vortrag international conference business excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
1/24
Chair forMarketing and RetailingTrier UniversityProf. Dr. Prof. h.c. B. Swoboda
EMPIRICAL STUDY ON FORMATS
PERCEPTION OF RETAILMARKETING
Bernhard Swoboda, Bettina Berg, Dan Cristian Dabija
International Conference Business ExcellenceOctober 17th 2009
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
2/24
Relevance and Objectives
Retail brand perception, store image or even the positioning of retail
firms have frequently been examined in research and practice formany years. (e.g., Steenkamp and Wedel 1991; Chowdhury et al. 1998)
Studies analysing retail formats on the basis of retailer attributesperceived in a particular retail sector are relatively seldom.(e.g., Solgaard and Hansen 2003; Morschett et al. 2006)
Studies analysing retail formats in emerging countries are relativelyscarce. (Uusitalo and Rkman 2007; Goldmann 2000; White and Absher 2007)
How do retailer attributes impact on store image
in an emerging country grocery retail sector, and
comparing known retail formats, i.e. hypermarkets, supermarkets,discounters, neighbourhood stores, and cash & carry stores?
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 2
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
3/24
1. Theory and hypotheses
Development of conceptual framework
Conceptual framework and hypotheses
2. Methodology
Empirical design and sample
Appropriateness of scales
3. Results
Results specific to the Romanian grocery retail sector
Retail format-specific results
4. Conclusion and limitations
Agenda
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 3
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
4/24
Store image is defined as the way in which a retail store is anchored
in the consumers memory, partly by the functional qualities andpartly by an aura of psychological attributes.(Martineau 1958)
Consumers evaluate stores on the basis of the retailer attributesoffered. (Mazursky and Jacoby 1986)
Controversy between the theory of stimulus discrimination and the
theory of stimulus generalization. (Till and Priluck 2000) Individual retailer attributes are not perceived in isolation, but are linked to one
another. (Marks 1976)
Argumentation is based on simplification thesis and the importance of keyinformation. (Wu and Petroshius 1987)
Conceptual Framework
Different attributes dominate consumers perception
in particular retail formats.
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 4
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
5/24
Conceptual Framework
Price
Service
Communication
Location
Store layout
Store image
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 5
Retail formats
Assortment
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
6/24
Hypotheses
H1: The perception of service, assortment, and location dominates theimage of supermarkets. (McDonald 1991, Solgaard and Hansen 2003)
H2: The perception of assortment, price, and store layout dominates theimage of hypermarkets. (Seiders and Teigert 2000, Solgaard and Hansen2003, Castrillo, Forn and Mira 1997)
H3: The perception of price and location dominates the image ofdiscounters. (Solgaard and Hansen 2003, Morschett et al. 2006)
H4: The perception of location, service, and assortment dominates theimage of neighbourhood stores. (Swoboda/Morschett 2001, Tordjman 1994)
H5: The perception of assortment, communication, and price dominatesthe image of cash & carry stores. (no consumer-related studies but withanalogies to hypermarkets)
H6: The impact of each of the retailer attributes (assortment, store layout,location, communication, price, and service) on store image differs
between formats. (Solgaard and Hansen 2003, Morschett et al. 2006)International Conference Business Excellence
Chart 6
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
7/24
Research Context
Romania
one of the larger Eastern European country-markets, 22m inhabitants
approx. 4,500 EUR GDP per person
Consumers
53% of the population live in cities
25 cities have more than 100,000 inhabitants
consumer spending of 2,500 EUR per person per annum
49% of consumer spending is spent on food
Grocery retail market
dynamic retail sector with a market volume of 25bn EUR
approx. 10% annual growth
low concentration rate with the top 5 retailers having a total share of only 22% largest retail company is Metro Group, which was the first mover in the
Romanian grocery retail market with the C&C format 1997
Auchan is one of the last followers, entered the market two years ago
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 7
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
8/24
1. Theory and hypotheses
Development of conceptual framework
Conceptual framework and hypotheses
2. Methodology
Empirical design and sample
Appropriateness of scales
3. Results
Results specific to the Romanian grocery retail sector
Retail format-specific results
4. Conclusion and limitations
Agenda
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 8
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
9/24
Translation-backtranslation method
Measurement of all items with Likert-type scale (from 1=totallydisagree to 7=totally agree)
At the beginning of the questionnaire: respondents had to list which
grocery stores they frequently use (asking about one retail store) No check on the choice of retail formats
Empirical design
Methodology
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 9
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
10/24
Methodology
Sample
2,825 face-to-face interviews basing on quota sampling (sex and age)(Reynolds, Simintiras and Diamantopoulos 2003)measuring consumerperceptions
Twelve grocery companies assigned to five retail formats are included:
hypermarkets (minimum retail floor space of 8,500 m) supermarkets (retail floor space of 1,000-5,000 m)
discounters (maximum retail floor space of 1,000 m)
cash & carry stores (minimum retail floor space of 7,500 m)
neighbourhood stores (retail floor space of 100-750 m)
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 10
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
11/24
All constructs were tested for reliability; item reduction after item-to-
total correlation (acc. to Churchill 1979) Unidimensionality of store image construct was scrutinized using
exploratory factor analysis:
AVE of 61.5%
KMO measure of sampling adequacy of .787 (middling acc. to Kaiser/Rice 1974)
2 of Bartletts test of sphericity of 3,183.4 (df=6 and p=.000) Discriminant validity for the model could be approved (acc. to Fornell
and Larcker 1981)
Appropriateness of Scales
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 11
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
12/24
Explorative Factor AnalysisPerception of Retailer Attributes
Principal Axis Factor Analysis
Items (split-half method)
Factor 1:Assortment/
store layout
Factor 2:
Location
Factor 3:
Communication
Factor 4:
Price
Factor 5:
Service
Very good store layout .811
Very pleasant shopping atmosphere .725Always very clean store .720Very good assortment .649
Always very good quality of the products .647
Optimum location for me .878
Other retailers near the store .783Other grocery retailers near the store .761All products easy to find .3491
Frequent advertising -.891
Excellent advertising -.826Very informative advertising -.801Always reasonable prices .799
Very good price/performance ratio .761
Steady prices .691Good price level compared to competitors .668
Friendly and helpful store staff .251 .868Good service .370 .837
Well trained/highly qualified store staff .675
Eigenvalues 6.460 2.460 1.570 1.420 1.040
Share of explained total variance 33.99% 12.96% 8.30% 7.48% 5.46%
KMO measure of sampling adequacy: .894; Chi2of Bartletts test ofsphericity: 25,098.4 (sign. p=.000).Note: Factor loadings below .1 are not displayed; 1 Item was excluded because of a factor loading below .4 acc. to Nunnally/Bernstein 1994.
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
13/24
Split-half method
2
dfNFITLICFIGFIAGFIRMSEASRMR
818.0
125.967.965.972.967.955.044.034
.39
.27
.35
.40
.26
.64
Frequent advertising
Excellent advertisingVery informative advertisingAlways reasonable prices
Very good price/performance ratiod13
Very good store layoutd1
Always very clean stored3
Optimum location for med6
Other retailers near the stored7
d9
d10
d11
d12
Very pleasant shopping atmosphered
2
Steady pricesd14
Good price level compared to competitorsd15
Other grocery retailers near the stored
8
Very good assortmentd
4
Very good assortmentd
5
.74
.79
.72
.65
.66
.78
.78
.69
.67
.88
.83
.80
.87
.77
.79
Assortment/store layout
Location
Communication
Price
Confirmatory Factor AnalysisPerception of Retailer Attributes
.26
Friendly and helpful store staffGood service
Well trained/highly qualified store staff
d16
d17
d18
.86
.85
.68Service
.49
.15
.71
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 13
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
14/24
1. Theory and hypotheses
Development of conceptual framework
Conceptual framework and hypotheses
2. Methodology
Empirical design and sample
Appropriateness of scales
3. Results
Results specific to the Romanian grocery retail sector
Retail format-specific results
4. Conclusion and limitations
Agenda
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 14
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
15/24
Conceptual Framework
Price
Service
Communication
Location
Assortment/store layout
Store image
N=2,825
2
dfNFI:TLI:CFI:GFI:AGFIRMSEA:SRMR:
1,267
194.957.957.964.958.945.044.036
Note: ****
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
16/24
Impact of Perceived Retailer Attributes on Store ImageAccording to Retail Formats
Retail Format-Specific Results
Retailer attribute on storeimage
Cash & carrystores
(N=435)Discounters
(N=307)Hypermarkets
(N=809)Neighbourhood
stores
(N=373)Supermarkets
(N=901)Assortment/store layout storeimage .33****(.51) .61****(.82) .39****(.59) .58****(.99) .56****(.90)Location store image .22****(.31) .08*(.06) .13****(.11) .22****(.19) .09***(.08)Communication store image .06ns
(.01) .08ns
(.09) .05ns
(.06) .03ns
(.02) .06ns
(.07)Price store image .23***
(.30) .10ns
(.17) .11*.
(.16) -.02ns
(-.02) .03ns
(.05)Service store image .10ns
(.13) .04ns
(.05) .15***(.18) .17*(.20) .13***(.17)Goodness of fit statistics: GFI=.930; AGFI=.909; NFI=.922; CFI=.954; TLI=.945; RMSEA=.022; SRMR=.051;=2,259.1; df=970.Note: ****
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
17/24
Note: ****
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
18/24
1. Theory and hypotheses
Development of conceptual framework
Conceptual framework and hypotheses
2. Methodology
Empirical design and sample
Appropriateness of scales
3. Results
Results specific to the Romanian grocery retail sector
Retail format-specific results
4. Conclusion and limitations
Agenda
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 18
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
19/24
Implications
Study supports some interesting results from previous studies, but alsodiscloses new findings for an Eastern European Market
Study reveals an appropriate method for analysing store image on the basis ofseveral retailer attributes
Conclusion and Limitations
(1) Consumer perceptions of assortment/store layout has an impor-
tant effect on store image in Romanian grocery retail sector in gene-ral and (2) is also the most important construct for all retail formats inbuilding store image, whereas communication has no influence.
Limitations and further research
General: Further research is required as this is an initial study in Romania,impact of communication has to be investigated as well as the one extractedfactor for store layout and assortment constructs
Methodical: Check of retail formats to assure better opportunities forcomparisons, investigation in other countries to validate measurements and tocompare results between countries, inclusion of moderating factors (e.g.
shopping motives or involvement), longitudinal analysis to examine impactsover time International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 19
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
20/24
Chair forMarketing and RetailingTrier UniversityProf. Dr. Prof. h.c. B. Swoboda
Thank you for your attention!
Bernhard SwobodaBettina Berg
Dan Cristian Dabija
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
21/24
Chair forMarketing and RetailingTrier UniversityProf. Dr. Prof. h.c. B. Swoboda
Backup
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
22/24
Construct Items
Store layout(acc. to Chowdhury/Reardon/Srivastava 1998)
1) I like the store layout at X very much.2) I can find my way around easily at my nearest X branch.3) The X store is well-assorted.4) The shopping atmosphere at the X store is very pleasant.5) The X store is always very clean.
Assortment(acc. to Chowdhury/Reardon/Srivastava 1998)
1) The assortment at the X store is very good.2) At the X store I can find all the products I need very easily.3) The products are always available at the X store.4) The X store offers plenty of own brands.5) The quality of the products sold at X is always very good.
Location(acc. to Anselmsson 2006)
1) The X store has an optimum location for me.2) There are other retailers near the X store.3) There are other grocery retailers near the X store.
Communication(acc. to Hansen/Deutscher1977/78)
1) The X store has excellent advertising.2) I often see advertising by the X store.3) Advertising for the X store is very informative.4) The X store has credible communication.5) In addition to typical information, advertising by the X store also provides additional
information on the firm.
Price(acc. to Arnold/Oum/Tigert 1983;Grewal et al. 1998;Yoo/Donthu/Lee 2000)
1) I think the prices at the X store are always reasonable.2) I find that most products are offered at favourable prices over a long period.3) I find the price/performance ratio very good at the X store.4) I find the special offers by the X store very attractive.5) Compared to its competitors, the X store has a good price level.
Service(acc. to Sirdeshmukh/Singh/Sabol2002)
1) Service is good at the X store.2) The X store staff is friendly and helpful.3) The X store staff is well trained/highly qualified.4) The X store staff does not hesitate to solve my problems.5) I appreciate having a product return guarantee at the X store.
Measurement of Retailer Attributes
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 22
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
23/24
Construct Items
Store image(acc. to Verhoef/Langerak/Donkers 2007)
1) The X store is a well known brand.2) The X store is a unique brand.3) The X store is a likable/attractive brand.4) The X store is a strong brand.
Measurement of Store Image
International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 23
-
7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009
24/24
Discriminatory Power of the Model(total sample)
Squared correlations between constructs
N=2,825
Assortment/store layout
LocationCommuni-
cationPrice Service Store image
AVE .52 .65 .71 .52 .64 .50Assortment/store layout .52 -Location .65 .08 -Communication .71 .17 .15 -Price .52 .42 .07 .16 -Service .64 .51 .03 .07 .25 -Store image .50 .49 .32 .14 .27 .32 -Note: AVE=Average Variance Explained.
Discriminant Validity of all Constructs
International Conference Business ExcellenceCh 24