The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm

Consumer
Consumer satisfaction and loyalty satisfaction and
in private-label food stores loyalty
Marı́a Pilar Martı́nez-Ruiz, Pablo Ruiz-Palomino,
Ricardo Martinez-Canas and Juan José Blázquez-Resino 849
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca, Spain Received 3 September 2012
Revised 11 January 2013
Accepted 25 January 2013

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to determine which factors underlie the store attributes that contribute to
a particular food store image. Furthermore, heightened recent attention to private labels in the food
retailing industry creates the need to assess whether the factors vary, depending on customers’ brand
proneness and their impact on key marketing performance variables (satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty,
behavioural loyalty).
Design/methodology/approach – The proposed analysis features 211 questionnaires out of a
sample of 391 consumers surveys gathered in four different store formats; 137 of which were
completed by consumers who admitting being private label prone, and 74 pertaining to consumers
who considered themselves national brand prone. The underlying food store factors were identified
using factorial analysis of principal components, and their influence on consumers’ satisfaction and
loyalty was evaluated with linear parametric regression models.
Findings – Store attributes related to providing sufficiently convenient purchasing experiences and
a special atmosphere are most important for private label brand-prone consumers and enhance their
satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty. For national brand-prone consumers,
attributes related to quality are more important for enhancing marketing performance variables.
Research limitations/implications – The results enable a clear identification of food store factors
that vary with the consumer segment being considered (private label prone consumers vs. national
brand prone), as well as their differential impacts on key marketing performance variables.
Practical implications – To appeal to private label-prone consumers, food retailers should put
particular emphasis on the attributes of the store itself, especially those that enhance convenience and
the pleasantness of the store atmosphere. To attract national brand-prone consumers, they primarily
need to highlight aspects related to quality.
Originality/value – This research emphasises the importance of building competitive strategies in
food retailing based on: an increased knowledge about the attributes and factors that food consumers
value more highly; and brand type preferences.
Keywords Food products, Store attributes, National brand proneness, Private label proneness,
Store factors
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
During the past decades tremendous changes have been observed in consumer demand
for food products, derived mainly from greater diversity among consumers, who thus
shift the elements that determine general purchase and consumption patterns. Modern
consumers express more heterogeneous category requirements and exhibit different British Food Journal
Vol. 116 No. 5, 2014
consumption patterns, even in similar marketing conditions (Baltas, 2005). For pp. 849-871
example, Shiu et al. (2004) find that certain consumer segments, such as women, exhibit q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
a stronger inclination to consume health-oriented food products. This result mirrors DOI 10.1108/BFJ-09-2012-0216
BFJ findings from previous studies that highlight convenience and health as some of the
116,5 most prevalent consumption trends, particularly in the British food market (e.g. Gofton
and Ness, 1991; Hutchins and Dawson, 1998). Ali et al. (2010) also remark that
consumers in emerging markets, such as India, have become more discriminating in
their food choices and started to emphasise aspects such as convenience, freshness and
product quality. Growing consumption of private label options for food products and
850 beverages also has been detected (Rubio and Yagüe, 2009; Sethuraman, 2000) – a trend
that increased in the face of the recent economic crisis (e.g. Food Business News, 2012;
Hale, 2010; Marketing News, 2012; Pagans and Pérez, 2012).
In light of these emerging notions, obtaining and managing information about
consumers is vital for identifying attributes that provide more value, and thus for
designing and implementing strategies that promote those specific attributes; such
that the food retailer can differentiate itself from competitors. Attributes with
particular relevance for retailers in the grocery industry are those whose synthesis
generates a specific store image (Theodoridis and Chatzipanagiotou, 2009), which
customers can use to differentiate among competing outlets (e.g. Ganesh et al., 2007;
Gómez et al., 2004). Several previous works similarly assert the importance of these
attributes, mainly by demonstrating a positive relation between customer perceptions
of certain store attributes and various positive marketing performance dimensions,
such as customer satisfaction (e.g. Fornell et al., 1996; Gómez et al., 2004; Martı́nez-Ruiz
et al., 2010; Martı́nez-Ruiz et al., 2011; Rust and Zahorik, 1993) and/or loyalty (e.g. Bodet,
2008; Meyer-Waarden, 2008).
Although complete knowledge of these factors and their impact on key variables
might help retailers differentiate themselves from competitors in a particular sector
(Ganesh et al., 2007; Gómez et al., 2004; Martı́nez-Ruiz et al., 2010; Martı́nez-Ruiz et al.,
2011), few investigations consider how their impact might change with various types
of consumer behaviour, which reflect current habits and patterns and diverse
consumer segments. For example, the global economic recession has prompted the
growing relevance of private labels (e.g. Food Business News, 2012; Hale, 2010;
Marketing News, 2012; Pagans and Pérez, 2012), re-enhancing a trend from previous
years (Rubio and Yagüe, 2009; Sethuraman, 2000). Thus, the purchase of private labels
represents one of the most prominent tendencies in modern consumer behaviour.
Although previous studies research some aspects of private labels (Martı́nez-Ruiz and
Jimenez-Zarco, 2009), it is becoming more interesting to determine their effects in
combination with other traditional marketing variables. In particular, we investigate
how the evaluation of store attributes and their underlying store factors, as well as
their impacts on diverse key performance variables, vary with consumer segments that
exhibit diverse brand type proneness and thus have unique influences on the
competitiveness and survival of firms operating within the sector.
Some recent claims (Food Business News, 2012) also indicate that despite increasing
numbers of buyers of private label food and beverage products, some consumers are
losing their enthusiasm for these options. The share of private label purchases by
households grew nearly 10 per cent in the US food and beverage market during
2000-2011, but satisfaction with private-label foods, in terms of meeting consumers’
needs, dropped approximately 8 per cent from 2009 to 2012. Instead of consolidating a
long-term habit, increased consumption of private-label foods and beverages may
reflect necessity, born out of economic conditions and higher grocery prices.
 To address this research gap and account for current economic conditions in the Consumer
food retailing sector, we attempt to determine if potential differences in the composition satisfaction and
of influential factors emerge in response to the widespread, growing trend of increased
consumption of private-label foods and beverages, as well as whether they lead loyalty
different factors to contribute to key performance variables. First, we aim to identify
the underlying store factors that enable grocery retailers to differentiate themselves
and determine if other differences emerge when we account for consumers’ preferences 851
for private labels versus national brands. Second, we assess the influence of these
factors on consumer satisfaction and loyalty (both attitudinal and behavioural). With
this analysis, we can determine if the factors that contribute to satisfaction and loyalty
differ, which enhances extant knowledge about the specific attributes and subsequent
factors that food retailers should develop to enhance critical marketing performance
dimensions.
In the next section, we present our conceptual framework to outline some of the
changes in food retailing, including greater consumption of private labels, and the
relevance of consumer satisfaction and loyalty as strategic marketing performance
dimensions. After describing the data, we establish key factors underlying store
attributes and differentiate factors that are more influential for private label-prone
versus national brand-prone consumers. We present the results from diverse linear
regression models, which allow us to determine which factors contribute most to
satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty, depending on the consumer
segment (private label vs national brand consumers). The results reveal interesting
conclusions and suggest recommendations for marketing managers of food shops,
mainly related to the factors that consumer value most and key sources of
differentiation for grocers.

2. Conceptual framework
2.1 Consumer behaviour changes in food retailing: greater consumption of private labels
Several changes in consumer behaviour during recent decades mark food retailing. For
example, economic changes have shifted the compositions of shopping baskets
(Manteca, 2007; Marketing News, 2012). Consumption of private labels has grown
exponentially (Rubio and Yagüe, 2009; Sethuraman, 2000), and this trend has been
especially prominent during the modern economic crisis (Hale, 2010; Marketing News,
2012; Pagans and Pérez, 2012). In Spain for example, private label sales reached around
41 per cent of total grocery sales (Pagans and Pérez, 2012), and the phenomenon
appears to be consolidating: Consumers no longer buy private labels solely for value
pricing or budget shopping purposes. In general, consumers have learned that private
labels are both reliable and a good value for the money (Guerrero et al., 2000).
Although perceptions of private labels often depend on the retail chain considered,
overall they have grown more sophisticated, which has improved consumers’
perceptions of them (Kumar and Steenkamp, 2007). Food and grocery retailers also
have discovered that consumers appreciate high-quality private labels and might even
accept them as being as good as national brands (Hale, 2010). The improvement in
consumers’ perceptions of private labels likely stems largely from efforts by grocery
retailers to promote them by improving store brand quality, providing a greater
assortment, and embracing a higher degree of innovation (e.g. Akbay and Jones, 2005).
Some popular private labels, such as Tesco’s or Mercadona’s, attribute their success
BFJ over competitors to their differentiating private label innovation. For example, the
116,5 innovative launch of premium store brands (e.g. Verhoef et al., 2004) has provided
several benefits for food retailers, such as increased margins, a greater assortment and
enhanced consumer loyalty to exclusive products (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004;
Garretson et al., 2002; Pauwels and Srinivasan, 2004; Sprott and Shimp, 2004).
Thus researchers must look systematically at the differences between private label
852 consumers’ and non-private label consumers’ behaviours, then analyse what makes
them different (e.g. Fogel et al., 2004). Previous investigations mainly have been
devoted to specific research lines, studied in a private-label context and adopting a
manufacturer, retailer, or consumer perspective[1]. Studies addressing how potential
differences in the composition of underlying store factors emerge in response to private
label consumption, and how these potential differences might prompt different
contributions to key performance variables, instead are scarce.
It is thus important to understand how to identify customers’ perceptions of store
attributes, as well as the composition of each factor that underlies these attributes,
according to current consumer behaviour patterns (e.g. store brand proneness). By
doing so, retailers can establish an optimal combination that generates the desired
store image, because they can create synergy among diverse effects that produce
positive marketing outcomes (satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty, behavioural loyalty).

2.2 Satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty: key performance variables in
food retailing
Consumer satisfaction is a key determinant of the success of the marketing strategies
adopted by food retailers (e.g. Gómez et al., 2004): Consumers tend to patronise
establishments that provide more satisfaction than other, competitive alternatives
(Fornell, 2007). Satisfaction thus is one of the concepts frequently analysed in the past
decade (e.g. Gómez et al., 2004; Martı́nez-Ruiz et al., 2010; Martı́nez-Ruiz et al., 2011).
For example, several works identify consumer satisfaction as an antecedent of critical
marketing performance dimensions, such as an ability to retain clients and customer
loyalty (Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1998; Bodet, 2008; Fornell et al., 1996; Meyer-Waarden,
2008; Sivadas and Baker-Prewitt, 2000; Yu and Dean, 2001). Such interest in increasing
customer satisfaction has prompted widespread usage of various satisfaction variables
and metrics (e.g. Fornell et al., 1996). For example, food retailers use such variables and
metrics to analyse responses by customers to their offered value propositions. A
general belief asserts that achieving higher consumer satisfaction levels will result in
beneficial effects, such as more loyalty or word-of-mouth recommendations
(e.g. Anderson, 1996; Eklöf et al., 1999; Fornell, 1992). Therefore, retailers appear
increasingly concerned about providing value propositions that are better adapted to
end consumers’ desires and needs (Chang and Horng, 2010; Gupta and Vajic, 2000).
For loyalty questions, relevant literature usually distinguishes between attitudinal
and behavioural forms (e.g. Dick and Basu, 1994; Lam et al., 2004; Söderlund, 2006;
Yoon and Kim, 2000). A review of such literature reveals that, on the one hand,
attitudinal loyalty refers to consumer preferences and dispositions toward a retailer; in
particular, this kind of loyalty often appears to manifest as positive communication
that the consumer expresses about the retailer, which largely reflects the consumer’s
general attitude to the store. (Dick and Basu, 1994; Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978; Oliva
et al., 1992). On the other hand, behavioural loyalty generally is associated with repeat
purchases (Bass, 1974; Tranberg and Hansen, 1986). It provides a measure of loyalty Consumer
that deals only with the frequency of purchase, without examining why consumers satisfaction and
continue to purchase or which factors influence that decision (Dick and Basu, 1994).
Therefore, both attitudinal and behavioural views should be taken into account, and loyalty
store loyalty likely refers to both the strength of a customer’s relative attitude and
repeat purchase behaviour toward the store (e.g. Dick and Basu, 1994).
Accordingly, we regard consumers of a retail food store as loyal if they express 853
positive attitudes in support of that retailer (attitudinal loyalty) – usually
demonstrated by offering recommendations to others – and also repeat their
purchases in that store (behavioural loyalty). We conducted an empirical analysis to
test these notions and identify food store-related factors that might exert a significant
influence on consumer satisfaction and loyalty, depending on the segment of
consumers considered (i.e. those inclined to purchase private labels or national brands).

3. Data description, empirical analysis and results

3.1 Questionnaire and variable operationalization
This section describes the data collection process, the information obtained and the
operationalisation of the variables. Such information supports an analysis of the
importance that consumers grant to different attributes of the commercial
establishment, as well as the factors that underlie these attributes, depending on
whether consumers are prone to purchasing private labels or national brands. The
determination of these attributes enables us to examine as well if they exert an impact
on customer satisfaction and loyalty and, if so, which are the most relevant influences.
We use consumer survey data, gathered from most important food stores in the city
of Cuenca, Spain[2]. The data consist of shoppers’ responses to a questionnaire,
administered using personal interviews at the store exit during March 2010. Four
major store formats appear in this study: supermarkets, hypermarkets, discount stores
and convenience stores. The probabilistic sampling method involved approaching food
shoppers as they left the stores, during sessions conducted in both morning and
evening hours. The interviews outside the retail stores led to a collection of 391 valid
questionnaires, 137 of which were completed by consumers who admitting being
private label prone, and 74 pertaining to consumers who considered themselves
national brand prone. The rest of the consumers do not indicate any clear brand type
proneness, so we excluded them from the study. Consistent with previous studies
(e.g. Akbay and Jones, 2005), we use the term national brand to refer to all brands that
are not store brands, even though the term implies nationwide distribution a priori. We
provide the technical specifications in Table I.
The questionnaire began with a set of items designed to obtain general information
about consumers’ purchase experiences and loyalty (e.g. satisfaction with their
purchase at the store, whether they make most of their purchases at the store, whether
they recommend the store when possible). Next, a second set of questions measured
their perceptions (1 ¼ poor, 5 ¼ excellent) of critical store attributes identified in
previous studies (e.g. Gómez et al., 2004; Hackl et al., 2000; Martı́nez-Ruiz et al., 2010;
Spiller et al., 2006). An additional question assessed whether the consumer was private
label or national brand prone. Table II lists the study variables, the scale and its
denomination.
BFJ
Universe 55,866 residents of the city of Cuenca (Spain)a
116,5 Unit sample Consumers older than 18 years (41,078 people)a
Geographic scope City of Cuenca
Data collection method Personal interviews
Survey site Retail grocery store establishments located in the metropolitan area
Sample size Initial sample size: 391 questionnaires corresponding to:
854 137 private label prone consumers
74 national brand prone consumers
180 consumers with no clear brand type proneness (excluded from the
study)
Final sample size: 211 questionnaires
Sample procedure Probabilistic
Confidence level 95%; Z ¼ 1:96; p ¼ q ¼ 0:5
Sampling error Initial sample: 4.93 per cent
Final sample: 6.73 per cent
Table I. Date of field work March 2010
Questionnaire technical
specifications Note: a According to INE (2010)

3.2 Methodology description and results

To describe the empirical methods we used, and the main results we obtained, we
begin by outlining our factorial analysis of principal components, with which we
obtained the underlying food store factors. With these results, we conducted several
linear parametric regression models to assess the influence of the previously identified
factors on the key marketing performance variables that we consider in this
investigation: satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty.
3.2.1 Identification of underlying food store factors. Because prior research has
established the relationship among the second set of explanatory variables, with high
degrees of correlation, we adopt a factorial analysis of principal components, a
methodology that can identify a reduced set of factors that, without being correlated,
explain the most variability in the responses. As a prerequisite of the factorial analysis,
we also determined sampling adequacy. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy reveals values of 0.749 for store brand-prone consumers and 0.763 for
national brand-prone consumers – both superior to the 0.5 established limit for this
index. In addition, Bartlett’s test of sphericity achieves a high value in both samples,
with a significance level of 0.000, which makes it possible to reject the hypothesis that
the correlation matrix is an identity matrix. The factor model thus appears appropriate
(George and Mallery, 1995).
The factor loadings for the solutions for private label-prone consumers in Table III
reveal that the alpha coefficient for the 22 items is 0.778. Several researchers have
proposed different minimum levels of internal consistency reliability for a useful test
score; for example, in the field of clinical significance, Cicchetti (1994) suggests the
following reliability guidelines: r , 0:70 (unacceptable), 0:70 # r , 0:80 (fair), 0:80 #
r , 0:90 (good), and r . 0:90 (excellent). In a similar research vein, Kline (2000) asserts
that the alpha value should never drop below 0.7. In social sciences research, a
reliability coefficient of 0.70 similarly tends to be considered acceptable (e.g. George
and Mallery, 2003; Kline, 1999). In view of these recommendations, the items have
relatively high internal consistency, in that the alpha coefficient is very close to 0.8.
Name Measurement Type of variable Definition

Good prices Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Opening times Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Good product quality Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Store cleanliness Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Good store lighting Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Product display in the store Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Frequent sales promotions Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Availability of store brands Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Ample variety of products Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Ample variety of prices Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
The store carries the products I need Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Additional services Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Parking available Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Proximity to home Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Good return service Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Good retailer reputation Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Store brand well known Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Customized customer attention Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Quick customer attention Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Knowledge exhibited by personnel Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Store layout oriented to facilitate purchases Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5)
Cumulative rewards Metric Explanatory Five-point scale: poor (1) to excellent (5), referring to
discounts, coupons, gifts, etc.
Type of brand proneness Metric Classifying (1) Private label prone; (2) Manufacturer brand prone
Satisfaction with the purchase at this food shop Metric Endogenous Five-point scale: very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5)
I recommend this food shop whenever I have the Metric Endogenous Likert scale: very disagree (1) to very agree (5)
opportunity
I buy the most of my purchases in this food shop Metric Endogenous Likert scale: very disagree (1) to very agree (5)
loyalty
Consumer

Study variables
satisfaction and

855

Table II.
BFJ
Reliability Factor
116,5 Identified factor alpha Survey elements: specific attributes loadinga

Store atmosphere value-added 0.778 Store cleanliness 0.564

services (SAVAS) Good store lighting 0.577
Product display in the store 0.539
856 Customized customer attention 0.829
Quick customer attention 0.831
Knowledge exhibited by personnel 0.804
Variety value-added services Ample variety of products 0.829
(VVAS) Ample variety of prices 0.837
Cumulative rewards 0.630
Quality value-added services Good product quality 0.376
(QVAS) Good return service 0.555
Good retailer reputation 0.782
Store brand well known 0.726
Additional services value-added Opening times 0.666
services (ASVAS) Additional services 0.470
Parking available 0.776
Convenience value-added The store carries the products I need 0.602
services (CVAS) Proximity to home 0.349
Store layout oriented to facilitate purchases 0.762
Economic value-added services Good prices 0.747
(EVAS) Frequent sales promotions 0.594
Store brand value-added services Availability of store brands 0.654
Table III. (SBVAS)
Factors valued for private
label-prone consumers Note: a The rotation method was Varimax normalization (Kaiser)

For this consumer segment, this study identifies seven factors that account for 66.48
per cent of the variation in the 22 attributes. First, store atmosphere value-added
services (SAVAS) account for 24.01 per cent of the variance, in relation to “store
cleanliness”, “good store lighting”, “product display in the store”, “customized
customer attention”, “quick customer attention”, and “knowledge exhibited by
personnel” variables. Second, variety value-added services (VVAS) account for 11.97
per cent for the variance, associated with the following variables: “ample variety of
products”, “ample variety of prices”, and “cumulative rewards”. Third, the factor
quality value-added services (QVAS) accounts for 7.61 per cent of the variance and is
associated with the “good product quality”, “good return service”, “good retailer
reputation”, and “store brand well known” variables. Fourth, additional services
value-added services (ASVAS) account for 6.68 per cent of the variance, in association
with the variables “opening times”, “additional services”, and “parking available”.
Fifth, accounting for 6.14 per cent of the variance, convenience value-added services
(CVAS) pertain to the following variables: “the store carries the products I need”,
“proximity to home”, and “store layout oriented to facilitate purchases”. Sixth,
economic value-added services (EVAS) explain 5.21 per cent of the variance, associated
with “good prices” and “frequent sales promotions”. Seventh and finally, store brand
value-added services (SBVAS), explaining 4.86 per cent of the variance, entail only one Consumer
attribute, “availability of store brands”. satisfaction and
The corresponding factor loadings for the national brand-prone consumers appear in
Table IV. For this consumer segment, the alpha coefficient for the items is 0.849, which loyalty
again shows that the items have high internal consistency. Five factors account for 68.07
per cent of the variance in the 22 attributes. Variety value-added services (VVAS)
account for 34.38 per cent of the variance and encompass the variables “availability of 857
store brands”, “ample variety of products”, “ample variety of prices”, “additional
services”, “parking available”, “store brand well known”, and “cumulative rewards”. The
second factor, quality value-added services (QVAS), accounts for 15.52 per cent of the
variance and is associated with the “good product quality”, “store cleanliness”, “good
store lighting”, “product display in the store”, “the store carries the products I need”,
“good retailer reputation”, and “store layout oriented to facilitate purchases” variables.
Accounting for 7.09 per cent of the variance, the incentive value-added services (IVAS)
factor features the following variables: “opening times”, “frequent sales promotions” and
“good return service”. The fourth factor is named customer attention value-added
services (CAVAS), accounts for 5.95 per cent of the variance, and is associated with the
variables “customized customer attention” “quick customer attention”, and “knowledge
exhibited by personnel”. Finally, convenience value-added services (CVAS) account for
5.13 per cent of the variance and include “good prices” and “proximity to home”.

Reliability Factor
Identified factor alpha Survey elements: specific attributes loadinga

Variety value-added services 0.849 Availability of store brands 0.617

(VVAS) Ample variety of products 0.772
Ample variety of prices 0.749
Additional services 0.666
Parking available 0.635
Store brand well known 0.711
Cumulative rewards 0.814
Quality value-added services Good product quality 0.710
(QVAS) Store cleanliness 0.837
Good store lighting 0.628
Product display in the store 0.708
The store carries the products I need 0.478
Good retailer reputation 0.794
Store layout oriented to facilitate purchases 0.611
Incentives value-added services Opening times 0.603
(IVAS) Frequent sales promotions 0.790
Good return service 0.616
Customer attention value-added Customized customer attention 0.733
services (CAVAS) Quick customer attention 0.870
Knowledge exhibited by personnel 0.724
Convenience value-added Good prices 0.511 Table IV.
services (CVAS) Proximity to home 0.724 Factors valued for
national brand-prone
Note: a The rotation method was Varimax normalization (Kaiser) consumers
BFJ Table V summarises the main findings, related to the important differences in how
116,5 store brand – versus manufacturer brand-prone consumers value store factors and
their composition.
The findings are generally consistent with intuitive expectations. For example, it is
not surprising that private label-prone consumers are more aware of the availability of
store brands and consider it important for the retailer to carry more accessible brand
858 options; these factors likely help them save money, especially during the recent economic
crisis. However, this offering also determines their perception of the economic value
offered by the retail manager. In contrast, national brand-prone consumers regard the
availability of private labels as just another option that enhances the assortment. They
are more concerned with the customer attention they receive in the store.
3.2.2 The influence on consumers’ satisfaction and loyalty. We also applied different
linear regression models to examine the influence of the previous factors on consumers’
satisfaction, behavioural loyalty and attitudinal loyalty. The aim of such models is to
predict overall satisfaction and both forms of loyalty with the previously identified
factors. For “private label-prone consumers”, the equations are as follows:
Satisfaction as the endogenous variable:

SAT i ¼b0 þ b1 SAVAS i þ b2 VVAS i þ b3 QVAS i þ b4 ASVAS i

ð1Þ
þ b5 CVAS i þ b6 EVAS i þ b7 SBVAS i þ 1i

where:
SATi is consumer satisfaction.
SAVASi is store atmosphere value-added services.
VVASi is variety value-added services.
QVASi is quality value-added services.

Findings Private label-prone consumers National brand-prone consumers

Number of underlying 7 5
factors identified
Availability of store brand Higher awareness: this store Lesser awareness: this store
attribute is perceived as one factor, attribute is perceived in
without any additional attributes combination with the variety value-
added services factor attributes
Customer attention Lesser awareness: valued together Higher awareness: uniquely
attributes with other store atmosphere perceived within a specific factor,
variables without any other attributes
Economic value attributes Higher awareness: good prices and Lesser awareness: whereas good
frequent sales promotions appear prices is perceived within the price
in the same factor and convenience value-added
Table V. services, frequent sales promotions
Summary of main form part of the incentive value-
findings added services
 ASVASi is additional services value-added services. Consumer
CVASi is convenience value-added services. satisfaction and
EVASi is economic value-added services. loyalty
SBVASi is store brand value-added services (SBVAS).
b0, b1, b2, 859
b3, b4, b5,
b6 , b 7 are the unknown parameters (to be estimated from the data).
1i error term to pick up any variation in the data unexplained by SAVASi,
VVASi, QVASi , ASVASi, CVASi, EVASi , or SBVASi.
Attitudinal loyalty as the endogenous variable:
ATLOY i ¼b0 þ b1 SAVAS i þ b2 VVAS i þ b3 QVAS i þ b4 ASVAS i
ð2Þ
þ b5 CVAS i þ b6 EVAS i þ b7 SBVAS i þ 1i
where:
ATLOYi is attitudinal loyalty.
SAVASi is store atmosphere value-added services.
VVASi is variety value-added services.
QVASi is quality value-added services.
ASVASi is additional services value-added services.
CVASi is convenience value-added services.
EVASi is economic value-added services.
SBVASi is store brand value-added services (SBVAS).
b0, b1, b2,
b3, b4, b5,
b6 , b 7 are the unknown parameters (to be estimated from the data).
1i error term to pick up any variation in the data unexplained by SAVASi,
VVASi, QVASi , ASVASi, CVASi, EVASi , or SBVASi.
Behavioural loyalty as the endogenous variable:
BELOY i ¼b0 þ b1 SAVAS i þ b2 VVAS i þ b3 QVAS i þ b4 ASVAS i
ð3Þ
þ b5 CVAS i þ b6 EVAS i þ b7 SBVAS i þ 1i
where:
BELOYi is behavioural loyalty.
SAVASi is store atmosphere value-added services.
VVASi is variety value-added services.
BFJ QVASi is quality value-added services.
116,5 ASVASi is additional services value-added services.
CVASi is convenience value-added services.
EVASi is economic value-added services.
860 SBVASi is store brand value-added services (SBVAS).
b0, b1, b2,
b3, b4, b5,
b6 , b 7 are the unknown parameters (to be estimated from the data).
1i error term to pick up any variation in the data unexplained by SAVASi,
VVASi, QVASi , ASVASi, CVASi, EVASi , or SBVASi.
For national brand-prone consumers, the parallel equations are as follows:
Satisfaction as the endogenous variable:
SAT i ¼b0 þ b1 VVAS i þ b2 QVAS i þ b3 IVAS i þ b4 CAVAS i
ð4Þ
þ b5 CVAS i þ 1i
where:
SATi is consumer satisfaction.
VVASi is variety value-added services.
QVASi is quality value-added services.
IVASi is incentive value-added services.
CAVASi is customer attention value-added services.
CVASi is convenience value-added services.
b0, b1, b2,
b3, b4, b5,
b6 , b 7 are the unknown parameters (to be estimated from the data).
1i error term to pick up any variation in the data unexplained by SAVASi,
VVASi, QVASi , ASVASi, CVASi, EVASi , or SBVASi.
Attitudinal loyalty as the endogenous variable:
ATLOY i ¼b0 þ b1 VVAS i þ b2 QVAS i þ b3 IVAS i þ b4 CAVAS i
ð5Þ
þ b5 CVAS i þ 1i
where:
ATLOYi is attitudinal loyalty.
VVASi is variety value-added services.
QVASi is quality value-added services.
 IVASi is incentive value-added services. Consumer
CAVASi is customer attention value-added services. satisfaction and
CVASi is convenience value-added services. loyalty
b0, b1, b2,
b3, b4, b5,
b6 , b 7 are the unknown parameters (to be estimated from the data).
861
1i error term to pick up any variation in the data unexplained by SAVASi,
VVASi, QVASi , ASVASi, CVASi, EVASi , or SBVASi.
Behavioural loyalty as the endogenous variable:

BELOY i ¼b0 þ b1 VVAS i þ b2 QVAS i þ b3 IVAS i þ b4 CAVAS i

ð6Þ
þ b5 CVAS i þ 1i

where:
BELOYi is behavioural loyalty.
VVASi is variety value-added services.
QVASi is quality value-added services.
IVASi is incentive value-added services.
CAVASi is customer attention value-added services.
CVASi is convenience value-added services.
b0, b1, b2,
b3, b4, b5,
b6 , b 7 are the unknown parameters (to be estimated from the data).
1i error term to pick up any variation in the data unexplained by SAVASi,
VVASi, QVASi , ASVASi, CVASi, EVASi , or SBVASi.
Table VI summarizes the R-square values and parameter estimates.
Table VII contains the parameter estimates obtained for all factors in all models
(private label- and national brand-prone consumers). Almost all the estimations are
significant and positive, which offers evidence of the vast manouvring capacity food

Model made for endogenous Estimation standard

variable R2 error

Private label-prone consumers Satisfaction 0.265 0.599

Attitudinal loyalty 0.210 0.938
Behavioural loyalty 0.279 0.872
National brand-prone consumers Satisfaction 0.292 0.589
Attitudinal loyalty 0.226 0.931 Table VI.
Behavioural loyalty 0.309 0.856 Model summary
 BFJ

862
116,5

Table VII.

explicative and
Relationship between

endogenous variables
National brand consumers Private label consumers
Estimated parameters Estimated parameters

Endogenous variable: satisfaction

Constant 4.261 * * * Constant 4.196 * * *
VVAS (variety value-added services) 0.084 * * SAVAS (store atmosphere value-added services) 0.193 * * *
QVAS (quality value-added services) 0.291 * * * VVAS (variety value-added services) 0.028
IVAS (incentive value-added services) 0.050 QVAS (quality value-added services) 0.177 * * *
CAVAS (customer attention value-added services) 0.105 * * * ASVAS (additional services value-added services) 2 0.036
CVAS (convenience value-added services) 0.142 * * * CVAS (convenience value-added services) 0.258 * * *
EVAS (economic value-added services) 0.087 * * *
SBVAS (store brand value-added services) 0.011
Endogenous variable: attitudinal loyalty
Constant 3.488 * * * Constant 3.408 * * *
VVAS (variety value-added services) 0.092 SAVAS (store atmosphere value-added services) 0.323 * * *
QVAS (quality value-added services) 0.337 * * * VVAS (variety value-added services) 0.068
IVAS (incentive value-added services) 0.150 * * * QVAS (quality value-added services) 0.307 * * *
CAVAS (customer attention value-added services) 0.261 * * * ASVAS (additional services value-added services) 2 0.032
CVAS (convenience value-added services) 0.143 * * * CVAS (convenience value-added services) 0.133 * * *
EVAS (economic value-added services) 0.192 * * *
SBVAS 2 0.022
Endogenous variable: behavioural loyalty
Constant 3.876 * * * Constant 3.978 * * *
VVAS (variety value-added services) 0.334 * * * SAVAS (store atmosphere value-added services) 0.202 * * *
QVAS (quality value-added services) 0.461 * * * VVAS (variety value-added services) 0.165 * * *
IVAS (incentive value-added services) 0.207 * * * QVAS (quality value-added services) 0.267 * * *
CAVAS (customer attention value-added services) 20.013 ASVAS (additional services value-added services) 2 0.015
CVAS (convenience value-added services) 0.097 * * CVAS (convenience value-added services) 0.328 * * *
EVAS (economic value-added services) 0.137 * * *
SBVAS (store brand value-added services) 0.092 * *
Notes: * p , 0:10; * * p , 0:05; * * * p , 0:01
retailers have, especially for attributes contained in the latter factors, to enhance Consumer
consumer satisfaction, atttitudinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty. satisfaction and
Among the private label-prone consumers specifically, we note that in the models for
satisfaction and attitudinal loyalty, only four factors significantly influence the loyalty
endogenous variables. However, in the model for behavioural loyalty, six factors exert
significant influences. This result is an indication of the greater manoeuvring room food
retailers have when aiming to reinforce behavioural loyalty among private-label 863
consumers. In this segment, food retailers should recognise the primary relevance of
CVAS, SAVAS, QVAS and EVAS factors, in that order. The most important factor
includes the convenience value-added services: CVAS not only influences all three
considered models but also has the greatest impact on satisfaction and behavioural
loyalty. Next, SAVAS, or store atsmosphere attributes, have the greatest effect on
attitudinal loyalty, the second strongest influence on satisfaction and the third most
prominent effect on behavioural loyalty. In addition, QVAS, pertaining to quality
attributes, influences all the models, with notable impacts for attitudinal and behavioural
loyalty (second most relevant) and for satisfaction (third most relevant factor). Finally, in
terms of its influence, the economic value-added services, or EVAS, rank third for
attitudinal loyalty, fourth for satisfaction, and fifth for behavioural loyalty.
In contrast, in the three models for national brand-prone consumers, the same
number of factors (4) always influences each endogenous variable. We observe slight
differences in the strongest factors across the endogenous variables, but we still can
affirm that QVAS is the most relevant contributor. It always ranks first, with
significant and positive influences on satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty and behavioural
loyalty. This clear indication of the importance that national brand-prone consumers
pay to the quality value-added attributes means that food retailers should ensure good
product quality, store cleanliness, good store lighting, product displays in the store, the
provision of products these customers need, good retailer reputation, and a store layout
oriented to facilitate purchases. Furthermore, though slightly lesser, the importance of
the CVAS factor containing convenience value-added services is clear, with a
significant and positive influence in all the models for national brand-prone consumers,
especially when satisfaction is the endogenous variable.
For this consumer segment, we also must note the limited relevance of the CAVAS
and VVAS factors. In each case, they are significant for two models: to the former
customer attention attributes for the satisfaction and attitudinal models; and the latter
variety value-added services for the satisfaction and behavioural loyalty models.
Whereas CAVAS ranks second for attitudinal loyalty, VVAS is the second-ranked
contributor to behavioural loyalty. Thus customer attention value-added services are
most important for enhancing attitudinal loyalty and ensuring that consumers develop
positive attitudes toward the retailer, whereas variety value-added services are more
important for enhancing behavioural loyalty. It is also interesting to note that the IVAS
factor, related to incentive attributes, is the third most important factor for atttitudinal
loyalty and behavioural loyalty.
In summary, the most influential factor among private label-prone consumers,
namely, the one related to the convenience value-added services, is not similarly
significant for these consumers. Its influence depends on the specific marketing
performance variable that serves as the endogenous variable, being higher on
satisfaction and behavioural loyalty; it was even the most relevant factor in those
BFJ models. For this reason, despite the relevance of convenience attributes to private-label
116,5 consumers (i.e. the store carries the products I need, proximity to home, store layout
oriented to facilitate purchases), to ensure their positive store attitudes and enhance
attitudinal loyalty, the retailer must also offer store cleanliness, good store lighting,
product displays in the store, customized customer attention, quick customer attention
and knowledge exhibited by personnel (i.e. elements of the SAVAS factor). Specifically,
864 to enhance private label-prone consumers’ satisfaction and loyalty, food retailers
should put special emphasis on the attributes of the store itself, especially those that
help provide a convenient purchasing experience and a nice atmosphere.
These findings are coherent with prior literature that suggests private labels
provide food distributors with the potential for offering customers benefits that they
value, some of which are not actually related to the private-label product itself but
instead might pertain to the product category or the store (Martı́nez-Ruiz and
Jimenez-Zarco, 2009). Such benefits also can facilitate consumers’ shopping
experiences in a pleasant store ambiance and help them make convenient purchases;
for example, they might entail the expansion of certain product categories by including
a more varied assortment or preventing stockouts (Fein, 2007). Therefore, the
possibilities for offering consumers the products they really desire increase. Private
labels also can convey a clearer store image (Corstjens and Lal, 2000), which should
facilitate store choice and improve purchasing experiences within the chosen store.
However, to attract national brand-prone consumers, food retailers must emphasise
attributes related mainly to the quality value-added services factor. For this segment,
quality exerts the highest impact, with independence of the marketing performance
variable serving as the endogenous variable. Thus, attributes such as good product
quality, good store lighting, product display in the store, the store carries the products I
need, good retailer reputation and store layout oriented to facilitate purchases are the
most influential with regard to satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty and behavioural loyalty.
To enhance national brand-prone consumers’ satisfaction and loyalty, food retailers
should emphasise aspects related to quality.
This finding also appears coherent with prior literature. Consumers frequently use
key aspects as signals to assess the quality of food products and make final food
product decisions, including brand advertising (e.g. Jones and Ward, 1989; Kaiser and
Liu, 1998; Tchumtchoua and Cotterill, 2010), brand names (e.g. Kirmani and Rao, 2000;
Rao and Monroe, 1989), product appearance (e.g. Dawar and Parker, 1992), product
labels (e.g. Hall and Winchester, 2000; Tootelian and Ross, 2000; Verdú Jover et al.,
2004), and product or retail reputation (e.g. Dawar and Parker, 1992; Thang and Tan,
2003). National brand food producers traditionally offer such quality arguments more
effectively as their primary commercial strategy, leading them to seek relationships
with food retailers that pursue similar orientations. Such quality arguments even have
endured during the recent global recession, as national brand manufacturers continue
to develop new strategies to protect their brands from private-label encroachment by
highlighting quality primarily (SymphonyIRI Group, 2012).
Table VIII presents a summary of the most important impacts of store factors.

4. Conclusions, further research and strategic implications

In practice, the competitive capacity of a retailer often depends on its knowledge of
customers, because such knowledge, together with its appropriate management,

Private label prone consumers
National brand prone consumers
Consumer
Endogenous variable of
the model Most impactful significant factor satisfaction and
Satisfaction CVAS (convenience value-added
loyalty
services)
Attitudinal loyalty SAVAS (store atmosphere-value
added services) 865
Behavioural loyalty CVAS (convenience value-added
services)
Satisfaction QVAS (quality value-added services)
Attitudinal loyalty QVAS (quality value-added services) Table VIII.
Behavioural loyalty QVAS (quality value-added services) Model summary

enables retailers to highlight the retail elements that are more valued. To do so, they
also need to understand the factors that underlie each element. Then they can design
and implement commercial strategies that strengthen their differentiation from
competitors.
Although several previous studies have identified store factors underlying those
attributes and their impacts on key marketing performance variables, such as
satisfaction and loyalty, investigations considering how their impact might change
with different types of consumer behaviour are less common – despite consumers’
diverging habits and increasing segment diversity. The growth of private-label
consumption in the past few decades, combined with the recent global economic
recession, has intensified this research demand even more dramatically.
Because the purchase of such brands is one of the most prominent tendencies in
modern consumer behaviour, we consider it imperative to study evaluations of store
attributes and their underlying store factors, as well as their different impacts on
performance variables. This research line becomes even more pertinent if we take into
account recent claims that suggest increasing numbers of consumers consuming
private-label food and beverage products but decreasing consumer enthusiasm for and
satisfaction with these value-oriented options. That evidence suggests the consumption
of private labels might be due to economic necessity, not a consolidating habit.
To identify which store factors underlie store attributes, as well as which ones
consumers value most in relation to their satisfaction, attitudinal loyalty and
behavioural loyalty, we conducted an empirical analysis. In addition to identifying key
store attributes from an in-depth literature review and detailing the factors that
underlie these attributes with a factorial analysis, our analysis recognises two
consumer segments: private label-prone and national brand-prone. This differentiation,
applied to a sample of 211 grocery consumers who purchased from various types of
food stores in a typical city in Spain, helps reveal the existence of variations in the
factor composition that reflect the brand proneness of consumers. Our results indicate
that private label-prone consumers identify more factors (i.e. seven); are more aware of
the availability of the store brand, to the extent that they consider it a separate factor,
as well as part of the economic value proposition offered by the grocery retailer; and
are less aware of the levels of customer attention provided by the distributor. In
contrast, national brand-prone consumers detect fewer factors (five); exhibit less
awareness of the availability of the store brand, which represents a mere variety
BFJ attribute, and of good prices, which constitute part of the convenience factor, together
116,5 with the location; and reveal a higher awareness of customer attention.
With parametric linear regression models for each consumer segments, we affirm
these differences. Among private label-prone consumers, more influential factors arise
in the behavioural loyalty model, which suggests more manoeuvring possibilities for
food retailers that want to reinforce these consumers’ behavioural loyalty. In addition,
866 food retailers should prioritise the convenience value-added services (CVAS), store
atmosphere value-added services (SAVAS), quality value-added-services (QVAS) and
economic value-added services (EVAS) factors in their stores, in this order, to attract
this consumer segment. Yet even the most influential factor has varying effects,
depending on the model, such that it is the most relevant factor for consumer
satisfaction and behavioural loyalty but less effective in terms of attitudinal loyalty.
Therefore, food retailers need to consider multiple factors to ensure positive outcomes
on all three performance variables. For the national brand-prone consumers, we again
observe slight differences in the factors that contribute most to each endogenous
variable, but overall, the quality value-added services (QVAS) is the most relevant:
These consumers want quality value-added attributes most.
Thus, to appeal to private label-prone consumers, food retailers should put
particular emphasis on the attributes of the store itself, especially those that enhance
convenience and the pleasantness of the store atmosphere. To attract national
brand-prone consumers, they need to highlight aspects related to quality. These
findings are generally coherent with our a priori expectations, as well as with relevant
literature, which provides several interesting insights. First, private labels provide
food distributors with a means for offering customers several benefits that go beyond
the private-label product itself and that can facilitate shopping experiences in a
pleasant store ambiance with the possibility of making convenient purchases. Second,
national brand food producers have traditionally offered quality arguments, in
accordance with their commercial strategies, which has led them to seek connections
with food retailers with coherent orientations.
From these results, several valid managerial recommendations emerge. We have
identified which factors the two consumers segments value most, so that managers can
use this study as a point of reference for designing their stores and allocating their
resources to specific attributes, in their efforts to maintain or improve their competitive
position in the market. In addition, by suggesting segmentation based on a key
consumer behaviour variable, this study provides additional value, in that it identifies
specific elements that will enable a grocery retailer to construct sustainable
competitive advantages and differentiation, depending on the type of establishment it
runs and the profiles of its target customers. Accordingly, these findings are essential
for food retailers, because they reveal all the factors they should be emphasising,
depending on the consumer segment they want to target, depending on brand type
pronenness, and the performance variable they hope to improve.
Of course, several questions still remain in relation to this topic. Additional research
should analyse the impact of the detected factors on the degree of satisfaction and
loyalty among customers toward specific commercial formats or even specific
establishments. Furthermore, it would be interesting to determine how the identified
factors influence the degree of selection of certain product categories, particularly in
research that considers the frequency of purchase as well.
Notes Consumer
1. Common research lines include analyses from the manufacturer point of view, such as: (a) satisfaction and
how to confront competition by private labels and (b) the appropriateness of participating in
the production of private labels; assessments from the distributor’s viewpoint, including (c) loyalty
the optimal strategy for private labels and (d) the advantages of carrying private labels; and
finally, analyses from the consumer point of view, related to (e) perceptions,
acknowledgement and acceptance of private labels and (f) characterisations of
private-label consumers. For a review, see Martı́nez-Ruiz and Jiménez-Zarco (2009).
867
2. This city has a population size representative of most Spanish cities (INE, 2010).

References
Ailawadi, K.L. and Keller, K.L. (2004), “Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and
research priorities”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 331-342.
Akbay, C. and Jones, E. (2005), “Food consumption behavior of socioeconomic groups for private
labels and national brands”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 621-631.
Ali, J., Kapoor, S. and Moorthy, J. (2010), “Buying behaviour of consumers for food products in an
emerging economy”, British Food Journal, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 109-124.
Anderson, E.W. (1996), “Customer satisfaction and price tolerance”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 19-30.
Baltas, G. (2005), “Exploring consumer differences in food demand: a stochastic frontier
approach”, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 9, pp. 685-692.
Bass, F.M. (1974), “The theory of stochastic preference and brand switching”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Bloemer, J. and de Ruyter, K. (1998), “On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction
and store loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 499-513.
Bodet, G. (2008), “Customer satisfaction and loyalty in service: two concepts, four constructs,
several relationships”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 156-162.
Chang, H.C. and Horng, D.J. (2010), “The high-quality low-price strategy in penetrating emerging
market: a case of Nokia’s business strategy in China”, Journal of International
Management Studies, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 37-43.
Cicchetti, D.V. (1994), “Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and
standardized assessment instruments in psychology”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 6
No. 4, pp. 284-290.
Corstjens, M. and Lal, R. (2000), “Building store loyalty through store brands”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 281-291.
Dawar, N. and Parker, P.H. (1992), “Cultural universals in marketing: a study of consumers’ use
of brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product
quality”, Working Paper, INSEAD 92/66/MKT, Fontainebleau, France.
Dick, A. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: Towards an integrated framework”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Eklöf, J., Hackl, P. and Westerlund, A. (1999), “On measuring interaction between customer
satisfaction and financial results”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. 514-522.
Fein, A.J. (2007), Facing the Forces of Change: Lead the Way in the Supply Chain, Wholesale
Distribution Trends Series, NAW Institute for Distribution Excellence.
BFJ Fogel, S., Lovallo, D. and Caringal, C. (2004), “Loss aversion for quality in consumer choice”,
Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 45-63.
116,5
Food Business News (2012), NPD: Private label food use up, satisfaction down, available at:
www.foodbusinessnews.net/News/News%20Home/Consumer%20Trends/2012/5/NPD%
20Private%20label%20food%20use%20up%20satisfaction%20down.aspx?cck¼1
(accessed 15 June 2012).
868 Fornell, C. (1992), “A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Fornell, C. (2007), The Satisfied Customer: Winners and Losers in the Battle for Buyer Preference,
Palgrave MacMillan, New York, NY.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996), “The American
customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60
No. 4, pp. 7-18.
Ganesh, J., Reynolds, K.E. and Luckett, M.G. (2007), “Retail patronage behavior and shopper
typologies: a replication and extension in a multi-format, multimethod approach”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 369-381.
Garretson, J.A., Fisher, D. and Burton, S. (2002), “Antecedents of private label attitude and
national brand promotion attitude: similarities and difference”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78
No. 2, pp. 91-101.
George, D. and Mallery, P. (1995), A Simple Guide and Reference, Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Belmont, CA.
George, D. and Mallery, P. (2003), SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference,
11.0 update (4th ed.), Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Gofton, L. and Ness, M. (1991), “Twin trends: health and convenience in food change or who
killed the lazy housewife?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 93 No. 7, pp. 17-23.
Gómez, M.I., McLauglin, E.W. and Wittink, D.R. (2004), “Customer satisfaction and retail sales
performance: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 265-278.
Guerrero, L., Colomer, Y., Guàrdia, M.D., Xicola, J. and Clotet, R. (2000), “Consumer attitude
towards storebrands”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 387-395.
Gupta, S. and Vajic, M. (2000), “The contextual and dialectical nature of experiences”,
in Fitzsimmons, J. and Fitzsimmons, M. (Eds), New Service Development – Creating
Memorable Experiences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 33-51.
Hackl, P., Scharitzer, D. and Zuba, R. (2000), “Customer satisfaction in the Austrian food retail
market”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 1 No. 7, pp. 999-1006.
Hale, T. (2010), How deep is your love? Progressive Grocer, available at: www.pgstorebrands.
com/article-how_deep_is_their_love_-1155.html (accessed 12 October 2011).
Hall, J. and Winchester, M.K. (2000), “What is really driving wine consumers?”, Australian and
New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 93-96.
Hutchins, R. and Dawson, A. (1998), Food Consumption ’98: The One-Stop Guide to the Good
Consumer 98, Institute of Grocery Distribution, Watford.
Instituto Nacional de Estadı́stica (INE) (2010), Cifras de población y censos demográficos,
available at: www.ine.es/inebmenu/mnu_cifraspob.html (accessed 12 October 2011).
Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978), Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management, John Wiley
and Sons, New York, NY.
Jones, E.R. and Ward, W. (1989), “Effectiveness of generic and brand advertising on fresh and Consumer
processed potato products”, Agribusiness, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 523-536.
satisfaction and
Kaiser, H.M. and Liu, D.J. (1998), “The effectiveness of generic versus brand advertising: the case
of U.S. dairy promotion”, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 69-79. loyalty
Kirmani, A. and Rao, A.R. (2000), “No pain, no gain: a critical review of the literature on signaling
unobservable product quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 66-79.
Kline, P. (1999), The Handbook of Psychological Testing, Routledge, London.
869
Kline, P. (2000), Handbook of Psychological Testing, Routledge, New York, NY.
Kumar, N. and Steenkamp, J.B. (2007), Private Label Strategy: How to Meet the Store Brand
Challenge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Lam, S.Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M.K. and Murthy, B. (2004), “Customer value, satisfaction,
loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to-business service context”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 293-311.
Manteca, V. (2007), “Tendencias actuales del comercio y del consumo. Resumen de las
conclusiones de un reciente informe del Consejo Económico y Social de Francia”,
Distribución y Marketing, Vol. 93, pp. 132-139.
Marketing News (2012), Las ventas de productos de gran consumo crecieron un 3% en 2011,
available at: www.marketingnews.es/tendencias/noticia/1064213029005/ventas-
productos-gran-consumo-crecieron-3-2011.1.html (accessed 11 June 2012).
Martı́nez-Ruiz, M.P. and Jiménez-Zarco, A.I. (2009), “Evolution and trends of private labels in
food markets: the Spanish situation”, Cuadernos de Gestión, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 73-88.
Martı́nez-Ruiz, M.P., Jiménez-Zarco, A.I. and Cascio, R. (2011), “Assessing the maximum level of
customer satisfaction in grocery stores: a comparison between Spain and the USA”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 504-521.
Martinez-Ruiz, M.P., Jimenez-Zarco, A.I. and Izquierdo-Yusta, A. (2010), “Customer satisfaction’s
key factors in Spanish grocery stores: evidence from hypermarkets and supermarkets”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 278-285.
Meyer-Waarden, L. (2008), “The influence of loyalty programme membership on customer
purchase behaviour”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 1/2, pp. 87-114.
Oliva, T.A., Oliver, R.L. and MacMillan, I.C. (1992), “A catastrophe model for developing service
satisfaction strategies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 83-95.
Pagans, E. and Pérez, J. (2012), La marca de distribuidor en España, un avance cualitativo, White
Paper, Symphony IRI Group, available at: http://recursos.anuncios.com/files/473/25.pdf
(accessed 21 June 2012).
Pauwels, K. and Srinivasan, S. (2004), “Who benefits from store brand entry?”, Marketing
Science, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 364-390.
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1989), “The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’
perceptions of product quality: an integrative review”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 351-357.
Rubio, N. and Yagüe, M.J. (2009), “Alternative panel models to evaluate the store brand market
share: evidence from the Spanish market”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 1/2,
pp. 110-138.
Rust, R.T. and Zahorik, A.J. (1993), “Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market
share”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 193-215.
BFJ Sethuraman, R. (2000), “What makes consumers pay more for national brands than for store
brands: image or quality”, working paper, MSI Report No 00-110, Marketing Science
116,5 Institute.
Shiu, E.C.C., Dawson, J.A. and Marshall, D.W. (2004), “Segmenting the convenience and health
trends in the British food market”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 106-127.
Sivadas, E. and Baker-Prewitt, J.L. (2000), “An examination of the relationship between service
870 quality, customer satisfaction, and store loyalty”, International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 73-82.
Söderlund, M. (2006), “Measuring customer loyalty with multi-item scales: a case for caution”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 76-98.
Spiller, A., Bolten, J. and Kennerknecht, R. (2006), “Customer satisfaction and loyalty as success
factors in organic food retailing”, paper presented at the 16th Annual World Forum and
Symposium Agribusiness, Food, Health, and Nutrition, IAMA Conference, June 10-13,
Buenos Aires (Argentina).
Sprott, D.E. and Shimp, T.A. (2004), “Using product sampling to augment the perceived quality
of store brands”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 305-315.
SymphonyIRI Group, 2012 (2012), Reversal of fortune: National brands pick up gains on private
label, Times & Trends Paper Series, SymphonyIRI Group, available at: www.
symphonyiri.com/portals/0/articlePdfs/T_T%20November%202012%20Private%20
Label_Final.pdf (accessed 4 January 2013).
Tchumtchoua, S. and Cotterill, R.W. (2010), Optimal Brand and Generic Advertising Policies in a
Dynamic Differentiated Product Oligopoly, Vol. 126, Food Marketing Policy Center,
University of Connecticut Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Research
Report No. 126, March.
Thang, D.C.L. and Tan, B.L.B. (2003), “Linking consumer perception to preference of retail stores:
an empirical assessment of the multi-attributes of store image”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 193-200.
Theodoridis, P.K. and Chatzipanagiotou, K.C. (2009), “Store image attributes and customer
satisfaction across different customer profiles within the supermarket sector in Greece”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 5/6, pp. 708-734.
Tootelian, D.H. and Ross, K. (2000), “Product labels: what information do consumers want and
will they believe it?”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Tranberg, H. and Hansen, F. (1986), “Patterns of brand loyalty: their determinants and their role
of leading brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 20 Nos 3/4, pp. 81-109.
Verdú Jover, A.J., Lloréns Montes, F.J. and Fuentes Fuentes, M.M. (2004), “Measuring perceptions
of quality in food products: the case of red wine”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15,
pp. 453-469.
Verhoef, P.C., Antonides, G. and de Hoog, A.N. (2004), “Service encounters as a sequence of
events: the importance of peak experience”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 53-64.
Yoon, S. and Kim, J. (2000), “An empirical validation of a loyalty model based on expectation
disconfirmation”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 120-126.
Yu, Y.T. and Dean, A. (2001), “The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty”,
International Journal of Service Industries Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 234-250.
About the authors Consumer
Marı́a Pilar Martı́nez-Ruiz is an Associate Professor of Marketing in the Business Management
Department at UCLM (University of Castilla-La Mancha). She is a PhD in Economics and satisfaction and
Business Sciences from the UCLM. Her main areas of research interest are concerned with loyalty
product innovation, use of TIC in retail distribution, food retailing and marketing
communications.
Pablo Ruiz-Palomino is an Associate Professor of Business Administration at UCLM. He has
a PhD in Management by UCLM and has been recently awarded the 2009 MSD-FORETICA prize 871
in business ethics research. His current research interests are focused on business ethics, food
retailing, wine tourism and social capital.
Ricardo Martı́nez-Cañas is an Associate Professor of Business Administration at UCLM. He
has been a research visiting scholar at MIoIR (Manchester Institute of Innovation Research) at
the Manchester Business School. He has a PhD in Management by UCLM. His current research
interests are focused on social capital, business ethics and food retailing. Ricardo Martinez-Canas
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ricardo.martinez@uclm.es
Juan José Blázquez-Resino is an Associate Professor of Marketing in the Business
Management Department at UCLM (University of Castilla-La Mancha). He is a PhD in
Economics and Business Sciences from the UCLM. His main areas of research interest are
concerned with marketing communications, food retailing and tourism.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints