0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
32 tayangan8 halaman
Marketing abounds with examples of consumers learning to choose one brand over another. Brand loyalty has been defined as a sequence of brand choices or probabilities of repeat purchases. A consistent operational definition of brand loyalty is lacking.
Marketing abounds with examples of consumers learning to choose one brand over another. Brand loyalty has been defined as a sequence of brand choices or probabilities of repeat purchases. A consistent operational definition of brand loyalty is lacking.
Marketing abounds with examples of consumers learning to choose one brand over another. Brand loyalty has been defined as a sequence of brand choices or probabilities of repeat purchases. A consistent operational definition of brand loyalty is lacking.
B r a n d L o y a l t i e s : Q u a l i t a t i v e , Q u a n t i t a t i v e , o r B o t h ? Davi d R. Wheel er, D. B. A. Bar uch Col l ege, The Ci t y Uni v er s i t y o f Ne w Yor k INTRODUCTION Marketers wish that their firm's offerings will be perceived by consumers, not as products, but as brands. Marketers hope that they can cause consumers to discriminate among the various brands that are available and to purchase the "cor r ect " brand. Marketing abounds with examples of consumers learning to choose one product or store rather than another. These consumer preferences have been termed "loyalties. " Brand loyalty (in various semantic forms) is a part of any marketer' s vocabulary. Brand loyalty has been defined (Engle, et al., 1968, p. 609) as a sequence of brand choices or expressed as probabilities of repeat purchases over time. Researchers (Brown, 1952) have found significant consistencies in consumers' purchase behavior concerning various prod- ucts. "The consumer' s tendency to develop brand l oyal t y is an important advantage to the marketer of an established brand" (Sturdivant, et al., 1970, p. 174). Although brand loyalties seem to exist, a consistent operational definition is lacking. Definitions of brand loyalty are not only elusive but also numerous. Brand loyalty has been defined (Cunningham, 1956) in terms of the proportion of purchases of the most popular brand. Jagdish N. Sheth (1968) defined brand loyalty as the number of choices in sequence during a stated length of time. Guest (1964) defined brand l oyal t y as the consistency of brand purchasing over time periods up to t went y years. There are several behavioral definitions of brand loyalty which report actual purchasing behavior by consumers. In this paper, the problems associated with quantitative and qualitative approaches to brand loyalty are discussed. The position taken by this author is that the exclusive use of only one of these approaches will lead 651 652 WHEELER to a deficient model of brand loyalty because marketers need to understand and predict consumer behavior. QUAL I T AT I V E MODELS A number of hypotheses have been advanced to explain why consumers change brands. There is usually some empirical evidence for any particular t heory. Theories of brand switching can be categorized as being behavioral descriptions of internal psychological states. Qualitative models view consumer purchasing as being caused by some factor as opposed to occurring by chance. "The term l o y a l t y . . , has been used to. name the commonly observed phenomenon that consumers do not distribute their chocies randomly within a given product area" (Hansen, 1972, p. 322). Behavioral descriptions of brand switching attempt to analyze consumer behavior at a micro level. Various "internal" factors have been conceptualized in order to explain brand switching behavior. These descriptions of cognitive processes have included curiosity, disappoint- ment, reassurance, availability of alternatives, and decisions. Cognitive explanations of brand loyalty have been offered in some recent explanations of consumer choice behavior. Tucker (1964) presented experimental findings on the cognitive strength of loyalties. While learning theories from psychological literature have been used in attempts to explain the process of brand loyalty, the di chot omy between connectionist and cognitive theories has not given marketers a unified explanation of brand loyalty. Jacoby and Kyner (1973) have found empirical support for a conceptual definition of brand loyalty. Their definition is based on the idea that brand loyalty is a form of repeat purchasing. Jacoby and Kyner' s conceptual definition includes the following conditions: (1) purchasing that is nonrandom, (2) behavioral responses, (3) temporal responses, (4) availability of alternatives, and (5) behavior that is a result of a decision-making process. The major contribution of Jacoby and Kyner' s article is in their development of a logical framework that can be used to tie together two views of brand loyalty: repeat purchases (behavioral) to underlying processes (cognitive). Marketers have at t empt ed to find evidence that a postive relationship exists between users (classified either as heavy or light) and brand loyalty. If such a relationship could be found, a logical basis for segmenting markets would exist. "Marketing literature abounds with references to contrasts involving each of the dimensions [total purchases and brand l oyal t y]. It is often argued that two of the most valuable market segments BRAND LOYALTIES 653 to penetrate are the ' heavy hal f and those households that exhibit a high propensity to be brand-loyal" (Frank, 1968, p. 53). In studies of heavy and light product users, no discernible patterns of loyalty, personality, or other characteristics have been shown. It would appear that a brand-loyal customer could be positively correlated with heavy users of that product. Research has failed to show that this is true. Ronald E. Frank writes: " . . . the 'high brand-loyal' household apparently has a profile of personality and socioeconomic characteristics that is virtually identical to that of households exhibiting a lower degree of l oyal t y" (Frank, 1968, p. 61). Dik W. Twedt (1964) believes that a heavy user household is not readily identifiable except through analyses of purchase behavior. Only very small differences were found (Gottlieb, 1958) in the personality characteristics between heavy and light users of a brand medication. The conclusions from the preceding discussion are that marketers have classified product users into light and heavy categories, which are basically not distinguishable from one another except by an arbitrary classification scheme of the particular researchers. QUANTI TATI VE MODELS Physical product differentiation is becoming less pronounced. Con- sumers' abilities to discern physical differences among brands of products in the market place are being hampered by firms producing nearly identical products. "The ability to distinguish among the various b r a n d s . . , may technically exist, but the magnitude is quite small and is unlikely to be of great value in the market place" (Myers and Reynolds, 1967, p. 18). As physical differences among products have declined, marketers have advanced theories that brand switching is due to chance. "When individuals have difficulty discriminating between stimulus situations, behavior becomes random" (Engel, et al., p. 125). Purchases of coffee (a product where brand differentiation is limited) are reported to be closely approximated by a random Poisson process (Day, 1970, p. 68). In an early experiment (Husband and Godfrey, 1934) involving subjects' abilities to discriminate between cigarettes, correct recognition of the unmarked cigarettes was no better than could be expected due to chance. Partly due to the quantitative orientation of the researchers, attention has been focused on various probabilistic models to explain brand switching. These models attempt to represent behavior as some manner of 654 WHEELER stochastic process 9 The particular stochastic model depends on the assumptions made regarding the effects of experience on behavior 9 Brand switching generally is presented stochastically in one of three models: Bernoulli, Markov, or a linear learning model 9 A Bernoulli model of brand switching behavior assumes that previous purchases have no effect on present purchasing. Each brand switching probability remains constant from one purchasing period t o the next. Massy, Montgomery, and Morrison (1970, p. 18) assume: 9 that households reevaluate the worth of the various brands at discrete points in time, that the outcomes of the successive evaluations (drawn from the distribution of probabilities) are independent of one another, and that the purchase probabilities do not change (i.e., the process is Bernoulli) between reevaluations. Frank (1962) found evidence that probability of buying was constant over a period of time for each buyer in his sample. If behavior has a constant probability of occurring it is independent of purchase history. Most researchers have presented brand switching in terms of a Markov model. Markov models assume that the analysis of present purchase behavior depends only on the immediately preceding purchase event and any earlier history than that, is irrelevant. Ehrenberg (1965, p. 347) explains this model as follows: Markov brand-switching models aim in general to deal with repeat-buying and brand-switching behavior, primarily for frequently brought nondurable consumer goods. Consumer purchasing of different brands within a single product field is usually analyzed for successive equal periods of time, e.g., months or quarters 9 A third stochastic model that has been used to explain brand switching is the linear learning model patterned after the generalized form presented by Bush and Mosteller (1955). The assumption i f the linear learning model is that " . . . the probability that a consumer will purchase a particular brand is a function of what she has learned from past favorable experiences with that brand" (Carman, 1966, p. 23). In the linear learning model, a consumer' s behavior is affected by his previous brand choices. " . . . The act of purchasing and using a particular brand is assumed to affect the probability that this brand will be selected the next time the product class is to be purchased" (Massy, et al., p. 141). A linear learning model that has attracted considerable attention in BRAND LOYALTIES 655 marketing is the one developed by Alfred A. Kuehn. Kuehn' s 1962 study of brand l oyal t y at t empt ed to show that consumer' s brand choice behavior can be represented as a linear stochastic process. Kuehn' s learning model is patterned after the Bush-Mosteller model. Kuehn defined his linear model in terms of the slopes and intercepts of two straight lines. The lines are called "puchase operat or" and "rejection operat or. " These are explained as: If the brand in question is purchased by the consumer on a given occasion, the consumer' s probability of again buying the same brand the next time that t ype of product is purchased is read from the purchase operator. I f the brand is rejected by the consumer on a given buying occasion, the consumer' s probability of buying that brand when he next buys that type of product from the rejection operator (Kuehn, p. 104). Empirical support of this linear model came from a study that Kuehn conducted from 1950-1952 on data from 600 Chicago families' sequential purchase behavior. Brand switching patterns for Snow Crop frozen orange juice was analyzed. Even though Kuehn' s linear learning model seems to predict purchase behavior quiet well from previous purchase history, there are some serious defects present in the model. A problem of considerable importance is that of estimating the four parameters. "I f this [determining t he parameters] could be done a p r i o r i , the model might be a value to marketing management for use in forecasting." Massy, Montgomery, and Morrison (1970, p. 157) write: " . . . we cannot trust the specific predictions he obtains or the implied estimates of parameters." Philip Kotler (1971, p. 506) points out two other problems with Kuehn' s stochastic learning model: The purchase operator is t oo rigid in implying inevitable satisfaction with use. Also, this mo d e l , . . , ignores the effect on brand choice of variations in the marketing mix. It describes the buyer' s brand purchase probabilities as being modified solely through past brand choices. Stochastic models are abstractions of the real world. They may be t oo abstract to present completely the many faceted aspects of brand switching. Probably no simple structure can do an adequate job. In the typical stochastic model, the inputs are the sequence and the frequency of 656 WHEELER brand purchases. Herein lies the stochastic model s' major weakness- t he lack of incorporation of several i mport ant marketing variables (MacLach- lan, 1972, p. 378). The influences and relationships of price, promot i on, product , and distribution are not considered in the probabilistic models. There is sufficient justification t o believe t hat stochastic models are not able to adequately explain brand switching. Ehrenberg (p. 361) writes: So far, it has never been shown t hat there is either any need or any value in going beyond the nonstochastic flow model t ype of interpretation. What is more, there is already ample evidence t hat the probabilistic i nt erpret at i on would be impossible. It may be t hat stochastic models may explain nothing about brand switching. The value of these probabilistic models may lie in the development of experimental work t o verify the brand switching hypotheses. SUMMARY Researchers have presented various explanations of brand l oyal t y in terms of either quantitative or qualitative models. The developers of brand l oyal t y models have at t empt ed to formulate theoretical frameworks f r om which brand-switching behavior could be predicted and explained. Qualitative explanations of consumers behavior have not been successful in accounting for the variance in the dependent variable. An ability to predict behavior on the basis of a verbal model has not been a satisfying experience for consumer researchers. The various quantitative models of brand l oyal t y seem to predict consumer behavior more accurately than have the qualitative models. Quantitative models suffer from a lack of a consideration of " why" l oyal t y exists. Brand l oyal t y needs to be defined in bot h qualitative and quantitative terms. A brand loyal consumer not only must purchase a particular brand consistently over time, but also the loyal consumer must have positive psychological preferences for the brand under consideration. REFERENCES Brown, George H. 1952. "Brand Loyalty-Fact or Fiction?" Advertising Age 23 (June 9) 52-55. Bush, Robert R. and Mosteller, Frederick. 1955. Stochastic Models for Learning. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Carman, James M. 1966. "Brand Switching and Linear Learning Models." Journal of Advertising Research 6 (June) 23-31. BRAND LOYALTIES 657 Cunningham, Ross M. 1956. "Brand Loyalty-What, Where, How Much?" Harvard Business Review 34 (January-February) 116-128. Day, George S. 1970. Buyer Attitude and Brand Choice Behavior. New York: The Free Press. Ehrenberg, A. S. C. 1965. "An Appraisal of Markov Brand-Switching Models." Journal of Marketing Research 2 (November) 347-362. Engel, James F., Kollat, David, and Blackwell, Roger D. 1968. Consumer Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Frank, Ronald E. 1962. "Brand Choice as a Probability Process." Journal of Business 35 (January) 43-57. Frank, Ronald E. 1968. "Market Segmentation: Findings and Implications." Applications of the Sciences in Marketing Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Gottlieb, M. J. 1958. "Segmentation by Personality Types." Advancing Marketing Efficiency. Chicago: American Marketing Association. Guest, Lester. 1964. "Brand Loyalty Revisited: A Twenty-Year Report." Journal of Applied Psychology 48 (April) 93-97. Hansen, Flemming. 1972. Consumer Choice Behavior. New York: The Free Press. Husband, R. W. and Godfrey, J. 1934. "An Experimental Study of Cigarette Identification." Journal of Applied Psychology 18 (April) 220-223. Jacoby, Jacob and Kyner, David B. 1973. "Brand Loyalty Vs. Repeat Purchasing Behavior." Journal of Marketing Research 10 (February) 1-9. Kotler, Philip. 1971. Marketing Decision Making: A Model Building Approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Kuehn, Alfred A. 1968. "Consumer Brand Choice as a Learning Process." Perspectives in Consumer Behavior. Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman and Company. MacLachlan, Douglas L. 1972. "A Model of Intermediate Market Response." Journal of Marketing Research. 9 (November) 378-384. Massy, William F., Montgomery, David B. and Morrison, Donald G, 1970. Stochastic Models of Buying Behavior. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press. Myers, James H. and Reynolds, William H. 1967. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Sheth, Jagdish N. 1968. "How Adults Learn Brand Preference." Journal of Advertising Research. 9 (September) 25-36. Sturdivant, Frederick D. et al. 1970, Managerial Analysis in Marketing. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company. Tucker, William T. 1964. "The Development of Brand Loyalty." Journal of Marketing Research t (August) 32-35. Twedt, Dik W. 1964. "How Important to Marketing Strategy is the 'Heavy User'?" Journal of Marketing 28 (January) 71-72. ABOUT THE AUTHOR DR. DAVID R, WHEELER received his doct orat e in business administra- tion from Texas Tech University in May, 1974. He is currently teaching at Baruch College of the City University of New York. He was an assistant 658 WHEELER professor of marketing at the University of North Dakota from 1972 to 1974. His primary teaching and research activities are consumer behavior, principles of marketing, quantitative methods, and market research. Dr. Wheeler has been employed as an engineer for an aerospace firm in Dallas, as an auditor for the state of Texas, and as a meteorologist. Presently he is engaged in research concerning multi-dimensional approaches to explaining and predicting consumer behavior.