Journal of Product & Brand Management

Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty in the supermarket industry
Arthur W. Allaway Patricia Huddleston Judith Whipple Alexander E. Ellinger
Article information:
To cite this document:
Arthur W. Allaway Patricia Huddleston Judith Whipple Alexander E. Ellinger, (2011),"Customer-based brand equity, equity
drivers, and customer loyalty in the supermarket industry", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Iss 3 pp. 190 - 204
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111134923
Downloaded on: 04 October 2016, At: 01:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 21 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 11178 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)

(2004),"The importance of brand equity to customer loyalty", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 Iss 4 pp.
217-227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420410546934
(2005),"Does brand trust matter to brand equity?", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 Iss 3 pp. 187-196
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601058
(2012),"Consumer-based brand equity and top-of-mind awareness: a cross-country analysis", Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 21 Iss 6 pp. 439-451 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421211264928

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:333301 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers,
and customer loyalty in the supermarket
industry
Arthur W. Allaway
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA
Patricia Huddleston and Judith Whipple
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA, and
Alexander E. Ellinger
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to measure consumer-based brand equity in the supermarket industry and to identify the strategy drivers
associated with levels of brand equity for consumers’ typically patronized supermarkets.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)

Design/methodology/approach – A nine state survey of consumers was conducted to provide brand equity ratings of 22 national, regional, and
specialty supermarket brands.
Findings – Factor analysis yields two brand equity outcome dimensions and eight brand equity drivers. A large proportion of consumers clearly have
strong feelings about the supermarkets they patronize, and that effort expended in keeping customers, service level, and product quality and
assortment appear to be basic requirements for achieving high levels of consumer-based brand equity. The top supermarket brands typically score
highly on at least one other key driver of equity. Supermarket brands that use formal loyalty programs to drive patronage in general have lower levels of
customer-based brand equity.
Research limitations/implications – Selection of designated supermarkets was limited by spatial distribution in the geographic area. The sample is
more affluent and educated than the general US population.
Practical implications – As retailers search for ways to compete more effectively for consumer dollars and loyalty, they need to explore in more detail
the customer-based brand equity and the drivers of customer equity associated with their retail brands.
Originality/value – This paper is the first to link consumer-based brand equity and the supermarket branding efforts that drive it for specific retail
brands. In an industry with numerous choices in nearly all market areas and low switching costs, successful branding can translate into emotional
commitment, shopping loyalty, and even person-to-person promotion of the brand to others.

Keywords Brand equity, Supermarkets, Surveys, Factor analysis, Brand management, United States of America

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
One of the most visible themes in the marketing literature in
recent years has been a merging of the research streams
linking consumer-based brand equity, customer equity, and
loyalty. Customer-based brand equity involves the set of
memory-based associations to a particular brand that exist in
the minds of consumers (Keller, 2003). Customer equity is
defined as the value of the customer to the brand (Rust et al.,
2004; Blattberg and Deighton, 1996). Both brand equity and
customer equity emphasize the importance of customer
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
20/3 (2011) 190– 204
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610421111134923]
loyalty (Leone et al., 2006). Customer loyalty generates
numerous benefits for a brand and is a focus of increasing
numbers of marketing strategies (Jacoby and Chestnut,
1978). Customers who are loyal to a particular brand buy
more, are willing to pay higher prices and generate positive
word of mouth (Reichheld, 1993; Wright and Sparks, 1999;
Zeithaml et al., 1996).
Nowhere is the merging of these research streams more
evident than in retailing. Customer loyalty is a critical goal for
retailers because of an increasingly competitive retail
environment and low customer switching costs (Wallace
et al., 2004). The rise of the retailer as a brand is one of the
most important trends in retailing (Grewal et al., 2004).
Successful retail branding can be extremely important in
helping influence consumer perceptions and drive store
choice and loyalty (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004).
Customer relationships and the supermarket
industry
The retail grocery industry in the US is a $500 billion dollar
industry, and has been the subject of extensive research over
the history of the marketing literature. Indeed, much of the

190
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty
Arthur W. Allaway et al.
literature that forms the theory base of marketing was
generated by research done in the grocery industry.
With the average consumer visiting a grocery store more
than once every week, the relationships among consumers and
their grocery stores are among the most ubiquitous and visible
in society. In addition, the supermarket industry is
experiencing a period of significant change. There has been
a high level of consolidation of brands in the industry as well
as a dramatic rise in competition for traditional supermarkets
from supercenters such as Wal-Mart and Target and specialty
stores such as Whole Foods Market (Kleinberger and
Badgett, 2007). In fact, one of the strongest brand images
in the grocery industry currently belongs to Whole Foods
Market, which has “reshaped the supermarket experience”
(Reyes, 2005).
One response among traditional supermarket chains to the
increased competition from supercenters and specialty
supermarkets has been the creation of customer-centered
marketing efforts such as loyalty card programs. However,
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)
although loyalty programs are spreading across the grocery
landscape loyalty card programs do not seem to yield results
in terms of increased loyalty (Bellizzi and Bristol, 2004). A
2007 IBM survey found that nearly half of grocery customers
carry a negative attitude toward their grocer (Kleinberger and
Badgett, 2007).
Customer-based brand equity for supermarkets
As grocers search for ways to compete more effectively for
consumer dollars and loyalty, they need to explore in much
more detail the customer-based brand equity and the drivers
of customer equity associated with their retail brands.
Customer-based retail brand equity involves a “shortcut” in
the minds of consumers that recalls from memory the most
salient positive elements of satisfaction with past shopping
experiences and goods purchased, which in turn influences
future patronage and minimizes the potential influence of
competitor efforts (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004). In the grocery
industry, customer-based brand equity is the result of a
supermarket chain’s total brand-building efforts over time,
which involves the daily implementation of the marketing
message through numerous service, product, price, and
promotion decisions which are experienced in the stores by
consumers. Supermarkets offer a variety of goods and services
simultaneously so that the “shopping experience” can be as
important to the customer as differences in the physical
characteristics of the goods (Gomez et al., 2004).
Drivers of supermarket brand equity
Researchers are relatively consistent about the basic
dimensions of retail strategy that underlie the building of
successful relationships between customers and their retail
brands. The store patronage, loyalty, literature, brand and
customer equity, and strategy literatures all yield potential
drivers of supermarket brand equity. Pan and Zinkhan (2006)
categorize patronage-driving characteristics into product-
relevant factors such as product quality and price, market-
relevant factors such as the service provided by the store, and
personal factors. Ailawadi and Keller (2004) identify five
main dimensions of store image (access, in-store atmosphere,
price and promotion, cross-category assortment, and within-
category assortment) that form the basis for their measures of
191
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204
consumer-based retail brand equity. Gomez et al. (2004)
identify a range of items associated with customer service,
quality, and value that drive customer satisfaction in the
supermarket sector.
Keller and Lehmann (2006) call for further research in
branding which ties “what companies do” to “what customers
think and feel about the brand” and “what customers do”
with respect to the brand. Actions that retail firms take to
improve their brand equity for consumers include customer
service training of personnel, store layout, promotion,
location, pricing, product quality, product assortment,
loyalty programs, and community involvement. Consumers
then react to these store branding efforts over time by
building up sets of shortcut feelings about the store that
influence their behaviors toward the brand and its competitors
in a market.
While there may be universal drivers of equity, the entire
field of market segmentation is based on the fact that there
will be different groups of consumers who are driven by
different combinations of brand factors, and that there can be
similar total levels of customer-based brand equity across
retail brands in a category for very different reasons. Different
combinations of equity drivers may be the key that can allow
specific supermarkets to identify their own unique sources of
distinct competency to mitigate the effects of competition and
survive.
Research questions
This research is an effort to measure consumer-based brand
equity in the supermarket industry and to identify the strategy
drivers associated with various levels of brand equity for
consumers’ typically patronized supermarkets. In addition, we
search for levels of customer-based brand equity and the
particular drivers of brand equity associated with specific
national, regional, and specialty supermarket chains.
Specifically, we pose the following research questions:
.
Are there identifiable dimensions of customer-based
brand equity in the supermarket industry?
.
If so, are there also identifiable drivers of customer-based
brand equity in the supermarket industry?
. Do national supermarket chains have high, low, or similar
levels of customer-based brand equity compared to
regional chains and specialty grocery chains?
.
At a finer degree of detail, which supermarket brands have
earned the highest levels of customer-based brand equity?
.
Among national regional, and specialty supermarket
chains, are there differences in the drivers of customer-
based brand equity which provide a source of specific
competitive advantage for certain brands?
.
What is the relationship between customer-based brand
equity and patronage?
Research methodology
Targeting the dimensions of retail strategy discussed above, a
Likert scale-based questionnaire based on standard research
procedures (Churchill, 1979) was developed from previously
validated scales, and adapted to a grocery setting. The survey
was pretested among graduate students and academicians
familiar with food store retailing and items that were
confusing or unnecessary were eliminated. Respondents
were given the opportunity to rate a conventional
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty
Arthur W. Allaway et al.
supermarket patronized most often, a specialty supermarket
patronized most often (among specialty grocery stores), or
one of each.
To provide an anchor point for assessing the consumer-
based brand equity of national, regional, and specialty
supermarkets, we chose to sample consumers where we
know that one consistent brand was present in each of their
market areas. A mailing list of US households in ten states was
purchased specifically in zip codes where a Whole Foods
Market was located. Questionnaires were sent to 4,500
households. A total of 105 surveys were non-deliverable and
ten were deemed unusable. A total of 659 usable
questionnaires were returned providing a response rate of 15
percent. Of that total sample, 630 respondents completed the
survey with respect to conventional stores, and 494
respondents completed the survey with respect to specialty
stores – roughly 70 percent of respondents completed the
survey with respect to shopping experiences at both types of
stores.
Non-response bias was evaluated using comparisons of
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)
early and late responders as recommended by Armstrong
and Overton (1977). No significant differences between the
respondent groups were found with respect to shopping
behaviors (e.g. shopping frequency), demographics, or
across the items included in this paper. The sample was
39.3 percent male and 60.7 percent female. Nearly 34
percent of the sample was between the ages of 35 and 54.
Roughly 43 percent were between the ages of 55-74, about
8 percent were between the ages of 18 and 34, and 15
percent were over the age of 75. The majority of the sample
was highly educated: 28.9 percent had a bachelor’s degree
and 41.6 percent had a graduate or professional degree.
Our sample was also affluent, with an average household
income of more than $80,000 per year (39.2 percent).
These characteristics are consistent with the geographic
areas from which the sample was drawn.
Among the 22 chains rated by a sufficient number of
respondents for the analysis were three nationally recognized
supermarket brands and one supercenter (Wal-Mart), 16
regional brands, and three specialty foods brands. The
analysis focuses on the brands rather than their ownership, as
several of the regional brands are owned by one of the
national brands. For the purposes of this research we assume
that regional brands owned by national brands such as Tom
Thumb, Vons’s, and Randall’s (owned by Safeway) and
Ralphs (owned by Kroger) are thought of as regional brands
by their customers. Although the Safeway and Albertson’s
names brands are now only used in the western region of the
US, we treat them as national brands because of their past
presence in large areas of the nation and the familiarity
people have with the names. As Wal-Mart’s customer
shopping characteristics matched those of the national
chains, it was included in that group for the analysis.
Dimensions of customer-based brand equity
The conventional supermarket data and the specialty
supermarket data were initially subjected to factor analysis
separately to explore the structure of the data. The results
showed that the same factors were associated with consumer
equity across store types, thus, factor analysis was rerun on
the entire set of perceptions of the national, regional, and
specialty supermarket brands. A total of 67 scale items yielded
192
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204
ten significant factors, two brand equity outcome factors and
eight brand equity drivers.
Two factors were clearly associated with brand equity
and loyalty outcomes. Based on its loadings, the first was
titled “emotional loyalty.” As shown in Table I, it accounts
for 12.2 percent of the variance in the data and loads
highly on a set of variables which include “I care about
the long term success of this store,” “I have faith in this
store,” “I feel loyal to this store,” and “I am very
committed to this store.” This factor includes most of the
typically used descriptors of desired brand equity
outcomes. One of the strongest possible customer
relationship variables in use today loads on this factor,
which is “I encourage friends to go to this store.” Based
on these findings, it appears that the sampled population
definitely has strong feelings about loyalty and commitment
relative to their supermarkets.
Interestingly, a second distinct outcome factor emerged
from the data. Based on its loadings, this factor was titled
“fanaticism.” As shown in Table II, it accounts for 7.9 percent
of the variance in the data and loads highly on such variables
as “I would not switch from this store under any
circumstances,” “if competitors’ stores are more
conveniently located I still shop at my selected store,” “I am
willing to pay a higher price for the products/services I
currently receive from this store,” and “I am willing to ‘go the
extra mile’ to remain a customer of this store.” These
variables indicate a level of brand equity such that consumers
choose not to even consider shopping at other stores besides
their favorite store.
These two outcome factors indicate that customer-based
brand equity clearly does exist in the supermarket industry,
and that the choice to continue shopping at a particular
supermarket involves much more than just location and
prices. It is evident from the findings above that emotion and
involvement are important to consumers, and that grocery
retailers that tap into those emotions have the opportunity to
build much stronger brands than those who simply focus on
providing groceries.
Table I Outcome factor 1
Factor loadings on
Emotional loyalty original variables
I care about the long-term success of this store 0.763
I have faith in this store 0.757
This store gives me a feeling of confidence 0.744
I trust this store 0.699
I would expend effort on behalf of this store to
help it succeed 0.648
I say positive things about this store to others 0.632
I am “emotionally attached” to the store 0.627
I feel loyal to this store 0.624
I have a sense of belonging to this store 0.605
I will recommend this store to someone who
seeks advice 0.595
I am very committed to this store 0.571
I encourage friends to go to this store 0.514
Notes: Eigenvalue: 8.64; percent of variance explained: 12.17
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty Journal of Product & Brand Management
Arthur W. Allaway et al. Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204

Table II Outcome factor 2
Factor loadings on
Fanaticism
I would not switch from this store under any
circumstances
There are certain products I exclusively
purchase at this store no matter what the price
is
If competitors’ stores are more conveniently
located I still shop at my selected store
Even if this store were more difficult to reach, I
would keep buying there
I only buy from my selected store
I am willing to pay a higher price for the
products/services I currently receive from this
store
I am willing to ”go the extra mile” to remain a
customer of this store
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)
employees at this store are polite to me,” and “this store has
an adequate number of employees available to help me.” This
factor has very important implications for retail branding
original variables efforts, since it impacts hiring and training programs as well as
store management decisions and day-to-day employee
0.666 motivation. The second set of closely related variables
involves the levels of service offered by the supermarket,
specifically “the store is service oriented,” and “in general, I
0.664 am satisfied with the service offered at this store.” Another
variable which loads on this service level factor is “my
0.644
shopping experiences at this store have always been pleasant,”
which appears based on the loadings to be based largely on
high levels of customer service.
0.639
The second driver (Table IV), product quality and
0.600
assortment, explains 8.5 percent of the variance in the data
and is characterized by high loadings on product quality
variables such as “the products at this store are of high
0.590 quality,” “this store has good quality merchandise,” and “I
shop this store because its products are superior to its
0.584

competitors,” and on assortment-centered variables such as

Notes: Eigenvalue: 5.60; percent of variance explained: 7.89
Drivers of brand equity for supermarkets
After identifying the two dimensions of customer-based brand
equity outcomes, the next stage of the analysis is to attempt to
identify drivers associated with these outcome dimensions.
Drivers of customer-based brand equity involve supermarket
strategies aimed at enhancing the shopping experience of their
customers in pursuit of consumer loyalty and increased
revenue. The following drivers were identified in the factor
analysis, and are ranked by percent of variance explained in
the data. Based on their factor loadings, these drivers are
named service level, product quality and assortment,
programs for rewarding patronage, effort expended in
keeping customers, prices, layout, location, and community
involvement.
The first such driver, service level, explains 8.9 percent of
the variance in the data and is characterized by high loadings
on two related sets of very specific service-centered variables.
The first set includes variables related to the employees of the
retailer (Table III). These include “this store has helpful
employees,” “this store has friendly employees,” “the
Table III Equity driver 1
Factor loadings on
Service level original variables
This store has helpful employees 0.813
This store has friendly employees 0.810
The employees at this store(s) are polite to me 0.761
This store has an adequate number of
employees available to assist me 0.710
This store is service oriented 0.698
In general, I am satisfied with the service
offered at this store 0.681
My shopping experiences at this store have
always been pleasant 0.578
Notes: Eigenvalue: 6.28; percent of variance explained: 8.85
“this store has the right merchandise selection,” “this store
has an extensive assortment of products,” and “this store is
well stocked across its different departments.” Although there
are no surprises, the fact that both of these first factors appear
much more important than price is relevant to retailers
interested in building brand equity in their customer bases.
The next two drivers of customer-based brand equity for
supermarkets deal with the formal and informal programs the
retailer has put in place to reward customers for choosing to
shop there. The first, titled “Programs for rewarding
patronage,” explains 5.6 percent of the variance in the data
and loads highly on such variables as “this store offers rewards
(such as future use coupons) to customers for their
patronage,” “this store offers customers something extra if
they keep buying there,” “this store offers discounts to
customers for their patronage,” and “this store offers an
attractive loyalty program” (Table V). Interestingly, these
promotion-centered activities load on a different factor than
general price levels.
Table IV Equity driver 2
Factor loadings on
Product quality and assortment original variables
The products at this store are of high quality 0.709
The products at this store are very satisfactory
compared to other stores 0.680
This store has good quality merchandise 0.667
I shop this store because its products are
superior to its competitors 0.617
The store has products that are not available at
other stores 0.593
This store has the right merchandise selection 0.589
This store is well stocked across its different
departments 0.558
The store offers the assortment of products I
am looking for 0.529
This store has an extensive assortment of
products 0.522
Notes: Eigenvalue: 6.05; percent of variance explained: 8.53

193
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty
Arthur W. Allaway et al.
Table V Equity driver 3
Factor loadings on
Programs for rewarding patronage original variables
This store offers rewards (such as future use
coupons) to customers for their patronage 0.866
This store offers customers something extra if
they keep buying there 0.851
This store offers discounts to customers for
their patronage 0.840
This store offers an attractive loyalty program 0.795
This store often offers sale items 0.536
Notes: Eigenvalue: 3.997; percent of variance explained: 5.63
The next factor, titled “Effort expended in keeping
customers,” explains 5.0 percent of the variance in the data
and loads on more informal and intangible variables related to
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)
how hard the store tries to build regular ties with its customer
base and how satisfied the respondent is with those efforts
(Table VI). These variables include “this store makes an effort
to increase customer loyalty,” “this store makes various efforts
to improve its tie to regular customers,” “I am happy with the
efforts that this store is making toward keeping me as a
customer,” and “I am satisfied with the relationship I have
with this store.”
The next factor, which explains 4.1 percent of the variance
in the data, is the prices driver of customer-based brand
equity of supermarket brands (Table VII). Its relative low
ranking as a driver relative to the service and product drivers
discussed above is interesting. The variables loading on this
factor include “I am satisfied with the general price level of
merchandise at this store,” “this store provides a good value
for the money,” and “I am satisfied with the price/quality ratio
offered at this store.” This relatively low ranking may be
related to the generally more affluent demographic areas from
which the sample was drawn, or it may be that customer-
based brand equity is more strongly tied to non-price variables
more than to price variables.
The layout factor, explaining 3.3 percent of the variance in
the data, loads highly on four variables typically associated
Table VI Equity driver 4
Factor loadings on
Effort expended in keeping customers original variables
This store makes various efforts to improve its
tie to regular customers 0.758
This store really cares about keeping their
customers 0.693
This store makes an effort to increase customer
loyalty 0.691
I am happy with the efforts that this store is
making toward keeping me as a customer 0.672
I am satisfied with the relationship I have with
this store 0.540
As a regular customer, I have a high-quality
relationship with this store 0.502
Notes: Eigenvalue: 3.57; percent of variance explained: 5.03
194
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204
Table VII Equity driver 5
Factor loadings on
Prices original variables
I am satisfied with the general price level of
merchandise at this store 0.831
This store provides a good value for the money 0.819
I am satisfied with the price/quality ratio
offered at this store 0.795
Notes: Eigenvalue: 2.89; percent of variance explained: 4.07
with supermarket evaluation, including “finding the products
I need is easy,” “the width of the aisles at this store allows for
easy cart navigation,” “it is easy to locate the different
departments within this store,” and “this store has a pleasing
layout.” While these do not appear to be the most important
drivers of customer-based brand equity, it is still important for
retail brand management efforts to keep them in
consideration (Table VIII).
It is understandable that the location factor, as a separate
element of the strategy mix from such in-store characteristics
as service, quality, and loyalty-enhancing programs and
efforts, would be less tied to consumer-based brand equity
than those factors. However, location decisions that match
market segments of interest with access to the in-store
characteristics that build brand equity for those segments are
critical to supermarket chain success. Explaining 3.1 percent
of the variance in the data, the variables which load highly on
the location factor include “this store is located where it can
be easily reached”, and “I am satisfied with the location of this
store” (Table IX). Since consumers typically have driving
access to more than one supermarket brand in their area, the
building of brand equity is the key to making distance less
important. If different supermarket options in an area have
Table VIII Equity driver 6
Factor loadings on
Layout original variables
Finding the products I need is easy 0.685
The width of the aisles at this store allows for
easy cart navigation 0.650
It is easy to locate the different departments
within this store 0.599
This store has a pleasing layout 0.568
Notes: Eigenvalue: 2.32; percent of variance explained: 3.26
Table IX Equity driver 7
Factor loadings on
Location original variables
This store is located where it can be easily
reached 0.759
I am satisfied with the location of this store 0.738
Notes: Eigenvalue: 2.175; percent of variance explained: 3.06
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty
Arthur W. Allaway et al.
indistinguishable levels of equity-building characteristics,
distance becomes the only differentiating characteristic.
The last significant factor derived from the factor analysis,
explaining 2.1 percent of the variance in the data, is
community involvement (Table X). While not a critical
driver of brand equity for supermarkets, it could provide a
source of competitive advantage in cases where a supermarket
brand has no other truly distinguishing advantages over
competition. There are enough respondents who feel that it is
important to make it statistically significant. The variables
which load highly on this factor include “this store provides
benefits to my local community,” and “this store offers
educational services (i.e. cooking classes or other social
activities) that I can participate in.”
Summated scales – brand equity measures and
drivers
Based on the factor analysis above, the scale items loading on
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)
both the consumer-based brand equity outcome factors and
the drivers of equity were summated into new variables by
averaging the rating scores for each person on each factor
(Hair et al., 2010, p. 124). These were named with the same
titles as the factors they represent. Then, since the
supermarket brands in each state varied widely, a check on
consistency in ratings was performed by testing the mean
summated scale scores of Whole Foods Market by state. If
ratings of Whole Foods differ significantly by state, there
could be a state bias which might affect our ability to compare
different supermarket brands. However, there was only one
significant difference (0.05) across the states, the location
dimension, which is apparently an indicator of different sized
zip codes and travel difficulties in different areas.
Predictive modeling of customer-based brand
equity outcomes
We employ a stepwise regression model to investigate the
relationship between customer-based brand equity outcomes
and the strategy-based equity drivers, which allows us to
estimate predictive ability and also assess the order of entry of
the drivers as a surrogate for their relative importance in
driving the emotional loyalty and fanaticism. As shown in
Table XI, the brand equity driver with the highest
differentiating power among supermarket brands for both
the emotional loyalty and fanaticism dimensions is effort
expended in keeping customers. This driver is comprised of
the informal and intangible variables related to how hard the
store tries to build regular ties with its customer base and how
Table X Equity driver 8
Factor loadings on
Community involvement original variables
This store provides benefits to my local
community 0.600
This store offers educational services (i.e.
cooking classes or other social activities) that I
can participate in 0.606
Notes: Eigenvalue: 1.51; percent of variance explained: 2.13
195
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204
satisfied the respondent is with those efforts. Product quality
and assortment and service level and community efforts and
prices are all positive predictors of emotional loyalty.
However, the programs for rewarding patronage driver is
negatively related to emotional loyalty and to fanaticism. This
appears to lend support to the Bellizzi and Bristol (2004)
findings that loyalty card programs do not seem to yield
results in terms of increased loyalty. The fanaticism model, in
addition to the efforts driver, shows a positive relationship
between product quality and assortment and community
efforts, but not, interestingly enough, service level.
Customer-based brand equity of supermarket
types
Our next set of analyses examines how the levels of customer-
based brand equity vary across supermarket types and brands.
We first examine average customer-based brand equity levels
of national chain brands versus regional chain brands and
specialty chain brands (Table XII). The national brands,
based on their name recognition, their ability to grow to and
keep national stature, and their size and marketing power,
should be expected to have strong scores on consumer-based
brand equity. On the emotional loyalty dimension, however,
an ANOVA test shows that the national brand group has far
lower scores (p ¼ 0:00) on consumer-based brand equity
(3.07 out of a possible 5) than either the regional brand chain
group (3.34) or the specialty chain group (3.83). These scale
items tap into consumer feelings of trust, loyalty,
commitment, and willingness to recommend the brand to a
friend. On the fanaticism dimension, although the scores are
lower across the board than the emotional loyalty scores, the
specialty supermarket chains garnered much higher
fanaticism ratings (3.03) than the national (2.31) and
regional (2.40) brands on such consumer feelings as
willingness to pay more, willingness to travel further, and
unwillingness to switch.
Customer-based brand equity of supermarket
brands
Table XIII shows the rankings of the supermarket brands
rated by the sampled population. For emotional loyalty, two
specialty supermarkets rank first and second. Trader Joe’s is a
privately held chain of specialty grocery stores mainly in
California but with locations in 24 other states. Trader Joe’s
offers a wide range of bulk products, store brands, and unique
shopping experiences. Central market is a division of HEB in
Texas that offers a similar natural foods-centered concept to
Whole Foods Market. Both Central Market and Whole Foods
Market offer product assortments very similar to those of
traditional supermarkets rather than a reduced “specialty”
selection, and as such, have the potential to serve as the sole
supplier of supermarket items for households in their trade
areas. Following those two are three dominant regional
supermarket brands, Meijer in the Midwest, Publix in the
Southeast, and Harris Teeter in the Mid-Atlantic States.
Following Whole Foods Market in the number six spot are
two more regional chains. HEB is a dominant privately owned
supermarket brand in Texas. Tom Thumb is the first brand on
the list that is owned by a national chain, which since 1999
has been owned by Safeway. Wal-Mart follows as the first of
the national brands on the emotional loyalty dimension of
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty Journal of Product & Brand Management
Arthur W. Allaway et al. Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204

Table XI Predictive modeling of customer-based brand equity outcomes

Unstandardized coefficients
Order entered B Std error t Sig.
Emotional loyalty
(Constant) 2 0.688 0.136 25.049 0.000
Efforts 1 0.505 0.028 17.868 0.000
Product 2 0.336 0.041 8.244 0.000
Service level 3 0.213 0.037 5.802 0.000
Programs 4 2 0.075 0.018 24.227 0.000
Community 5 0.071 0.018 3.991 0.000
Prices 6 0.064 0.025 2.585 0.010

Model
R square 0.64
Adjusted R square 0.64
Std error of the estimate 0.56
F 270.13
Sig. 0.00
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)

Fanaticism
(Constant) 2 0.480 0.171 22.811 0.005
Efforts 1 0.441 0.034 12.793 0.000
Product 2 0.437 0.046 9.600 0.000
Programs 3 2 0.103 0.024 24.333 0.000
Community 4 0.066 0.024 2.789 0.005

Model
R square 0.40
Adjusted R square 0.40
Std error of the estimate 0.75
F 149.18
Sig. 0.00

Table XII Brand equity outcomes by supermarket type Table XIII Emotional loyalty scores by supermarket brand
Supermarket type Emotional loyalty Fanaticism Supermarket brand Geography Emotional loyalty score
National brands 3.073 2.311 Trader Joe’s (specialty) Multistate 3.991
Regional brands 3.340 2.397 Central Market (specialty) Texas 3.922
Specialty brands 3.826 3.026 Meijer (regional) Midwest 3.875
Publix (regional) Southeast 3.798
Harris Teeter (regional) East Central 3.607
consumer-based brand equity. Two regional divisions of Whole Foods (specialty) Multistate 3.564
Safeway, Dominick’s and Von’s, are next before the first HEB (regional) Texas 3.366
traditional national supermarket brand, Kroger. Near the Tom Thumb (regional) Texas 3.283
bottom of the list are three more regional chains as well as Wal-Mart (national) Multistate 3.269
Safeway and Albertsons, which are both traditional Dominick’s (regional) Midwest 3.217
supermarket national brands. Vons (regional) California 3.170
The fanaticism dimension shows a similar pattern of brand Kroger (national) Multistate 3.100
rankings but with interesting differences from the emotional ShopRite (regional) Northeast 3.073
loyalty dimension (Table XIV). Although fanaticism scores in Jewel-Osco (regional) Midwest 3.049
general are significantly lower than emotional loyalty scores, Safeway (national) Multistate 3.042
most of the same brands stand out. Central Market has the Ralphs (regional) California 2.959
highest score on the fanaticism dimension, but is followed by Albertson’s (national) Multistate 2.882
Publix. Publix is the largest employee-owned supermarket
chain in the USA, and, according to a 2007 IBM study, was
rated “best in class” and had a “customer advocacy” rating
(the percent of customers who serve as advocates of the store) This fanaticism ranking is much higher than Wal-Mart’s
just below the leader Wegman’s and just above Whole Foods ranking on the emotional loyalty dimension. As above, the
Market (Kleinberger and Badgett, 2007). Whole Foods is fifth national brand supermarket chains are near the bottom of the
on our fanaticism dimension, but is followed by Wal-Mart. fanaticism list, with little difference between the 2.27

196
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty Journal of Product & Brand Management
Arthur W. Allaway et al. Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204

Table XIV Fanaticism scores by supermarket brand and Meijer). Interestingly, three national chains (Kroger, Wal-
Mart, and Albertson’s) are rated as the bottom three on the
Supermarket brand Geography Fanaticism score service level driver.
Central Market (specialty) Texas 3.250 The programs for rewarding patronage driver refers to
Publix (regional) Southeast 3.016 formal programs for rewarding patronage. On the programs
Trader Joe’s (specialty) Multistate 2.970 driver, the rankings change radically from those above. Each
Harris Teeter (regional) East Central 2.874 of the highest ranking supermarket brands on programs is
known for its loyalty programs for its customers. Several of
Whole Foods (specialty) Multistate 2.858
the highest ranking brands on programs are divisions of
Wal-Mart (national) Multistate 2.651
Safeway. Most of the high ranking chains on previous drivers
Meijer (regional) Midwest 2.590
are at the bottom of the list in terms of their customer loyalty-
Tom Thumb (regional) Texas 2.348
enhancing programs, and Wal-Mart is last, just below Whole
Jewel-Osco (regional) Midwest 2.320 Foods Market. Based on the results of the regression model,
HEB (regional) Texas 2.311 chains ranking high on this driver in general have lower levels
Safeway (national) Western 2.267 of customer-based brand equity. Only Harris Teeter of the
Kroger (national) Multistate 2.199 three highly ranked regional chains above remains high on the
ShopRite (regional) Northeast 2.170 programs driver. Harris Teeter offered one of the first formal
Vons (regional) California 2.161 loyalty card programs in the nation, The “very important
Albertson’s (national) Multistate 2.126 customer” program.
Dominick’s (regional) Midwest 2.105 On the prices driver, Wal-Mart leads the rankings, which is
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)

Ralphs (regional) California 2.076
fanaticism score of Safeway, the 2.20 score of Kroger, and the
2.13 score of Albertson’s.
Drivers of customer-based brand equity in the
supermarket industry
As brands in a crowded marketplace evolve, they typically
seek to differentiate themselves from competitors by investing
in one or more equity drivers that they feel can provide them
with a competitive advantage in serving specific customer
segments. In the supermarket industry, the brands that rank
highest on the most important drivers of customer-based
brand equity would seem to be those that have been most
successful at brand-building. Table XV summarizes these
comparisons.
From the modeling results, it appears that the most
important driver of differences among the supermarket chains
on customer-based brand equity is effort expended in keeping
customers. This driver taps into the informal efforts made by
the different supermarket chains to create relationships with
their customers. On the efforts driver of equity, Harris Teeter
leads the list of supermarket brands, followed by Trader Joe’s
and Publix, with Meijer again in the top group. Interestingly,
both Safeway and Albertson’s are in the top half of the list
ahead of Whole Foods Market. Kroger and Wal-Mart take up
two of the lowest three spots on the efforts driver.
On the product driver, the three specialty brands lead the
list, with Whole Foods second behind Central Market and
ahead of Trader Joe’s. Following are several strong regional
chains including Meijer, Harris Teeter, Publix, and HEB,
with Wal-Mart in the middle of the list. The three national
brands (Safeway, Kroger, and Albertson’s) are near the
bottom of the list on product quality and assortment ratings.
The supermarket chains ranked most highly on service level
appear to have been successful at both training their
employees to value customer service and creating a brand
image associated with high service. The top six supermarket
chains on service level include the three specialty brands
(Trader Joe’s, Central Market, and Whole Foods) and three
strong regional supermarket brands (Harris Teeter, Publix,
logical given its reputation for low prices. Lowest prices have
been the basis for Wal-Mart’s success and are responsible for
its current spot as the largest seller of groceries in the nation.
Interestingly, many of the independently owned regional
chains appear in the top half of the list, including Meijer,
HEB, and Publix. Noteworthy as well, Safeway and
Albertson’s are rated as near the bottom in terms of the
price driver. At the very bottom of the list, however, is Whole
Foods Market, apparently perceived by the sampled
population as the highest priced brand in their shopping area.
For the layout driver, the familiar three independent
regional chains, Meijer, Publix, and Harris Teeter lead the list
of supermarket brands, followed by three regional divisions of
national chains. The three specialty chains were rated near the
bottom of the rankings, as were the Safeway and Albertsons
brands. Interestingly, HEB was rated nearly last on the store
layout driver.
On the location driver, Safeway has the number one
position in the rankings, followed by seven regional brand
supermarkets. Not surprisingly with their smaller numbers of
stores, Wal-Mart and the specialty supermarkets rank in the
second half of the list. However, it is hard to make too many
judgments about the location driver because of the nature of
the sampling plan for this study.
Finally, on the community driver, Central Market, the HEB
specialty supermarket brand, is significantly higher than the
number two brand Whole Foods. As with many of the drivers
of equity, the rest of the top half of the list is dominated by
strong regional brands. Wal-Mart and, interestingly enough,
Trader Joe’s, take up two of the lowest three spots on the
community list.
Discussion
Based on the results of this study, it is evident that there are
large differences in the levels of consumer-based brand equity
earned by supermarket chains. However, several supermarket
brands who have earned similarly high total scores on
consumer-based brand equity have created those levels with
their own unique combinations of equity drivers.
First, for the specialty chains (Whole Foods, Central
Market, and Trader Joe’s), each of the three is ranked in the
top six chains on both the emotional loyalty dimension and

197
 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)

Table XV Equity drivers by supermarket brand

Arthur W. Allaway et al.

Efforts Service level Product Programs Prices Layout Location Community

Harris Teeter (3.795) Trader Joe’s (4.490) Central Market (4.425) Harris Teeter (3.744) Wal-Mart (4.556) Meijer (4.203) Safeway (4.759) Central Market (3.794)
Trader Joe’s (3.744) Central Market (4.454) Whole Foods (4.337) Dominick’s (3.725) Meijer (4.489) Publix (4.191) Meijer (4.750) Whole Foods (2.741)
Publix (3.583) Harris Teeter (4.345) Trader Joe’s (4.321) Vons (3.722) Trader Joe’s (4.417) Harris Teeter (4.173) Dominick’s (4.656) HEB (2.679)
Safeway (3.575) Whole Foods (4.269) Meijer (4.178) ShopRite (3.688) HEB (4.376) Dominick’s (4.094) HEB (4.581) ShopRite (2.633)
Meijer (3.542) Publix (4.265) Harris Teeter (4.160) Safeway (3.655) ShopRite (4.157) Ralphs (4.087) Publix (4.577) Meijer (2.594)
Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty

Central Market (3.451) Meijer (4.241) Publix (4.022) Ralphs (3.551) Publix (4.128) Vons (4.037) Harris Teeter (4.558) Tom Thumb (2.412)
Vons (3.433) Vons (4.132) HEB (3.869) Kroger (3.523) Jewel-Osco (3.886) ShopRite (4.016) Ralphs (4.545) Publix (2.385)
Tom Thumb (3.396) Safeway (4.067) Vons (3.751) Albertson’s (3.497) Harris Teeter (3.846) Kroger (3.973) Vons (4.463) Harris Teeter (2.340)

198
Albertson’s (3.297) HEB (4.062) Wal-Mart (3.741) Jewel-Osco (3.455) Kroger (3.759) Wal-Mart (3.972) Jewel-Osco (4.455) Kroger (2.149)
HEB (3.247) ShopRite (3.908) ShopRite (3.722) Tom Thumb (3.353) Central Market (3.745) Jewel-Osco (3.926) Wal-Mart (4.444) Vons (2.019)
Jewel-Osco (3.233) Dominick’s (3.902) Jewel-Osco (3.709) Meijer (2.900) Vons (3.741) Albertson’s (3.924) Albertson’s (4.426) Jewel-Osco (1.977)
Whole Foods (3.227) Ralphs (3.886) Kroger (3.671) Central Market (2.565) Dominick’s (3.711) Central Market (3.897) Whole Foods (4.379) Safeway (1.897)
ShopRite (3.219) Jewel-Osco (3.880) Ralphs (3.650) HEB (2.421) Albertson’s (3.657) Trader Joe’s (3.862) ShopRite (4.353) Albertson’s (1.867)
Dominick’s (3.208) Tom Thumb (3.875) Safeway (3.583) Publix (2.376) Safeway (3.644) Whole Foods (3.862) Kroger (4.309) Ralphs (1.854)
Kroger (3.181) Kroger (3.875) Dominick’s (3.521) Trader Joe’s (1.888) Tom Thumb (3.569) Safeway (3.817) Trader Joe’s (4.265) Wal-Mart (1.833)
Ralphs (3.169) Wal-Mart (3.825) Tom Thumb (3.507) Whole Foods (1.797) Ralphs (3.490) HEB (3.815) Tom Thumb (4.176) Trader Joe’s (1.800)
Wal-Mart (2.870) Albertson’s (3.797) Albertson’s (3.451) Wal-Mart (1.667) Whole Foods (3.332) Tom Thumb (3.688) Central Market (4.118) Dominick’s (1.531)
Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204
Journal of Product & Brand Management
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty
Arthur W. Allaway et al.
the Fanaticism dimension of consumer-based brand equity.
The three as a group also rank highest on the product driver
of equity and also very highly on the service driver. Trader
Joe’s ranks high on the price driver but low on community.
Whole Foods and Central Market rank at and near the
bottom of the prices driver respectively but at the top of the
community driver. Trader Joe’s ranks much higher than the
other two specialty chains on the effort driver. In fact, Whole
Foods ranks near the bottom of the list in terms of customer
perceptions of effort, the informal attempts it makes to
promote loyalty and relationships with its customers. Overall,
it seems clear that very high product and service drivers are
the basis for the high rankings overall for the specialty
supermarkets, with Trader Joe’s also getting a boost from a
better prices rating and a higher efforts rating.
For the purely regional brands, there is a wide range of
difference in ratings on the two dimensions of customer-based
brand equity. The “big three” seem to be Meijer, Publix, and
Harris Teeter, followed closely by HEB. Meijer is the highest
of this group on the emotional loyalty dimension, and Publix
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)
is number two overall on the fanaticism dimension. Meijer is
rated second behind Wal-Mart on the price driver, with
Publix and Harris Teeter in the top half but not close to
Meijer. Harris Teeter is number one on the programs driver
and on the efforts driver. Publix and Harris Teeter follow
closely on the efforts driver, but are in the lower half of the
rankings in terms of programs, the formal loyalty and other
programs designed to drive patronage. HEB follows Meijer
closely on the prices driver but varies widely on some of the
other drivers. What these four regional chains have in
common is that they are independently owned (not a division
of a larger chain) and they have grown organically from a
single regional base. According to the 2010 National Grocer’s
Association consumer survey report, regional chains are
“nimbler than their larger competitors, are often homegrown
local favorites, and are deeply rooted in the communities that
they serve” (National Grocers Association, 2010). These top
chains appear to be acting on those advantages, with strong
consumer-based brand equity ratings, in many cases, even
higher than the specialty supermarkets.
For the other regional chains, the results are more
disappointing. Tom Thumb and Jewel-Osco rank higher on
the fanaticism dimension of consumer-based brand equity
than HEB, but do not stand out on the emotional loyalty
dimension or on any of the drivers of brand equity. ShopRite,
a grocery cooperative out of New Jersey that serves several
states in the Northeast, rates well on the programs and prices
drivers, but poorly on both dimensions of consumer-based
brand equity. The supermarket brands which are regional
divisions of Kroger, SuperValu, and Safeway generally do
poorly on the consumer-based brand equity outcome
measures as well as the drivers of brand equity, except for
programs (because of their loyalty card systems).
The nationally recognized supermarket brands, except for
supercenter Wal-Mart, score near the bottom of the list on
both outcome dimensions of consumer-based brand equity
and on most of the drivers of brand equity as well. Safeway
ranks high on programs and moderately high on efforts, but
low on product quality and prices. Kroger and Albertson’s
never appear near the top of the ratings on any dimension or
driver of equity. Wal-Mart is unique. Wal-Mart is in the top
six brands in fanaticism, but ranks very poorly in service,
programs, and efforts, and in the middle of the field in
199
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204
product. The key to its popularity is simply the fact that is
rates number one on the prices driver. Overall, it appears that
consumers simply do not have strong feelings for the national
chains, although they do for both their regional chains and the
specialty chains.
Consumer-based brand equity and actual
patronage behaviors
Although the objective of this study was not to gather detailed
information on actual marketplace behaviors, customer
reports of patronage frequency and spending per visit can
serve as surrogates for shopping behaviors, realizing that
locations and the total number of branded stores in each area
drive a great deal of patronage decisions as well.
Of the two dimensions of customer-based brand equity,
only the emotional loyalty dimension is statistically related to
the difference in patronage frequency among chains (Table
XVI). The fanaticism ratings do not change very much at all
as patronage frequency goes from twice a week to less than
once a month.
Patronage frequency and supermarket type
For our sampled population, the frequency of shopping and
spending per trip varied significantly between the specialty
foods brands and the regional and national brands (Table
XVII). For national brands, 31.12 percent of respondents
visited their supermarket twice a week, with an additional
47.25 percent shopping once a week. Similarly, 36.95 of
regional brand respondents visited their supermarket twice a
week, with an additional 47.1 shopping once a week.
However, despite widespread discussion of the increased
popularity of natural foods shopping, only 12.79 percent of
the sample responded that they shopped at a specialty foods
retailer twice a week and an additional 24.85 percent shopped
once a week, 23.19 percent shopped once every two weeks,
and 24.9 percent shopped approximately once a month.
Supermarket brands and patronage frequency
Interestingly, as shown below, Safeway and Publix are a very
close number one and two in terms of the percentage of its
customers who visit their store twice a week (Table XVIII).
For emotional loyalty dimension of customer-based brand
equity, Safeway ranks third to the lowest, and on the
fanaticism dimension it ranks in the lower half. Publix, on the
other hand, ranks very high on both the emotional loyalty and
fanaticism dimensions of customer-based brand equity.
Safeway has high rankings on formal loyalty programs,
informal efforts to increase loyalty, and location. Publix ranks
very high on several of the drivers of equity, and almost equal
in terms of shopping visits per week without a formal loyalty
program. However, Publix is rated very highly on the efforts
driver that captures informal efforts at relationship building
by the chain. After those two, no other supermarket chain has
over half of its consumers that report visiting twice a week.
HEB leads Meijer and Harris Teeter by a significant margin,
although if “twice a week” and “once a week” shopping is
combined there is a smaller difference.
And while the specialty supermarkets have by far the lowest
patronage frequency, over 40 percent of respondents do visit a
specialty supermarket at least once a week.
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty Journal of Product & Brand Management
Arthur W. Allaway et al. Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204

Table XVI Consumer-based brand equity and shopping frequency

Dimension Twice a week Once a week Every two weeks Once a month Less than once a month Sig.
Emotional loyalty 3.554 3.458 3.369 3.432 3.179 0.041
Fanaticism 2.728 2.584 2.609 2.617 2.467 0.220

Table XVII Patronage frequency by supermarket type

Dimension Twice a week Once a week Every two weeks Once a month Less than once a month
National brands 31.12 47.25 19.94 2.53 0.00
Regional brands 36.95 47.10 13.82 7.68 2.61
Specialty brands 12.79 24.85 23.19 24.90 14.27

Table XVIII Patronage frequency by supermarket brand

Percent of shoppers visiting Percent of shoppers visiting Percent of shoppers visiting
twice a week once a week less than once a week
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)

Safeway (national) 56.67 33.33 10.00

Publix (regional) 56.60 37.74 5.66
Tom Thumb (regional) 47.06 35.29 17.65
HEB (regional) 45.16 48.39 6.45
Vons (regional) 40.74 37.04 22.22
Jewel-Osco (regional) 36.36 38.64 25.00
ShopRite (regional) 35.29 52.94 11.76
Wal-Mart (national) 33.33 44.44 22.22
Albertson’s (national) 32.35 44.12 23.53
Meijer (regional) 31.25 56.25 12.50
Harris Teeter (regional) 30.77 53.85 15.38
Kroger (national) 27.66 53.19 19.15
Ralphs (regional) 24.24 46.97 28.79
Dominick’s (regional) 18.75 56.25 25.00
Whole Foods (specialty) 18.23 27.09 54.68
Central Market (specialty) 17.65 23.53 58.82
Trader Joe’s (specialty) 15.29 30.59 54.12

Spending per visit and supermarket type
The dollars per trip table (Table XIX) is largely displayed
largely for interest, since dollars spent interacts with the
number of trips per week (shown above). In addition, the
location and market penetration strategies of the various
chains are likely to determine dollars per visit more than does
consumer-based brand equity. However, spending reports by
our sample follow the same pattern as patronage. For national
chains, an average of 29.75 percent of respondents spent less
than $50 dollars per trip while 51.2 percent spent between
$50 and $100. For regional chains, these figures were 39.4
percent less than $50 and 47.8 percent between $50 and
$100. For specialty chains, 52.4 percent spent less than $50
per trip and an additional 35.2 percent spent between $50
and $100.
Wal-Mart is by far the leader in dollars spent per trip.
However, since Wal-Mart is a supercenter with many more
product categories than a supermarket, this is logical. The
regional and national supermarket chains exhibit a variety of
dollar per visit levels, with Harris Teeter, Publix, and HEB in
the top five (Table XX). What is most interesting among the
sampled population is the low spending levels per trip at the
specialty supermarket chains, especially since they also have
the least frequent visits. Over 57 percent of Whole Foods
Market customers purchased less than $50 per trip, with
another 34.5 percent purchasing between $50 and $100.

Table XIX Spending per visit by supermarket type

Percent of shoppers spending Percent of shoppers spending Percent of shoppers spending
less than $50 per visit between $51 and $100 per visit more than $100 per visit
National brands 29.75 51.17 22.50
Regional brands 39.37 47.78 23.13
Specialty brands 52.38 35.02 13.99

200
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty Journal of Product & Brand Management
Arthur W. Allaway et al. Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204

Table XX Spending per visit by supermarket type

Percent of shoppers spending Percent of shoppers spending Percent of shoppers spending
less than $50 per visit between $51 and $100 per visit more than $100 per visit
Wal-Mart 11.11 66.67 22.22
Shop-Rite 17.65 58.82 23.53
Harris Teeter 23.08 69.23 7.69
Publix 28.30 58.49 13.21
HEB 32.26 61.29 6.45
Vons 33.33 55.56 11.11
Safeway 36.67 50.00 10.00
Kroger 36.96 45.65 15.22
Meijer 37.50 43.75 18.75
Jewel-Osco 40.91 45.45 11.36
Albertsons 41.18 41.18 14.71
Dominick’s 46.67 33.33 20.00
Trader Joe’s 47.06 41.18 9.41
Ralph’s 50.00 40.91 9.09
Central Market 52.94 29.41 17.65
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)

Tom Thumb 52.94 35.29 5.88

Whole Foods 57.14 34.48 5.91

Interestingly, these results occurred even though the sample
was drawn from zip codes in which a Whole Foods Market
was located. Clearly, the “specialty” in specialty supermarkets
does apply, even though both Whole Foods Market and
Central Market carry a full supermarket product assortment.
It appears from the data that the majority of grocery shopping
still takes place in traditional supermarkets even among
consumers who patronize specialty grocers on a relatively
regular basis and feel much stronger about their specialty
grocers than they do about their traditional supermarket.
Across the board, the actual shopping behaviors of the
sampled population indicate much higher frequencies of
shopping and dollars spent per visit at the national and
regional brand supermarkets compared to the specialty
supermarkets. What is surprising about those findings is
that they fly in the face of the very high levels of both the
emotional loyalty and fanaticism dimensions of customer-
based brand equity found for those specialty chains. Reasons
for this disconnect might be found by looking at the drivers of
equity as they differ across the store groups. Across the board,
the specialty brands are weakest compared to the national and
regional brands on three dimensions: programs (designed to
promote loyalty such as discount coupons and loyalty cards),
prices, and location. Central Market, with its small number of
locations, ranks dead last on the location driver. With
generally fewer numbers of specialty supermarkets in most
markets, the location issue is logical except for the fact that
the sample was drawn specifically from areas with relatively
easy (zip code) access to the largest specialty supermarket
chain in the nation. Both Whole Foods and Central Market
rank very low on the programs driver and the price driver.
Whole Foods Market appears to suffer most from the
perception that it is very high priced compared to competing
supermarkets, ranking dead last on the price driver. However,
both Whole Foods and Central Market rank high on both
outcome dimensions of customer-based brand equity as well
as the two most important drivers of equity. Apparently,
wishing a brand well and being devoted to it as a concept does
not compel shoppers to spend the majority of their time and
dollars there.
Implications for branding strategy
This study contributes important findings relative to the
strategic brand equity-building efforts of the major players in
the supermarket industry and the effects of those efforts on
the consumers’ attitudes toward their supermarket brands. A
large proportion of consumers clearly have strong feelings
about the supermarkets they patronize. In an industry with
numerous choices in nearly all market areas and low switching
costs, these feelings can translate into shopping loyalty, higher
levels of spending, and even person-to-person promotion of
the brand to others.
The clear branding winners in this study appear to be the
home-grown regional chains. Each of the four independently
owned regional chains, Publix, Harris Teeter, HEB, and
Meijer, ranks in the top half of all chains on the emotional
loyalty outcome dimension of consumer-based brand equity,
and three of the four (not HEB) rank in the top half on the
fanaticism dimension. In addition, they rank highly on the
service level and product quality and assortment drivers of
equity in addition to their own unique “other” drivers which
help form the image of their brand in the minds of consumers.
These brands also rank high on actual patronage behaviors.
For other chains, the key finding seems to be that high
scores on the dimensions of consumer-based brand equity
require high scores on both the service level and product
quality dimensions as well, plus some other combination of
drivers to differentiate the brand from competitors. The
exception is Wal-Mart, whose dominance on the price driver
of equity more than overcomes its low scores on other drivers.
In terms of actual patronage, however, the programs driver
(which includes loyalty programs and similar efforts) appears
to help chains like Safeway and Kroger (and their divisions)
overcome perceptions of poor service and/or product quality
and achieve higher numbers of trips and spending than most

201
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty
Arthur W. Allaway et al.
of the chains with higher scores on the two outcome
dimensions of consumer-based brand equity.
For the supermarket brands that do not seem to stand out
in the minds of customers, this study shows that there are
equity drivers that have the potential to raise the levels of
consumer-based brand equity. However, for some drivers,
change is a very expensive proposition. Development of a
formal loyalty program, for example, can cost many millions
of dollars. Changing product quality and assortment and
changing pricing can likewise prove very expensive. On the
other hand, the importance to consumers of high service
levels and informal efforts at maintaining customer
relationships can be addressed much more inexpensively
with customer service training and with consistent
promotional messages.
As discussed at the outset, customer-based brand equity in
the supermarket industry is the result of a supermarket chain’s
total brand-building efforts over time, which involves the daily
implementation of the marketing message through service,
product, price, and promotion decisions which are
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)
experienced in the stores by consumers. Emotional loyalty,
and to a lesser degree fanaticism, are based on these efforts.
We found several chains with very similar levels of overall
consumer-based brand equity have built those levels with
different strategies. Clearly, service and product quality are
important to consumer-based brand equity across the board.
However, some chains differentiate themselves with very high
levels of those equity drivers. Other chains differentiate
themselves with formal programs to promote shopping
frequency, others with informal efforts at building customer
loyalty. The combination of low prices and formal loyalty
programs seems to drive a significant amount of actual
shopping behaviors. These unique combinations of equity
drivers pinpoint specific supermarkets unique sources of
distinct competency based and verify the existence of different
consumer segments that are driven by different combinations
of brand factors.
Limitations and directions for further research
As with nearly all research, this study has limitations.
Although the multistate sampling plan was specifically
designed to keep one highly recognized retail brand (Whole
Foods Market) in the consideration set of all potential
respondents, the choice of supermarkets to rate was left up to
the sampled consumers. As such, most respondents selected
their most typically shopped store(s), which is, to a significant
extent, a function of the spatial distribution of brands in their
areas. In addition, because of the relatively upscale nature of
the areas surrounding most Whole Foods locations, the
sample is not generalizable to the typical US supermarket
shopper population. Also, because of the geographic
distribution of retail supermarket brands, most consumers
had never shopped in the stores of regional chains outside
their own market areas.
There are significant opportunities to continue and expand
research into the effects of supermarket brand equity-building
efforts on consumer commitment and patronage. One future
research project in the area of supermarket retailing and brand
equity might involve sampling from areas with both the same
and unique brands present. Another would be to concentrate
on details of actual shopping behaviors rather than attitudes.
Another would focus on less affluent consumers to see if there
202
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204
are significant differences between consumers who can afford
to choose grocers based on service and product quality and
those who might be forced to choose based on price.
Based on the results above, we would expect that the
findings in additional studies will reveal that emotion and
involvement are important to supermarket consumers just as
they are to consumers of other types of retail categories (and
product categories), and that supermarket retailers that tap
into those emotions have the opportunity to build much
stronger brands than those who simply focus on providing
groceries.
References
Ailawadi, K.L. and Keller, K.L. (2004), “Understanding
retail branding: conceptual insights and research priorities”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80, pp. 331-42.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating
nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 14, pp. 396-402.
Bellizzi, J.A. and Bristol, T. (2004), “An assessment of
supermarket loyalty cards in one major US market”,
The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 Nos 2/3, p. 144.
Blattberg, R.C. and Deighton, J. (1996), “Manage marketing
by the customer equity test”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 136-44.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.
Gomez, M.I., McLaughlin, E.W. and Wittink, D.R. (2004),
“Customer satisfaction and retail sales performance:
an empirical investigation”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80,
pp. 265-78.
Grewal, D., Levy, M. and Lehmann, D. (2004), “Retail
branding and loyalty: an overview”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. ix-xii.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E.
(2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978), Brand Loyalty
Management and Measurement, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed., Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and
branding: research findings and future priorities”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740-59.
Kleinberger, H. and Badgett, M. (2007), “Why advocacy
matters to grocers”, 2007 IBM Institute for Business Value,
Customer-focused Grocer Study.
Leone, R.P., Rao, V.R., Keller, K.L., Luo, A.M., McAlister,
L. and Srivasta, R. (2006), “Linking brand equity to
customer equity”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 125-38.
National Grocers Association (2010), “Consumer survey
report”, National Grocers Association and Consumer
Insight.
Pan, Y. and Zinkhan, G. (2006), “Determinants of retail
patronage: a meta-analytical perspective”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 229-43.
Reichheld, F.F. (1993), “Loyalty-based management”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 64-73.
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty
Arthur W. Allaway et al.
Reyes, S. (2005), “For shoppers, it’s love”, Brandweek,
Vol. 46, p. 36.
Rust, R.T., Lemon, K.N. and Zeithaml, V.A. (2004), “Return
on marketing: using customer equity to focus marketing
strategy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 109-27.
Wallace, D.W., Giese, J.L. and Johnson, L. (2004),
“Customer retailer loyalty in the context of multiple
channel strategies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80, pp. 249-63.
Wright, C. and Sparks, L. (1999), “Loyalty saturation in
retailing: exploring the end of retail loyalty cards?”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 429-40.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The
behavioral consequences of service quality”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 31-46.
Corresponding author
Arthur W. Allaway can be contacted at: aallaway@cba.ua.edu
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.
In the USA, grocery retailing is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Significant developments in the industry include brand
consolidation, increased prevalence of store brands and
intense competition for conventional supermarkets in the
shape of supercenters like Wal-Mart and Target.
Given these developments, finding effective ways to attract
customers and secure their loyalty is crucial for retailers. It is
proven that loyal customers benefit an organization in ways
that include purchasing more, a willingness to pay higher
prices and positive word-of-mouth (WOM) recommendation.
Retailers must therefore acquire knowledge of what drives
customer-based brand equity that is created through various
“memory-based associations” people develop about a specific
brand. Customer recall of positive past shopping experiences
influences their future patronage and makes them less
susceptible to competitor advances.
Equity is driven by factors that are personal, product or
market-related and include such as quality, price and the
service provided by the store. Retailers can influence
customer-based brand equity over time through various
decisions and activities associated with staff customer service
training, promotions, product variety, store layout and
involvement in the local community. Drivers of equity are
essentially universal but the importance afforded to them
might vary according to each consumer segment. The goal for
any retailer should be to determine the ideal combination of
factors that maximize consumer-based brand equity and help
to successfully confront the challenges posed by rivals.
In the present study, Allaway et al. examine consumer-
based brand equity and aim to identify its key factors for
typical supermarket patrons. A comparison of equity levels
and drivers for national, regional and specialty supermarket
chains is additionally carried out. The authors distributed a
203
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204
questionnaire to consumers obtained from a mailing list and
based in areas where supermarket brands enjoy a strong
presence. A final sample of 659 was obtained, with the
majority being well-educated and affluent. The demographic
profile of respondents was consistent with the areas where the
sample was obtained.
Participants reported shopping experience in either
conventional or specialty stores but around 70 percent
could relate to both types of retail outlet. Sufficient data was
obtained for 22 chains including three nationally recognized
brands, 16 regional brands and three specialty food brands.
Data analysis revealed two factors consistently linked with
brand equity and customer loyalty. The first is labeled
“emotional loyalty” as it reveals a strong attachment to a
particular supermarket brand. Such consumers typically
encourage others to patronize the store. Allaway et al. define
the second factor as “fanaticism” to reflect consumer resolve
to stay loyal to their favorite store and refuse to consider
shopping elsewhere.
Study findings supported earlier research by identifying
various key drivers of these brand-equity outcomes:
.
Service. The shopping experience is enhanced if a store
has a sufficient number of employees who are friendly,
polite and helpful.
. Product. Respondents believe that products should be of
high quality and superior to those offered by rival stores.
Variety across all departments is also important.
.
Customer reward programs. People believe that stores
should formally and informally acknowledge their
patronage through reward schemes that might include
coupons, discounts and relevant loyalty programs.
.
Effort to retain customers. The indication here is that
consumers are impressed with supermarkets that try hard
to build ties with them.
.
Price. Its ratio to quality was seen as important.
.
Layout. Comments here related to departments and
products being easy to find.
.
Location. The appeal of stores increases when they are
within easy reach.
. Community involvement. Consumers are impressed with
supermarkets that benefit their local community through
such as educational or social initiatives.
For both emotional loyalty and fanaticism, respondents
indicated that effort to retain customers is most important.
Product, service, community involvement and prices also
impacted on the emotional loyalty dimension. That findings
likewise reveal the relative insignificance of customer rewards
shows agreement with other studies.
It was presupposed that size, profile and marketing power
would mean that national brands rated strongly on consumer-
based brand equity. However, these supermarkets scored
below both regional and specialty stores on both emotional
loyalty and fanaticism dimensions. A comprehensive analysis
was also carried out to rank the 22 supermarket chains with
regard to each equity driver. Indications are that certain
brands focus more on specific areas. Another finding was that
the three specialty brands are among the top scorers for
service.
Considerable differences in customer-based brand equity
levels were evident here. It was also apparent that
supermarket chains achieving high equity scores did so with
 Customer-based brand equity, equity drivers, and customer loyalty
Arthur W. Allaway et al.
“unique combinations of equity drivers”. The authors noted
that:
. For specialty stores, high ratings were mainly due to
product and service drivers.
. Disparity exists among regional brands for both emotional
loyalty and fanaticism. The four independently owned-
ones generally performed better and this could be
attributed to being of genuine local origin, strong
community presence and more nimble than larger rivals.
Supermarkets which are regional divisions of national
concerns generally rate much lower.
.
National brands rank very low for the two dimensions of
customer-based brand equity and most brand equity
drivers. Notable findings here included Safeway’s high
rating for customer rewards and Wal-Mart’s for price,
which is considered key to the chain’s popularity. Overall,
though, Allaway et al conclude that consumer feelings are
much stronger towards specialty and regional stores than
to national operators.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)
The authors also note that patronage decisions can be
influenced by location and the “total number of branded
stores” in an area. Differences in patronage frequency are also
related to emotional loyalty but not to the fanaticism
dimension. Results indicated that shopping frequency and
amount spent was higher for national and regional chains than
for specialty brands. A reason forwarded for this that specialty
stores tend to be more expensive and place little emphasis on
reward schemes. It suggests that strong positive feelings
towards a certain brand type do not necessarily lead to greater
patronage.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
204
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 3 · 2011 · 190 –204
Ultimately, achieving a high level of consumer-based brand
equity requires strong performance in service and product
quality. A combination that also includes good scoring for
certain other drivers can help differentiate a brand from the
competition. Wal-Mart is considered one exception as it
performs poorly in both service and product quality and
attains its positioning almost solely through price. Safeway
and Kroger likewise rate low on these key drivers but the
reward programs driver means that shopping frequency and
spend is higher for these chains than for most others with high
service and product quality ratings.
Allaway et al. believe that the research highlights drivers
able to increase consumer-based brand equity. They do,
however, warn that an emphasis on certain drivers can be
costly. For instance, creating formal loyalty schemes involves
significant expense, as can changes to pricing or the quality
and range of products offered. In contrast, improving service
levels and maintaining customer relations through training
and promotional messages is a more economical option.
Future studies might include less affluent consumers likely
to be greatly influenced by price. A focus within areas where
“both the same and unique brands” operate is another idea.
The authors additionally suggest investigating actual behavior
rather than attitudes.
(A précis of the article “Customer-based brand equity, equity
drivers, and customer loyalty in the supermarket industry”.
Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Maja Šerić, Josip Mikulić, Irene Gil-Saura. 2016. Exploring relationships between customer-based brand equity and its drivers
and consequences in the hotel context. An impact-asymmetry assessment. Current Issues in Tourism 1-23. [CrossRef]
2. Bernhard Swoboda, Julia Weindel, Frank Hälsig. 2016. Predictors and effects of retail brand equity – A cross-sectoral analysis.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31, 265-276. [CrossRef]
3. Cristina Calvo-Porral, J. Andrés Faíña Medín, Paulino Montes-Solla. 2016. Relational, Functional Benefits and Customer Value
in Large Retailing: A Cross-Format Comparative Analysis. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 28:2, 132-148.
[CrossRef]
4. Alcina G. Ferreira School of Technology and Management, Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Leira, Portugal Filipe J. Coelho
Faculdade de Economia/GEMF, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal . 2015. Product involvement, price perceptions,
and brand loyalty. Journal of Product & Brand Management 24:4, 349-364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Gopal Das Faculty in Marketing Area at the Indian Institute of Management Rohtak, India. . 2015. Impact of store attributes on
consumer-based retailer equity. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 19:2, 188-204. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
6. Jay Kandampully Department of Consumer Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA Tingting (Christina)
Zhang Department of Consumer Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA Anil Bilgihan Department of
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 01:21 04 October 2016 (PT)

Marketing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA . 2015. Customer loyalty: a review and future directions with a
special focus on the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27:3, 379-414. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
7. Sam Al-Kwifi College of Business and Economics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar AND Richard Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Canada Zafar U. Ahmed Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business Administration,
Kuwait University, Kuwait. Dina Yammout Department of Marketing, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon . 2014.
Brand switching of high-technology capital products: how product features dictate the switching decision. Journal of Product &
Brand Management 23:4/5, 322-332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. En-Chi Chang Perfect Translation & Compunet, Taichung, Taiwan . 2014. Influences of the spokes-character on brand equity
antecedents. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 26:3, 494-515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Spanjaard Daniela Department of Marketing and International Business, University of Western Sydney, Rydalmere, NSW,
Australia Young Louise Department of Marketing and International Business, University of Western Sydney, Rydalmere, NSW,
Australia Freeman Lynne School of Marketing, University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, NSW, Australia . 2014. Emotions
in supermarket brand choice. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 17:3, 209-224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Francisco Guzmán and Oriol IglesiasUlla HakalaDepartment of Marketing and International Business, Turku School of
Economics at University of Turku, Turku, Finland Johan SvenssonDepartment of Statistics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
Zsuzsanna VinczeDepartment of Business Administration, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 2012. Consumer‐based brand equity
and top‐of‐mind awareness: a cross‐country analysis. Journal of Product & Brand Management 21:6, 439-451. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
11. Sanjai K Parahoo. 2012. Motivating Shoppers To Come Back: Modeling Consumer Behaviour In Retailer Loyalty Programs.
Issues of Business and Law 4:2012, 106-118. [CrossRef]