The role of private label tiers and private label naming strategies in the relationship between private label brand equity and store loyalty

Abstract

Purpose The evolution of private labels (PL) is a recent trend in the retail industry: many retailers now manage a PL portfolio that includes multiple value propositions, as well as various brand name strategies. Little research has been done, however, on how this combination of PL strategies conditions the results of the retailer that manages them. This study aims to examine the formation of PL brand equity and its effect on store loyalty for retailers with differently tiered PL programs (a “better” program with standard PL vs a full PL quality spectrum with economy, standard and premium PLs) and different PL naming strategies (store-banner name or stand-alone brand name). Design/methodology/approach A survey (N = 644) was used to test the model in the context of the consumer goods retail industry. Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and multi-group structural equation modelling techniques were used to assess the proposed model. Findings The results show differences in the formation of PL loyalty based on whether the retailer has a tiered PL program. In portfolios with economy, standard and premium PLs, PL associations have a stronger effect than PL awareness in the formation of PL loyalty. Portfolios with a standard PL show balanced effects of PL associations and PL awareness on PL loyalty formation. As to the positive effect of PL brand equity on store loyalty, this study also shows a stronger effect of PL brand equity on store loyalty in chains that choose to use their store banner name in their PLs. Practical implications Retailers that manage multi-tier PL portfolios (as opposed to those that commercialise a standard PL) can increase loyalty to the PL portfolio significantly by constructing highly differentiated images of their economy, standard and premium PLs to ensure that consumers truly perceive the different value propositions of their PL tiers. As to PL naming strategy, the authors recommend that retailers that use the same retail chain name for one or several of their PLs invest in their corporate reputation to strengthen the brand equity achieved by their PLs and thus increase loyalty to the retail chain. Retailers must perform specific communication and advertising campaigns for PLs with the stand-alone brand name. Originality/value Today, any reference to PLs as a whole is overly simplistic, but no research has assessed empirically differences in the influences of a multi-tiered vs a standard PL program on the PL loyalty formation for PL portfolios. Nor has any empirical research incorporated the influence of PL naming strategy on store loyalty. This study fills these gaps, integrating into the same model two significant moderating variables of retailers’ strategy: their PL tier strategy and their PL naming strategy.

The impacts of comparative ads used by retailers to compare their store brands with national brands

“…Hypothesis 7 is therefore partially supported by our data. Thus, this research partially confirms previous studies (Martos-Partal and González-Benito, 2011; Diallo et al , 2015; Rubio et al , 2019) that indicated that SBs' positioning has an impact on consumers' behaviour (e.g. their loyalty to the SBs/the store or the value of the store).…”

“…copycat) has a more favourable effect on store loyalty than positioning that prioritizes price over quality (generic SBs). Recently, Rubio et al (2019) indicated that in portfolios with economy, standard and premium SBs, SB associations have a stronger effect than SB awareness in the formation of SB loyalty. Portfolios with a standard SB show balanced effects of SB associations and SB awareness on SB loyalty formation.…”

The mediating role of self-congruity in transnational higher education choice: a proposed framework

“…As previously stated, OBE always shows a positive and significant influence on other consumer behavior construct(s), such as store loyalty (Rubio et al, 2019), advocacy behavior (Baghi et al, 2016), and surely purchase intention (Chen and Chang, 2008;Moradi and Zarei, 2011;Tharmi and Senthilnathan, 2012;Buil et al, 2013;Shah et al, 2016;Vahdati and Nejad, 2016;Samadi et al, 2017;Akturan, 2018;Poturak and Softic, 2019). However, among MBE based studies, there are conflicting results.…”

Investigating the healthiness of food products on promotion: market brands and own brands

“…International and national brands refer to those which are found in many countries around the world, while regional brands refer to those generally available in one country or a narrow geographical area (Winit et al, 2014). OBs have a variety of price and branding strategies which appeal to different consumer segments, with tiered product portfolios often used, rather than a single standard OB range (Lessassy, 2019;Rubio et al, 2019). Value ranges follow an economy strategy, avoiding expensive ingredients and packaging (e.g.…”