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

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

retail, all the big players have their own private label brands, posing threat to the manufacturer brands. 1.2 Apparel Retail in India: Industry Profile The Indian retail market is the fifth largest retail market in the world; it has been ranked the second most attractive emerging market for investment in the retail sector by AT Kearneys seventh annual Global Retail Development Index (GRDI) in 2008. The share of retail trade in the countrys gross domestic product (GDP) was between 810 per cent in 2007 and had been estimated to reach 22 per cent by 2010. In the overall retail pie, food and grocery was the dominant category with 59.5 per cent share, valued at Rs 792,000 crore, followed by clothing and accessories with a 9.9 per cent share at Rs 131,300 crore. Interestingly, out-of-home food

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

44

Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management ; September, 2011

(catering) services (Rs 71,300 crore) is the third largest retail category, with a 5.4 per cent market share this largely reflects the massive employment opportunities to youngsters in the services sector and accompanying changes in consumer lifestyles and others at 25.2% (see Graph 1). Graph 1: Overall Retail Pie Market Share of Major Segments

a market share of 38.1%, at Rs 29,800 crore, followed by food and grocery with 11.5% (Rs 9,000 crore), footwear 9.9% (Rs 7,750 crore) and consumer durables 9.1% (Rs 7,100 crore and others at 31.4%. India has emerged as the third most attractive market destination for apparel retailers, according to a new study by global management consulting firm A.T. Kearney. India comes after Brazil and China in the A.T. Kearney Retail Apparel Index (See Table 1), which looks at ten drivers, including apparel consumption and clothing imports/exports, to rank among the top 30 emerging markets for retail apparel investments. In India, apparel is the second largest retail category, representing 10 percent of the $37 billion retail market. It is expected to grow at 12-15 percent per year according to AT Kearney Consulting firm.

Source: Images Retail Report 2009

In organized retailing, however, clothing and fashion accessories is the largest category with

Table 1: A.T. Kearney Retail Apparel Index, 2008

Rank Country Absolute Market Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Brazil China India Turkey Chile Romania Argentina Thailand Russia United Arab Emirates 44.5 74.0 57.4 29.4 22.3 21.1 20.6 22.0 51.7 31.2 Growth Prospects 33.4 22.1 37.4 36.8 46.7 53.8 43.7 24.6 21.9 41.9 42.1 35.7 31.1 58.9 44.2 33.7 38.8 57.0 38.7 27.9 48.2 47.0 46.6 46.2 45.9 45.1 41.1 40.0 38.7 38.1 Consumer Affluence Score

Source: AT Kearney-Emerging Opportunities for Global Retailers-The 2008 Global Retail Development Index Report"

1.3 Indian Apparel Market The apparel retail industry consists of the sale of all men's wear, women's wear and infant's wear. The menswear sector includes all

garments made for men and boys. It includes both outer and under garments. The women's wear sector consists of the retail sale of all women's and girls' garments including dresses, suits and coats, jackets, tops, shirts, skirts,

Krishna, Determinants of Consumer ......

45

blouses, sweatshirts, sweaters, underwear etc. The infants wear sector is calculated as sales of garments for children between the ages of 0-2 years. The market value is calculated at retail selling price (RSP), and includes all taxes and levies. All currency conversions used in this report have been calculated at constant 2005 annual average exchange rates. For the purpose of this report, Asia Pacific consists of China, India, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Australia. The Indian apparel retail industry generated a total revenues of $18.3 billion in 2005, this representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.6% for the five-year period spanning 2001-2005. Menswear sales proved the most lucrative for the Indian apparel retail industry in 2005, generating total revenues of $8.4 billion, equivalent to 45.9% of the industry's overall value.The performance of the industry is forecast to follow a similar pattern, with an anticipated CAGR of 9.8% for the five-year period 2005-2010. 1.4 Apparel Market Segments Revenues from the menswear sector generate 45.9% of the total Indian Apparel Industry's value. Women's wear accounts for a further 35.2% of the industry's value (see Graph 2). Graph 2: Indian Apparel Industry Segments Market Share

comparable in quality to the more popular branded products, though very often they are priced lower than the top end brands. The rise of private labels can be attributed to retailers such as Pantaloon, Big Bazaar, Shoppers' Stop and Vishal Megamart who were some of the first few companies to put forward these brands. The primary reason a consumer buys a private label is usually price, but with improving quality of the products as well as labels and marketing, consumers tend to stick with these products rather than going back to branded labels. Most private label products are priced 5-20% lower than regular items. Globally, private label brands contribute to 17 percent of retail sales with a growth of 5 percent per annum. International Retailers like WalMart of USA and Tesco of UK have 40 percent and 55 percent own label brands representation in their stores, respectively.(see Graph 3). Graph 3: Private Label Penetrations

Source: Images Retail Report 2009

In India there is an increasing trend towards acceptance of private label brands and thus their penetration is on the rise especially in the apparel, consumer durables, home care and FMCG segments. Overall, in India, private labels constitute 10% of the organized retail product mix and by 2012 it will increase to 13%. (see Graph 4).
3.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Source: Data Monitor

3.1 Review Private Label Brands are defined as the products owned and branded by the organizations whose primary objective is

2.0 PRIVATE LABELS

Private labels are brands created by retailers. The products sold under these brands are

46

Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management ; September, 2011

Graph 4 Private Label Penetrations India

Source: AC Nielson Report

In the Indian retail private label brands are in the danger of facing the Double Jeopardy effect (Goodhardt, Ehrenberg and Chatfield 1984) where the small brands suffer twice they have fewer customers and these customers buy the brand less often (Ehrenberg, Goodhardt and Barwise, 1990). This pattern has been observed in a variety of markets, in a variety of conditions (different lengths of time, different points in time) and in various contexts (Pare, Dawes and Driesener 2006). The main determining factors affecting consumer buying behavior are: quality, price, trust, availability of alternative packaging, frequent advertising, sales promotions, imitations, availability, brand image, prestige, freshness and habits (Dolekoglu et al. 2008), Packaging (Wells, Farley, Armstrong 2007), perceived risk (Batra & Sinha 2000; Bettman, 1973; Dunn et al., 1986; Richardson Jain, & Dick 1996; Shannon and Mandhachitra 2005), price consciuosness, price-quality association (Batra and Sinha 2000), advertising-pricing (Karray and Martin-Herran 2008), price, quality, risk perceiption (Ashok Kumar and Gopal 2009), price and quality (Ailawadi, Pauwels and Steenkamp 2008) 3.2 GAP Analysis As shown above in the review of literature of previous studies, there are many determining factors towards purchasing the private labels, but there is no specific study to identify determinants for private label apparel purchase. So in regard to the gaps existing in the research, the current study aims at understanding the determining factors for the purchase of private label apparel brands. 3.3 Problem Statement Understanding and finding out the determinant factors affecting the consumer buying behavior towards private label apparel.

distribution rather than production (Schutte, 1969). PLBs, also called own labels or store brands can also be defined as any of products over which a retailer has exercised total sourcing and market control (Mintel, 2005a, b). The Private Label Manufacturers Association (PLMA) defines PLBs as: PLBs are Private label products that encompass all merchandise sold under a retailers brand. That PLB can be the retailers own name or a name created exclusively by that retailer. In few cases, a retailer may belong to a wholesale group that owns the brands that are available only to the members of that group. The development of PLBs affects competition between retailers because PLBs become an additional way of differentiating between retailers (Berges-Sennou, Bontems, and Requillart 2004). The rise of national advertising made manufacturers brands or national brands (NBs) to become widely recognized by consumers who became loyal to them. Over the time, manufacturers exercised greater influence over the demand for their products and secured a better bargaining position by dealing with retailers (Grant 1987). Retailers saw their margins drastically reduced, and their power to determine the prices to consumers depreciated (Borden 1967).

Krishna, Determinants of Consumer ......

47

3.4 Research Objectives 1. To understand the various factors affecting consumer buying behavior towards private label brands in apparel retail, To determine the factors affecting consumer buying behavior towards private label brands in apparel retail, and To find out in particular the effect of occupation and social class of consumer on customer choice of design for private label apparel.

2.

apparel retail outlets in Visakhapatnam city. A questionnaire was used to obtain the data. Factor Analysis was used in the study. A Five Point Semantic Differential Scale was also used in the study as a rating tool with value 1 being Poor and 5 being Excellent. 4.3 Pilot Study-Pre Testing A pilot study was initially conducted for 50 respondents to know the determinants of consumer buying behaviour towards private label branded apparel. The respondents were asked to rate 14 variables in terms of the extent that these variables affect their buying behavior towards private label apparel. A Five Point Semantic Differential Scale was used in the study as a rating tool with value 1 being Poor and 5 being Excellent. After the Pilot Study was conducted it was reviewed and it was found that out of the 14 variables 4 variables were dropped and the research was confined to only 10 variables. A total of 230 questionnaires were collected and out of these, 30 were dropped due to incomplete data. Finally, 200 questionnaires were used and processed for analysis. 4.4 Data Collection Primary data were collected by survey method through a structured questionnaire. All the consumers with different occupations and age groups who purchased private label apparel were directly interacted with the retail outlets and first hand data were obtained from them. 4.5 Data Analysis Methods Factor analysis was used as the main data analysis method. Along with this method Pearsons Chi-Square Test was also used for hypothesis testing. All the tests were conducted using SPSS version 15.0. 4.6 Factor Analysis The study explores the important determining factors affecting consumer buying behaviour in

3.

4.0 HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH METHODS

4.1 Hypotheses for the Study The null hypotheses for the study are formulated as follows: Null Hypothesis 1: All the Attributes are uncorrelated with the population. Null Hypothesis 2: The comfort offered by the private label apparel is not dependent on the occupation of the consumer. Null Hypothesis 3: The durability of the private label apparel is not dependent on the occupation of the consumer. Null Hypothesis 4: The comfort offered by the private label apparel is not dependent on the social class of the consumer. Null Hypothesis 5: The durability of the private label apparel is not dependent on the social class of the consumer. 4.2 Research Design Exploratory Study An exploratory study was conducted to identify the statement of the problem, by interacting with consumers in order to know their interest in private label apparel. There are many factors affecting the consumer buying behavior, but only few of them have a greater impact on the consumer. Simple random sampling was used and the sample size was 200 consumers at major

48

Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management ; September, 2011

purchasing private label apparel and hence the following 10 variables (as shown in table 2) were selected and Principal Factor Analysis was conducted. The respondents were asked to rate these 10 variables on the extent, they think that these variables affect their buying behaviour towards private label apparel. Table 2: Determinants of Consumer Buying Behaviour Table 2: Determinants of Consumer Buying Behaviour
S.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Variable Name Brand Awareness of Store Brand Image of Store Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand Brand Image of Private Label Brand Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability Ambience Visual Merchandising

appropriateness of the factor model. Values below 0.5 imply that the factor analysis may not be appropriate (Malhotra, 2004). The Barletts Test of Sphericity (used to examine the hypothesis that the variables are uncorrelated in the population) should be significant which implies that the correlation matrix is not orthogonal, and then it would be appropriate for factoring.
5.0 DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

5.1 Hypothesis 1: Correlation among the attributes Null Hypothesis: All the Attributes are uncorrelated with the population. Initially the factor analysis was conducted using principal component analysis method in SPSS windows. As the results were unsatisfactory, and the variable 3 and variable 4 did not fit minimum level criteria, they were removed from the study and again factor analysis was conducted with 8 variables and these gave a high KMO score. The KMO and Bartletts test value is high at 0.806 which was adequate to conduct factor analysis. (see table 3)

The factors extracted should account for at least 60% of variance (factors with eigen values > 1) (Boyd et al., 1985: and Malhotra, 2004). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is to be used to measure the Table 3: KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

.806 2120.448 28 .000

Approx. Chi-Square Df Sig.

After KMO-Bartlett's Test the two Variables; Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand and Brand Image of Private Label Brand were removed as they did not fit the test. Finally 8 variables were selected for factor analysis (see table 4). Hence the Null Hypothesis that the factors are uncorrelated with the population is rejected and the alternate hypothesis that the attributes are correlated with the population is accepted.

Then Factor Analysis was conducted to find out the main determinants of consumer buying behavior towards private label brands with the eight variables (see Table 4). Principal component analysis was employed for extracting the factors. The correlation values of the eight variables against each other are shown in the Table 5. The Table 6 shows the communalities of the variables. Communality of a variable is the row sum of squared factor loadings. The communalities

Krishna, Determinants of Consumer ......

49

show amount of variance in a variable that is accounted for by the four factors taken together. The size of the communality is a useful index for assessing how much variance accounted by the factor solution. Large communalities show that a substantial portion of the variance in a Table 4: Final Variables List
S.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Variable Name Brand Awareness of Store Brand Image of Store Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand Brand Image of Private Label Brand Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability

variable is accounted for by the factors. It is seen that 4 factors were extracted with high percentage i.e., 95.401% of the total variance as shown in the Table 7. The results of component matrix and rotated component matrix are shown in Tables 8 and 9 respectively.

Table 5: Correlation Matrix

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 0.775 0.842 0.758 0.904 0.717 0.714 0.745 2 0.775 1 0.592 0.739 0.715 0.724 0.905 0.899 3 0.842 0.592 1 0.802 0.69 0.429 0.655 0.488 4 0.758 0.739 0.802 1 0.645 0.535 0.816 0.609 5 0.904 0.715 0.69 0.645 1 0.69 0.632 0.707 6 0.717 0.724 0.429 0.535 0.69 1 0.655 0.813 7 0.714 0.905 0.655 0.816 0.632 0.655 1 0.745 8 0.745 0.899 0.488 0.609 0.707 0.813 0.745 1

Table 6: Communalities
Initial Brand Awareness of Store Brand Image of Store Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability Ambience Visual Merchandising Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Extraction .968 .980 .943 .933 .941 .995 .941 .931

50

Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management ; September, 2011

Table 7: Total Variance Explained

Component Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6.002 .839 .557 .235 .160 .130 .049 .029 Initial Eigen values % of Variance 75.024 10.482 6.957 2.938 1.999 1.628 .606 .366 Cumulative % 75.024 85.506 92.463 95.401 97.400 99.028 99.634 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Variance % 6.002 75.024 75.024 .839 .557 .235 10.482 6.957 2.938 85.506 92.463 95.401 Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Variance % 2.323 29.043 29.043 2.197 1.805 1.307 27.468 22.558 16.332 56.511 79.069 95.401

Table 8: Component Matrix(a)

Component 1 Brand Awareness of Store Brand Image of Store Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability Ambience Visual Merchandising Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 4 components extracted. .932 .920 .791 .852 .865 .802 .886 .870 2 .155 -.207 .555 .332 .046 -.437 -.020 -.399 3 .272 -.232 .075 -.265 .404 .183 -.394 -.025 4 -.033 -.190 .049 .162 -.167 .356 -.009 -.120

Table 9: Rotated Component Matrix (a)

Component 1 Brand Awareness of Store Brand Image of Store Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability Ambience Visual Merchandising .331 .824 .150 .418 .325 .392 .734 .735 2 .516 .340 .814 .823 .319 .182 .566 .140 3 .695 .331 .502 .197 .802 .310 .142 .402 4 .331 .274 .072 .204 .301 .844 .248 .459

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Vari max with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 12 iterations.

Krishna, Determinants of Consumer ......

51

Naming of the Factors Factors were named and their constituent variables are given below (see table 10) Table 10: Naming of the Factors
Factor Number 1 Sales Promotion Offers 2 Design 3 Store Atmospherics 4 Name of the Factor Brand Image Variables Brand awareness of the store Brand Image of Store Cheaper Price Discounts Comfort Durability Ambience Visual Merchandising

5.2 Demographic factors influence on the choice of design for the private label apparel: It is very important to know whether the demographic factors like occupation and the social class of the consumer affect the consumer buying behavior and as the private label apparel is mainly influenced by the choice of its design, the effect of demographic factors on the choice of design is tested. The four variables occupation, social class, comfort and durability are cross tested for their interdependency.

Hypothesis 2 Null Hypothesis: The comfort offered by the Private label apparel is not dependent on the occupation of the consumer. The survey Tables 11 a and 11 b and calculations show that the null hypothesis that the comfort offered by the Private label apparel is independent of the Occupation of the consumer cannot be rejected. Hence, the alternative hypothesis cannot be proved.

Table 11 a: Occupation Comfort Cross Tabulation Count

Comfort Offered Good Occupation Total Employee Business 0 40 40 Very Good 60 60 120 Excellent 40 0 40 Total Good 100 100 200

Table 11 b: Chi-Square Tests

Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 80.000(a) 110.904 79.600 200 Df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .000

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 20.00.

52

Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management ; September, 2011

Hypothesis 3 Null Hypothesis: The durability of the Private label apparel is not dependent on the Occupation of the consumer. The survey Tables 12 a and 12 b and calculations

show that the null hypothesis that the durability of the Private label apparel is independent of the Occupation of the consumer cannot be rejected. Hence the alternative hypothesis can not be proved.

Table 12 a: Occupation Durability Cross Tabulation Count

Durability Bad Occupation Employee Business Total 40 100 140 Good 60 0 60 Total Bad 100 100 200

Table 12 b: Chi-Square Tests

Value Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correction(a) Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 85.286 200 1 .000 85.714(b) 82.881 109.743 df 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided)

Computed only for a 2x2 table 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 30.00.

Hypothesis 4 Null Hypothesis: The comfort offered by the Private label apparel is not dependent on the Social Class of the consumer. The survey Tables 13 a & 13 b and calculations

show that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at the given conditions and hence the alternative hypothesis that the comfort offered by the private label apparel is dependent of the Social class of the consumer cannot be accepted.

Table 13 a: Social Class Comfort Cross Tabulation Count

Comfort Good Social Class Middle Class Upper Middle Class Upper Class Total 0 0 40 40 Very Good 60 60 0 120 Excellent 40 0 0 40 Total Good 100 60 40 200

Krishna, Determinants of Consumer ......

53

Table 13 b: Chi-Square Tests

Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 240.000(a) 245.506 130.492 200 Df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .000

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.00.

Hypothesis 5 Null Hypothesis: The durability of the Private label apparel is not dependent on the Social Class of the consumer. The survey tables 14 a & 14 b and calculations

show that the null hypothesis is not rejected at the given conditions and hence the alternative hypothesis that the durability of the private label apparel is dependent of the social class of the consumer cannot be accepted.

Table 14 a: Social Class Durability Cross Tabulation Count

Durability Bad Social Class Middle Class Upper Middle Class Upper Class Total 40 60 40 140 Good 60 0 0 60 Total Bad 100 60 40 200

Table 14 b: Chi-Square Tests

Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 85.714(a) 109.743 68.508 200 Df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .000

0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.00

5.3 Findings 1) From the study it was found out that the buying behaviour of the consumers who purchase private label apparel brands are mainly affected by several variables like, brand awareness of store, brand image of store, cheaper price, discounts, comfort, durability, ambience and visual merchandising. After these variables were analyzed through factor analysis they were

classified under the following four factors: 1) Brand Image, 2) Sales Promotion offers, 3) Design and 4) Store Atmospherics. 2) From the study it was found that the comfort offered by the private label apparel brand is independent of the occupation of the consumers who purchase private label apparel brand. From the study it was found that the durability of the Private label apparel is

3)

54

Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management ; September, 2011

independent of the occupation of the consumer consumers who purchase private label apparel brand. 4) From the study it was found out that the comfort offered by the Private label apparel is independent of the social class of the consumers who purchase private label apparel brand. From the study it was found out that the durability of the Private label apparel is independent of the social class of the consumers who purchase private label apparel brand The above findings from 2 to 5 show that the customer choice of design of the private label apparel is independent of demographic factors of the consumers who purchase label apparel brands.

REFERENCES
A.T. Kearney, (2008), Emerging Opportunities for Global Retailers-The 2008 Global Retail Development Index.-Report, pp.16-18. Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. and Gedenk, K. (2001) Pursuing the value conscious consumers: Store brands versus national brand promotions, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 7189. Ailawadi, K.L., Pauwels, K. and Steenkamp, E.M. (2008), Private-label Use and Store Loyalty, 72 (November), pp 19-30. Ashokkumar, S. and Gopal, S. (2009), Diffusion of Innovation in Private Labels in Food Products, The ICFAI University Journal of Brand Management, 6(1), pp 35-56. Batra, R., Sinha, I. (2000), Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private label brands. Journal of Retailing 76 (2), pp175-191. Berges-Sennou, F., Bontems, P. and Requillart, V (2004), The Economics of Private Labels: A Survey of Literature, Bettman, J.R., (1973). Perceived risk and its components: A model and empirical test. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research (pre- 1986) 10 (2), 184-190. Borden, Neil H. (1967), OsEfeitos Economicos da Propaganda, Revista de Administragdo de Empresas, 24 (7), 149-185. Burger, P.C. and Schott, B.(1972). Can Private Brand Buyers Be Identified? Journal of Marketing Research, 9, pp 219- 212. Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D., Netemeyer, R. and Garretson, J. (1998) A scale for measuring attitude toward private label products and an examination of its psychological and behavioral correlates, Academy of Marketing Science,26,(4), Fall, pp. 293306. Chavadi, Chandan and Kokatnur, Shilpa (2008), Do private brands result in store loyalty? An empirical study in Bangalore, The Icfai University Journal of Marketing Management, 7(3), pp 6-33 Chernatony, Leslie (1989), The Impact of the Changed Balance of Power from Manufacturer to Retailer in the UK Packaged groceries market, in Retail in Marketing Channels, ed. Luca Cohen, J.B., Fishben, M. and Ahtola, O.T. (1972), The nature and uses of expectancy-value models in

5)

6)

6.0 CONCLUSION

This study was intended to find out factors related to private level brands affecting the consumer buying decisions. It was also intended to specifically study the effect of demographic factors such as social class of consumer and occupation of the consumer on the demand for private level brands through durability and comfort offered by such brands. It was found that four factors namely brand image, sales promotion offers, design and store atmospheric were the primary factors affecting consumer preferences for private level brands. Demographic factors namely occupation of the consumer and social class of the consumer has no effect on the consumer behaviour in choosing private levels brands. These findings are likely to help brand mangers of private level brands in the apparel sector in designing the manufacturing of their products as well as in their marketing strategies.

Krishna, Determinants of Consumer ......

55

consumer attitude research, Journal of Marketing Research, 9(November), pp 456-460. Corstjens, M. and Lal, R. (2000), Building store loyalty through store brands, Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (August), pp 281-291. Cunningham, Isabella C.M.; Hardy, Andrew P., and Imperia, Giovanna. (1982), Generic Brands Versus National Brands and Store Brands, Journal of Advertising Research, 22, (Oct/Nov), pp 25-32 Dolekoglu, C.O., Albayrak, M., Kara, A. and Keskin, G. (2008), Analysis of Consumer Perceptions and Preferences of Store Brands Versus National Brands: An Exploratory Study in an Emerging Market, Journal of Euromarketing, 17(2), pp 109-125. Dunn, M.G., Murphy, P.E., Skelly, G.U., (1986). Research Note: The Influence of Perceived Risk on Brand Preference for Supermarket Products. Journal of Retailing 62 (2), 204-216. Ehrenberg, A. S. C., Goodhardt, G. J., Barwise, T. P. (1990). Double Jeopardy Revisited. Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 82-91. Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998) Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), pp. 131157. Fontenelle, S.M (1996), Private labels and consumer benefits- The Brazilian Experience, Advances in Consumer Research, 23, pp 97-103. Frank, R.E. and Boyd, H.W. (1965). Are Private-Brand Prone Grocery Customers Really Different? Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 4. pp 27-35. Goodhardt, G. J., Ehrenberg, A. S. C., Chatfield, C. (1984). The Dirichlet: A Comprehensive Model of Buying Behaviour. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 147 (part 5), 621-655. Grant, Robert M. (1987), Manufacturer-Retailer Relations: The Shifting Balance of Power, in Business Strategy and Retailing, ed. Gerry Johnson, Chichester: John Wiley& Sons, p.43-58. Hoch, S. and Banerji, S. (1993) When do private labels succeed?, Sloan Management Hofestede, G. (1980). Cultural Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Karray, S. and Martin-Herran, G.(2008), Investigating the relationship between advertising and pricing

in a channel with private label offering: a theoretic model, Review of Marketing Science, 6, pp 1-37. Mieres, C. G., Martin, A. M. D., and Gutierrez, J. A. T. (2006). Antecedents of the difference in perceived risk between store brands and national brands.European Journal of Marketing, 40(1/2), pp 61-82. Mintel (2005a), Chilled DessertsUK, Mintel International Group Limited, London. Mintel (2005b), Own-label Food& Drink UK, Mintel International Group Limited,London. Narasimhan, C. and Wilcox, R. (1998) Private labels and the channel relationship:A crosscategory analysis, Journal of Business, 71(4), pp. 573600. Pare, V.,Dawes.J.,Drisener, C. (2006). Double Jeopardy deviations for small and medium share brands how frequent and how persistent? Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Brisbane. Pellegrini and Reddy K. Srinivas, London: Routledge, pp 258- 273 Review, 34(4), pp. 5767. Richardson, P.S., Jain, A.K., Dick, A., (1996). Household store brand proneness: A framework. Journal of Retailing 72 (2), pp159-185. Saitz, Greg (2004), Retailers improve quality of their own brands, while increasing profit margin, New Jersey Star Ledger, August 17, p B1. Schutte, T. F. (1969). The semantics of branding. Journal of Marketing, 33, pp5-11. Sethuraman, R. (1992) Understanding cross-category differences in private label shares of grocery products, Marketing Science Institute, Report No. 92128, Cambridge, UK. Shannon, R. and Mandhachitara,R. (2005),Private-label grocery shopping attitudes and behaviour: A crosscultural study, Brand Management, 12(6), pp 461-474. Stanley, John (2002), Brands vs Private-labels, About Retailing Industry Newsletter, www.retailingindustry.about.com January 2. Wells, L.E., Farley, H. and Armstrong, G.A (2007), The importance of packaging design for own-label food brands, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(9), pp 677-690.

56

Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management ; September, 2011

APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE

1) 2) 1) 3)

Name ______________________________________ Age Below 152) 15 to 25 Occuupation 1) Employee 2) Business 3) 25 to 40 4) above 40

4)

Social Class 1) Middle Class 2) Upper Middle Class 3) Upper Class

5)

Rate the following variables whether how far they affect your buying decisions on a 5 point scale where value 1 being poor and value 5 being excellent
S.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Variable Name Brand Awareness of Store 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor Brand Image of Store 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor Brand Awareness of Private Label Brand 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor Brand Image of Private Label Brand 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor Cheaper Price 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor Discounts 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor Comfort 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor Durability 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Bad, 1-Poor

APPENDIX II Sample Size collected from various Organized Retail Stores in Visakhapatnam
Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 Retail Store Big Bazaar RPG Spencers Vizag Central Reliance Trends Sample Size 60 50 60 60

Private Label Apparel Brands of Various Retail Stores in Visakhapatnam

Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 Retail Store Big Bazaar Vizag Central RPG Spencers Reliance Trends Company/Group PRIL-Future Group PRIL-Future Group RPG Reliance Private Label Apparel Brands DJ&C, Knighthood, John Miller, Lombard, Bare Pantaloons, Levis, Bare Leisure, Bare Denim, Annabelle, Akkriti, etc Asankhya, Puddlez, Detailz, Island Monks DNMX, Sparsh, Panda, Frendz.

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