Perception and Predictors of Consumers Purchase Intentions For Store Brands - Evidence From Malaysia

Asian Journal of Business and Accounting 6(2), 2013 105
Asian Journal of Business and Accounting 6(2), 2013 ISSN 19854064

Perceptions and Predictors of
Consumers Purchase Intentions for
Store Brands: Evidence from Malaysia
Siohong Tih* and Kean Heng Lee
ABSTRACT
This study examines consumers perceptions of retail store brands
and identifes the predictors of purchase intentions for the store
brands. To examine the proposed research model, two independent
samples are drawn. The frst sample consists of 120 responses
collected via mall intercept at a famous hypermarket retail chain
store, and the second sample consists of 120 responses also collected
using the mall intercept method at a supermarket chain store
in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Multiple regressions are used to test
the hypotheses. There are mixed results in relation to the tested
relationships. Perceived value for the money, perceived quality
variance, perceived price and perceived risk have a signifcant
impact on consumer purchase intention for the store brand in the
hypermarket sample. However, analysis using the supermarket
sample indicated that only perceived quality variance has a
signifcant impact on consumer purchase intention for the store
brand.
Keywords: Consumer Perception, Purchase Intention, Store Brand
JEL Classifcation: M31

1. Introduction
In an effort to increase their competitiveness in the market, large-scale
retailers have adopted a popular strategy, namely, developing their
own store brands. The retailers create their own brand either using
their store name for the brand or a separate brand name. These types
of brand names are known as store brands or private label brands.
* Corresponding author. Siohong Tih is an Associate Professor at the Graduate School of
Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia, e-mail:
sh@ukm.my.
Siohong Tih and Kean Heng Lee
This strategy creates an opportunity for retailers to own, control, and sell
products under their own labels. Store brands play a vital role in retail
strategy. Today, store brands are available in diverse goods and services
ranging from household items to food and accessories. Store branded
products can be priced high or low depending on the retail strategy
(Baltas, 1997; Batra & Sinha, 2000; Dick, Jain & Richardson, 1997; Kremer
& Viot, 2012; Tifferet & Herstein, 2012; Zielke & Dobbelstein, 2007).
Store brands are highly important. The development of a store
brand is essential for improving revenue. From the retailers point
of view, a strong store brand might reduce marketing expenditures,
lead to cost savings and allow for fexible pricing (low or high prices,
depending on the targeted customers and margin). Store brands also
provide an opportunity for retailers to set their own prices during
promotion periods and thus compete with national brands. Moreover,
store brands may offer an opportunity to increase store traffc and build
store loyalty (Baltas, 1997; Baltas & Argouslidis, 2007; Dick et al., 1997;
Kremer & Viot, 2012; Tifferet & Herstein, 2012; Zielke & Dobbelstein,
2007). For instance, in the UK and the US, store brands are commonly
adopted by retailers (Kremer & Viot, 2012; Tifferet & Herstein, 2012).
Rahman et al. (2012) also stated that many retailers potentially develop
their own store brands to create loyal customers.
Demand for the store brand might encourage consumers to visit,
especially when they are familiar with the private label products,
because they are associated with particular retail stores. To create
and enhance customer loyalty, the brand may play an important role
in promoting products to the public, for example, communicating
the value for the money or the quality of the products. Consumers
willingness to purchase store branded products and loyalty towards the
brands depends on the consumers perception of critical factors such
as price, risk and quality (Dick et al., 1997; Rahman et al., 2012; Zielke
& Dobblestein, 2007).
The existing literature has examined the perception differences
and purchasing preferences between national and store brands (Batra
& Sinha, 2000; Broyles et al., 2011; De Wulf et al., 2005; Hoch & Banerji,
1993; Mieres, Martin & Gutierrez, 2006; Sethuraman & Cole, 1999).
Research has also examined the factors that influence consumer
decisions regarding retail stores and brands (Grandhi, Singh & Patwa,
2012; Kumar & Karande, 2000; Tifferet & Herstein, 2012; Zielke &
Dobbelstein, 2007). For example, Tifferet and Herstein (2012) examined
the predictors of store brand decisions, and Zielke and Dobbelstein
Perceptions and Predictors of Consumers Purchase Intentions for Store Brands: Evidence
from Malaysia
(2007) studied customers willingness to purchase new store brands.
However, little attention has been given to the factors (i.e., price and
promotional sensitivities) infuencing consumers shopping behaviour
in different retail formats (Wang, Bezawada & Tsai, 2010). A closely
related theoretical reference would be studies on consumer behaviour
across channels or multi-channel research. It was found that consumers
behave differently across channels, such as using the Internet channel
for searching and visiting the retail outlet for actual purchasing (Piercy,
2012; Verhoef, Neslin & Vroomen, 2007; Konus, Verhoef & Neslin,
2008). With reference to the cross-channel literature, the key question is
whether consumer behaviour would be different across retail formats
(Wang et al., 2010). Researchers have initiated studies on consumer
behaviour across store formats. There are indications of behavioural
buying differences across retail formats with regards to demographics
and behavioural factors (Bustos-Reyes and Gonzalez-Benito, 2008;
Carpenter & Moore, 2006). Wang et al. (2010) mentioned that there are
limited studies that examine consumer purchasing behaviour across
retail formats. Therefore, we aim to contribute towards the existing
literature by examining consumer store brand purchase intention using
two samples, a supermarket and a hypermarket context, to complement
the previous studies that focus on a single retail format. It is expected
that the results will provide a useful reference for retailers in their
branding decisions. Specifcally, the objective of this study is to identify
the factors that infuence store brand purchase intentions across different
retail formats. The assumptions are that particular factors would have
an impact on store brand purchase intention and that by manipulating
these factors, retailers can better manage their investment in store brand
development and measure their return on store brand investment.
The following section of the paper synthesises the literature
on retail store brands and consumer shopping behaviour. Based on
the literature, the paper develops a research framework and specifc
hypotheses about the predictors of store brand purchase intention. The
paper then explains the methodology of an empirical study and the
results. The paper fnal section discusses the fndings of the study and
its theoretical as well as managerial implications.
2. Literature Review
A brand is defned as a distinguishing name, term, sign, symbol, or
any other unique combination of elements of goods or services that
identifes one frms products and sets them apart from the competition
(Aaker, 1991; Kotler et al., 2009, p.260; Solomon & Stuart 2002, p. 270).
Subsequently, store brands are defned as brands that are exclusive
to a particular retail store either produced by the retailer or supplied
by own-label suppliers (Baltas, 1997; Semeijn, Van Riel & Ambrosini,
2004). Store brands or private labels are owned by the retailers (Batra
& Sinha, 2000; Hoch & Banerji, 1993; Jin & Suh, 2005). In this paper, we
use the term store brand, which means store brand, private brand or
private label product. Store brands are commonly found in large-scale
retail chain stores, especially in the US and the UK (Dick et al., 1997;
Semeijn et al., 2004).
2.1 Retail store brands in Malaysia
Store brand development in the European and North American markets
is far beyond that in the Asia Pacifc markets. In Malaysia, for example,
store brands are still in an early stage of development (Nielsen, 2008).
However, there is an estimated growth rate of 30% year-on-year with
regards to the store brand market in Malaysia, which was valued at
RM240 million as of September 2008 (Nielsen, 2008). Worldwide, in 2012,
it was estimated that market share of store brand or private label sector
has reached 250 billion USD (Arslan, Gecti & Zengin, 2013). The growth
of store brand development and its adoption is supported by signifcant
increases in commodity prices and the downturn in the global economy.
For instance, grocery prices and food items have increased between 15
to 20 percent year-to-date. Thus, retailers looking for more control over
products opt to develop their own store brands (Nielsen, 2008).
Popular store branded items are products addressing consumers
basic and functional needs, such as paper, and commodity foods, such
as bottled water, sweetener and cooking oil (Nielsen, 2008; Phang, 2009).
Moreover, with the uncertainty in the global economy, Malaysians are
changing their grocery shopping habits. For example, in recent studies,
it was found that the majority of the respondents (eight out of ten
people) indicated that they only purchase essential items. Shoppers also
showed less loyalty and were looking for promotional items (Nielsen,
2009). This switching behaviour may provide an opportunity for store
brands to penetrate the local market. Today in Malaysia, store brands
are continuously growing in popularity, and the major retailers have
developed a range of products under their brands (Abdullah et al., 2012).
Retailers offering their private brands include Carrefour Malaysia,
IKEA, Isetan, Jusco, Parkson, Tesco Hypermarket Malaysia, Giant and
from Malaysia
Mydin Hypermarkets (Abdullah et al., 2012). In spite of store brand
strategy and opportunity, consumers purchase intentions towards store
brands remain largely untested and lack empirical support.
A review of the literature reveals that the factors infuencing
consumer purchase intentions for store brands may include price,
perceived quality variance, perceived value, brand loyalty, store image
and perceived risk associated with the store brand (Abdullah et al.,
2012; Baltas, 1997; Baltas & Argouslidis, 2007; Dick et al., 1997; Glynn &
Chen, 2009; Grewal et al., 1998; Jin & Suh, 2005). Zeilke and Dobbelstein
(2007) reported that other influential factors include the product
group, the positioning of the store brand, and attitudes toward store
brands. In addition, the conceptualisation of the price and perceived
quality relationship and its effect on consumers perceptions of value
and willingness to buy are studied as well as the effects of risk. Many
scholars have reported that when higher perceived risk is associated
with private brand purchase, it lowers the individuals perception of
value for the money (Aqueveque, 2006; Jin and Suh, 2005; Mitchell
and Harris, 2005; Semeijn et al., 2004). In brief, brand awareness, price,
quality, perceived risk and perceived value for the money have been
identifed as key factors that infuence consumer purchase intention of
store brands.
2.2 Predictors of store brand purchase intention
A store brand is a part of the retailers strategy. It is believed that
consumers attitude and judgements regarding store brands are
very subjective. Hence, perception is very important in determining
purchase intention. Price, perceived quality variation, store brand
familiarity, perceived risk and perceived value for the money are
among the predictors of store brand purchase intentions (Jin & Suh,
2005; Richardson, Jain & Dick, 1996). Price and product quality have
been well studied and identifed as key interrelated predictors of store
brand purchase intention (see Hoch & Banerji, 1993; Jin & Suh, 2005).
Quality perception is a critical element in purchase intention.
Richardson, Dick and Jain (1994) found that a poor perceived quality for
store brands partially offsets the favourable reaction to prices and leads
to a decrease in purchase intention. In consumer perception studies,
store brands might have different quality ratings (Beldona & Wysong,
2007; Sethuraman & Cole, 1999). Consumers might use extrinsic cues
such as brand name, price and packaging to judge the product quality
of a store brand (Richardson et al., 1996). This fnding is supported
by Hoch and Banerji (1993) and Semeijin et al. (2004). These authors
found that store brand purchase intention was lower when the quality
variability of the store brands was high. Furthermore, Semeijin et al.
(2004) also found that none of the store image factors could relieve the
risk of quality variance. The consumers who had experienced or used
store branded products might have higher quality perception towards
the brands (Beldona & Wysong, 2007). This fnding provided the insight
that retailers could promote their store brands by giving a free sample for
the frst trial. The trial might reduce the uncertainty and risk associated
with store brands. Doubt regarding store brands might relate to the lack
of advertising and lower prices for store branded products (Bettman,
1973; Batra & Sinha, 2000; Richardson et al., 1996).
In addition, store brand awareness, perceived risk and perceived
value for the money are also related to store brand purchase intention.
For store brand awareness or familiarity with store brands, it is found
that consumers have more favourable views towards the store branded
products that they are familiar with (Richardson et al., 1996). Perceived
risk in terms of the lower consequences of making a mistake had an
impact on store brand purchase intention (Batra & Sinha, 2000).
Evidence showed that perceived higher value for the money had a
positive impact on store brand proneness (Richardson et al., 1996). Too
large a price gap may adversely affect the perception of value and quality
offered by store brands. Consequently, it is expected that a reduction
in the price gap between the national and store brands will infuence
perceptions of store brand quality. All of these situations suggest that
store brands pose a purchasing risk in the eyes of the consumer. The
risk is due to uncertainty with respect to knowing the manufacturers
of these store brands. This risk is amplifed by the fear of the frst trial.
Furthermore, the manifestation of the perception of risk depends on
the consumers knowledge of the store brand. Store brand purchase
intention increases when the perceived risk that the consumer associates
with the store brand decreases, thus building confdence in the store
brand product quality (Batra & Sinha, 2000; Dick et al., 1995).
These studies have supported a few key predictors of store brand
purchase intentions or private label proneness. There is, however, a
question of whether these factors have a direct or an indirect impact on
store brand purchase intention in the context of developing countries
such as Malaysia because retailers in developing countries also have
initiated their store brands. Owning store brands enable retailers to enjoy
from Malaysia
higher margin (Abdullah et al., 2012) and might enhance retailer brand
image (Kremer & Viot, 2012). Introducing store brands to developing
countries provide opportunity for growth (Grandhi, Singh & Patwa,
2012). It is important to examine whether the similar determinant factors
would explain store brand purchase intention in developing country
context. Thus, this study aims to provide some useful information
for retailers to ease their store brand management and allow them
to understand the relationships between key variables such as price,
quality, awareness, risk, value for the money and purchase intention. In
particular, identifying key predictors of store brand purchase intention
would allow the retailer to manipulate particular variables within their
strategy formulation.
2.3 Consumer Shopping Behaviour across Retail Formats
Several studies examine consumer shopping behaviour across channel
and retail formats (Hsiao, Yen & Li, 2012; Konus, Verhoef & Neslin,
2008; Piercy, 2012; Verhoef, Neslin & Vroomen, 2007; Wang, Bezawada
& Tsai, 2010). From the multi-channel literature, consumers tend to
search information through the Internet channel and purchase the
product at a physical retail outlet (Konus et al., 2008; Verhoef et al.,
2007). Research on the retail format choice examines predictors and the
desired store attributes of different retail formats such as department,
specialty and discount stores (Carpenter & Brosdahl, 2011; Finn and
Louviere, 1990; Yavas, 2003). Studies across retail formats indicated that
consumers from different demographic and behavioural backgrounds
show different shopping behaviours across retail formats (Bustos-Reyes
& Gonzalez-Benito, 2008; Carpenter & Moore, 2006; Piercy, 2012; Wang
et al., 2010). For example, shopper demographic characteristics such as
age, gender, occupation, education, income, family size and distance
to the retail outlet are related to retail format choice decisions (Prasad
& Aryasri, 2011). Nevertheless, expert and novices shoppers would
consider the utilitarian value when involve in multi-channel shopping
(Hsiao, Yen & Li, 2012).
Wang et al.s (2010) study compares consumer price and promotion
sensitivities in brand choice behaviour between the supermarket and
the mass merchandiser retail formats by product category. In general,
consumers have lower price but higher promotional sensitivity in the
mass merchandiser format. Therefore, a co-branding strategy might
beneft the merchandiser. The consumers intrinsic preference for
national brands is obvious in the mass merchandiser outlet relative to
the supermarket for food items. Their study also indicated that higher
income consumers were less sensitive to price and promotion activities.
Married households were more sensitive towards promotion, whereas
households with a larger family size were sensitive towards price but
not promotion.
Research on male shoppers indicated that there are distinctive
predictors among male shoppers across different retail format choices
such as department stores, discounters, category killers, dollar stores
and online retail stores (Carpenter & Brosdahl, 2011). In particular, the
predictors of departmental store patronage were brand loyalty, price
competitiveness, shopping enjoyment and recreation, knowledgeable
salespeople and well-known brands. The predictors of discount store
patronage were product selection, price competitiveness, quality of
products and price. Women displayed more positive cross-channel
behaviour than men (Piercy, 2012). Piercy (2012) also found that highly
educated shoppers had less positive behaviour towards cross-channel
shopping.
Although from the literature, there are indications of consumer
differences across retail formats, there are limited studies that directly
examine the store brands introduced by these retail outlets or that
attempt to explain consumers intention to purchase these store branded
products. Carpenter and Brosdahls (2011) study examines predictors
of retail format choice but not store brand purchase intention. Peircy
(2012) examines positive and negative cross-channel behaviour without
considering brand effect.
3. Research framework and hypotheses
The proposed research model is based on the conceptualisation of the
predictors of store brand purchase intention. The proposed model is
presented in Figure 1; it consists of fve independent variables and
one dependent variable. The independent variables include perceived
price, perceived quality variance, perceived value for the money, store
brand awareness and perceived risk. These variables were included in
this study because it is suggested that they have some direct or indirect
impact on store brand purchase intention and that they are relevant
to the Malaysian retail context. The dependent variable is store brand
purchase intentions. In this study, the hypothesised direct relationships
are tested across two samples to examine the consistency of the fndings.
from Malaysia
Perceived Price
Perceived Quality
Variance
Perceived Value
for the Money
Store Brand
Awareness
Store Brand
Purchase
Intention
Perceived Risk
3.1 Perceived Price and Store Brand Purchase Intention
Prices are always the first extrinsic cue for consumers, and how
consumers evaluate the price variable might infuence their store
brand purchase intention (Abdullah et al., 2012; Baltas, 1997; Baltas &
Argouslidis, 2007; Zielke & Dobbelstein, 2007). Prices are emphasised
by those who are price sensitive. As described in Nielsens (2008; 2009)
study, perceived price has been identifed as having the strongest
relationship with propensity towards a store brand. This fnding has
also been reported by Glynn and Chen (2009). Price is the key predictor
of store brand purchase decisions in most product categories. Thus, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Perceived price is related to store brand purchase intention
Store brand quality is the most debatable element. The literature shows
that the perceived quality of the store brand is subjective. In addition,
quality might be part of the perceived value for the money component
(see Abdullah et al., 2012; De Wulf et al., 2005; Dick et al., 1995; Jin & Suh,
2005; McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Mieres et al., 2006; Zeithaml, 1988).
In Baltas and Argouslidiss (2007) study, educated and high-income
Figure 1 Research Model
individuals also consume store-branded products, and they might
indirectly compare quality with price, thus considering the overall value
of the purchase. Although perceived quality might interact with other
variables, it is suggested that the perceived quality of the store brand
was the most important predictor of store brand purchase intention
(Levy & Gendel-Guterman, 2012). Therefore it is proposed that:
H2: Perceived quality variance is related to store brand purchase
intention
Value refers to the perceived quality relative to the price or the total
benefts relative to the total costs perceived by the customers (Jin & Suh,
2005; McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Zeithaml, 1988). Thus, the perceived
value implies ones relative consideration of the quality versus the price
of an offering (Dick et al., 1995; Richardson et al., 1996). Store brand
prone shoppers perceive store brands as offering a greater value for the
money (Dick et al., 1995). In general, consumers are prone to brands
that offer greater value for the money. The higher the perceived value
for the money associated with store brands, the higher the tendency to
purchase store branded products (Jin & Suh, 2005; Richardson et al.,
1996; Zielke & Dobbelstein, 2007). Jin and Suh (2005) found that value
consciousness had a direct and indirect impact on store brand purchase
intention dependent on product category. However, in this study, we
examine the direct impact of perceived value for the money on store
brand purchase intention.
In the literature, it is also illustrated that price, quality and value are
abstract elements (see De Wulft et al., 2005; Dick et al., 1995; Jin & Suh,
2005; McDougall & Levesque, 2000; Mieres et al., 2006; Zeithaml, 1988).
For example, image transfer in terms of the store brands image and the
retailer brand image might involve price, supply and value dimensions
(Kremer & Viot, 2012). There is a tendency for price and quality to be
implied in value for the money. Considering the abstract and complex
relationships between these variables, we would prefer to examine all
of the potential direct relationships between price, quality and value
for the money on purchase intention (Dick et al., 1995; Richardson et
al., 1996). Taking the above-mentioned considerations into account, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Perceived value for the money is related to store brand purchase
intention
from Malaysia
3.2 Store Brand Awareness and Store Brand Purchase Intention
Store brand awareness can be defned as the likelihood that a store
brand will appear in the consumers mind and the length of time this
memory will stay, which means familiarity with the brand and strong
brand recognition (adapted from Keller, 1993; De Wulf et al., 2005; Yoo,
Donthu & Lee, 2000). It was found that familiarity with store brands has
an impact on store brand proneness (Abdullah et al., 2012; Richardson
et al., 1996). Consumers tend to have a more favourable perception
towards the store brands that they are familiar with and to evaluate
these more highly in terms of quality and value for the money. Mieres
et al.s (2006) study also indicated that a greater familiarity with store
brands would have a more positive infuence on their perceived risk.
As the awareness of the store brands increases, it may become one of
the options in the consumers considerations for purchase. De Wulf
et al. (2005) suggest that high store brand awareness will increase the
likelihood that a brand will be recalled when it comes to a purchase
evaluation. Consequently, higher store brand awareness may increase
the chance or possibility that consumers will decide to purchase store
branded products because they may recall store brands when it comes
to brand evaluation. Hence, the following is hypothesised:
H4: Store brand awareness is related to store brand purchase intention
3.3 Perceived Risk and Store Brand Purchase Intention
In this study, perceived risk refers to fnancial risk, and it relates to the
cost relative to an individuals fnancial resources (Mitchell & Harris,
2005). Perceived risk is dependent on the amount of information available
to the consumer about store brands. A store brand purchase is more
likely when the consumer is confdent that they can obtain satisfactory
performance (Baltas, 1997). The perceived risks associated with the
store brand are an important factor evaluated by the consumer and
they infuence the purchase intention of the store brand. Furthermore,
non-store brand prone shoppers were worried about fnancial risk (Dick
et al., 1995). If the risk associated with the store brand is low, it may
increase the likelihood of purchasing store branded products. In other
words, store brand purchase intention increases when perceived risk,
especially fnancial risk, is reduced (Batra & Sinha, 2000; Richardson et
al., 1996; Zielke & Dobbelstein, 2007). With reference to this literature,
the following is hypothesised:
H5: Perceived risk is related to store brand purchase intention
4. Methodology
The study population for this research is retail consumers of store
brands in Malaysia. There are several store brands available in the
Malaysian market such as Giant, Carrefour and Tesco (Rahman et al.,
2012). The non-probability sampling technique is adopted in this study.
The non-probability sampling technique is used in similar studies
(Mandhachitara, Shannon & Hadjicharalambous, 2007; Tifferet and
Herstein, 2012) and is acceptable when the generalisation concern is
low (Churchill, 1991; Diamantopoulos and Schlegelmilch, 1997).
This study employs a mall intercept survey method for data
collection. Two samples were collected to test the proposed model.
The frst sample was collected at a hypermarket retail chain store,
and the second sample was collected at a supermarket retail outlet.
Both retail chain stores have introduced their own store brands. The
actual names of these retail chain stores are not disclosed in this paper.
However, the actual names of these retail stores and its store brands
were used in the questionnaire. These retail chain stores are selected
because they have each opened more than 20 stores nationwide in
Malaysia. Furthermore, the selected supermarket retail store brand
was selected as one of Malaysias 30 most valuable brands (The Edge,
2009), thus indicating the appropriateness of using these store brands.
These retail chain stores have been selling their store brands for some
years. Therefore, it is possible to measure the consumers perceptions
of these store brands. Customers of these two retail stores were invited
to participate in this study.
The sampling locations were the retail store at Ampang
(hypermarket) and Taman Connaught (supermarket), Malaysia. The
shoppers were intercepted during their visit to these retail stores.
Convenience quota sampling was used, aiming at a sample size of 250
with 125 shoppers representing each retail store. The targeted sample
size is relatively small because this is a small-scale survey focusing on
examining relationships between variables instead of the generalisation
of results.
A voluntary participative approach was used. The shoppers
were approached by interceptors and asked to complete a structured
questionnaire. The shoppers who indicated their willingness to
participate were given the questionnaire; for the participating shoppers,
from Malaysia
an instruction emphasised that there are no correct or incorrect answers;
only your personal opinions matter to minimise possible response bias.
The questionnaires were distributed in the feld and retrieved once the
shoppers had completed them.
A structured questionnaire was developed to collect the desired
data in this study. The questionnaire consisted of three sections and was
designed to extract the shoppers responses regarding their perception
towards store brands and their purchase intention. Firstly, a series of
questions to capture their perceptions of the store brands were included.
Next, the respondents were asked about their future purchase intention
for store brands. Finally, the respondents were asked to provide socio-
demographic information. A few rounds of pre-testing were held to
make sure that the items in the questionnaire were understandable
and clear.
4.1 Measurement
Multi-item scales from previous research were adopted or adapted
to measure the variables included in the proposed model. A pool of
measurement items were examined and revised to ft the Malaysian retail
store context. The brand awareness and perceived price measurement
items were adapted from Yoo et al. (2000). Perceived value for the
money was adapted from Dobbs et al.s (1991) measurement instrument.
Measurement items for perceived quality variance were adapted from
prior studies (Jin & Sternquist, 2003; Mieres et al., 2006; Yoo et al., 2000).
Perceived risk was measured using a scale developed by Richardson et
al. (1996) and Mieres et al. (2006). The measurement items for purchase
intention were developed by the authors with reference to the previous
literature (Jin & Suh, 2005).
The full set of measurement items are presented in the Appendix. In
particular, we measure the store brand but not the retail store. The store
brands are considered without specifying the product categories. This
approach is not uncommon in empirical research (Kremer & Viot, 2012).
In addition, we only use the perceived measure. It was suggested that
the perceived measure plays a signifcant role in consumer psychology
because studies have shown that consumer perceptions have an impact
on consumer behaviour (Yoo et al., 2000). All of the variables were
measured using established fve-point Likert scales with 1 meaning
Strongly Disagree and 5 meaning Strongly Agree or vice versa for
negative items (DAstous & Gargouri, 2001). In terms of the analysis, a
preliminary statistical analysis on the scales reliability and correlation
were performed. Then, multiple regressions were used to test the
hypothesised relationships (Hair et al., 1998).
5. Empirical Results
This section presents the results of the statistical analyses and testing
of the hypotheses regarding consumer perception and the purchase
intention for store brands. The SPSS software is employed for data
analysis. Firstly, a scale reliability test and correlation were performed,
followed by the testing of the hypothesised relationships.
5.1 Sample Characteristics
A total of 240 completed responses were included in the fnal sample.
These responses were collected at a hypermarket and a supermarket
retail store. Table 1 provides a detailed description of the socioeconomic
characteristics of the samples. For the frst sample, responses were
collected at a hypermarket; this sample was 60.0% female and 40.0%
male. Approximately 50.0% of the respondents were in the age range of
25-31 years. A total of 70.0% of the respondents were Chinese shoppers,
22.5% were Malay, and approximately 4.2% and 3.3% were Indian and
other races, respectively. Approximately half of the samples (50.0%)
were from the RM2,000 to RM4,000 income group, followed by the
RM1,000 to RM2,000 (23.4%) income group. The analysis indicated
that over half of the respondents (76.7%) had four or more family
members. The profle also indicated that 75.0% of the respondents had
obtained a diploma or a university degree and most of them (82.5%)
were employed.
The second sample was collected at a supermarket chain store and
was 58.3% female and 41.7% male respondents. Most of the respondents
were 38 years old or below (85.0%). Malay and Chinese shoppers were
the dominant races in this sample, with 47.5% and 35.8%, respectively.
Most of the shoppers were from the RM2,000 to 4,000 income group,
with 33.3%, followed by the RM1,000 to RM2,000 (31.7%) income
group. In addition, most of the respondents came from a large family
with four or more family members (73.3%). Most of the respondents
had either a diploma or a university degree (61.6%). A small portion
of the respondents had only attended secondary school (21.7%) or pre-
university study (15.0%). In the sample, 15.0% were students and 74.1%
from Malaysia
Variables First Sample
(Hypermarket)
Second Sample
(Supermarket)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Gender
Male 48 40.0 50 41.7
Female 72 60.0 70 58.3
Age
18-24 years 17 14.2 33 27.5
25-31 years 57 47.5 46 38.3
32-38 years 20 16.7 23 19.2
39-45 years 13 10.8 9 7.5
46-52 years 10 8.3 8 6.7
>52 years 3 2.5 1 0.8
Race
Malay 27 22.5 57 47.5
Chinese 84 70.0 43 35.8
Indian 5 4.2 9 7.5
Others 4 3.3 11 9.2
Income (Monthly) in
Ringgit Malaysia
<500 4 3.3 9 7.5
500-1000 4 3.3 20 16.7
1001-2000 28 23.4 38 31.7
2001-3000 33 27.5 24 20.0
3001-4000 27 22.5 16 13.3
4001-5000 11 9.2 6 5.0
>5000 13 10.8 7 5.8
Family Size (number of
occupants)
1 2 1.7 3 2.5
2 13 10.8 9 7.5
3 13 10.8 20 16.7
4 33 27.5 25 20.8
5 30 25.0 42 35.0
>5 29 24.2 21 17.5
Educational
No schooling 2 1.7 0 0.0
Primary school 1 0.8 2 1.7
Secondary school 23 19.2 26 21.7
Pre-university 4 3.3 18 15.0
Diploma 32 26.7 37 30.8
University 58 48.3 37 30.8
Occupation
Student 6 5.0 18 15.0
Not employed 1 0.8 2 1.7
Self-employed 14 11.7 11 9.2
Employed 99 82.5 89 74.1
Table 1 Profle of the respondents
were employed adults. The number of students may be driven by the
fact that there is a college near the retail store. Hence, more students
were visiting the store to purchase their necessities.
Due to the non-probability sampling technique, the sample was not
fully representative. However, the characteristics of the respondents in
the study are similar to the characteristics of retail store brand shoppers.
In this study, the sample consists of more females than males. This
result is consistent with previous research related to store brands. For
example, in a study involving 206 shoppers at a chain store, 71% of the
respondents are female (Levy & Gendel-Guterman, 2012). The majority
of the respondents are employed except in sample two; in this sample,
there are more students because the retail store is near a college. Store
brand research involving students is not uncommon. Students, based on
their needs for cognition, interpret relevant information in a meaningful
and integrated way and also show an inclination to purchase store
brands (Tifferet & Herstein, 2012). The profle of the respondents in this
study also includes representatives from different age groups, and the
majority of them were educated in secondary school and above (Levy
& Gendel-Guterman, 2012).
5.2 Scale Reliability
Cronbachs alpha values are used to indicate the reliability of each
variable. Cronbachs alpha is a measure of internal consistency based
on the average inter-item correlation. The Cronbachs alpha coeffcient
of each variable is shown in Tables 2 and 3. The Cronbachs alpha
reliability for each of the six scales (brand awareness, perceived price,
perceived quality variance, perceived value for the money, perceived
risk, and purchase intention) are 0.70 or higher, thus indicating that
they are appropriate for further analysis (Yoo et al., 2000). Hence, 23
items were retained: four items for store brand awareness; two items
for perceived price; six items for perceived quality variance; fve items
for perceived value for the money; three items for perceived risk; and
three items for purchase intention. The correlation results indicated
that most of the tested variables are related with the exception of price
and purchase intention in the frst sample (hypermarket) and brand
awareness and purchase intention in the second sample (supermarket).
Therefore, a subsequent regression analysis was conducted to examine
the hypothesised relationships.
from Malaysia
No of Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
Item
2 Perceived Price 33.0 .80 [.78]
6
Perceived Quality
Variance
2.97 .61 .28** [.80]
4 Brand Awareness 3.55 .88 .31** .46* [.85]
3 Perceived Risk 3.32 .91 .043 .29** .11 [.88]
5
Perceived Value
for the Money
3.35 .70 .47** .65** .33** .27** [.85]
3 Purchase Intention 2.72 .93 .16 .58** .30** .34** .59* [.89]
** Correlation is signifcant at the 1% level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is signifcant at the 5% level (2-tailed).
Numbers in diagonal represent Cronbachs Alpha values
No of Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
Item
2 Perceived Price 3.42 .91 [.71]
6
Perceived Quality
Variance
3.15 .59 .34** [.76]
4 Brand Awareness 3.58 .79 .35** .44** [.78]
3 Perceived Risk 3.34 .89 .05 .31** .03 [.76]
5
Perceived Value
for the Money
3.51 .67 .59** .57** .45** .28** [.84]
3 Purchase Intention 2.94 .86 .29** .67** .30** .18 .48** [.81]
** Correlation is signifcant at the 1% level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is signifcant at the 5% level (2-tailed).
Numbers in diagonal represent Cronbachs Alpha values
5.3 Result of Perception on Store Brand
To determine store brand perception, the means and standard
deviations of the studied variables were examined. In the frst sample
(hypermarket), the purchase intention for the store brand is below the
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities and Correlations
Hypermarket Sample
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities and Correlations
Supermarket Sample
mid-point of 3 based on a 5-point rating scale (mean=2.72, SD=.93).
Similarly, the mean score for perceived quality is 2.97 (SD=.61).
However, the store brand awareness is higher than the mid-point of 3,
with a mean score of 3.55 (SD=.88). The perceived price, risk and value
for the money are in the same range, which is approximately 3.30 based
on a 5-point scale (see Table 4).
With regards to the second sample (supermarket), the purchase
intention for the store brand was also slightly below the mid-point of
3, with a mean score of 2.94. The mean scores for the other variables
were all above the mid-point of 3, and the mean score for store brand
awareness and perceived value for the money were approximately 3.50,
followed by perceived price (mean=3.42), perceived risk (mean=3.34)
and perceived quality (mean=3.15).
Table 4 Perception of store brand
First sample
(Hypermarket)
Second sample
(Supermarket)
Variable Mean SD Mean SD
Purchase Intention 2.7278 .93384 2.9444 .86679
Store Brand Awareness 3.5563 .88371 3.5854 .79751
Perceived Price 3.3042 .80517 3.4292 .91278
Perceived Quality Variance 2.9750 .61897 3.1542 .59768
Perceived Risk
a
3.3250 .91920 3.3417 .89345
Perceived Value for the
Money
3.3583 .91920 3.5100 .67704
Note: Sample sizes: 120 responses collected at a hypermarket and 120 responses collected
at a supermarket.
a
Scoring of this item is reversed so that higher scores indicate more positive responses
In both samples, the mean score was not high because none of
the mean scores achieve 4 points on a 5-point scale. This score might
indicate that the respondents perception of those store brands was
not very high. With reference to the results of this study, one plausible
explanation is that the awareness of the store brand did not achieve a
high level, not achieving a score of 4 based on a 5-point scale. A lower
level of brand awareness might be refected in other associated variables
such as perceived price, quality and value.
from Malaysia
5.4 Hypotheses Testing of Relationships
This section presents the results related to the hypotheses testing. Each
of the hypotheses was examined separately. The hypotheses were tested
using a regression analysis where store brand awareness, perceived
price, perceived quality variance, perceived risk and perceived value
for the money were classifed as the predictive variables and store brand
purchase intention as the dependent variable.
Testing of hypotheses
The result of the regression analysis is presented in Table 5. With
reference to the regression results using the frst sample (hypermarket),
the adjusted R Square value shows that the model accounts for 42.6%
of the variance (adjusted r
2
=0.426). Among the tested variables, the
perceived value for the money (=0.428) and perceived quality variance
(=0.263) have a statistically signifcant effect on purchase intention.
Thus, hypotheses H3 and H2 were supported. Moreover, hypotheses
H5 and H1 that perceived risk (=0.143) and perceived price (=-0.144)
have an effect on purchase intention (p<0.10) were partially supported.
Brand awareness was not signifcantly related to purchase intention for
the store brand. Hypothesis H4 was not supported. The negative sign of
the value is due to the statements used to measure the perceived price.
The two statements were (i) the price of the X store brand product is
low; and (ii) the price of the X store brand product is below the market
average. Therefore, the lower scores for these statements means that
consumer perception regarding the price is positive and yields higher
purchase intention. This result means that a positive perception towards
price increases the tendency to purchase store branded products.
In the hypermarket context, similar to the findings in the
literature, perceived value for the money, perceived quality variance,
perceived price and risk were all signifcant predictors of store brand
purchase intention (Batra & Sinha, 2000; Dick et al., 1995; Jin & Suh,
2005, Richardson et al., 1996). However, brand awareness was not a
signifcant predictor. As discussed in the literature, store brand might
have an indirect relationship with purchase intention (De Wulf et al.,
2005; Richardson et al., 1996; Mieres et al., 2006). Another plausible
explanation is that brand awareness might be a moderating factor
instead of a direct predictor. Wang and Yangs (2010) study found that
the relationship between brand credibility and purchase intention is
moderated by brand awareness.
The regression analysis using the second sample (supermarket)
shows different results. The adjusted R Square value shows that the
model accounts for 44.2% of variance (adjusted r
2
=0.442). Among the
tested variables, only perceived quality variance has a statistically
signifcant effect on purchase intention (=0.613), thus supporting
hypothesis H2. Other variables such as perceived price, perceived
value for the money, brand awareness and perceived risk were not
signifcantly related to purchase intention. Therefore, hypotheses H1,
H3, H4 and H5 were not supported based on the data of the second
sample (supermarket).
First Sample
(Hypermarket) Store
Brand Purchase
Intention
Second Sample
(Supermarket) Store
Brand Purchase
Intention
R 0.671 0.682
r
2
0.450 0.465
Adjusted r
2
0.426 0.442
Std.Error of the Estimate 0.70773 0.64749
F 18.637*** 19.851***
Store Brand Awareness
Unstandardised coeffcient 0.072 -0.047
Standardised coeffcient 0.069 -0.043
Perceived Price
Unstandardised coeffcient -0.167 0.009
Standardised coeffcient -0.144 0.010
Perceived Quality Variance
Unstandardised coeffcient 0.396 0.889
Standardised coeffcient 0.263** 0.613***
Perceived Value for Money
Unstandardised coeffcient 0.569 0.204
Standardised coeffcient 0.428*** 0.159
Perceived Risk
Unstandardised coeffcient 0.145 -0.057
Standardised coeffcient 0.143* -0.059
***, ** and * represent signifcance (two-tailed) at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels respectively.
Table 5: Factors affecting purchase intention of store brand
from Malaysia
Previous researches across retail formats shows that consumer-
behaviour varies across retail formats (Bustos-Reyes and Gonzalez-
Benito, 2008; Carpenter & Moore, 2006; Wang et al., 2010). This fnding
might explain why there are different predictors for store brand purchase
intention with regards to hypermarket and supermarket retail formats as
found in this study. Furthermore, in the literature, consumer behaviour
and acceptance of a product or brand is also infuenced by brand image,
self-image congruity, brand credibility and brand origin (Dolich, 1969;
Li, Wang & Yang, 2011; Rahman et al., 2012). For example, a store brand
with a good image and high self-image congruity is more attractive to
customers (Dolich, 1969; Rahman et al., 2012). Brand credibility, brand
origin and self-image congruity are also infuential factors leading to
consumer purchase intention. For example, brand credibility has a
strong direct impact on the consumer purchase intention of a brand (Li,
Wang & Yang, 2011). Brand preference is also infuenced by brand image
belief as a result of brand advertisement endorsers. In particular, brand
purchase intention rather than brand attitude is signifcantly affected
by brand image belief when social consumption is evoked and there is
a ft between brand and self-image congruity (Batra & Homer, 2004).
6. Discussion
One of the primary contributions of this research relates to the use
of two different samples collected at hypermarket and supermarket
retail outlets to test the hypothesised relationships. The use of different
samples allows for cross-validation of the proposed relationships. Thus,
the results provide evidence of variations across different store brands
and allows for the examination of customers perceptions and purchase
intentions with regards to different retail contexts.
With regards to our study objectives of identifying perception and
direct predictors of store brand purchase intention, fve predictors of
store brand proneness, i.e., brand awareness, perceived price, perceived
quality variance, perceived value for the money and perceived risk, were
examined. In the previous literature, there is some evidence that store
brand awareness or familiarity with store brands has a direct or indirect
impact on store brand proneness (Richardson et al., 1996; Mieres et al.,
2006). In this study, it was found that store brand awareness did not have
a direct impact on store brand purchase intention. Perhaps the indirect
relationship is prominent as suggested in literature (De Wulf et al.,
2005; Mieres et al., 2006) either via perceived risk or a higher recall rate.
Another plausible explanation is that the store brand awareness
among these retail store brands was not very high: none of the store
brands achieved 4 points based on a 5-point rating scale. Perhaps an
important frst step is to build greater consumer awareness of store
brands by increasing familiarity with them. Familiarity with store
branded products may be increased via education, taste tests, or the
distribution of free samples whenever there is a new store branded
product being launched (Richardson et al., 1996).
Perceived price only exerts a small contribution to store brand
purchase intention. The relationship between perceived price and
purchase intention was only partially supported in the frst sample.
Surprisingly, perceived price was not related to purchase intention
when the relationship was tested in the second sample collected at a
supermarket retail outlet. This non-associative relationship was also
reported in Jin and Suhs (2005) study with regard to the home appliance
product category. This fnding is inconsistent with some earlier research
fndings where price was the most important reason for store brand
purchase (Baltas, 1997; Baltas & Argouslidis, 2007; Zielke & Dobbelstein,
2007). In addition, if consumers associate the store brand with a lower
price, the likelihood of purchase was reduced. Therefore, retailers should
be careful when adopting lower price strategies. This phenomenon
requires further investigation to assist retailers in their penetration
strategies in emerging markets such as Malaysia, Indonesia and China.
Perceived quality variance is a key predictor of store brand
purchase intention, which means that a high perception of the quality
of store brands leads to a higher tendency to purchase store branded
products regardless of the retail outlet. This fnding is consistent with
Levy and Gendel-Gutermans (2012) study. They found that perceived
quality is an important predictor of store brand purchase intention.
Similarly, Jin and Suhs (2005) study indicated that the quality of the
store brand is much more important than a lower price strategy in
determining the store brands market share for home appliances. Other
supporting literature includes Batra and Sinha (2000) as well as Glynn
and Chen (2009).
In this study, perceived value for the money is a significant
predictor for purchase intention when the hypothesised relationship
was tested in the frst sample (hypermarket) but not in the second
sample (supermarket). In previous research, perceived value for money
from Malaysia
was found to have an effect on store brand proneness when the study
compared national or manufacturing brands with store brands (Jin
& Suh, 2005; Richardson et al., 1996). Another view is that perceived
value for money might have an indirect relationship with store brand
proneness (Jin & Suh, 2005). Therefore, it is yet to be confrmed whether
perceived value for money has an indirect relationship with store brand
purchase intention. Based on the fndings for the direct relationships
in this study, Malaysian consumers might purchase store branded
products due to their perceived higher value for the money or because
of the perceived higher quality.
Consumers who lack experience with store branded products are
likely to view them with doubt and may consider them to be a risky
choice. This study shows that the relationship between perceived risk
and purchase intention was partially supported in the frst sample
(hypermarket) but not in second sample (supermarket) even though
both store brands mean perceived risk score was 3.3 on a 5-point scale.
This result means that the respondents might consider the perceived
risk when buying store branded products. The previous literature also
suggests that perceived risk is one of the predictors of store brand
purchase intentions (Batra & Sinha, 2000; Richardson et al., 1996; Zielke
& Dobbelstein, 2007).
7. Conclusion
This study provides useful information to enhance the understanding
of the key predictors of store brand purchase intentions. First, the study
identifes the perception of store brands in terms of the perceived price,
quality, value for money, brand awareness and perceived risk as well
as store brand purchase intention.
Second, perceived value for money and perceived quality variance
are important factors for attracting consumers towards store branded
products. Perceived price and perceived risk management also increase
the consumers likelihood of purchasing store branded products and
should not be ignored. It is important to note that the prominent
predictor is perceived quality variance, which means that a high quality
image should be created to attract the consumption of store branded
products. It is suggested that store brand owners might need to explore
other indirect or mediating factors because the direct relationships are
not consistent across samples.
7.1 Theoretical Implications
The theoretical implication of this study is that it extends the current
explanation of consumer behaviour across retail formats (Carpenter
and Brosdahl, 2011). This study indicates that consumers behave
differently towards different store brands (i.e., store brands introduced
by a hypermarket and a supermarket). The results of this study indicate
that some variables such as price, value, brand awareness and perceived
risk were not strong direct predictors of store brand consumption when
the store brand is introduced by a supermarket, although the previous
literature has demonstrated that these variables have some impact on
store brand purchase intention (Baltas, 1997; Baltas & Argouslidis, 2007;
Batra & Sinha, 2000; Jin & Suh, 2005; Richardson et al., 1996; Zielke &
Dobbelstein, 2007).
Our empirical study based on two independent samples as well
as the previous literature (Levy & Gendel-Guterman, 2012) support
perceived quality as a strong direct predictor of store brand purchase
intention regardless of the brand sponsor (i.e., store brands introduced
by a hypermarket or a supermarket). For this aspect, we also found that
the perceived quality of the store brand was recorded at 2.97 to 3.15 based
on a 5-point rating scale, thus explaining the low intention to purchase
store brands (score of 2.72 to 2.94). It is also found that perceived quality
is associated with perceived price, a relative comparison between
store brand and manufacturer brand, functionality and the perceived
reliability of the store branded products.
7.2 Managerial Implications
In terms of store brand management, retail managers have to put in
more effort to create store brand awareness and a high quality image.
This study indicated that store brand awareness was not very high and
that enhancing perceived quality would increase store brand purchase
intention. Store brand awareness is critical for providing options for
consumers consideration at the preliminary stage of information
searching. This fnding provides some feedback for the marketers
regarding the effectiveness of brand promotion. Retailers must pay
attention to other cues of product quality associated with store brands,
such as packaging and brand image, as well as to the store image,
which may infuence the perception regarding the store brand quality.
Brand awareness is essentially the impression that people have of a
from Malaysia
companys brand. For example, retailers should also focus on store
brand communication to refect high quality.
Even though the results show that perceived price was not a key
predictor of consumers purchase intention for store brands, it should
not be ignored. The perceived price depends on the pricing strategy of
the particular retailer. Consumers who purchase store brands might
or might not pay specifc attention towards the price factor unless the
retailers specifcally highlight the price factor. Instead, the retailers
might manipulate other factors such as perceived quality and perceived
risk. With the assumption that retailers aim to keep the price a constant
factor, retailers should improve and emphasise other factors to meet
consumers expectations. However, price might not be considered to
be an independent factor; price could be integrated with other benefts
to form the perceived value and perceived quality, which would then
have an impact on purchase intention.
For retailers to reduce perceived risk, they may consider giving
a longer period of warranty and offering money-back guarantees and
free testing of the store branded products. This strategy may reduce
consumers perception of the fnancial and functional risks. Educating
the consumers and frequently exposing them to the store brands would
further reduce the perceived risks.
7.3 Limitations and Future Research
This study provides some interesting insights on consumer perceptions
of store brands; however, it is restricted to small samples. Future research
should incorporate more store brands to provide cross-validation and
allow generalisation of the results. Cross-validation will also enable the
confrmation of the research fndings obtained in this study, especially
the relationships between the tested variables, thus providing a more
in-depth explanation of store brand perception and purchase intentions.
Another limitation is that the proposed model only includes a
few potential predictors of store brand purchase intention. It would
be interesting to incorporate other related variables into the model to
provide a more comprehensive framework to understand the factors that
infuence customers perception and purchase intention towards store
brands. The variables may include characteristics of the product group,
the positioning of the store brand, attitudes regarding store brands in
general and different aspects of purchasing behaviours as suggested in
Zielke and Dobbelsteins (2007) study. Finally, the sample size in this
study is relatively small, and it limits the meaningful analysis of the
infuence of some key demographic variables on store brand purchase
intention. Future research might want to incorporate a larger sample
size that adopts quota sampling with reference to ethnic groups, income
and education level. This step would allow for a cross-group analysis
based on demographic characteristics in predicting shopper behaviour.
from Malaysia
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity, Simon & Schuster, New
York, NY.
Abdullah, R., Ismail, N., Abdul Rahman, A.F., Mohd Suhaimin, M.,
Safe, S.K., Mohd Tajuddin, M. T. H., Noor Armia, R., Nik Mat,
N.A., Derani, N., Samsudin, M.M., Adli Zain, R. & Sekharan Nair,
G.K. (2012). The Relationship between Store Brand and Customer
Loyalty in Retailing in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 8(2), 171-184.
Aqueveque, C. (2006). Extrinsic cues and perceived risk: The infuence
of consumption situation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(5),
237-247.
Arslan, Y., Gecti, F. & Zengin, H. (2013). Examining Perceived Risk and
Its Infuence on Attitudes: A Study on Private Label Consumers in
Turkey. Asian Social Science, 9(4), 158-166.
Baltas, G. & Argouslidis, P.C. (2007). Consumer characteristics and
demand for store brands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 35(5), 328-341.
Baltas, G. (1997). Determinants of store brand choice: A behavioural
analysis. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(5), 315-24.
Batra, R. & Sinha, I. (2000). Consumer-level factors moderating the
success of private label brands. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 175-191.
Batra, R. and Homer, P.M. (2004) The Situational Impact of Brand Image
Beliefs, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 318-330.
Beldona, S. & Wysong, S. (2007). Putting the Brand back into store
brands: An exploratory examination of store brands and brand
personality. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(4), 226-235.
Bettman, J.R. (1973). Perceived price and product perceptual variables.
Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 100-102.
Broyles, S.A., Ross, R.H., Davis, D. & Leingpibul, T. (2011). Customers
comparative loyalty to retail and manufacturer brands. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 20(3), 205-215.
Bustos-Reyes, C.A., & Gonzalez-Benito, O. (2008). Store and store format
loyalty measures based on budget allocation. Journal of Business
Research, 61, 1015-1025.
Carpenter, J. M and Brosdahl, D. J.C. (2011) Exploring retail format
choice among US males, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 39(12), 886-898.
Carpenter, J. M., & Moore, M. (2006). Consumer demographics, store
attributes, and retail format choice in the U.S. grocery market.
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 34(6),
434-452.
Churchill, G. A. (1991) Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations
(Fifth ed.). Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.
DAstous, A. & Gargouri, E. (2001). Consumer evaluations of brand
imitations. European Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2), 153-67.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G., Goedertier, F. &Van Ossel, G.
(2005). Consumer perceptions of store brands versus national
brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 223-232.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1997). Taking the Fear Out of
Data Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach. London: The Dryden Press.
Dick, A., Jain, A. & Richardson, P. (1997). How consumers evaluate store
brands. Journal of Pricing Strategy & Practice, 5(1), 18-24.
Dick, A., Jain, A.& Richardson, P. (1995). Correlates of store brand
proneness: Some empirical observations. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 4(4), 15-22.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., & Grewal, D. (1991). The effects of price,
brand, and store information on buyers product evaluations.
Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307-319.
Dolich, I. J. (1969). Congruence relationship between self images and
product brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(1), 80-84.
Finn, A. and Louviere, J. (1990), Shopping centre patronage models:
fashioning a consideration set segmentation solution, Journal of
Business Research, 21(3), 259-275.
Glynn, M.S. & Chen, S. (2009). Consumer-factors moderating private
label brand success: further empirical results. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, 37(11), 896-914.
Grandhi, B., Singh, J. & Patwa, N. (2012). Navigating retail brands for
staying alive. EuroMed Journal of Business, 7(1), 66-82.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. & Borin, N. (1998). The effect of store
name, brand name and price discounts on consumers evaluations
and purchase intention. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331-352.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1998).
Multivariate Data Analysis (Fifth Edition ed.) New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Hoch, S.J. & Banerji, S. (1993). When do private labels succeed? Sloan
Management Review, 34(4), 57-67.
Hsiao, C.C., Yen, H.J.R. & Li, E.Y. (2012). Exploring consumer value
of multi-channel shopping: a perspective of means-end theory.
Internet Research, 22(3), 318-339.
from Malaysia
Jin, B. & Sternquist, B. (2003).The infuence of retail environment on
price perceptions: An exploratory study of US and Korean students.
International Marketing Review, 20(6), 643-660.
Jin, B. & Suh, Y.G. (2005).Integrating effect of consumer perception
factors in predicting private brand purchase in Korean discount
store context. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(2), 62-71.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing
customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Konus, U., Verhoef, P. C., & Neslin, S.A. (2008). Multichannel shopper
segments and their covariates. Journal of Retailing, 84(4), 398-413.
Kotler, P., Keller, K.L., Ang, S.H., Leong, S. M., & Tan, C.T. (2009).
Marketing Management: An Asian Perspective, Fifth Edition.
Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Kremer, F. & Viot, C. (2012). How store brands build retailer brand
image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
40(7), 528-543.
Kremer, F. & Viot, C. (2012). How store brands build retailer brand
image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
40(7), 528-543.
Kumar, V., & Karande, K.W. (2000). The effect of retail store promotion
on brand and store substitution. Journal of Business Research, 49(2),
167-181.
Levy, S. & Gendel-Guterman, H. (2012) Does advertising matter to
store brand purchase intention? A conceptual framework. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 21(2), 89-97.
Li, Y.Q; Wang, X.H. and Yang, Z.L. (2011) The Effects of Corporate-Brand
Credibility, Perceived Corporate-Brand Origin, and Self-Image
Congruence on Purchase Intention: Evidence From Chinas Auto
Industry, Journal of Global Marketing, 24, 58-68.
Mandhachitara, R.; Shannon, R. M. and Hadjicharalambous, C. (2007)
Why Private Label Grocery Brands Have Not Succeeded in Asia.
Journal of Global Marketing, 20 (2/3), 71-87.
McDougall, G.H.G. & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with
services: Putting perceived value into the equation. Journal of
Services Marketing, 14(5), 392-410.
Mieres, C.G., Martin, A.M.D. & Gutierrez, J.A.T. (2006). Antecedents of
the difference in perceived risk between store brands and national
brands. European Journal of Marketing, 40(1/2), 61-82.
Mitchell, V.W. & Harris, G. (2005). The importance of consumers
perceived risk in retail strategy. European Journal of Marketing,
39(7/8), 821-837.
Nielsen (2008). Rising costs pave way for private label sales in Malaysia.
Retrieved on May 14, 2011, from http://my.nielsen.com/news/2008
1205.shtml.
Nielsen (2009). Malaysians are pulling in the purse strings and making
signifcant changes to their lifestyles and shopping habits. Retrieved on
May 14, 2011, from http://my.nielsen.com/news/20090701.shtml.
Phang, L.A. (2009). More Malaysians opt for store brand products. Retrieved
on July 10, 2009, from http://www.Marketing-interactive.com/
news/10029.
Piercy, N. (2012). Positive and negative cross-channel shopping
behaviour. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(1), 83-104.
Prasad, C. J. and Aryasri, A. R. (2011) Effect of shopper attributes on
retail format choice behaviour for food and grocery retailing in
India, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
39(1), 68-86
Rahman Bin Abdullah, Norhanisah Bte Ismail, Akmal Fadhila Bte Abdul
Rahman, Musnadzirah Bte Mohd Suhaimin & Siti Khadijah Bte
Safe (2012). The Relationship between Store Brand and Customer
Loyalty in Retailing in Malaysia, Asian Social Science, 8(2), 171-184.
Richardson, P.S., Dick, A.S. & Jain, A.K. (1994). Extrinsic and intrinsic cue
effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of Marketing,
58, 28-36.
Richardson, P.S., Jain, A.K., & Dick, A. (1996). Household store brand
proneness: A framework. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 159-185.
Semeijn, J., Van Riel, A.C.R. & Ambrosini, A.B. (2004).Consumer
evaluations of store brands: Effects of store image and product
attributes. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 11.247-258.
Sethuraman, R. & Cole, C. (1999). Factors infuencing the price premiums
that consumers pay for national brands over store brands. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 8(4), 340-351.
Solomon, M.R. & Stuart, E.W. (2002). Marketing: Real People, Real Choice,
2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
The Edge. (22 November 2009). Building brand value. Retrieved on
December 16, 2009, from http://www.giant.com.my/media/
index/2009/11.
Tifferet, S. & Herstein, R. (2012) Need for cognition as a predictor of
store brand preferences. EuroMed Journal of Business, 7(1), 54-65.
Verhoef, P. C., Neslin, S.A. & Vroomen, B. (2007). Multichannel customer
management: Understanding the research-shopper phenomenon.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24, 129-148.
from Malaysia
Wang, H-M. D.; Bezawada, R. & Tsai, J.C.C. (2010) An Investigation of
Consumer Brand Choice Behavior Across Different Retail Formats,
Journal of Marketing Channels, 17, 219-242.
Wang, X.H and Yang, Z.L. (2010) The Effect of Brand Credibility on
Consumers Brand Purchase Intention in Emerging Economies: The
Moderating Role of Brand Awareness and Brand Image. Journal of
Global Marketing, 23, 177-188.
Yavas, U. (2003) A multi-attribute approach to understanding shopper
segments, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
31(11), 541-548.
Yoo, B.H., Donthu, N. & Lee S.H. (2000). An examination of selected
marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195-211.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and
value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of
Marketing, 52, 2-22.
Zielke, S. & Dobbelstein, T. (2007). Customers willingness to purchase
new store brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(2),
112-121.
Appendix: Measurement items
Variables Items
Brand
Awareness
I know what the X store brand products look like.
I can recognise X store brand from among the other
competing brands.
I am aware of X store brand products.
I can quickly recall the X store brand.
Perceived Price The price of the X store brand product is low.
The price of the X store brand product is below the
market average.
Perceived
Quality
Variance
The price of the X store brand product is a good
indicator of its quality.
The higher the price is for the X store brand, the higher
the quality.
There is not much difference in terms of quality between
a manufacturers brand and the X store brand.
The X store brand is of high quality.
The likelihood that X store brand will be functional is
very high.
The likelihood that X store brand is reliable is very high.
Perceived Value
for the Money
The X store brand is worth the money it costs.
The X store brand provides very good value for the
money.
At the price shown, the X store brand is very
economical.
The price shown for the X store brand is very acceptable.
The X store brand is considered to be a good buy.
Perceived Risk The purchase of the X store brand is risky because the
quality of X brand store is low-grade.
Because the X store brand is of poor quality, buying
them is a waste of money.
I am worried that the X store brand is not worth the
money spent.
Purchase
Intention
I consider the X store brand to be my frst choice when I
want to purchase products that have X store brand.
If I want to buy products in the future, given the choice,
I probably will buy X store brand products.
In approximately 6 months, I expect that I will still
consider X store brand to be my most frequently
purchased brand.

Perception and Predictors of Consumers Purchase Intentions For Store Brands - Evidence From Malaysia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perception and Predictors of Consumers Purchase Intentions For Store Brands - Evidence From Malaysia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asian Journal of Business and Accounting 6(2), 2013 105

Asian Journal of Business and Accounting 6(2), 2013 ISSN 19854064

You might also like