This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258
Consumer evaluations of store brands: effects of store image and product attributes
Janjaap Semeijna, Allard C.R. van Rielb,*, A. Beatriz Ambrosinib
b a Faculty of Management Sciences, Open University of The Netherlands, PO Box 2960, Heerlen 6401 DL, The Netherlands Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, Maastricht 6200 MD, The Netherlands
Abstract The importance of store brands has increased. Many products carrying a label that is exclusively available from a speciﬁc retailer chain have been introduced in recent years, with varying degrees of success. Retailers appear to pay little attention to the multiple risks associated with adding new product categories to their store labels. We investigate how store image factors and various categories of perceived risk associated with product attributes affect consumer evaluations of store-branded products. A structural model is developed and tested, providing indications of the likelihood of store brand success in various product categories. Research and managerial implications are provided. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Store brands; Store image; Perceived risk; Retailing; Consumer behavior
1. Introduction The roles and importance of store brands, brands that are exclusive to a particular store chain and compete in several product categories with major manufacturer’s brands, have changed dramatically over the past decades. Store brands are evolving into full-ﬂedged alternatives, capable of competing successfully with these manufacturer’s brands on quality as well as on price (Quelch and Harding, 1996) and contributing substantially to proﬁtability, store differentiation and store loyalty (Corstjens and Lal, 2000). Sales volumes and market shares of store brands, as well as their appeal to consumers have steadily increased (e.g. Dunne and Narasimhan, 1999; Nandan and Dickinson, 1994). Many retailers appear to view themselves increasingly as active marketers of their own store brands, rather than as passive distributors of manufacturers’ brands (cf. Richardson et al., 1994). Store brands can help retailers attract customer trafﬁc and create loyalty to the store by offering exclusive product lines and premium products (Corstjens and Lal, 2000; Dunne and Narasimhan, 1999). In addition, store brands can help project a
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-43-388-3778; fax: +31-43-3884918. E-mail address: email@example.com (A.C.R. van Riel). 0969-6989/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0969-6989(03)00051-1
lower-price image for retailers, increase their bargaining power over manufacturers and producers of major national brands, and lead to increased control over shelf space (Narasimhan and Wilcox, 1998). Carrying store brands comes with numerous advantages, one of which is the relatively high gross margin, which can be 25–50% higher compared to manufacturer brands (Keller, 1993). This high margin mainly results from the more efﬁcient marketing effort, the reduction of middlemen, and economies of scale obtained in distribution. Moreover, they present value to consumers by offering a combination of ‘good quality’ and ‘bettervalue’ products, and reinforce the retailer’s name both on the store shelves and in consumers’ homes (Fitzell, 1992; Richardson et al., 1996a). Store brands are prominent in supermarkets. For instance, in 1999 they exceeded dollar earnings of manufacturers’ brands in both food and non-food segments of US supermarkets. According to the Private Label Manufacturers’ Association (PLMA), one out of ﬁve items sold in American supermarkets, drug store chains and mass merchandisers is sold under a private or store brand. In the UK, the strongest store brand market in Europe, they have a share of nearly 40% of all grocery sales (Steenkamp and Dekimpe, 1997). This implies that some product categories are actually dominated by store brands (Baltas, 1997).
2000. 1999). or brands that include various distinct product categories.. This assessment can be made by investigating consumer evaluations of store brands (Dick et al. 2001. Zimmer and Golden. the cumulative power carried by these retailers and their store brands is signiﬁcant (Lepir. Sethuraman and Cole. 1988)... implications of these results are discussed. the research model and design are shown. and even erode customer conﬁdence in the store as a whole (Thompson. 1994. 1996b).1. 2001. Store brands are becoming major brands in their own right with their own identities and quality images. grocery retailers will be able to focus on categories most compatible with their respective store images. For retailers. DelVecchio. Approach The article is structured as follows. where own brands are sold exclusively.2. 1999). 1999) and assessing if and how store related factors (Richardson et al. for instance in the case of Benetton and Gap.ARTICLE IN PRESS 248 J. The larger the number of categories marketed by an umbrella brand. the limitations of the research and some suggestions for further research are presented. Raju et al. Raju et al. 2002). Retailers should therefore ﬁrst assess the likelihood of acceptance of a new category under the store label. and perceived service quality (Baker et al. such as the image of the store. and motivation of the retailer to invest in its promotion (Davies. 1994. 2. 2001). Based on the ﬁndings. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258 Some analysts expect that by 2005 close to 50% of all EU grocery sales will be represented by the top ten retailers. Rationale for the study Supermarket chains have been consolidating their positions through mergers and acquisitions. A negative experience with one product category can prevent consumers from buying store brands in other categories. 1997). This situation is typical for most grocery stores.. Development of propositions How do retailer attributes inﬂuence consumer evaluations of store brands? Although grocery stores are facing problems in differentiating themselves due to the lack of a perceived core product/service and the need to address the broadest possible range of consumers and purchase situations. perceptions related to its merchandise. . commodity) is a function of many different variables. With fewer and bigger players competing in markets. 2001. Hoch and Banerji. Finally.1. When searching for lower priced alternatives at the lower end of the market. retailers need to assess their strategies carefully. existing literature is reviewed and a number of propositions are derived.g. Richardson et al. Dick et al. 1996b) and product category attributes (Batra and Sinha. 1990). (1995) observed that the store image acts as an important indicator of store brand quality. Store brands are typically umbrella brands. the store brand is one of many brands available in the store. and associated marketing efforts have signiﬁcantly increased. a store brand can be highly successful in some product categories while being ineffective in others (Hoch and Banerji. Consumers use these cues to form an overall evaluation that will affect their attitude toward the store as a whole. 1993. Developing a strong store brand can play an important role in this effort. In some cases the store brand is closely associated with the store itself. 1996. quality of the products. 2001) affect this evaluation... In other cases. Store image is reﬂected in the store’s physical environment (Richardson et al.. Therefore. Next.. it appears that consumers prefer the guarantee that a familiar store name brings rather than the risks associated with buying from a lesser-known manufacturer brand (Baltas. 1. Differences among product categories appear to be a cause of variance in store brand share both across markets and across retailers (Batra and Sinha. 1996. First. Dick et al. there are multiple risks associated with the introduction of new products under a store label. They are increasingly seen as important sources of proﬁtability (Ailawadi. Semeijn et al. 1997). which explains why many new product lines are being developed for them. 1993). Secondly. premium. These are summarized into a theoretical model. Sethuraman and Cole. the more negative the spill-over effects that occur (Sullivan. 1998. in order to gain market share. Store brands The concept of store brands is often used interchangeably with terms such as ‘private label brands’ or ‘own brands’ (cf. Dhar and Hoch. A presentation and discussion of the results follows. The positioning of the brand (e. Kapferer. Ailawadi and Harlam. However. This paper is based on a study designed to develop a better understanding of the conditions leading to success when a grocery product is made available under a store brand. The problem statement guiding this study is: Which factors affect the success of store brands in grocery retailing? The following sub-questions were formulated: (1) How tions (2) How tions do retailer attributes affect consumer evaluaof a store-branded product? do product attributes affect consumer evaluaof store-branded products? 1. 2. 1994). 2000.
Therefore. 1996). Mitchell and McGoldrick. Psychosocial risk is associated with the consumption of the product and its symbolic aspects. not all products are consumed in public situations. p. 1990). Different authors have categorized the risks associated with the purchase of a product into different groups. 1986. This could explain why store brands outperform manufacturer branded products in some cases. we expect an inverse relationship between usage visibility of the product (or ‘publicness’ cf. Examples are Harrods with its premium brands. because the risk perception itself is affected by the quality perception of the store (e. 2001). 1993). Again. Others employ seven distinct risk types. and Aldi with its ‘no-frills’ stores and a clear focus on basic products at a low price (Fitzell. Consumers’ buying decisions will thus be inﬂuenced by their experiences with the retail environment. varies dramatically across product categories’. 1995. other people might not be aware that someone possesses and uses a certain product. Stone and Gr^nhaug. and will therefore not be considered in the present discussion. The more visible or publicly used a product category is. Mitchell and Greatorex. and depending on the degree of involvement with each product. In the case of groceries. In addition to effects of the store image. high-quality product lines. 2001): P2: Consumer attitude towards a store branded product is inversely related to the functional risk associated with the perceived difﬁculty for the retailer to produce that product. By choosing among different brands. 1982). 927) afﬁrm this by stating that ‘the power of a store brand. 2001). when it is not highly visible to others (Bearden and Etzel. These differences have been related to the perceived risks associated with store brand purchases (Mitchell. The relationship is mediated by the risk perception. such as required technology and ingredients. Mitchell and Greatorex. Semeijn et al. the difﬁculty of producing a category and the expected quality of the store brand will be inversely related (cf. 1994. due to its lower level of symbolic quality.. functional and physical risks appear to be equivalent: a product that is not compliant with functional (quality) standards could lead to physical damage. The category of social risk has sufﬁcient psychological aspects to rename it into psychosocial risk. the merchandise and the level of service: P1: There will be a direct positive relationship between perceived store image and consumer attitudes towards store branded products. ﬁnancial and time related risks (e. The relationship between store image and consumer attitude to a store-branded product can thus be modeled as a mediated relationship. 1993). In addition to the physical performance of the product. MacKinnon et al.g. even for a powerful retailer. DelVecchio. namely ﬁnancial. An inclusion of overall risk does not seem to add value. psychological and overall risk (e. 1993. or the risk that a consumer could waste more time by buying one type of brand rather than another. Venkatraman. psychosocial. 1992). / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258 249 and potentially towards its store brands.g. Sainsbury and Tesco with relatively cheap. 2001). Greatorex and Mitchell. consumers make trade-offs between the risks of losses they may incur when purchasing the product and the value they expect. performance. A store’s image does not only serve as a direct indicator of store brand quality. psychosocial and ﬁnancial risks thus remain to be considered. In the following subsections propositions with respect to these effects will be formulated. Steenkamp and Dekimpe (1997. perceived time risk. namely functional or physical. the store image could act as a risk reliever and it is expected that the effect of consumers’ perceptions of the retailer on their evaluations of store-branded . since we are interested in the differential effects of various risk categories. but also as a risk reliever (e. DelVecchio. does not discriminate between manufacturer brands and store brands. It can be argued that in the case of purchasing groceries psychological risk as deﬁned by Stone and Gr^nhaug (1993) does not play a role. In our view. it has been theorized that perceived product attributes affect the attitude of the consumer towards merchandise sold under a store brand (DelVecchio. Some authors have categorized them into four groups.g. Therefore. DelVecchio.ARTICLE IN PRESS J. such as beliefs and status (Batra and Sinha. 2000. as they appear to discriminate effectively between risks consumers associate with buying manufacturer brands or store brands.g. that is. Nonetheless. Baron and Kenny. functional. social. the smaller the chance that a consumer will use a store brand. time-. As a consequence we expect: P2a: The effect of store image on consumer attitude towards a store branded product is mediated by the functional risk associated with the perceived difﬁculty for the retailer to produce that product. Functional. Psychosocial risk exists to the extent that the consumer believes that he/she will be negatively evaluated due to his/her product (brand) choice. 2001) and consumer attitudes towards the store-branded product: P3: Consumer attitudes towards a store branded product are inversely related to the perceived psychosocial risk associated with the usage of the product. functional risk is also related to a consumer’s perception of how difﬁcult it is to produce a certain product category—the perceived difﬁculty is based on different aspects.
and includes a free monthly magazine. the company claims to be similarly concerned with product packaging and presentation. DelVecchio. but it is not considered a discount chain. Albert Heijn AH is owned by the ‘Royal Ahold’ group. For the present study three major and well-known grocery chains. and its prices are lower as well. All store-branded products include the store name and logo on the packaging. 3. Edah. consisting of 9000 retail stores in 27 countries. operating 30 different chains. Edah promotes manufacturer brands in its advertising rather than products with the Edah label. However. 3. everyday-use products at discounted prices—which do not carry the store logo. 2002). The three selected chains vary substantially in areas such as the physical design of the stores. ‘gourmet’ ingredients. This advertising is focused on promoting the store image and store brands. Edah The Edah chain is part of the ‘Laurus’ group. the quality and assortment of their merchandise.1. The hypothesized relationships are summarized in the conceptual model represented in Fig. operating some 2400 grocery outlets altogether. AH has the largest advertising budget. store brand labels will appear lower in the quality spectrum (Hoch and Banerji. Nonetheless.ARTICLE IN PRESS 250 J. Research design An experiment was designed and conducted to determine the structural relationships between store image. Therefore: P4a: The relationship between store image and consumer attitude towards a store branded product is mediated by the perceived ﬁnancial risk of usage. Six hundred products are carried under the Edah private brand. AH offers the Euroshopper brand—basic. AH is the largest grocery chain in the Netherlands. and with it the associated ﬁnancial risk. leaﬂets. products will be mediated by the perceived psychosocial risk: P3a: The relationship between store image and consumer attitude towards a store branded product is mediated by the perceived psychosocial risk of usage. The group owns multiple chains in The Netherlands. Finally. such as TV.1. Semeijn et al. 1. 1997) while the three largest grocery chains account for more than 60% of total retail sales (Steenkamp and Dekimpe. including the ‘Konmar’ and ‘Super de Boer’ stores. the methodology is explained. When considerable quality variance occurs within a product category. The AH stores sell approximately 4000 products under a store brand—ranging from basic products such as milk and toilet paper to more elaborate and premium products. 3. 1997). Store brand penetration is around 20% in this market (Wileman and Jary. The general expectation is that in product categories with large quality variability. and kitchen utensils. and consumer attitude towards store-branded products. and newspapers. Edah uses various channels to advertise the brand. offer a broad assortment of quality products and brands. perceived risk associated with various product attributes. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258 Antecedents Store Image - Mediators Perceived Psychosocial Risk Perceived Functional Risk Perceived Financial Risk + - Outcome 3. carrying the name and logo of the store.1. Edah’s image is less prestigious than Albert Heijn’s. In this section. The overall price level is higher than at other chains. including ready-to-eat meals. at the time of this study the third largest player in the global retailing industry. followed by a discussion of the criteria used for the choice of product categories. contrary to AH. criteria used for the choice of stores in the study are discussed. with more than 2300 outlets and a market share approaching 30% (Dekimpe and Steenkamp. Albert Heijn (AH). the likelihood of a consumer making a poor purchase decision increases. Case study—three grocery stores in The Netherlands For convenience reasons we tested our propositions in the grocery industry in The Netherlands. and carry a premium image. .2. pricing and promotion strategies. Conceptual model of direct and mediated effects. Of the three stores investigated. Belgium and Spain. 1. The store image could again act as a risk reliever and it could be expected that the effect of consumers’ perceptions of the retailer on their evaluations of storebranded products will be mediated by the perceived ﬁnancial risk. In addition. 2001): P4: Consumer attitude towards a store branded product is inversely related to the perceived ﬁnancial risk associated with quality variance in the product category. 1993. Evaluation of Store Brand - - Store Image Product Class Store Brand Fig. The stores share an attractive design. Edah’s focus on product innovation is not as accentuated as it is at AH. radio. Laurus operate 1200 outlets in the Netherlands.1. and Aldi were selected.
. with a focus on basic products and not on differentiation and innovation. 1996). functional. successful in even the most entrenched local markets in Europe (10 countries).3. respondents had to evaluate the three chains. consisting of 110 statements. prone to buying (the generally cheaper) store brands and can thus be considered experienced with respect to store brand/ manufacturer brand choices. and very unlikely to very likely). The E-mail contained a hyperlink to an online questionnaire. s=0. The need for variance in the different risks associated with the purchasing decision. Questionnaire design and sampling A questionnaire. Birtwistle et al. Van Riel et al. 1986) and a retail service quality research (Dabholkar et al. Wine. And ﬁnally. The ‘potato chips’ category can be classiﬁed as inexpensive (low ﬁnancial risk). The categories were classiﬁed as follows: The ‘wine category’ was selected to represent the highest psychosocial risk. Mazursky and Jacoby. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with these statements on 7point Likert type scales (totally disagree to totally agree.000). 2001). no one wants to be associated with bad/cheap hygiene products.. a small rafﬂe type lottery was included. measuring the store image. an E-mail message was used to approach potential respondents. and canned tomatoes were chosen. 1998. guided us in selecting the product categories. the chain carries brands that are uniquely sold at Aldi. or product packaging are kept to a minimum. it scores high in functional risk because of health related consequences.. 1998. 3. A value of 0. To increase the sample size the addressees were asked to forward the invitation to friends and colleagues. Dependent variable The dependent variable. because of the difﬁculty to produce wine and the physical consequences of the consumption of an inferior wine. adapted from previous store image studies (Baker et al. The company pursues a low-cost strategy: investments in store design. 1994. To increase the response rate. and the associated attitudes of the participants towards store-branded products were measured for each of the three chains. very bad to very good. Sparks and Hunt. 3.2. Product selection The product categories used in the case study were selected based on availability and familiarity to consumers. 1998. are listed in Table 6 in the appendix. Bloemer and de Ruyter. It also represents a product category with a very-high-quality variance.35). Aldi tends not to use its own name or logo to identify its brands. and there is signiﬁcant quality variance in the category. 1999. Store image Store image was measured with 15 indicator variables.. 1990. Based upon the interpretation of the Scree test.=45. Aldi’s objective is offering good quality products at an everyday low price (EDLP). 1997). based on low commonality values (o0. ﬁnancial and psychosocial risk. Stafford. functional and ﬁnancial risks relating to various product categories. Reliability was tested with Cronbach’s test and reported in Table 6 in the appendix. it also reﬂects high functional risk. toothpaste.774 (df. by averaging two measures: the perceived overall quality of the store brand . was operationalized in accordance with previous studies in branding research (Aaker and Keller. often more focused on the availability of temporary stock than on discounts. In the second part. staff. which leads to a relatively narrow assortment.4. Moreover. which has been expanding more recently into the US and Australia. 3. The use of a student-based sample has been proven useful in previous studies regarding branding and consumer behavior (Biswas et al. Halstead et al. Aldi Aldi is a German discount chain. In a stepwise principal component factor analysis. 1999.. Sinha and DeSarbo. the ‘canned tomatoes’ category can be seen as the simplest one with a low level of visibility (psychosocial risk) and very low level of functional risk—easy production and hardly any quality variance among brands. as it has the highest level of usage visibility. three factors were identiﬁed. was developed to test the model. Aldi is not known to utilize much advertising in order to promote the store itself. The main media used are newspapers and the store leaﬂet— presenting special offers. easy to produce (low functional risk) and as having low to medium psychosocial risk.904 was found for the KMO test and for Bartlett’s test we obtained a w2 of 7519. 1994.5. 2001). With the exception of special temporary deals on bulk volumes of particular branded products. the perceived psychosocial.. However. For our study. The remaining items. Aldi also avoids carrying products that duplicate other products.3. 3. explaining 70% of the variance. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258 251 3.1.. consumer attitude towards the store brand. 1998. 4 items were excluded from the subsequent analysis. Each Aldi store carries some 1000 different products.ARTICLE IN PRESS J. as well as the associated factor loadings.. Semeijn et al. Students are an important part of the shopping population. An invitation to participate in the experiment was sent to approximately 200 students and 100 recent graduates listed on an e-mailing list of the Marketing Department at the University of Maastricht. Van Riel et al. nonetheless. Toothpaste carries medium psychosocial risk since it is not often used in public situations. thus creating a so-called snowball sample (Stevens et al. The survey consisted of two parts: In the ﬁrst part. potato chips.
two dummy variables were introduced with the following values: D1 ¼ 1 : Albert Heijn and D1 ¼ 0 : not-AlbertHeijn D2 ¼ 1 : Edah and D2 ¼ 0 : not-Edah If D1 ¼ 0 and D2 ¼ 0 : Aldi: ð 1Þ Merchandise Mean 6. Each respondent answered questions about three different stores and four different product categories.7.1. 3.1% of the respondents were in this age range. Edah and Aldi are at similar levels. IL the store image (layout).20 4. These matrices are presented in Table 2. RFIN the ﬁnancial risk. It was therefore decided to create correlation matrices for the three retailers separately.3 4.23 where the variables are: Y is the consumer attitude towards the store brand.77 4. and e is the error terms. including all core constructs. assuming that the customer was planning a purchase in the product category (1=not at all likely.7 4. A look at the means of consumers’ attitudes towards the store brand reveals that although AH attained the highest level. RPSY ¼ g3 þ b10 IL þ b11 IM þ b12 IS þ e3 .02 1.63 Layout Mean 5.07 1. 8. The average age was between 20 and 24 years old—68. RPSY the psychosocial risk. 3. Signiﬁcant correlations exist between most of the variables. b the regression coefﬁcients.91 1. IS the store image (service).1 4. The respondents included 61 females and 67 males. Table 1 Descriptives Store Brand Attitude (SBA)/Image Factors Retailer SBA Mean AH Edah Aldi 4.9% between 25 and 29 years.6. Semeijn et al.22 Service Mean 5.87 was obtained. or ‘I would mind that other people know that I use this product from the Edah brand’ on seven point Likert scales. 1. which resulted in a factorial design of 1536 cases (3 Â 4 Â 128). g the intercepts. IM the store image (merchandise).8% between 30 and 34 years.0 SD 0. Data were screened manually and 3 cases were deleted from the sample. the highest level being between attitude towards the store brand and perceived ﬁnancial risk in the AH and Edah samples. 7=very likely). For that purpose. 15. (1) the data were investigated on a descriptive level. single item measures. Selected descriptives are reported in Table 1. RFUN ¼ g2 þ b7 IL þ b8 IM þ b9 IS þ e2 .15 . Analysis and results 4. 1960) were thus applied to regressions according to model (1) of various combinations of the three partial samples. with the primary purpose of obtaining insight in the data structure. a reliability coefﬁcient a of 0. In a pretest of the questionnaire the questions were reformulated such as to convey the intended meaning optimally. 7=superior) and the likelihood of purchasing the store brand. This observation is an indication that it may not be allowed to pool the data for the three retailers. For this variable.6 4.44 1. F -tests (Chow.3% of the sample was older than 34 years. RFIN ¼ g3 þ b13 IL þ b14 IM þ b15 IS þ e4 . Before conducting the regressions following Eq. The participants were asked to express their agreement with statements such as ‘Albert Heijn would have problems to manufacture this product’. Testing the propositions The theoretical model to be tested can be represented by the following set of equations: Y ¼ g1 þ b1 IL þ b2 IM þ b3 IS þ b4 RFUN þ b5 RPSY þ b6 RFIN þ e1 .8% of the respondents were between 15 and 19 years old.4 SD 0.6 SD 0. and between attitude towards the store brand and store image in the Aldi Sample. and ﬁnally 5.6 3. it was decided to operationalize them as straightforward.03 1.96 1. ð 2Þ ð 3Þ ð 4Þ 4. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258 (1=inferior. It appears that AH has the best and most consistent store image among participants: AH is followed by Edah and ﬁnally by Aldi. since they contained a large number of missing values. These differences are clearly less pronounced than the ones between the different store images. Risk factors Since each of the risk factors had to be measured for four products and for three different store brands. From Table 1 it became clear that the retailer sample is not homogeneous.ARTICLE IN PRESS 252 J. Before any further techniques could be applied. In addition.8 3. parameter stability over the three store brands had to be veriﬁed.21 SD 1.46 1. Sampling One hundred and thirty-one participants ﬁlled out the questionnaire.92 1. RFUN the functional risk.
192ÃÃ 0. and Aldi on the other.479ÃÃ À0.116ÃÃ Financial À0.573ÃÃ 0.498ÃÃ À0.132ÃÃ À0. was again higher than 2.256ÃÃ 0.120ÃÃ 0. deﬁned as Â Ã RSSp À ðRSS1 þ RSS2 Þ =k : ð 8Þ ðRSS1 þ RSS2 Þ=n1 þ n2 À 2k This statistic has an F distribution with (k. as well as the perceived risks associated with purchasing different product categories: functional risk. merchandise and service.01.1549Þ : This implied the rejection of H0 for the pooled sample of AH and Edah on the one hand and Aldi on the other. The regressions and mediation tests were thus performed separately for the three retailers in order to tests the propositions.358ÃÃ À0.276ÃÃ 0.161ÃÃ À0. (1) if both D1 ¼ 0 and D2 ¼ 0.264ÃÃ À0. regression analyses were performed: attitude towards the store brand was regressed on the main variables.570ÃÃ 0.152ÃÃ À0.030 0. RSS1 equals the Residual Sum of Squares of the regression on sample A and RSS2 equals the Residual Sum of Squares of sample B.203ÃÃ À0.002 0.056 0.212ÃÃ À0.580ÃÃ 0.01. where A and B represent the respective partial samples.178ÃÃ 0.281ÃÃ À0. 8. The F -value we obtained.92.129Ã À0. the cut-off value of Fð0:05.319ÃÃ À0.05 level. psychosocial risk and ﬁnancial ð 6Þ FUN PSY SBA Aldi LAY MER SER FUN SBA=store brand attitude.ARTICLE IN PRESS J.74 was obtained.049 À0.409ÃÃ 0. (7) if D2 ¼ 1: Y ¼ g1 þ g2 þ g3 þ ðb1 þ a1 ÞIL þ ðb2 þ a3 ÞIM þ ðb3 þ a5 ÞIS þ ðb4 þ a7 ÞRFUN þ ðb5 þ a9 ÞRPSY þ ðb6 þ a11 ÞRFIN þ e.663ÃÃ 0.060 À0.7. Y ¼ g1 þ g2 þ g3 þ ðb1 þ a2 ÞIL þ ðb2 þ a4 ÞIM þ ðb3 þ a6 ÞIS þ ðb4 þ a8 ÞRFUN þ ðb5 þ a10 ÞRPSY þ ðb6 þ a12 ÞRFIN þ e: ð 7Þ If there are no differences between the stores.126ÃÃ À0. Furthermore a Chow test was conducted on the pooled sample on the one hand. the store image factors layout. turns into Eq.291ÃÃ À0.380ÃÃ 0.240ÃÃ À0. An F -value of 2.019 Psychosocial À0. A Chow test was ﬁrst conducted on the pooled sample of AH and Edah.140ÃÃ À0.243ÃÃ À0. stating homogeneity of the pooled sample (AH-Edah) was not accepted. P2.367ÃÃ À0.430ÃÃ 0. ÃÃcorrelation is signiﬁcant at the 0.521ÃÃ 0.105Ã 0.132ÃÃ À0.7.544ÃÃ 0.382ÃÃ 0.069 À0.518ÃÃ Functional À0.01 level.260ÃÃ À0.295ÃÃ 0. this implies that a1 ¼ a2 ¼ a3 ¼ a4 ¼ a5 ¼ a6 ¼ a7 ¼ a8 ¼ 0: This is our H0 : We can test this hypothesis with the Chow test statistic.244ÃÃ À0.091Ã À0. the cut-off value of Fð0:05.021 À0. To investigate Propositions P1.1040Þ : Therefore H0 . n1 þ n2 À 2k) degrees of freedom.352ÃÃ À0.363ÃÃ 0.080 PSY 253 The new model becomes: Y ¼ g1 þ g2 D1 þ g3 D2 þ a1 ðD1 IL Þ þ a2 ðD2 IL Þ þ a3 ðD1 IM Þ þ a4 ðD2 IM Þ þ a5 ðD1 IS Þ þ a6 ðD2 IS Þ þb1 IL þ b2 IM þ b3 IS þ a7 ðD1 RFUN Þ þ a8 ðD2 RFUN Þ þ b4 RFUN þ a9 ðD1 RPSY Þ þ a10 ðD2 RPSY Þ þ b6 RPSY þ a11 ðD1 RFIN Þ þ a12 ðD2 RFIN Þ þ b7 RFIN þ e: ð 5Þ This equation is automatically reduced to Eq. (6) if D1 ¼ 1.351ÃÃ À0.081 À0.011 À0. and k is the number of parameters. Semeijn et al. Ãcorrelation is signiﬁcant at the 0. Edah Table 2 Correlation matrices for the three retailers Albert Heijn Retailer SBA LAY MER SER FUN PSY SBA LAY MER SER . RSSP equals the Residual Sum of Squares of the OLS regression on the pooled sample.453ÃÃ 0.099Ã À0. Parameters n1 and n2 equal the number of observations in each partial sample. and into Eq.163ÃÃ 0.395ÃÃ 0. P3 and P4.596ÃÃ Service 0. This value is larger than 2. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258 Layout 0.225ÃÃ À0.056 À0.340ÃÃ Merchandise 0.
518 3. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258 Table 3 Results of the analyses: direct effects Retailer Albert Heijn Adj.150 0.002 0.000 0. Hence. Conclusion and implications The purpose of this study was to explore the combined effects of retailer and product attributes on . in the form of the highly signiﬁcant regression parameters (see Table 3). The test statistic Z was calculated according to the following formula: aÃb Z ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ: 2 2 2 2 ð b2 Ãs 2 a þ a Ãsb þ sa Ãsb Þ ð 9Þ In this equation.615 2.835 3.000 0.617 s 0.182 À4.000 0. Three store image factors were measured.497 0. which conﬁrms Proposition P4.000 2 Edah Adj. Sobel. F ¼ 61:429.429 À4.114 À0. The adapted model is presented in Fig.090 À0.000 0. in the form of the highly signiﬁcant regression parameters (see Table 3).582 À8.003 0. b and c the unstandardized path coefﬁcients of a regression of the mediator and the IV on the DV (consumer attitude).138 0.842 0. The correlations found in our data (see Table 2) as well as the mostly signiﬁcant regression parameters found (see Table 3) conﬁrm the proposition for the three factors and the three retailers to different degrees.000 0. A summary of the propositions and their status is presented in Table 5. Support for the existence of this relationship. and Proposition P1 is therefore supported by the data.117 À0. was again found and Proposition P3 was thus also conﬁrmed for all three retailers. Semeijn et al. it can be concluded that store image perceptions inﬂuence consumers’ judgment of store brand quality in a positive sense.045 4. A negative relationship was expected between the functional risk associated with a speciﬁc product category and attitude towards that product category carrying a store brand. the DV and for the mediators. Surprising was the absence of signiﬁcant effects for layout and service in the case of AH.561 0.2.000 0.202 À5. The new model explains a number of predicted effects. R2 ¼ 0:306. a represents the unstandardized path coefﬁcient of a regression of the IV (store image) on the mediator (risk perception). 5.000 0.001 0.797 0. R ¼ 0:410. positive and linear relationship between store image and attitude towards the store brand. Many terms were found signiﬁcant and displayed the expected signs. 1986). The results of these regressions are summarized in Table 3.000 0.104 0.401 t 9. 4. Proposition P3 predicted an inverted relationship between the perceived psychosocial risk associated with using a product and the attitude towards that product carrying the store brand. 1995.021 À3.285 À10.132 À0. Based on the above. N ¼ 517 Independent variables b (B) Constant Layout Merchandise Service Functional risk Psychosocial risk Financial risk 3.113 3. hypothesized in P2a.324 0. while the merchandise factor did show the expected effect. and the attitude of the consumer towards products in that category carrying a store brand. A strong and signiﬁcant regression coefﬁcient was found for all retailers.310 2.728 0.105 s 0.165 À0.. Attitude towards the store brand Our ﬁrst proposition stated a direct. To test the predicted mediation effects (Baron and Kenny.000 risk. was found for the three retailers and Proposition P2 was thus conﬁrmed.249 À8. 1993.240 0. Product attributes and associated risks Proposition P2 was concerned with the effect of perceived functional risk. Results for Edah and Aldi conﬁrmed the proposition for all three factors. 4.ARTICLE IN PRESS 254 J.307 À11. albeit to different degrees for different retailers.000 2 Aldi Adj.353 s 0.373 t 7.001 0. F ¼ 38:876.183 À0. 1982) on the factors obtained for the independent variable (IV). Support for the existence of this relationship.010 0. N ¼ 516 b (B) 3.001 0. the original conceptual model was adapted.197 0.012 0. MacKinnon et al.3.824 0. R ¼ 0:402. The variables with the largest direct effects on consumers’ attitude towards the store brand were store image and ﬁnancial risk.022 À0.258 5.297 À0.162 À0. F ¼ 59:617.299 t 10. Sobel tests were conducted (MacKinnon and Dwyer. N ¼ 510 b (B) 3. 2. Proposition P4 predicted a negative relationship between the perceived ﬁnancial risk associated with purchasing a product in a category with large quality variance.000 0. P3a and P4a.266 À3. An overview of the Sobel Tests performed to assess the data for mediation is presented in Table 4.000 0. The more highly a consumer thinks of a store the more positively he/she will evaluate store-branded products.
and visibility. store design and commitment to serving customers’ needs. Strong support is present in the data for the view that perceived quality variance within a category is related to a negative evaluation of storebranded products in that category. Clearly the Aldi store image has little inﬂuence on perceived functional risk.3.2.58ÃÃ 2. however. Based on previous research (Richardson et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258 Table 4 Mediating effects of store image factors on perceived risk factors (Z -values) Retailer: Albert Heijn Functional Layout Merchandise Service + 3.01 level. Effects for store image and three product attributes were hypothesized. Visibility of product usage and psychosocial risk Our research conﬁrmed that public usage of a product reduces the chance that consumers will buy a store brand. as a result of required specialized technological knowledge and ingredients. the effect of merchandise was stronger than in the case of the two other retailers.70ÃÃ + Psychosocial + 2. quality variance. 5. From the study it became clear that all retailers were able to neutralize some of the functional risk with their store image.99ÃÃ Financial NS NS NS Aldi Functional NS 1. In the present study.2. merchandise and service.09ÃÃ Financial NS NS NS 255 +=no effect expected. Quality variance and ﬁnancial risk Quality variance within a product category was expected to be positively related to the perceived risk of choosing a low quality product and therefore of losing money.2. In product categories where risk of public exposure of the product is an important issue. Direct effects of all three factors were observed for two out of three retailers. consumer attitude towards store-branded products in grocery stores. these product attributes have been related to risks to the consumer when purchasing a store brand product. a strong relationship was expected between store image and attitude towards the store brand. In the case of AH no signiﬁcant direct effects were found for Layout and Service. Three store image factors were considered: layout. Antecedents Physical Layout Merchandise - Mediators Perceived Psychosocial Risk - Outcome 5. 1996b).2. NS=not signiﬁcant. although associated correlations suggested these effects. a manufacturer’s brand will often outperform a store brand. 2.1.10ÃÃ 5. Store image can therefore be considered an important predictor of attitude towards a store brand.03ÃÃ Psychosocial 4. It was observed that the less likely the consumer perceives a certain retailer to be able to produce a speciﬁc product.93Ã NS Psychosocial 4.2. 5. It was also hypothesized that some risks can be relieved by the perceived store image.14ÃÃ 2. Store image and quality Differing store image perceptions across chains are a consequence of diversity in retail strategy. 1994.54ÃÃ 3. Revised model based on empirical observations. albeit to different degrees.19ÃÃ 3. Product attributes and related risks In previous studies. Product complexity and functional risk Product complexity was associated with perceived functional risks of the product and measured as the perceived difﬁculty for the store to manufacture it. A negative effect of the perceived risks on consumers’ evaluations of products sold under a store brand was predicted. several product attributes have been identiﬁed as antecedents of store brand success in speciﬁc product categories (DelVecchio.1. . Ãeffect is signiﬁcant at the 0. The effects were measured in an empirical study including two general grocery stores and a discount store.05 level. due to the lack of (symbolic) quality. ÃÃeffect is signiﬁcant at the 0. the more likely it is that the consumer develops a negative attitude towards such a product carrying that retailer’s store brand. Semeijn et al. 2001): Complexity. In the case of AH. All three retailers are able to neutralize psychosocial risk by their store images.33Ã 2. and to make recommendations with respect to the most appropriate product categories for new product introduction. 5.82ÃÃ + Financial + NS + Edah Functional 3. Direct and mediated effects were hypothesized. This ﬁnding leads to + Perceived Functional Risk + Evaluation of Store Brand + Service Perceived Financial Risk - Store Image Product Class Store Brand Fig.ARTICLE IN PRESS J.. 5.
Steenkamp and Dekimpe. The ﬁndings of this study have implications for decision-makers in the grocery business.ARTICLE IN PRESS 256 Table 5 Status of the propositions No. Conversely. In the present study signiﬁcant differences were found between the three retailers. The present study has provided some new insights into this matter. None of the store image factors was able to relieve this risk.. The reduction of risk. evaluated by a select group of consumers. Consumer attitudes towards a store branded product are inversely related to the perceived psychosocial risk associated with the usage of that product. by investigating the circumstances in which product categories will be beneﬁcial to a store brand assortment (Ailawadi. Consumer attitude towards a store branded product is inversely related to the functional risk associated with the perceived difﬁculty for the retailer to produce that product. Semeijn et al. Dhar and Hoch (1997) point to the fact that retailers can take the lead in the further development of store brands. and customer service. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258 3 3a 4 4a | | | Â | | | Â | | | Â the conclusion that when quality variance within a product category is high. The effect of store image on consumer attitude towards a store branded product is mediated by the functional risk associated with the perceived difﬁculty for the retailer to produce that product. Renewed interest on the part of manufacturers to produce for store brands is therefore likely (Corstjens and Lal. The appeal of manufacturers’ brands may wane when consumers become increasingly well informed about products with a commodity-like nature. 2001). | | | Edah | | | Aldi | | (|) J. with a wider range of product categories. 2001). with clear labeling. The effect of store image on consumer attitude towards a store branded product is mediated by the ﬁnancial risk associated with the perceived difﬁculty for the retailer to produce that product. Limitations and suggestions for further research The analysis was based on data collected about four product categories that were available from three retailers. 1995). The relationship between store image and consumer attitude towards a store branded product is mediated by the perceived psychosocial risk of usage. Implications More and more products. This points at the fact that the resulting model is not complete. An analysis of heavy store brand users and a comparison of brand pairs (manufacturers’ and store brands) have also been suggested (Ailawadi. New store brand products have greatest potential in product categories associated with low functional. and importance of store brand research. 1997). 2001.3. psychosocial and ﬁnancial risk. products in a category with large quality variance and high public visibility are more likely to fail. It would be valuable to further test the model with data from more retailers in different (international) markets. including grocery products. to reduce the ﬁnancial risks associated with that purchase. 5.4. nourishing and sustaining a store image can create opportunities to achieve differentiation and positioning relative to other chains and sell proﬁtable store brands. and the time savings afforded to hurried consumers will likely contribute to store loyalty (Dick et al. 1996). Raju et al. Raju et al. or between private labels . Offering an increasing variety of ‘store-certiﬁed’ goods. The role of supermarkets and grocery stores is currently evolving to one of principally servicefocused providers.. merchandise quality and value. Retailers should therefore focus on aspects. such as store environment. Providing ‘One-Stop Shopping’ service creates an obvious beneﬁt to consumers (Semeijn and Vellenga. Consumer attitude towards a store branded product is inversely related to the perceived ﬁnancial risk associated with quality variance in the product category. It is critical that proﬁtable new product opportunities can be identiﬁed. 2000. the building of trust. as previously suggested by Batra and Sinha (2000). and to include more consumer-level variables. are perceived as commodities. and collected through a questionnaire that was administered on-line. This adds to the interest in. An attempt to distinguish conceptually between explicitly branded (as in the case of AH and Edah) and un-branded store labels (as in the case of Aldi). 2001. Proposition Proposition status Albert Heijn 1 2 2a There will be a direct positive relationship between perceived store image and consumer attitude towards store branded products. The present study conﬁrms that developing. 5. or in different sectors.. would be part of such a service. it is likely that consumers will choose manufacturer branded products over store brands.
P. 1–16. J. 1995. Baker. Journal of Retailing 62 (2). 1999... Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22 (4). S. Retail brands and the theft of identity. 281–291. Marketing Science Institute. 315–324.P.P.. J. Exploring the development of store image. 2000.L.. K.. 1982.A. no individual propositions were developed for the effects of the different store image factors on the various categories of perceived risk. Thorpe. Dabholkar.. Multi-source effects on the satisfaction formation process.. Davies.K. A. Kenny. 1997. A simulation study of mediated effect measures.. 208–227. Jain. Hoch. European Retail Digest 34. . Consumer evaluation of reference price advertisements: effects of other brand’s prices and semantic cues. How consumers evaluate store brands.S.. Store image in the UK fashion sector: consumer versus retailer perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research 37. Dwyer. 140–146. Hoch. M.L. Journal of Product and Brand Management 5 (2). Dhar. Consumer perceptions of private label quality: The role of product category characteristics and consumer use of heuristics.. 1992. Why store brand penetration varies by retailer. Freathy. R... New York. Modelling consumer risk reduction preferences from perceived loss data.-N. M. 1996. Lepir. Correlates of store brand proneness: some empirical observations. D.. The Evolution of Price Labels into Global Brands.J.. Journal of Product and Brand Management 4 (4). 1998. R.. A better understanding of the effects of the various store image factors could lead to a greater strategic consistency and better resource allocation decisions... 19–28. Jain.. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 26 (4). C. M.J. Dekimpe. Batra. Burton... Rentz. 1960. Dick. Journal of Marketing 57.. MacKinnon. Richardson.. The effect of store brand share on retail margins: an empirical analysis. S. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual.86 Easy to ﬁnd articles in promotion 0. 57–67. Greatorex. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 24 (1).78 Store layout is clear 0. References Aaker. Econometrica 28... S. Chow. A measure of service quality for retail stores: scale development and validation.H. B. 1993. 1986. K.. A. Lal.. Schmidt.88 0. strategic and statistical considerations. A. J.83 0...M. Sinha..S. G. Fitzell. MacKinnon. 175–191. 591–605. Working Paper Series No. Baron.C. A. Biswas. Journal of Product and Brand Management 6 (5).. Global Book Productions. 499–513. 299–318.. Lessons to be learnt from the Dutch private-label scene. 2000. 52–65. S. J.. Bearden. Dick. J.. 1999. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22 (2). G. 328–339. Journal of Economic Psychology 15 (4). Acknowledgements The authors wish to express their gratitude to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for providing them with helpful comments and invaluable suggestions for improvements. 1994... The new appeal of private labels. measuring..75 0.. 2001. Evaluation Review 17. D.S. 669–685. Narasimhan. Mitchell. Furthermore. P. 1993. and managing customer-based brand equity. Hartman.A.. D. store satisfaction and store loyalty. 15–22. Birtwistle.. 1995. 27–41. D. 1994. Kapferer.. Krishnan.. Appendix Composition of store image factors (factor loadings) is given in Table 6. 2002. I. Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private label brands. Distribution and Consumer Research 9 (1). Semeijn et al..K.68 0. The International Review of Retail. 1994. P. 3–16.M. Journal of Consumer Research 9.O. Tests of equality between sets of coefﬁcients in two linear regressions. MA. Corstjens. Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research 30 (1). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. 72. Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating Brand Equity. On the relationship between store image. 1993. D. R. S. Marketing Science 16 (3). D.. Clarke. 41–52.. Ailawadi. A. D.. K. 1990. J. Richardson. Dunne. 1173–1182. Grewal.. Bloemer.H. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6). Reference group inﬂuence on product and brand purchase decisions. Free Press. A. Banerji.87 0..-W. 1999. 2001.. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258 Table 6 Composition of store image factors (factor loadings) Item Layout Merchandise Service ða ¼ 0:70Þ ða ¼ 0:82Þ ða ¼ 0:78Þ 257 Physical facilities are visually appealing 0. Cambridge. J... D.-B. S. D. M. 2002. P.. G.. Global Cosmetic Industry 169 (2). 1994.A.66 and store brands could be a ﬁrst step to further improve understanding of consumer evaluations of store brands. European private label. W.75 0.. Ailawadi. Halstead. Steenkamp. New York. D. 1–22. Warsi. The retail power-performance conundrum: what have we learned.I. 2001. Dwyer. Harvard Business Review 77.G. G. 1997.. Journal of Retailing 72 (2).81 0. 1986. 114–129. Jacoby. Journal of Marketing 54 (1).A.L. European Journal of Marketing 32 (5/6)..L. DelVecchio.. 1996. 183–194. Determinants of store brand choice: a behavioral analysis. 33–36. G. J.J.E. When do private labels succeed? Sloan Management Review 34. Pullig..ARTICLE IN PRESS J.. The inﬂuence of store environment on quality and store image. K. Baltas. Keller. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 18 (1). Private Label Marketing in the 1990s. Keller.. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8. B. K. 239–249..74 Merchandise is available when needed Store offers high quality merchandise Store offers broad assortment Employees are knowledgeable Employees are courteous No problems when returning items Employees willing to ﬁnd custom solutions Store has convenient opening hours 0.L. 1998.. De Ruyter. P. Parasuraman. 144–158.O. 145–165. D.K. Journal of Retailing 77. Etzel. J. Building store loyalty through store brands. Conceptualizing. Mazursky. V. I. 42–62. C. 02109. Harlam..
. R. 28–36.. Wileman. Jossey-Bass. Private labels and the channel relationship: a cross-category analysis. M. enduring involvement and characteristics of opinion leaders: a moderating or mediating relationship? Advances in Consumer Research 17. 1988... Allard C. D. 1995. and Total Quality Management. C.. J. The increasing power of store brands: building loyalty and market share.R. such as Transportation Journal. Narasimhan.. Distribution and Consumer Research 6 (1).-B. Opinion leadership. 957–978. (Ed.D.. Journal of Marketing 62 (2).L..S. Journal of Services Marketing. Richardson..-W.N. Nandan. M.. measurement and exploratory investigation.T. Janjaap Semeijn is Professor of Marketing and Logistics in the Management Sciences department at the Open University of the Netherlands and an Associate Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management in the department of Marketing at Maastricht University. Risk perception and reduction in the purchase of consumer services.-W. 265–293. 167–172.E. Ruddick. R. The Haworth Press Inc. the International Journal of Service Industry Management.. Journal of Business Research 54.. 1990. Zimmer. M. Sherwood. Sociological Methodology. Cole. Jain.. The Marketing Research Guide. Mitchell. Wrenn. 1996b. Consumers’ risk-reduction strategies: a review and synthesis. 1990. 92–109. Journal of Retailing 72 (2). J. Thompson. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 25 (10). A. Re-conceptualizing consumer store image processing using perceived risk. New York. 1997. A. 1998. Sethuraman. A. M. B.. 65–82.K. He received a Master’s degree at the American Graduate School of International Management and a Ph. D. M. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11 (2004) 247–258 Stevens. Journal of Product and Brand Management 8 (4). J. P. 1994. Journal of Marketing 58. 1999. H. 1996a. in Logistics Management at Arizona State University (1994). Dick. Jain. Mitchell.D.. A. Lemmink. DeSarbo. McGoldrick.. 1997.K.. Household store brand proneness: A framework. C. P. International Journal of Logistics Management and International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics.. Journal of Consumer Marketing 11 (4).. M. Sullivan. 60–67.. Golden. J..K.E. 573–600.. 236–249. Gr^nhaug. Jary. 340–351. 1996. 159–185.. Measuring image spillovers in umbrella branded products. The International Review of Retail. New York University Press. R. 1–33. 1996.. Marketing researcher ethical sensitivity: conceptualization. European Management Journal. Richardson. Perceived risk: further considerations for the marketing discipline. S. Jain... Strategies for Building Retail Brand Value..S. 1994.B. Long Range Planning 30 (6). Hunt. R.P. 179–200.S. New York. 2001.. Venkatraman. Semeijn et al. 917–930.R. J. Sobel. S. European Journal of Marketing 27 (3)..K. such as the Journal of Service Research.. 18–28.. S.. Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. 2001. An integrated approach toward the spatial modeling of perceived customer value.. Journal of Business 63 (1).C..S. Impressions of retail stores: a content analysis of consumer images. 220–231. research focused on Marketing Decision Making under Uncertainty in the area of IT-based Service Innovation (2003). Sparks. R.. He published in a variety of international journals. A. 19–28.E.S. 1997.. 36–40. Journal of Service Research 3 (3). R. I. V. 1999.. J. 1993..K. Factors inﬂuencing the price premiums that consumers pay for national brands over store brands..R. Semeijn. 1998. 26–44. Dick.R. 309–330. Richardson. Quelch. . Ouwersloot. His Ph. Sethuraman. Wilcox. 39–50. Stone. P.. 1993. Advertising sex-typed services: the effect of sex..R. as well as in various edited books.). Raju. Private brands: major brand perspective. A.. van Riel is an Assistant Professor in Logistics and Marketing in the department of Marketing at Maastricht University. CA.. P. Journal of Marketing Research 35. A. Steenkamp. W. Greatorex. Ana Beatriz Ambrosini recently completed her Master’s degree in International Business in the department of Marketing at Maastricht University.J. In: Leinhart. He holds a degree in Philosophy from the University of Amsterdam and has been active in the International Publishing Industry for almost ten years. Journal of Retailing 64 (1). Dekimpe. Dhar. V. Mitchell.ARTICLE IN PRESS 258 J. V. The Service Industries Journal 13. Harding..E. service type and employee type on customer attitudes.D. 1998. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions: differences between goods and services.. Sinha. M. The introduction and performance of store brands. 1998.W.-W. Vellenga. Stafford. Harvard Business Review 74. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. Brands versus private labels: Fighting to win. 99–110. The inﬂuence of store aesthetics on the evaluation of private label brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management 5 (1). L.A.M. Management Science 41 (6). S. S. A. Dickinson. M.. 2001. 1982. M... Journal of Advertising 27 (2)... Dick. International logistics and one-stop shopping. P. Retail Power Plays: From Trading to Brand Leadership. Brandweek 40 (18). San Francisco. Van Riel.. Journal of Business 71 (4). K.. The new private enterprise. He has published in various international journals.