Re-examining age-related loyalty for low-involvement purchasing

Mecredy, Philip James; Wright, Malcolm; Feetham, Pamela M.; Stern, Philip

doi:10.1108/ejm-06-2021-0440

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Next, the study did not find a direct association between age and loyalty. While a null result is not necessarily as interesting as a positive result, this finding still represents another piece of evidence for the body of work on age and loyalty: some other studies have found older buyers tend to be more brand-loyal (East, Harris, Willson, & Hammond, 1995;Lambert-Pandraud et al, 2005) while others find very little difference (Mecredy et al, 2022). It may be that the ageloyalty link exists in some product categories and not others; a question for future research is to identify when, and why, an age-loyalty association is observed or not.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…However, Yang et al (2005) found mixed results in relation to age and behavioral loyalty, Singh et al found little age‐related differences in brand loyalty in a survey‐based study of Japanese consumers (Singh et al, 2012) and Phua et al (2020) found no clear association between age and behavioral brand loyalty in a study using UK household purchasing panel data. Most recently, Mecredy et al (2022) in a survey‐based study controlled for lower category purchase rates among older buyers by using the Dirichlet‐derived polarization index (Li et al, 2009). The study concluded that older buyers were slightly more loyal in two of the three market contexts studies.…”

Section: Background and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This variation over time and brands could mean that some brands are more popular among older drinkers, whereas others are more popular among younger drinkers. Mecredy et al (2022) point out that differences in brand market share across age groups may be linked to differences in brand loyalty across those age groups, via the double jeopardy effect (Ehrenberg et al, 1990; Pleshko & Heiens, 2022). Therefore, examining the interplay between age, buyer behavior and loyalty toward liquor brands may reveal insights relevant to broader work on the link between age and loyalty (e.g., Lambert‐Pandraud & Laurent, 2010b; Mecredy et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mecredy et al (2022) point out that differences in brand market share across age groups may be linked to differences in brand loyalty across those age groups, via the double jeopardy effect (Ehrenberg et al, 1990; Pleshko & Heiens, 2022). Therefore, examining the interplay between age, buyer behavior and loyalty toward liquor brands may reveal insights relevant to broader work on the link between age and loyalty (e.g., Lambert‐Pandraud & Laurent, 2010b; Mecredy et al, 2022). Lastly, an important aspect of past work on behavioral loyalty has been the interrelationship between loyalty and brand price.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Patterns of buyer behavior and brand metrics in a “high loyalty” category: Liquor

Dawes

2023

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines behavioral brand loyalty in a category that, based on industry evidence, is expected to exhibit high loyalty: liquor (distilled spirits). The study aims to extend knowledge of the factors that underlie behavioral loyalty, including brand characteristics of price level and promotion incidence, and buyer characteristics of age and income. Drawing on theory and evidence relating to prospect theory, the “smart shopper” concept, as well as literature pertaining to age and loyalty, we develop a series of hypotheses and test them using extensive consumer panel purchasing data for US households. The analysis confirms that liquor is indeed a high loyalty category in the context of consumer goods, evidenced via high share of category requirements (SCR). The study also identifies that liquor brands follow the double jeopardy pattern, whereby larger‐share brands enjoy somewhat higher loyalty, and that exceptions—brands with unusually high or low volume loyalty for their size—are related to high volume purchased per occasion. In turn, there is a strong negative association between brand price and high average volume purchased per occasion (i.e., cheaper brands are bought in larger quantity or volume than expensive ones). The study also finds that brands with a low price tend to be particularly attractive to low‐income households, and that, in turn, low‐income households exhibit higher brand loyalty. These new findings contribute to the literature on brand loyalty and the links between loyalty, brand characteristics, and demographics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Background and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patterns of buyer behavior and brand metrics in a “high loyalty” category: Liquor

Dawes

2023

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, when a brand grows, the brand purchase frequency also slightly increases following the double jeopardy pattern. That is, bigger brands have many more buyers who purchase from them slightly more often (Dawes, 2022; Ehrenberg et al, 1990; Klepek & Kvíčala, 2022; McPhee, 1963; Mecredy et al, 2022). This suggests that the purchase frequency distribution is slightly heavier for growing brands (i.e., everyone purchases slightly more, including the non‐buyers) than for stationary brands.…”

Section: Background and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing the contribution of ultra‐light buyers

Hossain,

Anesbury,

Driesener

et al. 2023

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultra‐light buyers, those who, on average, buy a brand once a year or less, are important by number and their contribution to brand purchase occasions. The initial research, however, was limited in scope and did not measure the contribution of these buyers to sales volume or value. By examining over 850 brands in almost 60 categories, we identify that ultra‐lights make up 62% of a brand's buyer base over 5 years and contribute 32% of purchase occasions and 31% of sales volume and value. In line with previous findings that brands with higher loyalty exhibit more repeat purchases and thus fewer ultra‐light buyers and private label brands often exhibit higher than expected loyalty for their market share—we find the prevalence of ultra‐light buyers is higher for national brands than private labels, likely reflecting the higher loyalty often observed for private labels. We also find no difference in ultra‐light buyers' contribution between high and low‐price brands, indicating that price is not a significant factor affecting the contribution of ultra‐light buyers. Finally, we find that both growing and declining brands have fewer ultra‐lights than stable brands. As growth occurs via increasing penetration and loyalty, for growing brands, new buyers may be more ‘light’ than ‘ultra‐light’ in terms of their loyalty; while for declines, these findings imply that there are not enough ultra‐light buyers to maintain brand sales. A failure to recruit ultra‐light buyers may be very dangerous for brand health.

show abstract