INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING RESEARCH ♦
Volume 2 ♦
Number 1 ♦
2009
MARKETING MIX AND BRANDING: COMPETITIVE
HYPERMARKET STRATEGIES
Hui-Chu Chen, TransWorld Institute of Technology
Robert D. Green, Lynn University
ABSTRACT
Super-centers and hypermarkets are increasing in the retail markets. To determine customer-based
brand equity (CBBE), a proportionate market share and a gender-balance hypermarket shopper sample
was collected. Using t-Tests for gender to the marketing mix and CBBE, female shoppers consistently
have higher mean scores. However, only distribution intensity, brand association and total brand equity
were significantly higher than males. But men feel that their hypermarkets were higher priced than
women were. Retail marketing mix elements and CBBE dimensions were further analyzed for similarities
between genders. As well, each hypermarket results are presented. This study concludes with the
marketing implications, study limitations and future research opportunities.
KEYWORDS: Customer-based brand equity, marketing mix, market share
JEL: M31
INTRODUCTION
etailers, as well as consumer product manufacturers, have continued to be confronted with
increasing competitive markets. As a result, these manufacturers are adding product categories,
e.g., Procter & Gamble acquiring Gillette, and retailers expanding, e.g., Wal-Mart acquiring
ASDA (in the United Kingdom). At the same time, other manufacturers are refocusing and narrowing
product categories, e.g., Unilever reducing more than 1,600 brands to about 500, and retailers
consolidating, e.g., K-Mart and Sears, Roebuck and Company merger. These are major strategy changes
for some of the largest global companies and best-known products. Regardless of the approach, these
companies and products will be successful if they stay true to being differentiators, low cost leaders or
nichers (Porter, 1980) in serving markets.
R
Strategies that are successful identify and achieve an unserved or underserved position in the marketplace.
Positioning or repositioning may occur with products or retail stores (Kerin, Hartley, Berkowitz and
Rudelius, 2006). Branding, also, plays a major role in positioning. Position strength includes well
developed value propositions, e.g., identifying a broad yet specific value proposition, and well developed
brand, e.g., brand name, strong brand associations and promises, and managing customers?? brand contacts
(Kotler, 1999). Specific to marketing, strategies are based on segmenting, targeting and positioning
(Kotler and Keller, 2006).
For decades, segmentation has been a marketing tool. Marketing activities require ??precise utilization of
both product differentiation and market segmentation as components of marketing strategy?? (Smith, 1956,
p. 7) in which the segment must be large enough to be profitable. Furthermore, markets may be
segmented on the bases of geographic, demographic, psychographic and behavioral methods (Kotler and
Armstrong, 2008). Targeting is merely the selection of specific segment(s), e.g., gender or age, or males
or females in a demographic segment. Consumer product manufacturers and retailers ??must decide on a
value proposition – on how it will create differentiated value for targeted segments and what position it
wants to occupy in those segments?? (Kotler and Armstrong, 2008, p. 203). Jack Trout reminds marketers
of Walter Landor??s statement that ??(p)roducts are created in the factory, but brands are created in the
17
H.C. Chen, R.D. Green ⎪
IJMMR ♦Vol. 2 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2009
mind?? (2005, p. 28). Brands, therefore, are created by having the appropriate marketing mix – product,
price, place, promotions (McCarthy, 1960) – to support (connected with) the positioning strategy in the
minds of the target market in comparison to competing brands (Kotler and Armstrong, 2008).
Since Smith??s (1956) market segmentation and McCarthy??s (1960) marketing mix concepts appeared,
consumer markets have changed significantly for product manufacturers and retailers. Consumer trends
and their expectations have included the (1) acceleration of socio-economic change, (2) increase of mass
distribution, and (3) rise in their influence on retail change (McNair and May, 1978). For example,
during this timeframe Wal-Mart has evolved from a small variety store in Rogers, Arkansas in 1962 to the
world largest retailer with revenues of $344 billion, with 6,500 stores and 1.9 million employees in 15
international countries by 2007. Much of Wal-Mart??s success is the strategy of ??understanding of what
consumers want from a retailer?? (Wal-Mart, 2008), which is reflective by Wal-Mart??s growth and
success. Wal-Mart, as a general merchandise retailer, clearly offers convenience or one-stop shopping
(mass distribution) and competitive pricing or everyday low prices (consumer influence), adapting to a
changing consumer market.
Moreover, socio-economic factors influence consumers shopping and preference. For such changes and
its impact on consumer marketing, Penn identifies microtrends as ??an intense identity group, that is
growing, which has needs and wants unmet by the current crop of companies, markets, policymakers, and
others who would influence society??s behavior?? (2007, p. xx). Consumer drivers influencing these
microtrends have been a result of: (1) Both spouses work and have their own careers, some even
geographically apart from the other; (2) Husbands shop for food and clothing while wives purchase
durable goods, automobiles and other major (high priced) products; (3) Single parenting has greatly
increased; (4) Households have more non-married couples with shared living arrangements with the
opposite or same gender; and (5) Men and women are waiting longer to marry, or not marrying at all.
Furthermore, people have many interests that are more varied and activities in addition to work that lead
to busy, hectic schedules that has created a dynamic consumer market. Socio-economic factors continue
to influence who and where consumers shop and what consumers purchase.
The purpose of this research is to determine the marketing mix and branding relationship as perceived by
each gender. The objective is to identify and analyze the comparative links between gender (male,
female), the marketing mix (product, price, place, promotions) and retail brand equity (brand loyalty,
brand awareness, perceived quality, brand association). This study is to determine: Are there significant
differences between genders?? perceptions of retail stores?? marketing mix that contributes to greater brand
equity? This article reviews the marketing mix and branding theoretical and empirical literature, data and
methodology, and the study??s findings, implications and conclusion.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Prior to the marketing mix model, marketing managers were confronted with many different marketing
activities to manage independently and separately (Alderson, 1957). Actually Neil Border may have been
the first (in the late 1940s) to advance the marketing mix concept in his teaching and business consulting.
Not until the mid-1960s did Borden publish his model in which he identified the marketing mix elements
and the market forces. First, the elements included product planning, pricing, branding, channels of
distribution, personal selling, advertising, promotions, packaging, displays, servicing, physical handling,
and fact-finding and analysis. Second, the market forces were consumers?? buying behavior, the trade
behavior, competitors?? position and behavior, and government behavior – controls over marketing
(Borden, 1965). However, McCarthy (1960) gets the credit for the marketing mix model – product, price,
place (channels of distribution), promotion – that remains widely used by practitioners and scholars today.
18
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING RESEARCH ♦
Volume 2 ♦
Number 1 ♦
2009
Brand equity is ??a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add to or
subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firm??s customers?? (Aaker,
1991, p. 15). Five dimensions of brand equity are brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality,
brand association and other propriety brand assets (Aaker, 1991). The importance of brand equity is (1)
for financial value for merger, acquisition or divestment and (2) to improve marketing strategy and
productivity (Keller, 1993). Brand equity theory (Aaker, 1991) was further developed to include a
consumer??s perspective (Keller, 1993). Keller defines customer-based brand equity ??as the differential
effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand?? (1993, p. 2). This brand
knowledge includes brand awareness (brand recall and recognition) and brand image (types, favorability,
strength and uniqueness of brand associations). Keller concludes, ??consumer-based brand equity occurs
when the customer is aware of the brand and holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand associations
in memory?? (1993, p. 17). Furthermore, branding and brand management are applicable to retail brands,
e.g., retail and store image, perceived retail brand association, as well as to retail brand equity
measurement (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004).
Lassar, Mittal and Sharma (1995) in an early study of customer-based brand equity (CBBE) measurement
identified five constructs. These include performance, social image, value, trustworthiness and
attachment. Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000) consolidated these five, and used three measures to test CBBE.
The researchers measured perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand awareness/association (as one
construct) in a three product (athletic shoes, camera film and television sets) study. Yoo et al. (2000) did
recognize the marketing mix elements (marketing efforts) as antecedents of brand equity, and
operationalized the marketing mix as (1) price, (2) advertising spending, (3) price deals, (4) store image
and (5) distribution intensity.
Pappu, Quester and Cooksey (2005) challenged, and tested the combining of brand awareness and brand
association. First, Pappu et al. (2005) used two products (cars and television sets), and then for retailer
CBBE (Pappu and Cooksey, 2006). Both studies successfully tested CBBE. This retailer CBBE study
will use the four construct measures of: (1) brand loyalty, (2) brand awareness, (3) perceived quality and
(4) brand association (Pappu et al., 2006). However, unlike Yoo, Donthu, and Lee (2000), neither (Pappu
et al., 2005; Pappu et al., 2006) study tested the marketing mix and CBBE relationship. For this study,
the customer is either a male or female retail shopper that has been exposed to the marketing mix and the
influence, if any, contributing to customer-based brand equity.
Keller purposes that ??customer-based brand equity involves consumers?? reactions to an element of the
marketing mix for the brand comparison with their reactions to the same marketing mix element
attributed to a fictitiously named or unnamed version of the product or service?? (1993, p. 2). Research
has shown the relationship of gender and the marketing mix (price, advertising spending, price deals,
store image and distribution intensity). Additional research has shown the influence of gender on brand
equity (brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand association). The following are some
select studies that indicate these relationships.
Marketing Mix
Price may be defined simple as the monetary cost of a product (good or service). However, other
measures can be associated with price, e.g., premiums (Sethuraman and Cole, 1999), quality (Peterson,
1970), fee method (Munnukka, 2006), loyalty (McConnell, 1968), branding (Anselmsson, Johansson, and
Persson, 2007). In a grocery products study, women were more willing to pay higher price premiums
than men were (Sethuraman and Cole, 1999). However, such willingness to pay higher prices is based on
perceived quality that is nonlinear in which prices have high and low thresholds (Peterson, 1970). In a
recent study of pricing methods, males were willing to pay on a usage fee based method while females on
a fixed fee based method (Munnukka, 2006). Furthermore, price serves as a cue of product quality and
19
H.C. Chen, R.D. Green ⎪
IJMMR ♦Vol. 2 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2009
the brand loyalty strength (McConnell, 1968). A recent study identified specific criteria based on price
premiums that contribute to brand equity. The brand equity dimensions (with some findings) were
loyalty (purchase frequency, first choice in category), awareness (first mentioned in category, knows
brand, logo and name), perceived quality (taste, performance, durability), and association (health and
environmental factors, organizational innovativeness and success, social image) (Anselmsson, Johansson,
and Persson, 2007).
Advertising is ??any paid form of nonpersonal communication about an organization, product, service or
idea by an identified sponsor?? (Belch and Belch, 2007, p. 17). Advertising spending contributes
positively to brand equity (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, and Donthu, 1995) that provides important extrinsic
cues for consumers (Milgrom and Roberts, 1986). Messages have been successful, not only in the level
of spending, but also when targeting an audience??s gender group in which the exposure links to the
viewer??s social identity (Maldonado, Tansuhaj, and Muehling, 2003). This gender group may, or may not
be the traditional male-female classification but rather advertising effectiveness may be better targeted as
nontraditional masculine-feminine grouping for greater congruence (Morrison and Shaffer, 2003). In
addition, self-image congruity is a predictor of consumers?? brand preference (Jamal and Goode, 2001).
Congruency between the advertisements and the audience has self-identified masculinity and femininity
results in positive attitudes toward the advertisements (Chang, 2006). Furthermore, when advertised
brands were evaluated, masculinity individuals relied more on product function beliefs (Chang, 2006),
which supports the Selectivity Model (Meyers-Levy, 1989).
Price deals are ??coupons, cents-off, rebates, premiums, ??two-for-one??, and other price incentives?? (Mittal,
1994, p. 533). Over 35 years ago, females/housewives were more prone to use price deals (Montgomery,
1971). With an indication of the changing traditional gender shopping roles, men now have similar
shopping responsibilities as women for purchasing a wide variety of products (Harmon and Hill, 2003).
In a gender-price deal study, women were more likely than men to ??usually/always?? use coupons for
department stores, fast food restaurants, food delivery, and dry cleaning purchases. However, males,
rather than females, would more likely use coupons for groceries and electronics/computers (Harmon and
Hill, 2003). However, price deals have a negative effect on brand equity, e.g., perceived quality
(Villarejo-Ramos and Sanchez-Franco, 2005), brand and store loyalty (Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987).
Store image is ??the way in which the store is defined in the shopper??s mind, partly by its functional
qualities and partly by an aura of psychological attributes?? (Martineau, 1958, p. 47). Functional qualities
may include product assortment, price levels, store layout or retail format; psychological attributes would
be the sense of belonging, feelings, excitement/atmosphere (Lindquist, 1974-1975), even the personality
of the store (Martineau, 1958). Emotional (pleasantness/unpleasantness, arousal/non-arousal,
dominance/submissiveness) and cognitive (quality and variety of merchandise, value of money, price
spending) factors were studied for female shoppers (Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn, and Nesdale, 1994).
Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn, and Nesdale found that female ??shoppers?? emotional states within the
store predict actual purchase behavior – not just attitudes or intentions ??. (and) ??. emotional variables to
store behavior is independent of cognitive variables?? (1994, p. 291). Furthermore, compared to females,
males rate service encounters higher (Snipes, Thomson, and Oswald, 2006). In a study of information
cues, brand recognition and retail store image, Porter and Claycomb concluded that the ??(u)ltimate
success of a brand and a retailer is determined by how close the image of the selling organization and the
product meet the expectations of the consumer?? (1997, p. 385).
Distribution intensity is the breadth and depth of products offered (Kotler and Keller, 2006) with greater
availability, convenience for consumers (Yoo et al., 2000). Size of assortment reduces the chance of
consumers considering shopping at competing retailers. There is a direct, proportionate relationship
between (increased) assortment composition and size and (increased) purchases (Koelemeijer and
Oppewal, 1999). In a study of super-store shoppers, females were significantly different from males in 14
20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING RESEARCH ♦
Volume 2 ♦
Number 1 ♦
2009
of the 22 store attributes (Williams, Absher, and Hoffman, 1997). Females rated the stores?? attributes
higher, ??more appealing,?? than men for 20 of the 22 survey items did. The highest rankings by women
were associated with product selections and convenience, e.g., having large, more product assortments.
The marketing mix of price, advertising spending, price deals, store image, and distribution intensity
(Yoo, Donthu, and Lee, 2000) provides measures to target a retail market segment (Smith, 1956), e.g.,
males, females, and to position brands in the consumers?? mind as compared to competitors (Kotler and
Armstrong, 2008). Successful brands increase value to firms and its?? customers – brand equity (Aaker,
1991) – in the consumer market (Pappu and Cooksey, 2006).
Brand Equity
Loyalty is ??a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product/service consistently in
the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational
influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior?? (Oliver, 1999, p. 34).
In a United Kingdom consumer product market study, product performance, customer satisfaction, price,
and level of risk and involvement of the customer (Datta, 2003) influence brand loyalty. Males have been
found to be more brand loyal when purchasing automobiles (Moutinho and Goode, 1995). This brand
loyalty, however, may depend on product performance or the sales process. In a survey of German car
manufacturer customers, males had stronger repurchase intentions based on product satisfaction (product
performance). Female intentions, on the other hand, were based on personal interaction experience
(service performance) (Homburg and Giering, 2001). Temporal factors may also influence brand loyalty.
In a longitudinal study, men had a higher consistency over time with their satisfaction responses, an
indicator of loyalty. But, women experienced higher dissatisfaction responses (Bendall-Lyon and
Powers, 2002). Therefore, men may maintain consistent brand loyalty over a period, while women may
in shorter time periods.
Brand awareness is the ??customers?? ability to recall and recognize the brand, as reflected by their ability
to identify the brand under different conditions linking the brand – the brand name, logo, symbol, and so
forth – to certain associations in memory?? (Keller, 2003, p. 76). Recall is important to retailers when
consumers are out of the retail store and relying on (internal) memory to generate information.
Recognition is important to retailers when consumers are in the store with thousands of stock keeping
units (SKUs) and other in-store information to remind shoppers (external memory) (Solomon, 2007). In
terms of brand awareness, recognition and recall relies on information processing and retention.
According to the Selectivity Model, males and females process information, e.g., brand messages,
differently (Meyers-Levy, 1989). Males use selective information processing that is heuristic, schematic.
On the other hand, females use more comprehensive processing that is effortful, detailed elaboration.
Furthermore, Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran (1991) confirmed that females used greater detailed
elaboration of information than males, but this difference disappeared when recognition versus recall
tasks (condition, situation factors) and/or cue incongruity (information factors) stimulated both genders.
The Selectivity Model continues to be supported in consumer research (Darley and Smith, 1995; Walsh
and Mitchell, 2005).
Perceived quality is the ??customer??s judgment about a product??s overall excellence or superiority (that) is
(1) different from objective or actual quality, (2) a higher level abstraction rather than a specific attribute
of a product, (3) a global assessment that in some cases resembles attitude, and (4) a judgment usually
made within a consumer??s evoked set?? (Zeithaml, 1988, pp. 3 and 4). Therefore, a consumer has
perceived quality, and the resulting purchase decision may be influenced by ??personal product (service)
experiences, unique needs, and consumption situations?? (Yoo et al., 2000, p. 197). Consumers use cues
to determine perceived (customers?? subjective judgment about) quality. Cues may be a brand name, price
(Rao and Monroe, 1989), advertising (Kirmani and Wright, 1989), and more specifically extrinsic cues
21
H.C. Chen, R.D. Green ⎪
IJMMR ♦Vol. 2 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2009
for perceptions of store brand quality (Richardson, Dick, and Jain, 1994). Furthermore, cues may have
greater influence, impact for females. Meyers-Levy and Sternthal found that ??women often have a lower
threshold for elaborating on message cues, and hence at times may have greater access to the implications
of those cues at judgment?? (1991, p. 93).
Brand association ??consists of all brand-related thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, experiences,
beliefs, attitudes,?? (Kotler and Keller, 2006, p. 188) and ??is anything ??linked?? in memory to a brand??
(Aaker, 1991, p. 109). Such associations may include (brand) personality (Aaker, 1997) and relationships
(Fournier, 1998) with inference to gender. Brand personality influences consumers?? brand association,
preference (Aaker, 1997), performance (Moss, 2007), and extensions (Diamantopoulos, Smith, and
Grime, 2005). In developing the Brand Personality Scale, Aaker (1997) findings indicate that brand
personality information uses heuristic cues and may need systematic processing. Based on the Selectivity
Model (Meyers-Levy, 1989), males (having heuristic, schematic information processing) will have greater
brand association. However, brand relationships find differently. Relationships, as applicable to
branding, is not a product or marketing transaction but rather an active, contributing dyad based on
quality, depth and strength of the consumer-brand relationship. Fournier observes, ??(s)ince women in
relationships feel empowered, they emerge as key agents of social change through their dealings in the
ordinary world of brand consumption?? (1998, p. 367).
The brand equity dimensions of brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, and brand association
has been related to and shown to be increased by males or females. Generally, males appear to have
higher brand loyalty. However, females appear to may have greater brand awareness, perceived quality,
and brand association. From the marketing mix and brand equity literature, particular findings are more
apparent, while other aspects remain unclear.
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
Retail markets are highly competitive that range from small, specialty boutique stores to large, mass
appeal supper-centers/hypermarkets. These large stores have a broad target market that may not have
uniqueness (product offering depth, or specialty) but do offer utility. Hypermarket stores have more than
225,000 square feet of floor space and over 45,000 stockkeeping units (SKUs) (Price and Ferrell, 2007).
Therefore, a successful hypermarket position strength may included well developed retail value
propositions, e.g., identifying a broad yet specific value proposition, and well developed retail brand, e.g.,
brand name, strong brand associations and promises, and managing customers?? brand contacts (Kotler,
1999). Specific to retail marketing and this study, these strategies are measured by segmenting
(demographics), targeting (male and female hypermarket shoppers), positioning (marketing mix) (Kotler
and Keller, 2006), and value (customer-based brand equity) (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993).
The four major hypermarkets in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, the second largest city in the country, were the study
setting. The sampling frame was an estimated proportion to the respective market share (35% for
Carrefour, 30% for R-T Mart, 25% for Costco, 10% for G??ant) of weekday and weekend shoppers who
were at least 18 years old. The questionnaire included the researcher-developed 9-question shopper
demographic profile and shopping characteristics section. Second, a 15-item retail marketing mix
instrument developed by Yoo, Donthu and Lee (2000) that was used in their product branding study. The
retail marketing mix elements (price, advertising spending, price deals, store image, and distribution
intensity) were measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree).
Third, a 23-item instrument developed by Pappu and Quester (2006) that was used in their customer-
based brand equity (CBBE) study of specialty and department stores. The CBBE section items were
measured by a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree). Based on this
criterion, the sample includes 435 participants having the proportional respondents. Table 1 presents the
participant profiles and shopping characteristics.
22
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING RESEARCH ♦
Volume 2 ♦
Number 1 ♦
2009
Table 1: Hypermarket Shopper Profile by Gender
Shopper Characteristics
Male Shopper
No.
%
Female Shopper
No.
%
Total
No. %
Total
219
50.3
216
49.7
435
100.0
Age
18-24
25
11.4
19
8.8
44
10.1
25-34
73
33.4
101
46.7
174
40.1
35-44
69
31.5
63
29.2
132
30.3
45-54
30
13.7
21
9.7
51
11.7
55 and Older
22
10.0
12
5.6
34
7.8
Marital Status
Not Married
87
39.7
85
39.4
172
39.5
Married
132
60.3
131
60.6
263
60.5
Educational Level
College Graduate Degree
10
4.6
16
7.4
26
6.0
College Undergraduate Degree
72
32.9
92
42.6
164
37.7
Attended College (No Degree)
22
10.0
15
6.9
37
8.5
High School Graduate
91
41.6
75
34.7
166
38.1
Less Than High School Graduate
24
10.9
18
8.4
42
9.7
Occupation
Corporate Executive & Manager
10
4.6
22
10.2
32
7.4
Administrative Personnel
19
8.7
11
5.1
30
6.9
Sales, Technician, Clerical
124
56.5
82
38.0
206
47.3
Skilled Labor
17
7.8
70
32.3
87
20.0
Unskilled Labor
49
22.4
31
14.4
80
18.4
Income (Monthly)*
US$640 or Less
53
24.2
19
8.8
72
16.6
US$641-$1,120
83
37.9
40
18.5
123
28.3
US$1,121-$1,600
38
17.4
103
47.6
141
32.4
US$1,601-$2,080
13
5.9
32
14.8
45
10.3
US$2,081-$2,560
17
7.8
12
5.6
29
6.7
US$2,561 or More
15
6.8
10
4.7
25
5.7
Avg. Purchase Amount (Per Visit)*
US$16.00 or Less
31
14.2
25
11.6
56
12.9
US$16.01-$48.00
76
34.6
80
37.0
156
35.8
US$48.01-$80.00
60
27.4
48
22.2
108
24.8
US$80.01-$112.00
24
11.0
28
13.0
52
12.0
US$112.01-$144.00
17
7.8
22
10.2
39
9.0
US$144.01 or More
11
5.0
13
6.0
24
5.5
Purchase Experience
Not Purchased at This Hypermarket
22
10.0
18
8.3
40
9.2
Purchased at This Hypermarket
197
90.0
198
91.7
395
90.8
Hypermarket Shopping Frequency
Less Than Once Per Week
138
63.0
159
73.6
297
68.3
1 to 3 Times Per Week
67
30.6
43
19.9
110
25.3
4 or More Times Per week
14
6.4
14
6.5
28
6.4
Shopper By Hypermarket
Carrefour
80
36.5
75
34.8
155
35.6
RT-Mart
57
26.0
69
31.9
126
29.0
Costco
56
25.6
53
24.5
109
25.1
G??ant
26
11.9
19
8.8
45
10.3
This table shows the study??s participants profile in terms of demographic and shopping characteristics. * indicates 1 NT (Taiwan Dollar) is
equal to US$.032 at time of survey.
Males (n=219) and females (n=216) are equally represented with 60% being married and about 70%
between 25 and 44 years old. Of the participants, more females (n=92) than males (n=72) were college
graduates while more men (n=91) than women (n=75) were high school graduates. Almost 50% of the
shoppers were sales, technicians, and clerical workers with many more males (n=124) than females
(n=82) in these occupations. However, 60% of the participants earned between US$641 and US$1,600
monthly with females having higher income, e.g., 103 women and only 38 men earning between
US$1,121 and US$1,600. Shopping purchases were generally balanced among men and women with
65% spending between US$16.00 and US$80.00 per visit. The vast majority (over 90%) had previously
23
H.C. Chen, R.D. Green ⎪
IJMMR ♦Vol. 2 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2009
shopped at the hypermarket. But females (n=159) as compared to males (n=138) shopped less often than
once a week.
Varimax rotations with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion (eigenvalue greater than 1.0) were used to examine
construct validity and to extract items for the retail marketing mix and customer-based brand equity
instruments. Of the 15-item marketing mix instrument, there were 3 items for each of the 5 retail
elements (Yoo, Donthu and Lee, 2000). Only one item was regrouped – from distribution intensity to
advertising spending. Hence, price includes 3 items, advertising spending 4 items, price deals 3 items,
store image 3 items, and distribution intensity 2 items. The 23-item brand equity instrument included 4
brand loyalty items, 4 brand awareness, 5 perceived quality, and 10 brand association (Pappu and
Quester, 2006). Two brand awareness items were regrouped to brand loyalty. One brand awareness item
became brand association. Lastly, three brand association items were regrouped as brand awareness.
Therefore, brand loyalty includes 6 items, brand awareness 4 items, brand association 8 items, and the 5
original perceived quality items remain unchanged. These constructs were tested for reliability using
Cronbach??s alpha scores and all easily exceeded the minimum of 0.70 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and
Black, 1998) with a range for retail marketing mix elements from 0.751 to 0.912 and for customer-based
brand equity dimensions from 0.843 to 0.942.
FINDINGS
In this male-female comparative study of perceived hypermarket marketing mix and customer-based
brand equity (CBBE), several revealing results were found. The study design was for three purposes.
First was to determine overall as to which gender, if either one, was influenced more by the marketing
mix and thus, contributed to (resulted in) more brand equity. Second was to determine according to
market share by gender perception of each hypermarket??s marketing mix elements that may be linked to
its level of brand equity. The sampling frame has proportionate respondents to each hypermarket??s
estimated market share – Carrefour (35%), R-T Mart (30%), Costco (25%), G??ant (10%). Third was by
gender to determine item significances for each marketing mix element and consumer-based brand equity
dimension.
To test these three purposes, t-Tests were performed for gender (males, females) and compared to the
marketing mix (price, advertising spending, price deals, store image, and distribution intensity) as well as
total marketing mix (all five elements) and to customer-based brand equity (brand loyalty, brand
awareness, perceived quality, brand association) as well as total brand equity (all four dimensions). In
addition, given the nature of the super-store and hypermarket characteristics, e.g., mass appeal (both
genders), we use significantly different (p < 0.05) and similarity (p > 0.70) criterion.
For the sample (n=435), females shoppers (n=216) have higher mean scores for four of the five marketing
mix elements and for total marketing mix. Women feel that their hypermarket has higher advertising
spending, more price deals, better store image, and offer significantly (p < 0.05) more products than
males. However, advertising spending was very similar (p > 0.70) between genders. On the other hand,
male shoppers (n=219) think that their hypermarket has significantly (p < 0.05) higher prices than
females. The CBBE mean scores for females are higher than males for all four dimensions and total
brand equity. Women have significantly (p < 0.01) more brand association and significantly (p < 0.05)
higher total brand equity for their hypermarket than men do. The complete results are reported in Table 2.
The male and female shopper representation is balanced for each hypermarket – Carrefour (men = 80,
women = 75), R-T Mart (men = 57, women = 69), Costco (men = 56, women = 53), G??ant (men = 26,
women = 19). Carrefour, the market leader, has several male and female similarities (p > 0.70) for its
marketing mix – price, store image, and total marketing mix. Although not significant (differences or
similarities), men perceive higher advertising spending and more price deals than women do.
24
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING RESEARCH ♦
Volume 2 ♦
Number 1 ♦
2009
Table 2 : Marketing Mix and Customer-Based Brand Equity Results
Elements/Dimensions
Mean For
Male Shopper
Mean For
Female Shopper
Mean Differences
Marketing Mix Elements1
Price
2.92
2.79
0.13*
Advertising Spending
2.94
2.97
0.03***
Price Deal
3.22
3.30
0.08
Store Image
3.17
3.23
0.06
Distribution Intensity
3.21
3.35
0.14*
Total Marketing Mix
2.99
3.04
0.05
Brand Equity Dimensions2
Brand Loyalty
3.94
4.10
0.16
Brand Awareness
4.92
5.09
0.17
Perceived Quality
4.23
4.34
0.11
Brand Association
4.52
4.82
0.30**
Total Brand Equity
4.37
4.58
0.21*
This table presents the t-Test results of male and female comparative mean scores by each marketing mix element and brand equity dimension. 1
and 2 indicate marketing mix elements measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale and brand equity dimensions measured by a 7-point Likert-type
scale respectively. *, **, and *** indicate significances of < 0.05, < 0.01 (differences), and > 0.70 (similarities) levels respectively.
Women perceive the store having more product offerings than men do. On the other hand, CBBE results
also show similarities (p > 0.70) for brand loyalty, perceived quality, and total brand equity. While men
have slightly higher brand awareness, women have greater brand association.
R-T Mart, the second market share leader, consistently has higher female perceived marketing mix and
customer-based brand equity ratings. For the marketing mix, only male shoppers had a higher mean score
for price. No marketing mix results were significant (differences or similarities). Women shoppers had
higher results for all CBBE dimensions and the total but brand loyalty and perceived quality were similar
(p > 0.70) to men.
Costco has no significance (differences or similarities) for its marketing mix or customer-based brand
equity results. Male shoppers perceive higher prices and more advertising spending than females. For the
remaining marketing mix elements and all of the CBBE dimensions, female shoppers?? mean scores were
higher than males. Finally, G??ant, the last of the four market share leaders, also has female shoppers with
higher mean scores for the majority of its marketing mix and customer-based brand equity. The only
exception (marketing mix) is that males perceive higher price than females. Advertising spending was
viewed similarly (p > 0.70) between men and women. However, female shoppers had significantly
higher brand association (p < 0.05) than males. The detailed results by hypermarket are shown in Table
3.
To further analyze the comparative relationships between gender to the marketing mix and customer-
based brand equity, each item was evaluated by t-Tests. The findings are reported in the Appendix. For
the marketing mix, male shoppers feel that their hypermarket had significantly higher price (p < 0.05)
than females (Table 2). Of the three price items, one was significantly higher (p < 0.05) for males and the
other two means were split between male and female shoppers having higher means but not significant
(no differences or similarities) (Appendix). Advertising spending was found similar (p > 0.70) between
genders (Table 2). Of the four advertising spending items, one was similar (p > 0.70). The other three
items were split, one with higher male mean score and two with higher female means, but none at
significant levels (no differences or similarities) (Appendix).
All of the remaining price deal, store image, and distribution intensity items had higher female means.
One of the three price deal and one of the three store image items had similarities (p > 0.70) (Appendix).
Neither marketing mix element showed any significance (differences or similarities) (Table 2).
25
H.C. Chen, R.D. Green ⎪
IJMMR ♦Vol. 2 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2009
Table 3 : Marketing Mix and Customer-Based Brand Equity Results for Hypermarkets
Elements/Dimensions
Mean For
Male Shopper
Mean For
Female Shopper
Mean Differences
Carrefour
Marketing Mix Elements1
Price
2.80
2.80
0.00**
Advertising Spending
3.75
3.69
0.06
Price Deal
3.40
3.30
0.10
Store Image
3.13
3.13
0.00**
Distribution Intensity
3.44
3.59
0.15
Total Marketing Mix
3.10
3.10
0.00**
Brand Equity Dimensions2
Brand Loyalty
4.04
4.09
0.05**
Brand Awareness
5.28
5.16
0.12
Perceived Quality
4.10
4.10
0.00**
Brand Association
4.76
4.85
0.09
Total Brand Equity
4.52
4.54
0.02**
R-T Mart
Marketing Mix Elements1
Price
2.78
2.70
0.08
Advertising Spending
2.62
2.86
0.24
Price Deal
3.23
3.30
0.07
Store Image
3.01
3.07
0.06
Distribution Intensity
3.11
3.20
0.09
Total Marketing Mix
2.95
3.04
0.09
Brand Equity Dimensions2
Brand Loyalty
3.87
3.95
0.08**
Brand Awareness
4.79
5.03
0.24
Perceived Quality
4.13
4.18
0.05**
Brand Association
4.38
4.73
0.35
Total Brand Equity
4.26
4.46
0.20
Costco
Marketing Mix Elements1
Price
3.16
2.91
0.25
Advertising Spending
2.24
2.19
0.05
Price Deal
3.13
3.28
0.15
Store Image
3.57
3.64
0.07
Distribution Intensity
3.22
3.41
0.19
Total Marketing Mix
2.96
3.00
0.04
Brand Equity Dimensions2
Brand Loyalty
4.21
4.47
0.26
Brand Awareness
4.97
5.27
0.30
Perceived Quality
4.71
4.98
0.27
Brand Association
4.66
5.02
0.36
Total Brand Equity
4.61
4.91
0.30
G??ant
Marketing Mix Elements1
Price
3.04
2.68
0.36
Advertising Spending
2.63
2.66
0.03**
Price Deal
2.83
3.33
0.50
Store Image
2.76
3.05
0.29
Distribution Intensity
2.67
2.76
0.09
Total Marketing Mix
2.78
2.94
0.16
Brand Equity Dimensions2
Brand Loyalty
3.18
3.68
0.50
Brand Awareness
3.95
4.50
0.55
Perceived Quality
3.81
4.09
0.28
Brand Association
3.79
4.51
0.72*
Total Brand Equity
3.66
4.20
0.54
This table shows the t-Test results of male and female comparative mean scores by each hypermarket??s marketing mix element and brand equity
dimension. 1 and 2 indicate marketing mix elements measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale and brand equity dimensions measured by a 7-point
Likert-type scale respectively. * and ** indicate significances of < 0.05 (differences) and > 0.70 (similarities) levels respectively.
Also, neither distribution intensity items showed any significance (Appendix) but the element showed
significantly higher distribution intensity (p < 0.05) by females (Table 2).
26
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING RESEARCH ♦
Volume 2 ♦
Number 1 ♦
2009
For customer-based brand equity, the mean scores for every item are higher for female shoppers than
males. Brand association results revealed significant differences for four of the eight items. Females
were more likely (p < 0.001) than males to recognize that hypermarket from all others. Furthermore,
females more likely believed than males that hypermarket offered (1) more value for money spent (p <
0.01), (2) very good variety of products (p < 0.01), and (3) very good after sale service (p < 0.05). While
not significant, females did rate that hypermarket higher than males for the other brand association items,
e.g., conveniently located, good store atmosphere, convenient facilities, in-store customer service
(Appendix). As a result, female shoppers have a significantly (p < 0.05) higher brand association (Table
2). No other item for the remaining three brand equity dimensions shows a significant difference.
However, perceived quality findings are of interest to this study. The perceived consistent products
quality is very similar (p > 0.70) between male and female shoppers. Yet none of the other items, e.g.,
good quality products, products durability, products reliability and products features, shows any
significance (differences or similarities) (Appendix) or for the perceived quality dimension (Table 2). As
well, brand loyalty and brand awareness were not significant. However, female shoppers?? total brand
equity was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than males (Table 2).
IMPLICATIONS
Several findings have revealed specific relationships between the marketing mix and customer-based
brand equity (CBBE) between male and female hypermarket shoppers. First, women do not believe their
hypermarket is expensive (price p < 0.05) (Table 2). From the female perspective, their stores offer better
value, e.g., product assortment (distribution intensity p < 0.05) as well as greater communications
(advertising spending), more price deals, better store image (all with higher mean scores), lower prices as
compared to male shoppers. An increased assortment does increase purchases (Koelemeijer and
Oppewal, 1999) which is important to female shoppers (Williams, Absher, and Hoffman, 1997).
Furthermore, women are more willing to pay higher price premiums (Sethuraman and Cole, 1999) within
certain price points (Peterson, 1970).
Second, women in this study have higher mean scores for all CBBE dimensions. Specific to price, female
shoppers had higher perceived quality opinions of their store than males. Therefore, a value proposition
(Kotler and Armstrong, 2008) appear to have been established by the hypermarket (the marketing mix)
and accepted by its female shoppers (CBBE). The (brand) relationship (brand association) was effective
with ??brand consumption?? (Fournier, 1998). As well, the selectivity model (Meyer-Levy, 1989) assists in
explaining the implications of higher female CBBE findings. Female shoppers were more ??aware?? (brand
awareness) and were able to benefit from more comprehensive (effortful, detailed elaboration)
information processing of cues from the marketing mix, e.g., advertising spending (Kirmani and Wright,
1989), brand name and price (Rao and Monroe, 1989), store (brand) image (Richardson, Dick, and Jain,
1994). Female shoppers ??often have a lower threshold for elaborating on message cues, and hence at
times may have greater access to the implications of those cues at judgment?? (Meyers-Levy and Sternthal,
1991, p. 93). The hypermarkets were effective in targeting female shoppers (higher female total
marketing mix mean scores) that resulted in significantly (p < 0.05) higher female total customer-based
brand equity than males.
Third, the hypermarket results (Table 3) provide insight as to effective and ineffective marketing
strategies. Only Carrefour, the market leader, shows any total marketing mix significance (p > 0.70) with
similarities between male and female shoppers. The total marketing mix score was lower for Costco
(0.04), at third market share position, than R-T Mart (0.09), second market position, but neither at
significant levels (differences or similarities). If this is a criterion for market share, then R-T Mart should
focus on maintaining the female target and increase efforts toward male shoppers. G??ant has the highest
mean score difference. However, the total marketing mix scores for both male and female shoppers were
more consistent with market share – Carrefour, R-T Mart, Costco, G??ant.
27
H.C. Chen, R.D. Green ⎪
IJMMR ♦Vol. 2 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2009
Fourth, the total customer-based brand equity results are somewhat more consistent with market share.
Carrefour has similar (p > 0.70) CBBE between male and female shoppers. This is followed, but not
significant (differences or similarities), by R-T Mart (0.20), Costco (0.30), and G??ant (0.54). However,
based on average mean scores for both male and female shoppers the findings are greatly different.
Costco has the highest (male and female) average total CBBE score (4.76), followed by Carrefour (4.53),
R-T Mart (4.03), and G??ant (4.05). Therefore, Costco has market opportunities. For example, if Costco,
with 25% market share, increases its marketing mix strategies effectiveness, it would, based on current
CBBE scores, be a driver to further increase CBBE and to become the market leader, e.g., gaining 6%
share – 5% from Carrefour and 1% from R-T Mart. Another opportunity alternative is retailer
consolidation, e.g., K-Mart and Sears, Roebuck and Company merger, with G??ant, the fourth market
share retailer. This would be an effective strategy to gain market size (Porter, 1980) and to have three,
e.g., Rule of Three (Sheth and Sisodia, 2002), primary hypermarkets.
CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND FURTURE RESEARCH
Consumer product manufacturers and retailers face greater competition in the 21st century than at any
other time in history. These challenges are not only from other local, national, and global businesses but
also from consumers. Consumers?? expectations and demands have heightened with more access to
information, greater financial ability and willingness to purchase, and evolving demographic trends, e.g.,
gender shopping roles and responsibilities. This study has linked some relationships between gender
(males, females), retailers?? marketing mix (price, store image, distribution intensity, price deals,
advertising spending), and customer-based brand equity (brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived
quality, brand association). Having similar perceptions of the marketing mix and for customer-based
brand equity between male and female shoppers is a contributing factor to market share. Environmental
factors have been (McNair and May, 1978), and are (Penn, 2007) changing as to who and where
consumers shop and what consumers purchase. CBBE provides a measure of success for these
challenges.
This study has limitations. For example, while the study was conducted in the second largest city in
Taiwan, Kaohsiung city, the findings cannot be generalized to other Asian or international markets.
Hypermarkets are just one classification, general merchandise stores, of ??big box?? stores. Findings,
therefore, are limited to this retail format.
The study findings lead to further identified research areas. Is Carrefour market leadership the result of
customer-based brand equity? Or, is customer-based brand equity the result of market share? Would the
same results be found for hypermarkets in different Asian markets? Or in the North American (or
European) market? Would the results be similar with other mega-retailers and ??category killers,?? e.g.,
Staples, Office Depot, Office Max? What has caused Costco to have high mean scores from both male
and female shoppers but not significantly contributing to customer-based brand equity or market position?
If in fact Penn is correct, and we feel that he is, that microtrends, ??an intense identity group, that is
growing, which has needs and wants unmet by the current crop of companies, markets, policymakers, and
others who would influence society??s behavior?? (2007, p. xx), is occurring, then branding approaches
must be adjusted accordingly, further brand strategy changes, e.g., marketing mix, cues, media outlets.
Specifically, branding strategies must be more accurately, appropriately targeted (Kotler and Keller,
2006) to increase brand equity (Keller, 1993; Kotler, 1999). Gender shopping and purchasing roles have,
and are quickly changing.
28
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING RESEARCH ♦
Volume 2 ♦
Number 1 ♦
2009
APPENDIX
Appendix: Marketing Mix and Customer-Based Brand Equity Question Results
Elements/Dimensions
Mean For
Male Shopper
Mean For
Female Shopper
Mean Differences
Marketing Mix Elements1
Price
Price in (hypermarket) is high
2.93
2.78
0.15*
Price of (hypermarket) is low
3.06
3.18
0.12
(Hypermarket) is expensive
2.88
2.75
0.13
Advertising Spending
(Hypermarket) intensively advertised
2.97
2.94
0.03****
The ad campaigns for (hypermarket) seem expensive
2.87
2.96
0.09
The ad campaigns for (hypermarket) seen frequently
2.93
2.83
0.10
(Hypermarket) has more locations than competing stores
3.00
3.14
0.14
Price Deal
Price deals for (hypermarket) are frequently offered
3.41
3.50
0.09
Too many price deals for (hypermarket) are presented
3.33
3.46
0.13
Price deals by (hypermarket) emphasized more than reasonable 2.92
2.94
0.02****
Store Image
(Hypermarket) carries products of high quality
3.07
3.10
0.03****
(Hypermarket) high quality
3.11
3.23
0.12
(Hypermarket) has known brands
3.31
3.35
0.04
Distribution Intensity
(Hypermarket) sells more goods than competing stores
3.20
3.33
0.13
(Hypermarket) provides more goods than competing stores
3.22
3.36
0.14
Total Marketing Mix
44.81
45.61
0.80
Brand Equity Dimensions2
Brand Loyalty
Preferred choice
4.10
4.29
0.19
Loyal to (hypermarket) stores
3.98
4.05
0.07
Will not buy products from other
3.67
3.86
0.19
My first choice
3.73
3.87
0.14
Character. come to mind quickly
4.13
4.31
0.18
Aware of (hypermarket) stores
4.00
4.23
0.23
Brand Awareness
Have shopped at (hypermarket)
5.51
5.66
0.15
Like (hypermarket) stores
4.75
4.92
0.17
Feel proud to shop at stores
4.72
4.93
0.21
Trust (hypermarket) for products
4.70
4.83
0.13
Perceived Quality
Offer very good quality
4.40
4.52
0.12
Offer consistent quality products
4.35
4.39
0.04****
Offer very durable products
4.11
4.28
0.17
Offer very reliable products
4.26
4.33
0.07
Offer prod with excellent features
4.03
4.19
0.16
Brand Association
Stores are conveniently located
4.53
4.76
0.23
Offers value for money
4.28
4.61
0.33**
Offers very good atmosphere
4.53
4.75
0.22
Offer very convenient facilities
4.57
4.76
0.19
Offer very good customer service
4.52
4.74
0.22
Offer very good variety of prods.
4.61
4.93
0.32**
Offer very good after sales service
4.46
4.77
0.31*
Recognize among other stores
4.67
5.26
0.59***
Total Brand Equity
100.60
105.25
4.65*
This table shows the t-Test results of male and female comparative mean scores by each marketing mix element item and brand equity dimension
item. 1 and 2 indicate marketing mix elements measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale and brand equity dimensions measured by a 7-point Likert-
type scale respectively. *, **, ***, and **** indicate significances of < 0.05, < 0.01, < 0.001 (differences), and > 0.70 (similarities) levels
respectively.
29
H.C. Chen, R.D. Green ⎪
IJMMR ♦Vol. 2 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2009
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. (1991).
Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press
Aaker, Jennifer (1997). ??Dimensions of Brand Equity,??
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 34(August),
p. 347-356
Ailawadi, Kusum L. and Kevin Lane Keller (2004). ??Understanding Retail Branding: Conceptual
Insights and Research Priorities
,??
Journal of Retailing, vol. 80(4), p. 331-342
Alderson, Wroe (1957).
Marketing Behavior and Executive Action. Homewood, IL: Irwin
Anselmsson, Johan, Ulf Johansson, and Niklas Persson (2007). ??Understanding Price Premium for
Grocery Products: A Conceptual Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity,??
Journal of Product & Brand
Management, vol. 16(6), p. 401-414
Bawa, Kapil and Robert W. Shoemaker (1987). ??The Coupon-Prone Consumer: Some Findings Based on
Purchase Behavior across Product Classes,??
Journal of Marketing, vol. 51(October), p. 99-110
Belch, George E. and Michael A. Belch (2007).
Advertising and Promotion (7th edition). Boston:
McGraw-Hill Irwin
Bendall-Lyon, Dawn and Thomas L. Powers (2002). ??The Impact of Gender Differences on Change in
Satisfaction Over Time,??
Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 19(1), p. 12-21
Borden, Neil H. (1965). ??The Concept of the Marketing Mix.?? In George Schwartz (Ed.),
Science in
Marketing (p. 386-397). New York: John Wiley & Sons
Chang, Chingehing (2006). ??The Influence of Masculinity and Femininity in Different Advertising
Processing Contexts: An Accessibility Perspective,??
Sex Roles, vol. 55(September), p. 345-356
Cobb-Walgren, Cathy J., Cynthia A. Ruble, and Naveen Donthu, (1995). ??Brand Equity, Brand
Preference, and Purchase Intent,??
Journal of Advertising, vol. 24(3), p. 25-40
Darley, William K. and Robert E. Smith (1995). ??Gender Differences in Information Processing
Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Response,??
Journal of Advertising,
vol. 24(1), p. 41-56
Datta, Palto Ranjan (2003). ??The Determinants of Brand Loyalty,??
Journal of American Academy of
Business, Cambridge, vol. 3(1/2), p. 138-144
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, Gareth Smith, and Ian Grime (2005). ??The Impact of Brand Extensions on
Brand Personality: Experimental Evidence,??
European Journal of Marketing, vol. 39(1/2), p. 129-149
Donovan, Robert J., John R. Rossiter, Gilian Marcoolyn, and Andrew Nesdale (1994). ??Store
Atmosphere and Purchasing Behavior,??
Journal of Retailing, vol. 70(3), p. 283-294
Fournier, Susan (1998). ??Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer
Research,??
Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 24(March), p. 343-373
30
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING RESEARCH ♦
Volume 2 ♦
Number 1 ♦
2009
Hair, Jr., Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L Tatham, and William C. Black (1998).
Multivariate
Data Analysis (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Harmon, Susan K. and C. Jeanne Hill (2003). ??Gender and Coupon Usage,??
Journal of Product & Brand
Management, vol. 12(2/3), p. 166-179
Homburg, Christian and Annette Giering (2001). ??Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the
Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty,??
Psychology and Marketing, vol. 18(1), p. 43-
66
Jamal, Ahmad and Mark M.H. Goode (2001). ??Consumers and Brands: A Study of the Impact of Self-
Image Congruence on Brand Preference and Satisfaction,??
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol.
19(6/7), p. 482-492
Keller, Kevin Lane (1993). ??Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity,??
Journal of Marketing, vol. 57(1), p. 1-22
Keller, Kevin Lane (2003).
Strategic Brand Management (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall
Kerin, Roger A., Steven W. Hartley, Eric N. Berkowitz and William Rudelius (2006).
Marketing (8th
edition). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin
Kirmani, Amna and Peter Wright (1989). ??Money Talks: Perceived Advertising Expense and Expected
Product Quality,??
Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 16(December), p. 344-353
Koelemeijer, Kitty and Harmen Oppewal (1999). ??Assessing the Effect of Assortment and Ambience: A
Choice Experimental Approach,??
Journal of Retailing, vol. 75(3), p. 319-345
Kotler, Philip (1999).
Kotler on Marketing. New York: The Free Press
Kotler, Philip and Gary Armstrong (2008).
Principles of Marketing (12th edition). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall
Kotler, Philip and Kevin Lane Keller (2006).
Marketing Management (12th edition). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall
Lassar, Walfried, Banwanwari Mittal, and Arun Sharma (1995). ??Measuring Customer-Based Brand
Equity,??
Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 12(4), p. 11-19
Lindquist, Jay D. (1974-1975). ??Meaning of Image,??
Journal of Retailing, vol. 50(4), p. 29-38
Maldonado, Rachel, Patriya Tansuhaj, and Darrel D. Muehling (2003). ??The Impact of Gender on Ad
Processing: A Social Identity Perspective,??
Academy of Marketing Science Review, vol. 2003, p. 1-7
Martineau, Pierre (1958). ??The Personality of the Retail Store,??
Harvard Business Review, vol.
36(January/February), p. 47-55
McCarthy, E. Jerome (1960).
Basic Marketing. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin
31
H.C. Chen, R.D. Green ⎪
IJMMR ♦Vol. 2 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2009
McConnell, J. Douglas (1968). ??The Development of Brand Loyalty: An Experimental Study,??
Journal
of Marketing Research, 5(February), 13-19
McNair, Malcolm P. and Eleanor G. May (1978). ??The Next Revolution of the Retailing Wheel,??
Harvard Business Review, vol. 56(5), p. 81-91
Meyers-Levy, Joan (1989). ??Gender Differences in Information Processing: A Selectivity Interpretation.??
In Patricia Cafferata and Alice M. Tybout (Eds.),
Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising (p.
219-260). Lexington, MA: Lexington Press
Meyers-Levy, Joan and Durairaj Maheswaran (1991). ??Exploring Differences in Males?? and Females??
Processing Strategies,??
Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 18(June), p. 63-70
Meyers-Levy, Joan and Brain Sternthal (1991). ??Gender Differences in the Use of Message Cues and
Judgments,??
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 28(1), p. 84-96
Milgrom, Paul and John Roberts (1986). ??Price and Advertising Signals of Product Quality,??
Journal of
Political Economy, vol. 94(4), p. 796-821
Mittal, Banwari (1994). ??An Integrated Framework for Relating Diverse Consumer Characteristics to
Supermarket Coupon Redemption,??
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 31(November), p. 533-544
Montgomery, David B. (1971). ??Consumer Characteristics Associated with Dealing: An Empirical
Example,??
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 8(February), p. 118-120
Morrison, Maria Michelle and David R. Shaffer (2003). ??Gender-Role Congruence and Self-Referencing
as Determinants of Advertising Effectiveness,??
Sex Roles, vol. 49(5/6), p. 265-274
Moss, Gloria (2007). ??Psychology of Performance and Preference: Advantages, Disadvantages, Drivers
and Obstacles to the Achievement of Congruence,??
Brand Management, vol. 14(4), p. 343-358
Moutinho, Luiz and Mark Goode (1995). ??Gender Effects to the Formation of Overall Product
Satisfaction: A Multivariate Approach,??
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, vol. 8(1), p. 71-91
Munnukka, Juda (2006). ??Pricing Method as a Tool for Improved Price Perception,??
Journal of Revenue
and Pricing Management, vol. 5(3), p. 207-220
Oliver, Richard L. (1999). ??Whence Consumer Loyalty,??
Journal of Marketing, vol. 63(Special Issue), p.
33-44
Pappu, Ravi and Ray W. Cooksey (2006). ??A Consumer-Based Method for Retail Equity Measurement:
Results of an Empirical Study,??
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 13(4), p. 317-329
Pappu, Ravi, P.G. Quester, and Ray W. Cooksey (2005). ??Consumer-Based Brand Equity: Improving the
Measurement-Empirical Evidence,??
Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 14(2/3), p. 143-154
Penn, Mark J. (2007).
Microtrends. New York: Twelve
Peterson, Robert A. (1970). ??The Price-Perceived Quality Relationship: Experimental Evidence,??
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 7(November), p. 525-528
32
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING RESEARCH ♦
Volume 2 ♦
Number 1 ♦
2009
Porter, Michael E. (1980).
Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press
Porter, Stephen S. and Cindy Claycomb (1997). ??The Influence of Brand Recognition on Retail Store
Image,??
Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 6(6), p. 373-387
Pride, William M. and O.C. Ferrell (2007).
Foundations of Marketing (2nd edition). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin
Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1989). ??The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on
Buyers?? Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review,??
Journal of Marketing Research, vol.
26(August), p. 351-357
Richardson, Paul S., Alan S. Dick, and Arun K. Jain (1994). ??Extrinsic and Intrinsic Cue Effects on
Perceptions of Store Brand Quality,??
Journal of Marketing, vol. 58(October), p. 28-36
Sethuraman, Raj and Catherine Cole (1999). ??Factors Influencing the Price Premiums That Consumers
Pay for National Brands Over Store Brands,??
Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 8(4), p. 340-
349
Sheth, Jagdish, and Rajendra Sisodia (2002).
The Rule of Three. New York: The Free Press
Smith, Wendell R. (1956). ??Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing
Strategies,??
Journal of Marketing, vol. 21(1), p. 3-8
Snipes, Robin L., Neal F. Thomson, and Sharon L. Oswald (2006). ??Gender Bias in Customer Evaluation
of Service Quality: An Empirical Investigation,??
Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 20(4), p. 274-284
Solomon, Michael R. (2007).
Consumer Behavior (7th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Trout, Jack (2005). ??Branding Can??t Exist Without Positioning,??
Advertising Age, vol. 76(11), p. 28
Villarejo-Ramos, Angel F. and Manuel J. Sanchez-Franco, (2005). ??The Impact of Marketing
Communication and Price Promotion on Brand Equity,??
Brand Management, vol. 12(6), p. 431-444
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ??The Wal-Mart Story,?? accessed February 2, 2008,
http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=5
Walsh, Gianfranco and Vincent-Wayne Mitchell (2005). ??Demographic Characteristics of Consumers
Who Find It Difficult to Decide,??
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, vol. 23(2/3), p. 281-295
Williams, Robert J., Keith Absher, and James J. Hoffman (1997). ??Gender Positioning of Discount
Stores: Key Considerations in Appealing to the Baby Busters Generation,??
Journal of Product & Brand
Management, vol. 6(5), p. 325-335
Yoo, Boonghee, Naveen Donthu, and Sungho Lee (2000). ??An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix
Elements and Brand Equity,??
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 28(2), p. 195-211
Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988). ??Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model
and Synthesis of Evidence,??
Journal of Marketing, vol. 52(July), p. 2-22
33
H.C. Chen, R.D. Green ⎪
IJMMR ♦Vol. 2 ♦ No. 1 ♦ 2009
BIOGRAPHY
Hui-Chu Chen, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in the College of Business Administration at TransWorld
Institute of Technology, Yulin, Taiwan (R.O.C.). Prior to entering academe, Dr. Chen had a successful
business career in Taiwan. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (Management)
and Master of Science (Economics) from Central Missouri State University (USA) and earned a Doctor of
Philosophy (Corporate and Organizational Management) degree from Lynn University (USA). Dr. Chen
has research interests in branding and consumer behavior.
Robert D. Green, D.B.A., is Professor of Marketing in the College of Business and Management at Lynn
University, Boca Raton, Florida (USA). Prior to entering academe, Dr. Green had a successful 25-year
business career in the United States. He has held faculty positions in the U.S. (Indiana State University)
and internationally (United Arab Emirates and Ecuador). Dr. Green has had articles in
Journal of
Business & Entrepreneurship,
Global Business and Finance Review, and more than 40 other referred
publications.
34
