Determinants of Consumer Buying Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Private Label Brands in Apparel Retail

*
C.V.Krishna1
Abstract Indian retail is in an expansion spree and many companies are joining the retail landscape. After food and groceries segment apparel is the next large retail segment and the consumption of apparel is also very large in volume. Previously the manufacturing brands used to lead the apparel category in the early days and the penetration of the private label brands was very small. But now things have changed and private label brands are leading in every segment. In the apparel segment also many private label brands are leading the competition. Consumer buying behavior is mainly affected by many determinant factors and this paper aims at understanding and identifying the important determinant factors affecting the consumer buying behavior towards private label apparel. Private label brands are very successful because they offer many advantages to the consumers. Consumers are mainly affected by many internal factors like demographic, personality and lifestyle and many other factors while purchasing apparel. Consumers are also affected by many external factors like brand image, price, design and quality while buying private label apparel brands. Key Words: Consumer Behavior, Empirical Study, Private Label Brands, Apparel Retail.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Consumers Buying Behaviour in Apparel Industry India is a young nation with majority of population being young people, and also the rising income levels are changing the consumer attitudes and buying behavior to a great extent. The shift in cultural practices also has impact on change in the behavior of the consumers. The consumers while making buying decisions regarding apparel are affected by many factors, viz., brand awareness of store, brand image of store, brand awareness of, private label brand, brand image of private label brand, price, discounts, comfort, durability etc. As the private labels offer the best available choice to the consumers, majority of them are purchasing private label apparel brands. In Indian organized
* 1

retail, all the big players have their own private label brands, posing threat to the manufacturer brands. 1.2 Apparel Retail in India: Industry Profile The Indian retail market is the fifth largest retail market in the world; it has been ranked the second most attractive emerging market for investment in the retail sector by AT Kearney’s seventh annual Global Retail Development Index (GRDI) in 2008. The share of retail trade in the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) was between 8–10 per cent in 2007 and had been estimated to reach 22 per cent by 2010. In the overall retail pie, food and grocery was the dominant category with 59.5 per cent share, valued at Rs 792,000 crore, followed by clothing and accessories with a 9.9 per cent share at Rs 131,300 crore. Interestingly, out-of-home food

Received May 28, 2010; Revised September 7, 2011 Research Scholar, Department of Business Administration, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar Email: venkatakrishnachodimella@gmail.com

0 51.3 21.800 crore.2% (see Graph 1). shirts. Graph 1: Overall Retail Pie Market Share of Major Segments a market share of 38.44 Vilakshan. Source: Images Retail Report 2009 In organized retailing.5% (Rs 9. India comes after Brazil and China in the A.4%.4 per cent market share – this largely reflects the massive employment opportunities to youngsters in the services sector and accompanying changes in consumer lifestyles and others at 25. 2011 (catering) services (Rs 71.2 45.3 Indian Apparel Market The apparel retail industry consists of the sale of all men's wear.1 Consumer Affluence Score Source: AT Kearney-Emerging Opportunities for Global Retailers-The 2008 Global Retail Development Index Report" 1.9 48. followed by food and grocery with 11. tops. skirts. Kearney Retail Apparel Index. representing 10 percent of the $37 billion retail market.7 38.0 57. India has emerged as the third most attractive market destination for apparel retailers. It is expected to grow at 12-15 percent per year according to AT Kearney Consulting firm. apparel is the second largest retail category.9 41. women's wear and infant's wear.7 53. September. The women's wear sector consists of the retail sale of all women's and girls' garments including dresses.2 33.750 crore) and consumer durables 9.1 40.4 29.7 31.1%.000 crore).8 43.7 31.1% (Rs 7.9 44. .1 58. at Rs 29.100 crore and others at 31.6 22.6 46.4 22.1 35. including apparel consumption and clothing imports/exports.0 46.1 41.9% (Rs 7.2 Growth Prospects 33.T. In India.300 crore) is the third largest retail category. jackets.8 46. The menswear sector includes all garments made for men and boys.9 42.2 47.T. which looks at ten drivers. It includes both outer and under garments.7 38. according to a new study by global management consulting firm A.7 27. 2008 Rank Country Absolute Market Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Brazil China India Turkey Chile Romania Argentina Thailand Russia United Arab Emirates 44.0 38.T. clothing and fashion accessories is the largest category with Table 1: A.1 20. Kearney Retail Apparel Index (See Table 1).7 24. footwear 9.0 38.4 22.8 57.9 45. however. suits and coats.5 74. to rank among the top 30 emerging markets for retail apparel investments.4 36.6 21. with a 5.1 37. Kearney. XIMB Journal of Management .

(see Graph 4).3 billion in 2005. Overall.. Shoppers' Stop and Vishal Megamart who were some of the first few companies to put forward these brands. Menswear sales proved the most lucrative for the Indian apparel retail industry in 2005. home care and FMCG segments.Krishna. South Korea.1 Review Private Label Brands are defined as the “products owned and branded by the organizations whose primary objective is 2.4 Apparel Market Segments Revenues from the menswear sector generate 45. The Indian apparel retail industry generated a total revenues of $18. The market value is calculated at retail selling price (RSP). this representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.. Japan. generating total revenues of $8..(see Graph 3). All currency conversions used in this report have been calculated at constant 2005 annual average exchange rates. consumer durables. equivalent to 45.8% for the five-year period 2005-2010. 1. The infants wear sector is calculated as sales of garments for children between the ages of 0-2 years.6% for the five-year period spanning 2001-2005.. and includes all taxes and levies. sweaters. in India. respectively. Graph 2: Indian Apparel Industry Segments Market Share comparable in quality to the more popular branded products. The primary reason a consumer buys a private label is usually price.0 PRIVATE LABELS Private labels are brands created by retailers. Graph 3: Private Label Penetrations Source: Images Retail Report 2009 In India there is an increasing trend towards acceptance of private label brands and thus their penetration is on the rise especially in the apparel.9% of the industry's overall value. India. with an anticipated CAGR of 9. private label brands contribute to 17 percent of retail sales with a growth of 5 percent per annum.9% of the total Indian Apparel Industry's value. Globally. The rise of private labels can be attributed to retailers such as Pantaloon. 3.4 billion. For the purpose of this report. but with improving quality of the products as well as labels and marketing. consumers tend to stick with these products rather than going back to branded labels. sweatshirts. Asia Pacific consists of China. The products sold under these brands are .The performance of the industry is forecast to follow a similar pattern. Women's wear accounts for a further 35.2% of the industry's value (see Graph 2).. Taiwan. though very often they are priced lower than the top end brands. private labels constitute 10% of the organized retail product mix and by 2012 it will increase to 13%. Determinants of Consumer . International Retailers like WalMart of USA and Tesco of UK have 40 percent and 55 percent own label brands representation in their stores. 45 blouses. Big Bazaar. Singapore and Australia. underwear etc.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES Source: Data Monitor 3. Most private label products are priced 5-20% lower than regular items.

2008). Over the time. This pattern has been observed in a variety of markets. Packaging (Wells. Goodhardt and Barwise. The development of PLBs affects competition between retailers because PLBs become an additional way of differentiating between retailers (Berges-Sennou. Armstrong 2007). Farley. advertising-pricing (Karray and Martin-Herran 2008). but there is no specific study to identify determinants for private label apparel purchase. Retailers saw their margins drastically reduced. a retailer may belong to a wholesale group that owns the brands that are available only to the members of that group. In few cases. 1973. 2011 Graph 4 Private Label Penetrations India Source: AC Nielson Report In the Indian retail private label brands are in the danger of facing the ‘Double Jeopardy’ effect (Goodhardt. Dawes and Driesener 2006). perceived risk (Batra & Sinha 2000. price and quality (Ailawadi. the current study aims at understanding the determining factors for the purchase of private label apparel brands. So in regard to the gaps existing in the research. there are many determining factors towards purchasing the private labels. & Dick 1996. availability. Bettman. . in a variety of conditions (different lengths of time. frequent advertising. Bontems. also called own labels or store brands can also be defined as “any of products over which a retailer has exercised total sourcing and market control” (Mintel. trust. b). September. 1969). quality. Shannon and Mandhachitra 2005).3 Problem Statement Understanding and finding out the determinant factors affecting the consumer buying behavior towards private label apparel. risk perceiption (Ashok Kumar and Gopal 2009). Richardson Jain. XIMB Journal of Management . Dunn et al. Pauwels and Steenkamp 2008) 3. imitations. prestige. different points in time) and in various contexts (Pare. price-quality association (Batra and Sinha 2000). and Requillart 2004).2 GAP Analysis As shown above in the review of literature of previous studies. price. and their power to determine the prices to consumers depreciated (Borden 1967). price consciuosness. PLBs. availability of alternative packaging. Ehrenberg and Chatfield 1984) where the small brands suffer twice – they have fewer customers and these customers buy the brand less often (Ehrenberg. freshness and habits (Dolekoglu et al. 2005a. 1986. That PLB can be the retailer’s own name or a name created exclusively by that retailer. The rise of national advertising made manufacturers’ brands or national brands (NBs) to become widely recognized by consumers who became loyal to them. sales promotions. 1990). distribution rather than production” (Schutte. brand image. 3.46 Vilakshan.. price. The main determining factors affecting consumer buying behavior are: quality. manufacturers exercised greater influence over the demand for their products and secured a better bargaining position by dealing with retailers (Grant 1987). The Private Label Manufacturers’ Association (PLMA) defines PLBs as: “PLBs are Private label products that encompass all merchandise sold under a retailer’s brand.

30 were dropped due to incomplete data.. Along with this method Pearson’s Chi-Square Test was also used for hypothesis testing. A total of 230 questionnaires were collected and out of these. 47 3.2 Research Design Exploratory Study An exploratory study was conducted to identify the statement of the problem. To determine the factors affecting consumer buying behavior towards private label brands in apparel retail. The respondents were asked to rate 14 variables in terms of the extent that these variables affect their buying behavior towards private label apparel. Factor Analysis was used in the study. To understand the various factors affecting consumer buying behavior towards private label brands in apparel retail..6 Factor Analysis The study explores the important determining factors affecting consumer buying behaviour in 3.Krishna. After the Pilot Study was conducted it was reviewed and it was found that out of the 14 variables 4 variables were dropped and the research was confined to only 10 variables. Null Hypothesis 5: The durability of the private label apparel is not dependent on the social class of the consumer.. A questionnaire was used to obtain the data. All the consumers with different occupations and age groups who purchased private label apparel were directly interacted with the retail outlets and first hand data were obtained from them. 200 questionnaires were used and processed for analysis. but only few of them have a greater impact on the consumer.3 Pilot Study-Pre Testing A pilot study was initially conducted for 50 respondents to know the determinants of consumer buying behaviour towards private label branded apparel.4 Data Collection Primary data were collected by survey method through a structured questionnaire. Finally.4 Research Objectives 1. Null Hypothesis 4: The comfort offered by the private label apparel is not dependent on the social class of the consumer. Null Hypothesis 2: The comfort offered by the private label apparel is not dependent on the occupation of the consumer. 4.. 4. Determinants of Consumer . A Five Point Semantic Differential Scale was used in the study as a rating tool with value 1 being Poor and 5 being Excellent. A Five Point Semantic Differential Scale was also used in the study as a rating tool with value 1 being Poor and 5 being Excellent.1 Hypotheses for the Study The null hypotheses for the study are formulated as follows: Null Hypothesis 1: All the Attributes are uncorrelated with the population. Simple random sampling was used and the sample size was 200 consumers at major .. 4. There are many factors affecting the consumer buying behavior. 2. and To find out in particular the effect of occupation and social class of consumer on customer choice of design for private label apparel. Null Hypothesis 3: The durability of the private label apparel is not dependent on the occupation of the consumer. 4.0 HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH METHODS 4. All the tests were conducted using SPSS version 15.5 Data Analysis Methods Factor analysis was used as the main data analysis method. apparel retail outlets in Visakhapatnam city. 4.0. 4. by interacting with consumers in order to know their interest in private label apparel.

2004).806 2120.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Variable Name Brand Awareness of Store Brand Image of Store Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand Brand Image of Private Label Brand Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability Ambience Visual Merchandising appropriateness of the factor model. Initially the factor analysis was conducted using principal component analysis method in SPSS windows.0 DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 5.. they think that these variables affect their buying behaviour towards private label apparel. 2004). and then it would be appropriate for factoring.1 Hypothesis 1: Correlation among the attributes Null Hypothesis: All the Attributes are uncorrelated with the population.806 which was adequate to conduct factor analysis. September. Table 2: Determinants of Consumer Buying Behaviour Table 2: Determinants of Consumer Buying Behaviour S. The correlation values of the eight variables against each other are shown in the Table 5. Principal component analysis was employed for extracting the factors. Hence the Null Hypothesis that the factors are uncorrelated with the population is rejected and the alternate hypothesis that the attributes are correlated with the population is accepted.5 imply that the factor analysis may not be appropriate (Malhotra. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity . and the variable 3 and variable 4 did not fit minimum level criteria. Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand and Brand Image of Private Label Brand were removed as they did not fit the test. Values below 0. XIMB Journal of Management .000 Approx. (see table 3) The factors extracted should account for at least 60% of variance (factors with eigen values > 1) (Boyd et al. 1985: and Malhotra. Then Factor Analysis was conducted to find out the main determinants of consumer buying behavior towards private label brands with the eight variables (see Table 4). After KMO-Bartlett's Test the two Variables. The communalities . The Barlett’s Test of Sphericity (used to examine the hypothesis that the variables are uncorrelated in the population) should be significant which implies that the correlation matrix is not orthogonal. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is to be used to measure the Table 3: KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.448 28 . The KMO and Bartlett’s test value is high at 0.48 Vilakshan. The Table 6 shows the communalities of the variables. As the results were unsatisfactory. Finally 8 variables were selected for factor analysis (see table 4). 2011 purchasing private label apparel and hence the following 10 variables (as shown in table 2) were selected and Principal Factor Analysis was conducted. 5. Communality of a variable is the row sum of squared factor loadings. Chi-Square Df Sig. they were removed from the study and again factor analysis was conducted with 8 variables and these gave a high KMO score. The respondents were asked to rate these 10 variables on the extent.

842 0.758 0.816 0.717 0.000 1. 1.904 0..745 1 Table 6: Communalities Initial Brand Awareness of Store Brand Image of Store Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability Ambience Visual Merchandising Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.000 1.802 0.609 0. It is seen that 4 factors were extracted with high percentage i.717 0.69 0. Determinants of Consumer . The results of component matrix and rotated component matrix are shown in Tables 8 and 9 respectively.632 0.995 .899 0.645 0.655 0.739 0.429 0. The size of the communality is a useful index for assessing how much variance accounted by the factor solution. 49 show amount of variance in a variable that is accounted for by the four factors taken together..000 1.707 0.69 1 0.Krishna.941 .000 Extraction .535 0. 95.745 0.775 0.000 1.905 0.535 0.724 0. Large communalities show that a substantial portion of the variance in a Table 4: Final Variables List S.69 0.802 1 0..000 1.724 0.401% of the total variance as shown in the Table 7.000 1.69 0.968 .714 0.609 5 0.655 0.980 ..715 0.715 0.904 0.933 .941 .e.775 1 0.816 0.813 0.592 1 0.707 6 0.745 2 0.931 .000 1.758 0.488 0.745 8 0.655 0.592 0.655 1 0.943 .632 0.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Variable Name Brand Awareness of Store Brand Image of Store Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand Brand Image of Private Label Brand Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability variable is accounted for by the factors.905 0.899 3 0.488 4 0.842 0..714 0..739 0.645 1 0.813 7 0.429 0. Table 5: Correlation Matrix Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 0.

802 .418 .331 .075 -.468 22.482 6.332 56.120 Table 9: Rotated Component Matrix (a) Component 1 Brand Awareness of Store Brand Image of Store Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability Ambience Visual Merchandising .028 99.235 10.072 .791 .049 .069 95.401 97.938 1.735 2 .865 .009 -.319 .437 -.274 .844 .182 . 4 components extracted.932 .150 .400 99.938 85.190 .814 . .002 75. XIMB Journal of Management .002 .516 .310 .695 .557 .957 2.301 .046 -.197 1.332 .331 .511 79.999 1.824 .399 3 .734 .839 .823 .463 95. Rotation converged in 12 iterations.307 27.957 2.235 . 2011 Table 7: Total Variance Explained Component Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6.459 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.802 .557 .482 6. Rotation Method: Vari max with Kaiser Normalization.232 .852 .394 -.886 .160 .204 .167 .628 .033 -. September.029 Initial Eigen values % of Variance 75.024 10.401 Table 8: Component Matrix(a) Component 1 Brand Awareness of Store Brand Image of Store Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability Ambience Visual Merchandising Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.323 29.634 100.366 Cumulative % 75.401 Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Variance % 2.839 .043 29.140 3 .024 75.024 .805 1.272 -.558 16.325 .566 .506 92.502 .162 -.50 Vilakshan.506 92.392 .142 .025 4 -.606 .024 85.183 -.248 .402 4 .000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.155 -. .043 2.207 .340 .920 . Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Variance % 6.870 2 .555 .197 .265 .404 .356 -.331 .049 .130 .463 95.020 -.

00.600 200 Df 2 2 1 Asymp.000 . Determinants of Consumer .000 0 cells (... The four variables occupation.904 79..000 .0%) have expected count less than 5. (2-sided) .. Hence.Krishna. Table 11 a: Occupation Comfort Cross Tabulation Count Comfort Offered Good Occupation Total Employee Business 0 40 40 Very Good 60 60 120 Excellent 40 0 40 Total Good 100 100 200 Table 11 b: Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 80. . comfort and durability are cross tested for their interdependency. 51 Naming of the Factors Factors were named and their constituent variables are given below (see table 10) Table 10: Naming of the Factors Factor Number 1 Sales Promotion Offers 2 Design 3 Store Atmospherics 4 Name of the Factor Brand Image Variables Brand awareness of the store Brand Image of Store Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability Ambience Visual Merchandising 5. Hypothesis 2 Null Hypothesis: The comfort offered by the Private label apparel is not dependent on the occupation of the consumer. Sig.000(a) 110. social class. The minimum expected count is 20. the alternative hypothesis cannot be proved. The survey Tables 11 a and 11 b and calculations show that the null hypothesis that the comfort offered by the Private label apparel is independent of the Occupation of the consumer cannot be rejected..2 Demographic factors’ influence on the choice of design for the private label apparel: It is very important to know whether the demographic factors like occupation and the social class of the consumer affect the consumer buying behavior and as the private label apparel is mainly influenced by the choice of its design. the effect of demographic factors on the choice of design is tested.

Table 12 a: Occupation Durability Cross Tabulation Count Durability Bad Occupation Employee Business Total 40 100 140 Good 60 0 60 Total Bad 100 100 200 Table 12 b: Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 85.0%) have expected count less than 5.000 .00.000 . (2-sided) Exact Sig. Table 13 a: Social Class Comfort Cross Tabulation Count Comfort Good Social Class Middle Class Upper Middle Class Upper Class Total 0 0 40 40 Very Good 60 60 0 120 Excellent 40 0 0 40 Total Good 100 60 40 200 . September.52 Vilakshan. The minimum expected count is 30. Hypothesis 4 Null Hypothesis: The comfort offered by the Private label apparel is not dependent on the Social Class of the consumer. 2011 Hypothesis 3 Null Hypothesis: The durability of the Private label apparel is not dependent on the Occupation of the consumer. Sig. (1-sided) Computed only for a 2x2 table 0 cells (.000 . The survey Tables 13 a & 13 b and calculations show that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at the given conditions and hence the alternative hypothesis that the comfort offered by the private label apparel is dependent of the Social class of the consumer cannot be accepted.000 85.286 200 1 . (2-sided) . Hence the alternative hypothesis can not be proved.743 df 1 1 1 Asymp. The survey Tables 12 a and 12 b and calculations show that the null hypothesis that the durability of the Private label apparel is independent of the Occupation of the consumer cannot be rejected.881 109. XIMB Journal of Management .000 Exact Sig.000 .714(b) 82.

000 .. Sig. discounts.0%) have expected count less than 5.000 . Sig. The minimum expected count is 12..506 130. durability.Krishna.. (2-sided) ..000 .3 Findings 1) From the study it was found out that the buying behaviour of the consumers who purchase private label apparel brands are mainly affected by several variables like.000 . 53 Table 13 b: Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 240. From the study it was found that the durability of the Private label apparel is 3) .000 0 cells (. (2-sided) . The survey tables 14 a & 14 b and calculations show that the null hypothesis is not rejected at the given conditions and hence the alternative hypothesis that the durability of the private label apparel is dependent of the social class of the consumer cannot be accepted. 2) From the study it was found that the comfort offered by the private label apparel brand is independent of the occupation of the consumers who purchase private label apparel brand. comfort. brand image of store. Determinants of Consumer .714(a) 109.00. The minimum expected count is 8.492 200 Df 4 4 1 Asymp. brand awareness of store. cheaper price. Table 14 a: Social Class Durability Cross Tabulation Count Durability Bad Social Class Middle Class Upper Middle Class Upper Class Total 40 60 40 140 Good 60 0 0 60 Total Bad 100 60 40 200 Table 14 b: Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 85.00 5.000(a) 245. 2) Sales Promotion offers. 3) Design and 4) Store Atmospherics. Hypothesis 5 Null Hypothesis: The durability of the Private label apparel is not dependent on the Social Class of the consumer. After these variables were analyzed through factor analysis they were classified under the following four factors: 1) Brand Image.000 0 cells (.743 68.0%) have expected count less than 5..508 200 Df 2 2 1 Asymp. ambience and visual merchandising.

K. and Garretson. D. pp. Journal of Retailing 76 (2). and Steenkamp. I.M. The Icfai University Journal of Marketing Management. pp175-191.-Report. (1973). “Can Private Brand Buyers Be Identified?” Journal of Marketing Research. R. “Do private brands result in store loyalty? An empirical study in Bangalore”. 149-185.(4). Vol. design and store atmospheric were the primary factors affecting consumer preferences for private level brands. pp..0 CONCLUSION This study was intended to find out factors related to private level brands affecting the consumer buying decisions. Journal of Marketing Research (pre. S.. Academy of Marketing Science. Kearney. 4) From the study it was found out that the comfort offered by the Private label apparel is independent of the social class of the consumers who purchase private label apparel brand. Sinha. 65. B.1986) 10 (2). P. These findings are likely to help brand mangers of private level brands in the apparel sector in designing the manufacturing of their products as well as in their marketing strategies. V (2004). It was also intended to specifically study the effect of demographic factors such as social class of consumer and occupation of the consumer on the demand for private level brands through durability and comfort offered by such brands. pp 35-56.L. 184-190. “The nature and uses of expectancy-value models in 5) 6) 6. “The Impact of the Changed Balance of Power from Manufacturer to Retailer in the UK Packaged groceries market.” 72 (November). “Diffusion of Innovation in Private Labels in Food Products. Neil H. sales promotion offers.26. Bontems. Neslin. Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private label brands. K. Burton. “OsEfeitos Economicos da Propaganda. S. and Requillart. K. Ailawadi. Chandan and Kokatnur. REFERENCES A.T. (2009). Ashokkumar. XIMB Journal of Management .. J. Fall. (2001) ‘Pursuing the value conscious consumers: Store brands versus national brand promotions’. 24 (7).54 Vilakshan. Batra. 2011 independent of the occupation of the consumer consumers who purchase private label apparel brand.” Revista de Administragdo de Empresas. P. (2008). M. J. Perceived risk and its components: A model and empirical test. (1967). 293–306. It was found that four factors namely brand image. Borden. S. Netemeyer. Lichtenstein. Luca Cohen. pp. Demographic factors namely occupation of the consumer and social class of the consumer has no effect on the consumer behaviour in choosing private levels brands. L. Pauwels. O.R.. 9.212. and Ahtola. F.16-18.. pp 19-30. Shilpa (2008). pp 6-33 Chernatony. (1998) ‘A scale for measuring attitude toward private label products and an examination of its psychological and behavioral correlates’. J.. (2008). Journal ofMarketing. E.” The ICFAI University Journal of Brand Management. 1. Chavadi. Burger. 71–89. “Private-label Use and Store Loyalty.. (2000). “Emerging Opportunities for Global Retailers-The 2008 Global Retail Development Index”. Leslie (1989). and Gopal. September. Berges-Sennou. ed. and Schott. pp 219. JMR. 6(1).B. R. Ailawadi. and Gedenk.” Bettman. Fishben.(1972). . S.T.” in Retail in Marketing Channels. “The Economics of Private Labels: A Survey of Literature. K. 7(3).. (1972). From the study it was found out that the durability of the Private label apparel is independent of the social class of the consumers who purchase private label apparel brand The above findings from 2 to 5 show that the customer choice of design of the private label apparel is independent of demographic factors of the consumers who purchase label apparel brands.C. No.

Wells. “Analysis of Consumer Perceptions and Preferences of Store Brands Versus National Brands: An Exploratory Study in an Emerging Market”.G. Goodhardt. 92–128.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. S. G.” ed. (1969). pp 677-690. Jain. Journal of Marketing. Fontenelle.J. C. Chilled Desserts–UK. R. pp 109-125. Srinivas. pp 258. Journal of Retailing 62 (2). A. CA: Sage. 37 (August). John (2002). Robert M.. Kara. T. (Oct/Nov). pp 25-32 Dolekoglu. Gerry Johnson. 9(November). 12(6)..European Journal of Marketing. (1965).O.. Antecedents of the difference in perceived risk between store brands and national brands. (2005). “Private labels and consumer benefits. and Lal. 33. pp 97-103. and Armstrong. 55 consumer attitude research. 34(4). (1984). pp 27-35. Saitz. Frank. and Swait. (2006). (1993) ‘When do private labels succeed?’. C. pp5-11. Goodhardt.. Giovanna. M. (1996). 6.273 Review. Advances in Consumer Research. (2006). 54 (July). 2. (2008). S. Albayrak. A. P.. C. and Mandhachitara. (1990). A. (1982). Richardson. pp 281-291. A. pp 456-460.K.Dawes. Double Jeopardy deviations for small and medium share brands how frequent and how persistent? Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference.retailingindustry. London: Routledge. Cambridge. Journal of Marketing. 4. J. The semantics of branding. pp 1-37. “Generic Brands Versus National Brands and Store Brands.W. 147 (part 5). H. Research Note: The Influence of Perceived Risk on Brand Preference for Supermarket Products.. Murphy. T.. Review of Marketing Science.R. 17(2). “Manufacturer-Retailer Relations: The Shifting Balance of Power. “Are Private-Brand Prone Grocery Customers Really Different?” Journal of Marketing Research. S. and Imperia.. Mintel (2005b). G. S. G. J. and Martin-Herran. T. Grant. and Banerji. www. “ Investigating the relationship between advertising and pricing in a channel with private label offering: a theoretic model”. R. 131–157.” Journal of Marketing Research.E. C. Mieres. Own-label Food& Drink – UK. P.. 82-91. (2000). H. 35(9).. C. R.London. G. 573–600.. “Retailers improve quality of their own brands. pp 461-474. Narasimhan.” About Retailing Industry Newsletter. 71(4). R. Ehrenberg. “Brands vs Private-labels. A. Pellegrini and Reddy K. Journal of Euromarketing. Andrew P. while increasing profit margin. A. pp159-185. (1980). Household store brand proneness: A framework. V. and Boyd. Schutte. Double Jeopardy Revisited. August 17.M (1996). J. C.. Shannon.com January 2. Hardy. and Gutierrez.” New Jersey Star Ledger..” in Business Strategy and Retailing. Beverly Hills..U. Journal of Business. (1992) ‘Understanding cross-category differences in private label shares of grocery products’. Dunn. Marketing Science Institute. M. M. 621-655.Private-label grocery shopping attitudes and behaviour: A crosscultural study. G. Report No. Pare. G. Skelly. Ehrenberg. and Keskin. Hoch. Sethuraman. pp. (1998) ‘Private labels and the channel relationship:A crosscategory analysis’. 7(2).E. pp. Barwise.. G. Karray. Cunningham. The Dirichlet: A Comprehensive Model of Buying Behaviour..E. 40(1/2).. Farley. Mintel International Group Limited.S.M.The Brazilian Experience”. pp 61-82. (1998) ‘Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon’. Chatfield. L. J..(2008).A (2007). Martin. London.. Brand Management. G. S. A.” Journal of Advertising Research. Chichester: John Wiley& Sons. p B1. 57–67. “Building store loyalty through store brands.43-58.about. Greg (2004). F. Mintel International Group Limited.. p. Sloan Management Hofestede. R.. Determinants of Consumer . 23. 22. Cultural Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. C. M. (1987).Krishna. 204-216. Isabella C. Brisbane. UK. Erdem. and Wilcox. T.” Journal of Marketing Research. Stanley.. “The importance of packaging design for own-label food brands. Journal of Retailing 72 (2). . S.Drisener... P. (1986). Dick. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. pp. D. Mintel (2005a). Corstjens. Journal of Consumer Psychology.

Sparsh. 2011 APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE 1) 2) 1) 3) Name ______________________________________ Age Below 152) 15 to 25 Occuupation 1) Employee 2) Business 3) 25 to 40 4) above 40 4) Social Class 1) Middle Class 2) Upper Middle Class 3) Upper Class 5) Rate the following variables whether how far they affect your buying decisions on a 5 point scale where value 1 being poor and value 5 being excellent S. 1-Poor APPENDIX II Sample Size collected from various Organized Retail Stores in Visakhapatnam Sl. 4-Very Good. XIMB Journal of Management . 2-Bad.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Variable Name Brand Awareness of Store 5-Excellent. Panda. 4-Very Good. etc Asankhya. Bare Pantaloons. September. Bare Denim.No. 1-Poor Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand 5-Excellent. 4-Very Good. 2-Bad. 4-Very Good. 2-Bad. 1-Poor Discounts 5-Excellent. Island Monks DNMX. Akkriti. 4-Very Good. Frendz. Annabelle.56 Vilakshan. 4-Very Good. 1 2 3 4 Retail Store Big Bazaar Vizag Central RPG Spencers Reliance Trends Company/Group PRIL-Future Group PRIL-Future Group RPG Reliance Private Label Apparel Brands DJ&C. 3-Good. Detailz. 2-Bad. 2-Bad. Puddlez. 3-Good. 1 2 3 4 Retail Store Big Bazaar RPG Spencers Vizag Central Reliance Trends Sample Size 60 50 60 60 Private Label Apparel Brands of Various Retail Stores in Visakhapatnam Sl. 1-Poor Cheaper Price 5-Excellent. 3-Good. Knighthood. Lombard. 4-Very Good. Bare Leisure. 4-Very Good. John Miller. 3-Good. 2-Bad. 2-Bad.No. 3-Good. Levi’s. 1-Poor Brand Image of Private Label Brand 5-Excellent. . 3-Good. 2-Bad. 3-Good. 1-Poor Durability 5-Excellent. 3-Good. 1-Poor Comfort 5-Excellent. 1-Poor Brand Image of Store 5-Excellent.

Copyright of Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management is the property of Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. or email articles for individual use. . download. users may print. However.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful