Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Article information:
To cite this document:
Anna Kuikka Tommi Laukkanen, (2012),"Brand loyalty and the role of hedonic value", Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 21 Iss 7 pp. 529 - 537
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421211276277
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:601976 []
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.
1. Introduction
Successful brands are one of the most significant ways for a
company to gain competitive advantage (Pitta and Katsanis,
1995). Furthermore, one of the main components of
sustained advantage of a company is to retain its current
customers and make them loyal users of the brand (Dekimpe
et al., 1997). One of the challenges for brand managers in the
twenty-first century is to comprehend the relations between
loyalty and its antecedents (Taylor et al., 2004).
It has been stated that single brand loyalty in the food
industry is not typical (Ehrenberg et al., 1994; Rundle-Thiele
and Bennett, 2001; Yu and Dean, 2001; Sharp et al., 2002).
Instead of purchasing only one brand, consumers brand
loyalty on the consumable goods markets is divided among
different brands within a product category (Yu and Dean,
2001). Research on the consumable goods industry has
gained popularity in the marketing literature (e.g. Farley,
1964; Vranesevic and Stancec, 2003; Gabay et al., 2009).
However, although a part of food industry, brand loyalty
within the confectionary and other hedonic consumable
goods markets have not been studied as comprehensively as
the consumable market in general. For instance, Carroll and
Ahuvia (2006) note that more research is needed about the
2. Brand loyalty
A battle has been fought between attitudinal and behavioral
approaches, in regards to brand loyalty studies. Rundle-Thiele
(2005) states that the concept of loyalty emerged in the
marketing literature in the 1940s and it was first considered as
one-dimensional. Over the years, two brand loyalty
dimensions have developed; attitudinal loyalty and
behavioral loyalty. The definition of behavioral brand loyalty
is often considered to be synonymous with repeat purchase
behavior (Day, 1969; Farr and Hollis, 1997; Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001; Quester and Lim, 2003). Later on the role of
attitudinal loyalty was recognized. It was stated that authentic
brand loyalty goes beyond repetitive purchasing behavior and
implies a true commitment to a specific brand (Day, 1969;
Zins, 2001; Back and Parks, 2003; Quester and Lim, 2003).
In conclusion, most of the marketing literature defines brand
loyalty as a result of the interplay between the consumers
attitude and repeat purchase behavior (Day, 1969; Jacoby and
Kyner, 1973; Chaudhuri, 1995; Baldinger and Rubinson,
1996; Farr and Hollis, 1997; Fournier and Yao, 1997; Ogba
and Tan, 2009).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
529
brand loyalty (Oliver, 1999; Delgado-Ballester and MunueraAleman, 2001; Back and Parks, 2003; Taylor et al., 2004).
Studies suggest that brand satisfaction is an attribute of both
behavioral and attitudinal loyalty (Taylor et al., 2004). Thus,
we hypothesize:
H1a.
H1b.
H2a.
H2b.
530
5. Data
H3b.
Delgado-Ballester
and
Munuera-Aleman
(2001)
conceptualize brand trust as a feeling of security that the
brand will meet consumers expectations. Trust is one of the
most important variables in developing long customer
relationships, such as brand loyalty (Reichheld and Schefter,
2000; Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001).
Taylor et al. (2004) find the role of trust in consumers
loyalty experience even more significant: they acknowledge
brand trust as the most influencing factor of loyalty. In
conclusion, brand trust has an effect on both attitudinal and
behavioral loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Taylor
et al., 2004; Matzler et al., 2008). Hence:
H4a.
H4b.
H5b.
H6a.
H6b.
H7a.
H7b.
H8a.
H8b.
6. Results
The analysis started with conducting a confirmatory factor
analysis. This is generally used when there is some advance
knowledge about the structure of the latent variables (Byrne,
2010). The results showed that the loadings of two observed
variables measuring brand equity fell below the general
threshold limit of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010) and were thus
removed from further analysis. The remaining four variables
for brand equity were considered to be adequate to remain in
the analysis, as well as all the variables of the other constructs.
Next the validity of the constructs was tested. The level of
Cronbachs alpha was measured for each factor to assess the
internal consistency of the factors. According to Hair et al.
(2010) alpha levels greater than 0.7 indicate high internal
consistency, while levels of 0.5-0.6 are considered adequate
(Nunnally, 1967). The results of the reliability analysis show
that Cronbachs alpha levels ranged between 0.57-0.92
indicating adequate internal consistency of the constructs.
Moreover, construct reliability ranged from 0.62 to 0.92.
In order to test whether the measured constructs are truly
unrelated discriminant validity was tested. It has been
suggested that the square root of average variance extracted
(AVE) for each construct should be greater than the
correlation between every construct (Fornell and Larcker,
1981; Hair et al., 2010). The results indicate that discriminant
validity is supported in all other cases except between
behavioral and attitudinal loyalty as the square root of AVE in
BL and the correlation between BL and AL yielded an equal
value of 0.67. Since both constructs measure loyalty, it is
likely that the constructs overlap with each other. In addition,
in real life consumers may find it difficult to differentiate
between the constructs. However, the brand literature clearly
distinguishes between the two. For instance Rundle-Thiele
and Mackay (2001) state that it is vital to separate these
7. Conclusions
This study examined the antecedents of brand loyalty and the
role of hedonic value within the brand loyalty experience.
This study is an attempt to bring more insight to the research
of the antecedents of brand loyalty in the chocolate industry
and the moderating effect of low and high hedonic value
groups.
The results implied that the paths leading to behavioral and
attitudinal brand loyalty are notably different. Behavioral
brand loyalty was strongly affected by brand satisfaction and
by brand value to a lesser extent. On the contrary, attitudinal
brand loyalty was affected by all the antecedents studied:
brand satisfaction, brand equity, brand value and brand trust.
The findings support Taylor et al. (2004) that suggest that the
antecedents of loyalty may differ between the two aspects of
attitudes and repurchasing behavior. Interestingly, although
brand loyalty in the consumable goods market is usually
connected with behavioral brand loyalty (e.g. Rundle-Thiele
and Bennett, 2001; Sharp et al., 2002), the antecedents
studied in this research led mostly to attitudinal loyalty.
The results show that brand satisfaction is the most
influential factor for behavioral brand loyalty. This finding
supports the results of several earlier studies (e.g. Singh and
Sirdeshmukh, 2000; Taylor et al., 2004). The strong
relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intensions
may be based on the characteristics of the chocolate industry.
Because the single pecuniary sum spent on chocolate is
usually low, it can often involve impulse purchasing and
spontaneity (Sloot et al., 2005). If a consumer is satisfied with
the brand he/she can simply continue to make repurchases
within that brand. In addition, a satisfied customer may
purchase his/her favorite brands products out of habit
Behavioral loyalty
Attitudinal loyalty
Brand satisfaction
Brand equity
Brand value
Brand trust
Alpha
Composite reliability
0.57
0.66
0.92
0.82
0.84
0.88
0.62
0.67
0.92
0.83
0.86
0.89
0.67
0.67
0.62
0.47
0.44
0.43
0.71
0.48
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.86
0.59
0.48
0.56
0.72
0.48
0.65
0.83
0.55
0.82
532
Hedonic
value mean
Subsample
size
Percentage of the
total sample
1.00-3.9
4.0-7.0
94
714
11.6
82.4
High
Chi-square
0.278
20.027
0.209
0.118
0.217
5.773 * * *
2 0.371
3.167 * *
1.998 *
2.390 *
0.211
0.162
0.189
0.077
0.244
10.601 * * *
4.354 * * *
6.920 * * *
4.433 * * *
7.661 * * *
6,247
9.695
4,659
5,020
4,656
Notes: x2 threshold limits for all parameters set equal across subgroups (df=3): 0.10=7.28; 0.05=8.42; 0.01=11.21; * p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001
533
9. Managerial implications
The results of this study have several managerial implications.
First, companies producing hedonic goods and especially
chocolate, should not forget the role of hedonic value in their
branding strategies. Furthermore, a noteworthy managerial
implication is the importance of identifying relevant
antecedents of loyalty in a given market context. Brand
strategies should not be taken as given and the basis of the
strategy should be founded on the attributes of the industry,
brand and product.
Since several competitive advantages can be gained through
brand loyal customers, companies in the chocolate industry
should aspire to high brand satisfaction, brand equity, brand
value and brand trust. According to the results of this study,
companies should invest in acquiring and maintaining
satisfied customer relationships, since satisfaction is the
strongest factor contributing to brand loyalty in the chocolate
industry. As brand loyalty is a combination of several
components, none of the antecedents studied should be
ignored. Ultimately, a strong brand builds the foundation of a
successful business.
References
Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the
Value of a Brand Name, Free Press, New York, NY.
Back, K.-J. and Parks, S. (2003), A brand loyalty model
involving cognitive, affective and conative brand loyalty and
customer satisfaction, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 419-35.
Baldinger, A. and Rubinson, J. (1996), Brand loyalty: the
link between attitude and behavior, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 22-34.
Blackwell, S., Szeinbach, S., Barnes, J., Garner, D. and Bush,
V. (1999), The antecedents of customer loyalty, Journal
of Service Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 362-75.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with
AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming,
2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), Some antecedents
and outcomes of brand love, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 79-89.
Chaudhuri, A. (1995), Brand equity or double jeopardy?,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 26-32.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. (2001), The chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
534
Appendix
Behavioral loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001)
.
I will buy this brand the next time I buy chocolate.
.
I intend to keep on purchasing this brand.
537