How Private Labels Affect Consumer Choice

Ellis, Katrina; Uncles, Mark

doi:10.1108/00070709110007468

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Private labels are brands owned by retailers and selectively distributed in their stores (Ellis and Uncles 1991). Those brands are now a permanent feature of retailing-from grocery, through to hardware and fashion.…”

Section: Abstract Private Label Brands • E-commerce • Buying Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in National Brand and Private Label Marketing

2016

Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Abstract Private Label Brands • E-commerce • Buying Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in National Brand and Private Label Marketing

2016

Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Over the last decade there have been considerable changes in food purchasing behaviour. Traditionally the decision on what food to purchase was based upon price and to a lesser extent taste and quality 1–5 . However, now the consumer is very interested in food that is safe and wholesome and in food that promotes a positive health image 6–9 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk management behaviour by the Northern Ireland food consumer

Nelson

2004

Int J Consumer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main criteria that consumers use during the decision‐making process when purchasing food have traditionally been a combination of prices, incomes, taste and social attitudes, with price being seen as the main determinant. However, in the past 10 years risk has become a ‘new’ criterion that can affect the consumer's decision whether or not to purchase a particular food item. The effect of the perception of risk has been observed during the numerous food scares in the last decade and in trends for the demand for foods that connote a health image. This research, carried out in Northern Ireland, looked at how consumers quantified and managed risk. The research involved 202 primary food consumers and identified the factors that were perceived to be important from both a societal and a personal perspective. Using principal component analysis techniques, societal food risks were seen as either processing or dietary, and personal food risks were seen as either extrinsic or intrinsic. Further investigation into the attributes of the personal risk using the same techniques revealed a three‐factor solution described as fear, involvement and newness. Although these factors cannot be used as predictors of the risk associated with a particular food, they help to describe and explain how the risk may be managed. The relationship between two of the factors, involvement and fear, provide a framework for understanding the way consumers manage their perception of the risk, particularly of high‐risk items. Consumer and scientific knowledge of the risk in question, and the degree of control over the risk were seen as important in the management of the risk in question. The conceptualization of the mechanism by which risks are processed and acted upon provides information regarding risk management and communication strategies that should be employed by educators, food retailers and government policy makers.

show abstract

“…Private label brands may present a potential bias in the results, particularly for categories in the UK where private label brands have greater market share and tend to be cheaper than manufacturer brands, despite the introduction of premium variants. As discussed earlier, there is some evidence that private label brands exhibit slightly higher loyalty (Ellis and Uncles, 1991;Pare and Dawes, 2011). It is feasible that the lower price and higher loyalty of private label brands (for their penetration) might upwardly bias the loyalty and price correlations in the UK.…”

Section: Loyalty and Pricementioning

confidence: 92%

Does Double Jeopardy Apply Using Average Spend per Buyer as the Loyalty Metric?

Dawes

Bond

Hartnett

et al. 2017

Australasian Marketing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Double Jeopardy describes how smaller brands lose twice; they have fewer buyers who are slightly less loyal. A common loyalty measure is how often people buy the brand in a given time period. An alternative loyalty measure is how much people spend, which reflects purchase frequency and price paid. The brand equity literature suggests that high equity brands should reap high purchase rates and high prices. It is therefore possible that Double Jeopardy might become obscured when using a revenue-based measure such as spend per buyer. The reason is that price variation could create more, and more pronounced deviations from the Double Jeopardy pattern. We demonstrate that Double Jeopardy holds for spend in thirteen consumer goods categories: smaller brands have fewer buyers who spend somewhat less on the brand. We further find no relationship between brand share and average price and no relationship between excess/deficit loyalty and average price.

show abstract

How Private Labels Affect Consumer Choice

Cited by 14 publications

References 9 publications

Advances in National Brand and Private Label Marketing

Advances in National Brand and Private Label Marketing

Risk management behaviour by the Northern Ireland food consumer

Does Double Jeopardy Apply Using Average Spend per Buyer as the Loyalty Metric?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About