How price image dimensions influence shopping intentions for different store formats

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyse how five price image dimensions influence shopping intentions for different store formats.Design/methodology/approachIn total, 306 espondents evaluated three stores from a list of 18 retailers on a multiple‐item scale, resulting in 918 price‐image measurements. Based on these data, a covariance structure analysis in Mplus analyses the direct and indirect impact of five price image dimensions on shopping intentions. A multiple group analysis identifies differences in the effects between store formats.FindingsThe impact of image dimensions differs substantially between store formats. For discount stores, value for money is by far the most important image dimension. For supermarkets, price level and value are equally important, but price perceptibility and price processibility are also relevant. For organic food stores, value is most important, followed by price processibility and evaluation certainty. For the weekly market, price perceptibility plays a key role in explaining customers' shopping intentions.Practical implicationsThe results carry several implications for retail pricing practice, as they indicate that retailers should not focus exclusively on price level competition. Depending on the store format, retailers should attach importance to the price image dimensions in varying degrees.Originality/valueThe study contributes to the literature by: advancing price‐image measurement; modelling direct effects on shopping intentions; analysing a number of different indirect effects in an integrated model; and taking the moderating effects of store format into account.

The influence of image and consumer factors on store brand choice in the Brazilian market

“…In comparison to previous research in developed markets (e.g., Jara and Cliquet, 2012;Vahie and Paswan, 2006), SB price-image seems to be an important factor in Brazil, especially in respect of the Extra SB, and both dimensions of price-image are strong. This result is in line with that of Zielke (2010), who argues that for store price-image a greater emphasis should be placed upon the multidimensional aspects of price perceptions in the retail sector. It is generally recognised that perceived value has a major influence on SB purchase behaviour as most SB consumers in developed markets focus on "the price they pay for the quality they get" (Burton et al, 1998;Garretson et al, 2002).…”

“…To measure store image perceptions, nine items from Smeijn et al (2004) were employed comprising three dimensions (layout, merchandise and service). SB priceimage was measured using six items adapted from previous research (Zeithaml, 1988;Zielke, 2010). Two dimensions were derived: "SB perceived relative price" (i.e., the consumer's perception of one retailer offering the best SB prices compared to other retailers) and "SB perceived benefit" (i.e., the perception that a basket of SBs would provide the consumer with good quality products for the same monetary value).…”

Papel Moderador da Marca e Mediação do Valor Percebido na Intenção de Recompra

“…Neste sentido, identifica-se que a intenção de recompra pode ser fundamentada a partir da percepção do nível de preço (De Toni & Mazzon, 2013;Zielke, 2010), do valor (Lam, Shankar, Erramilli, & Murthy, 2004;Molinari, Abratt, & Dion, 2008;Moliner, Sánchez, Rodríguez, & Callarisa, 2007;Zeithaml, 1988) e do comprometimento afetivo e normativo (Ercis, Ünal, Candan, & Yildirim, 2012;H. Han & Ryu, 2012;Henning-Thurau, 2004;M.…”

“Passivity”: a model of grocery retail price decision-making practice

“…Conversely, a 7% reduction in retail price, based on average grocery margins, needs an almost unprecedented 32% improvement in volume just to break even in profit (Hoch et al 1994). As a result, 'pricing decisions are regarded as being among the most crucial and difficult aspects in retail marketing ' (McGoldrick, 2002, p.247), yet they are also among the most complex given that a typical superstore will offer between 30,000 and 40,000 stock keeping units (SKUs) (Zielke, 2010).…”

“…Pricing feeds into the image customers generate of retailers (Jensen and Grunert, 2014;Zielke, 2010Zielke, , 2011 and, while this may be moderated by customer background and shopping mission, it remains one of the key variables that affects patronage behaviour (Angell et al, 2012;Megicks et al, 2008). Price plays a key role in a retailer's competitive positioning and therefore represents considerable sunk investment cost (Ellickson et al, 2012).…”