial, or social criteria (Dunn et al., 1986). Drawing on the literature on perceived risk (Bauer, 1967; and Cox, 1967), Narasimhan and Wilcox (1998) argue that consumers will prefer NBs to PLs if the level of perceived risk in buying the PLs in that category is seen as high. They also state that the degree of perceived risk increases with the degree of perceived quality variation. Moreover, the determinants of risk according to Narasimhan and Wilcox (1998), Dunn et al. (1986) and others, are the degree of inconvenience of making a mistake. Consumers rated NBs higher than PLs and generics on prestige, reliability, quality, attractive packaging, taste, aroma, color, texture, appeal, purity, freshness, uniformity and familiarity, among others, Bellizi et al. (1981). Demographic factors were identified from earlier studies in similar areas (Richardson et al., 1996). Different attributes viz. image (brand image/stores image), quality, price, risk, and packaging have been identified to assess the consumer evaluations of PLs and NBs, from earlier research

Batra and Sinha (2000); Bettman, 1973; Dunn et al. (1986); and Richardson et al. (1996) stated perceived risk as a factor. Batra and Sinha (2000) stated price consciousness and price-quality association, as factors influencing customers attitude. Ashokkumar and Gopal (2009) studied price, quality, risk perception as factors affecting consumers attitude.

Dolekoglu et al. (2008) stated factors viz. quality, price, trust, availability of alternatives, attractive packaging, frequent advertising, sales promotions, imitations, well-known healthy, availability, brand image, prestige, freshness and habits. Wells et al. (2007) stated the factor, packaging.

Thus, a review of the previous studies undertaken in the area of PLs indicates that research has been limited to the consumerlevel factors that make PLs differentially successful across product categories. Also the effect of demographic variables on customer perception and preference for PLs across different product categories has hardly been researched. Given the lack of studies undertaken in the area of understanding the Indian customers attitude, and perception towards PLs across product categories and the effect of demographic variables on this perception, the present study has been undertaken to gain an insight into how customers in India, perceive and evaluate PLs in comparison to national label brands. The findings of the study will be helpful for retailers to understand the importance of various factors in being successful with customers in the PLs category.

Research Objective
To compare consumers attitude towards PLs with that of national label brands on selected attributes (quality, price, risk,
23

A Comparative Study on Consumers Attitude Towards Private Labels: A Focus on Gujarat

p a c k a g i n g a n d i m a g e ) a cr o s s t w o product categories (consumer durables and personal care products), based on a s u r ve y o f t w o u r b a n c e n t e r s i n Guja rat.

Model can be described as:

P* D
Where,

= An individuals attitude toward

the brands; P = Importance of attribute (dimension) for the person; D = Individuals evaluation of brands w.r.t the corresponding attribute (dimension). Further, attitude was obtained on scale of 1-7 as 1 = extremely negative attitude; 2 = moderately negative, 3 = slightly negative, 4 = neither negative nor positive, 5 = slightly positive, 6 = moderately positive, and 7 = extremely positive attitude. Table 1 shows the interpretation of respondents attitude with respect to mean (attitude) calculated in ANOVA, as well as their corresponding belief towards different attributes associated with product category.

Research Design and Methodology

Tool employed for generating responses was a structured questionnaire consisting of 30 questions, out of which nine questions were framed to gather demographic as well as personal profile of the respondent, while one question was framed to rate individual brand attribute on Likert scale, 20 questions were framed to rate and compare different attributes across two different categories viz. consumer durables and personal care products on Likert scale. SPSS 17 and advance Excel applications were used for data analysis. Research was conducted in Ahmedabad and Surat. 200 respondents were studied. Stratified random sampling method (disproportionate method) was used to collect the primary data. Information was collected from 100 respondents each outside different retail outlets in different parts of Ahmedabad and Surat cities. It took 11 months, right from literature survey and review, designing the data collection tool, analysis of data and report writing for publishing. For data analysis adequacy importance model was used, in which five attributes identified were framed in the model and the importance was measured on a scale of 1 = least significant to 7 = most significant across different product categories. adequacy importance model happens to be one of the most widely used models appearing in consumer behavior research (Cohen et al., 1972).
24

Analysis and Results

Data reliability and validity plays the most significant role in any research, before data analysis and interpretation. The present study adopted internal consistency analysis to conduct reliability testing. Cronbachs came out to be 0.895, which indicates that reliability of the scale of measurement was significantly high. From an in-depth literature review we find that quality, price, risk, packaging and brand image are attributes which are most relevant to study categories viz. personal care products and consumer durables.

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. X, No. 1, 2011

Table 1: Interpretation of Respondents Attitude with Respect to Mean Calculated for Corresponding Belief Towards Different Attributes Associated
Corresponding Mean Calculated in ANOVA for Attitude 1 (21 to 15) Interpretation as Attitude Towards Attribute Corresponding Belief with Respect to Attribute Extremely low quality Extremely expensive Extremely risky Extremely unattractive packaging Extremely low brand image Quite of low quality Quite expensive Quite risky Quite unattractive packaging Quite low brand image Slightly low quality Slightly expensive Slightly risky Slightly unattractive packaging Slightly low brand image Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Slightly high quality Slightly cheap Slightly risk-free Slightly attractive packaging Slightly high brand image Moderately high quality Moderately cheap Moderately risk-free Moderately attractive packaging Extremely high quality Extremely cheap Extremely risk-free Extremely attractive packaging

Extremely negative attitude towards

Quality Price Risk Packaging

2 (14 to 8)

3 (7 to 1)

4 (0)

5 (1 to 7)

Brand Image Quality Price Risk Packaging Brand Image Slightly negative Quality attitude towards Price Risk Packaging Brand Image Neither negative Quality nor positive attitude Price towards Risk Packaging Brand Image Slightly positive Quality attitude towards Price Risk Packaging Brand Image Moderately negative attitude towards Moderately positive attitude towards Quality Price Risk Packaging

6 (8 to 14)

Brand Image Moderately high brand image 7 (15 to 21) Extremely positive attitude towards Quality Price Risk Packaging

Brand Image Extremely high brand image

A Comparative Study on Consumers Attitude Towards Private Labels: A Focus on Gujarat 25

Measuring and Comparing Attitude Towards NBs and PLs

Importance of attitude towards NBs and PLs was calculated for 200 r e s p o n d en t s f r o m t h e f or m u l a o f Adequacy-Importance with respect to different attributes across two categories as mentioned in Table 2 for Ahmedabad and Surat. Further, for comparison, ttest w as carried out for equal ity of means.

Analysis of consumers attitudes towards NBs vs. PLs (Tables 2 and 3) show that there was attitudinal difference on the attributes of quality, price and risk (difference in means are statistically significant at 5% significance level) in Ahmedabad. Respondents attitude was not different with respect to packaging and image (means are

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of (Means) Attitude Towards NBs vs. PLs Across Different Categories
Ahmedabad (n1 = 100) Categories Brand Attributes Attitude Towards NBs Mean Consumer Durables Quality Price Risk Packaging Image Quality Price Risk Packaging Image Quality Price Risk Packaging Image Quality Price Risk Packaging Image Std. Dev. Attitude Towards PLs Mean Std. Dev. 0.953 1.896 0.810 1.594 1.643 0.953 1.896 0.811 1.583 1.642 1.001 1.191 0.996 1.308 1.119 0.964 1.137 0.927 1.245 1.010 t-Test for Sig. Equality (2of Tailed) Means; Df: 99 6.835 9.919 2.934 0.884 0.434 6.835 9.950 2.934 1.367 0.434 0.884 5.519 5.014 1.157 1.029 2.320 4.342 5.622 0.632 4.662 0.000* 0.000* 0.004* 0.379 0.666 0.000* 0.000* 0.004* 0.175 0.666 0.379 0.000* 0.000* 0.250 0.306 0.022* 0.000* 0.000* 0.530 0.000*

Personal Care Products

Consumer Durables

Personal Care Products

5.44 1.351 4.98 4.88 1.313 5.60 4.66 1.148 4.50 3.32 1.984 3.38 4.02 2.449 4.08 5.44 1.351 4.98 4.86 1.303 5.60 4.66 1.148 4.50 3.32 2.003 3.40 4.02 2.449 4.08 Surat (n2 = 100) 6.32 0.973 6.26 5.02 0.887 5.42 5.12 1.472 4.76 4.80 1.378 4.84 5.66 1.037 5.60 6.34 0.943 6.20 5.80 0.918 5.40 5.44 1.477 4.70 4.86 1.349 4.84 5.72 1.064 5.48

Note: Asterix (*) denotes that the difference in means is statistically significant at 5% significance level.

26

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. X, No. 1, 2011

Table 3: Interpretation and Comparison of Means (Attitude) of NBs and PLs with Respect to Different Attributes, Product Category in Selected Cities
Cases (Relationship Between Means) NB > PL Attributes and Product Categories Interpretation NBs perceived to be better than PLs. Ahmedabad Surat

Quality and Risk across both product categories.

Quality and risk for consumer durables. Quality, price, risk and image for personal care product. Price for durables. consumer

NB < PL

PLs perceived to be better than NBs. NBs and PLs perceived to be same.

Price across both product categories. Packaging and Image across both product categories.

NB = PL

Packaging and image for consumer durables. Packaging for personal care products.

significant at 5% significance level) as attributes in Ahmedabad.

Conclusion
In this study, we examined how customers in Ahmedabad and Surat perceive PLs in two product categories in comparison to NBs with respect to five attributes. In an attempt to explain variations in customer attitude towards PLs, the variations with respect to city and product category have been taken into consideration.

In Surat, attitudinal difference was observed for attributes of price and risk in con sum er durable products, while att itudinal differences w ere observed for a ttributes like quality, price, risk and image for persona l care product s (as difference in mean s a re statistically significant at 5% significance level). Attitudinal difference was not observed on the attributes of quality, packaging and image for consumer durable products. Attitudinal difference was observed on pa cka ging of personal care products in Surat (as means are significant at 5% significance level).

Perception of quality is an important element relating to private-label brand use; if all brands in a category are seen as sharing a similar quality, then private-label brand use is often observed to increase (Richardson et al., 1994). But as proven in this study and other global studies, one constant finding of private-label research had been that quality is more important than price to shoppers (Sethuraman, 1992; and Hoch and Banerji, 1993) which was observed in Surat.
27

A Comparative Study on Consumers Attitude Towards Private Labels: A Focus on Gujarat

The findings of the study clearly bring forth the importance of pricing as an attribute in influencing customers acceptance of PLs. This is so because todays customers are smart enough to understand that since they are not buying branded products, they need not pay premium; as noticed in Ahmedabad. However, support for this belief was challenged by Ailawadi et al. (2001). Burton et al. (1998) pointed out that the danger for a retailer using low prices for PLs to compete with NLBs is that, some consumers may use price as a proxy for quality. Richardson et al.(1994) found that private-label brands were considered by shoppers to be of inferior quality compared to NBs; which can be noticed in both the selected cities.

As across all categories, attitude towards perceived risk as well as image was found to be unfavorable for PLs. Narasimhan and Wilcox (1998) argue that consumers will be less motivated to purchase private-label groceries if the level of perceived risk in that category is high.

The findings of the study can be useful to retailers in formulating strategies to make products other than the NBs acceptable in the market which will help retailers in developing stronger store/PLs and in increasing their presence and acceptance amongst customers. Limitations of the Study: The scope of this study is limited to Ahmedabad and Surat, two selected product categories and five selected attributes. The results and findings of the study are thus limited in their ability to be projected to the country or foreign countries and other categories. There is no denying the fact that because of socioeconomic and cultural differences, there is a variation in the attitude of people. J Towards Private Labels: An Explorator y Study, available at www.scribd.com/doc/22600237/ 4. Ashokkumar S and Gopal S (2009), Diffusion of Innovation in Private Labels in Food Products, The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 35-56. 5. Babakus E, Peter Tand Cunningham (1988), Coupon Redemption: A Motivational Perspective, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 37-43. 6. Baltas G (1997). Determinants of Store Brand Choice: A Behavioral Analysis,

References
1. Abhishek and Abraham Koshy (2008), Quality Perceptions of Private Label Brands: Conceptual Framework and Agenda for Research, available at www.scribd.com/doc/ 37408933/2008-02-04 2. Ailawadi K, Neslin S and Gedenk K (2001), Pursuing the ValueConscious Consumer: Store Brands versus National Brand Promotions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 71-89. 3. Amit M and Ruchi M (2009), Modeling Consumer Attitudes
28

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. X, No. 1, 2011

Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 315-324. 7. Batra R and Sinha I (2000), Consumer-Level Factors Moderating the Success of Private Label Brands, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 175-191. 8. Bauer R A (1967), Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking, in D F Cox (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, pp. 22-33, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA. 9. Bergs-Sennou F, Philippe B and Vincent R (2004), Economics of Private Labels: A Survey of Literature, Jounal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, Vol. 2, No. 1. 10. Bellizzi J A, Harry F K, John R H and Warren S M (1981), Consumer Perceptions of National, Private, and Generic Brands, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 56-70. 11. Bettman J R (1973), Perceived Risk and Its Components: A Model and Empirical Test, Journal of Marketing Vol. 10, No. 2, Research, pp. 184-190. 12. Burger P C and Schott B (1972), Can Private Brand Buyers be Identified?, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp 219-222. 13. Burton S, Lichtenstein D, Netemeyer R and Garretson J (1998), A Scale for Measuring Attitude Toward Private Label Products and An Examination of Its Psychological and Behavioral Correlates, Academy of Marketing Vol. 26, No. 4, Science, pp. 293-306.

14. Cohen J B, Fishbein M and Ahtola O T (1972), The Nature and Uses of Expectancy-Value Models in Consumer Attitude Research, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, November, pp. 456-460. 15. Cox D F (1967), Risk Handling in Consumer BehaviorAn Intensive Study of Two Cases, in Cox D F (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, pp. 34-81, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA. 16. Cunningham, Isabella C M, Hardy, Andrew P and Imperia Giovanna (1982), Generic Brands versus National Brands and Store Brands, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 22, October-November, pp. 25-32. 17. Dolekoglu C O, Albayrak M, Kara A and Keskin G (2008), Analysis of Consumer Perceptions and Preferences of Store Brands versus National Brands: An Exploratory Study in an Emerging Market, Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 109-125. 18. Dunn Mark G, Patrick E Murphy and Gerald U Skelly (1986), The Influence of Perceived Risk and Brand Preference for Supermarket Products, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 204-17. 19. Fontenelle S M (1996), Private Labels and Consumer Benefits: The Brazilian Experience, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp. 97-103. 20. Gabor A and C W J Granger (1979), On the Price Consciousness of Consumers, Journal of the Royal
29

A Comparative Study on Consumers Attitude Towards Private Labels: A Focus on Gujarat

Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 170-188. 21. Hoch S and Banerji S (1993), When Do Private Labels Succeed?, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 57-67. 22. Lichtenstein D R , Peter H B and William C B (1988), Correlates of Price Acceptability, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 243-252. 23. Lichtenstein D R, Nancy M R and Richard G N (1993), Price Perceptions and Consumer Shopping Behavior: A Field Study, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, May, pp. 234-45. 24. Lumpkin J R, Jon M H and William R D (1986), Shopping Patterns of the Rural Consumer: Exploring the Relationship Between Shopping Orientations and Outshopping, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 63-82. 25. Narasimhan C and Wilcox R (1998), Private Labels and the Channel Relationship: A Cross Categor y Analysis, Journal of Business, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 573-600. 26. Omar O (1994), Comparative Product Testing for Own-Label Marketing, International Journal of

Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 12-17. 27. Richardson P S, Jain A K and Alan D (1996), Household Store Brand Proneness: A Framework, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 159-185. 28. Rosen D (1984), Consumer Perceptions of Quality for Generic Grocer y Products: A Comparison Across Categories, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 64-80. 29. Schutte T F (1969), The Semantics of Branding, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 5-11. 30. Sethuraman R (1992), Understanding Cross-Category Differences in Private Label Shares of Grocery Products, Marketing Science Institute Report No. 92-128, Cambridge, MA. 31. Sethuraman R and Cole C (1997), Why Do Consumers Pay More for National Brands than for Store Brands?, Marketing Science Institute Report No. 97-126, December, Cambridge, MA. 32. Wells L E, Farley H and Armstrong, G A (2007), The Importance of Packaging Design for Own-Label Food Brands, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 677-690.

30

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. X, No. 1, 2011

Appendix
A Comparative Study on Consumers Attitude Towards Private Labels: A Special Focus on Gujarat

A. B. C. D. E. F .

Name and Contact Number of Respondent: ________________ ______________ Place: Gender: ________________________ 1. Male 2. Female __________________________Years ____________________________ _______________________________

Age (Completed Years):

Total Household Income/Month: Number of Family Members:

G. H.

Type of Family 1. Nuclear 2. Joint Occupation:

1. Student 2. Housewife 3. Service 4. Self-Employed/ 5. Professional (Doctor, Own Business CA, Lawyer, Consultant)

I.

Marital Status:

1. Unmarried

2. Married

J.

Use the numbers from the following scale to evaluate each attribute while buying any product.

A Comparative Study on Consumers Attitude Towards Private Labels: A Focus on Gujarat

31

32 Extremely Unimportant Neutral 0 1 2 Slightly Important Moderately Important 3 2 1 Moderately Unimportant Slightly Unimportant Extremely Important 3 Please rate National Brands as well as Private Label Brands of different merchandise on the following scale from 1 to 7 for Quality. Rating Extremely of Low Quality 1 Quite Low Quality 2 Slightly Low Neutral Quality 3 4 Slightly High Quality 5 Quite High Quality 6 Extremely High Quality 7

Appendix (Cont.)

Attributes

Quality

Price

Risk

Packaging

Brand Image

M.

Merchandise

M1. National Brand Consumer Durables

M2. Private Label Consumer Durables

M3. National Brand Personal Care Products

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. X, No. 1, 2011

M4. Private Label Personal Care Products

Appendix (Cont.)

N.

Please rate National Brands as well as Private Label Brands of different merchandise on the following scale from 1 to 7 for Price.

Rating Extremely Slightly Neutral Quite Expensive Expensive Expensive Slightly Cheap 5 6 1 2 3 4 Quite Cheap

Merchandise

Extremely Cheap 7

N1. National Brand Consumer Durables

N2. Private Label Consumer Durables

N3. National Brand Personal Care Products

N4. Private Label Personal Care Products

A Comparative Study on Consumers Attitude Towards Private Labels: A Focus on Gujarat Rating Slightly Slightly Quite Quite Extremely Extremely Unattractive Unattractive Unattractive Neutral Attractive Attractive Attractive Packaging Packaging Packaging Packaging Packaging Packaging 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

O.

Please rate National Brands as well as Private Label Brands of different merchandise on the following scale from 1 to 7 for Risk.

Merchandise

O1. National Brand Consumer Durables

O2. Private Label Consumer Durables

O3. National Brand Personal Care Products

O4. Private Label Personal Care Products

33

34 Rating Neutral Extremely Quite Low Brand Low Brand Image Image 1 2 3 4 5 6 Slightly Low Brand Image Slightly High Brand Image Quite High Brand Image Extremely High Brand Image 7 Rating Quite Low Slightly Extremely Low Low Brand Brand Image Brand Image Image 1 2 3 Neutral Slightly High Brand Image 4 5 Quite High Brand Image 6 Extremely High Brand Image 7

Appendix (Cont.)

P.

Please rate National Brands as well as Private Label Brands of different merchandise on the following scale from 1 to 7 for Packaging.

Merchandise

P1. National Brand Consumer Durables

P2. Private Label Consumer Durables

P3. National Brand Personal Care Products

P4. Private Label Personal Care Products

Q.

Please rate National Brands as well as Private Label Brands of different merchandise on the following scale from 1 to 7 for Brand Image.

Merchandise

Q1. National Brand Consumer Durables

Q2. Private Label Consumer Durables

Q3. National Brand Personal Care Products

Q4. Private Label Personal Care Products

Private Label BrandThis refers to brands that are specifically owned by the retailer from which they are sold. These brands may be manufactured by the retailer or by third parties. These brands can also be termed In-house brands, Store brands, Own-brands or Retailer Brands.

Consumer Durables: {TV Refrigerators, PC, Laptop, AC, JMG, Blender, Vacuum Cleaner, Geyser, DVD Players, Speakers, Fan, Iron, Washing , Machine, Hand Blender}

Personal Care Products: {Soaps, Shampoos, Cotton Swabs, Deodorant, Moisturizers, Lotions, Shaving Cream, Skin Cream, Tooth Paste, Tooth Brush, Liquid Soap}

Reference # 03J-2011-02-02-01

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. X, No. 1, 2011

Home Care Products: {Detergents, Detergent Soaps, Utensil Cleaner, Scrubs, Phenyl, Toilet Cleaner, Floor Cleaner, Insect Repellent, Air Freshener, Whitener}

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.