Are food brands that carry light claims different?

Sjostrom, Therese; Corsi, Armando Maria; Driesener, Carl; Chrysochou, Polymeros

doi:10.1057/bm.2014.10

Cited by 18 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A PSI of 1.25 indicates that the two brands share 25% more customers than expected. Sjostrom et al (2014) stated a PSI > 1.20 warrants further analysis for managerial conclusions. Furthermore, the interpartition PSI calculates the level of customer sharing between all proprietary brands with private label brands and between all proprietary brands with non-branded products.…”

Section: Data Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Analyzing proprietary, private label, and non-brands in fresh produce purchases

Anesbury

Jürkenbeck

Bogomolov

et al. 2020

International Journal of Market Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When purchasing packaged products within a supermarket, consumers choose between proprietary or private label brands. However, when purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables, non-branded produce is the dominant option—with proprietary and private label brands only recently becoming available. Previous fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) research finds that proprietary and private label brands affect consumer loyalty—however, no research exists for fresh categories. This research is the first to determine the effect of emerging brands in fresh categories on consumer buying behavior. Our research examines consumers’ loyalty toward proprietary, private label, or non-branded fresh fruits and vegetables and the level of customer sharing between these options, using analytical approaches applicable to FMCG categories. The panel data contains nearly 46,000 households making over 8 million purchases in the United States during 2015. Results show that proprietary, private label, and now non-branded fresh produce have expected loyalty levels, for their size, and consumers share their purchases across the three options (i.e., consumers are not loyal to just one option). The study analyzes and interprets purchase data in fresh categories offering marketing academics and practitioners actionable advice for working with fresh produce purchase data.

show abstract

Section: Data Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Analyzing proprietary, private label, and non-brands in fresh produce purchases

Anesbury

Jürkenbeck

Bogomolov

et al. 2020

International Journal of Market Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gruneklee et al (2016) researched physical activity and found that individuals who exercise infrequently tend to prefer more popular activities such as walking, a finding that suggested the existence (and relevance) of the Natural Monopoly pattern in social marketing contexts. Lastly, Sjostrom et al's (2014) findings indicated that known empirical marketing laws, including the Natural Monopoly, apply to CPGs brands carrying health claims (e.g., ‘light’ or ‘fat free’ products) and explain consumption patterns in relation to such brands just like they do for regular brands.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…A handful of studies have examined the Natural Monopoly in different contexts, including: Elberse's study (2008) on video rentals; Chrysochou and Krystallis's (2010) work on wine; Lynn (2013) and Sjostrom et al's (2014) research on restaurants and food products, respectively; Scriven et al's (2015) paper on leisure activities; and Gruneklee et al's (2016) piece on social marketing. However, these studies did not explore the Natural Monopoly in relation to non-behavioural aspects of consumption.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Natural Monopoly Effect in Brand Image Associations

Stocchi

Pare

Fuller

et al. 2017

Australasian Marketing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Natural Monopoly is a robust empirical generalisation that describes the tendency for more popular brands to attract light users of the product category. This study shows that this pattern can also explain the underlying ‘trade-off’ between associations that consumers hold in memory for a specific brand vs. other brands, given the same range of category cues or category entry points (e.g., purchase or consumption situations, core benefits etc.). Specifically, the Natural Monopoly can be extended to explain that consumers with limited knowledge of brands are more likely to memorise associations primarily in relation to the most popular brands of the category, which ‘monopolise’ category entry points. This is confirmed with broadly consistent results across three data sets, multiple time-periods and a total of six categories (including CPGs, services and mobile applications). As such, this study significantly expands the generalisability of the Natural Monopoly empirical law by showcasing it as a ‘tool’ to extend knowledge on brand image associations. The results also yield important practical implications for growing a brand's mental availability. For the most popular brands, the outcomes of this study highlight the relevance of reaching out to consumers with limited knowledge of brands within the same category; for the least popular brands, they indicate the importance of building associations with category entry points.

show abstract

“…NM was briefly mentioned in a study by Sjostrom et al (2014) that examined the repeat-purchasing of ‘light’ (low-fat, low-sugar) foods compared to regular foods, and found that they exhibited the same loyalty metrics. The authors interpreted the results to mean that patterns such as Natural Monopoly existed in the examined categories, soft drinks and margarine.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Natural Monopoly Effect in Brand Purchasing: Do Big Brands Really Appeal to Lighter Category Buyers?

Dawes

2020

Australasian Marketing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the Natural Monopoly [NM] effect, which is that large brands have buyers who are on average less frequent or ‘lighter’ purchasers of the product category. The study analyzes the NM effect for brands in 28 consumer goods categories in The Netherlands. The analysis employs a multiple regression with category purchase rate as the dependent variable; and brand penetration, together with brand price, brand type, average pack size and promotion incidence as independent variables. The study finds that higher brand penetration is indeed associated with a lower rate of category purchase, controlling for the other variables in the model. The NM effect is reasonably large: the largest two brands in a category tend to have a buyer base that on average purchase the category about 25% less frequently than those of the smallest two. The study also derives an explanation for how large brands are generally purchased more frequently, even when their buyer base on average buys the category less frequently. The findings imply that a focus on heavy category buyers is inconsistent with the goal of growing a brand.

show abstract

Are food brands that carry light claims different?

Cited by 18 publications

References 52 publications

Analyzing proprietary, private label, and non-brands in fresh produce purchases

Analyzing proprietary, private label, and non-brands in fresh produce purchases

The Natural Monopoly Effect in Brand Image Associations

The Natural Monopoly Effect in Brand Purchasing: Do Big Brands Really Appeal to Lighter Category Buyers?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About