benefits of product protective marking …...marketing view of the brand is much broader than the...

13th International Scientific Conference

“Economic Policy in the European Union Member Countries”

September 2–4, 2015, Karolinka, CZECH REPUBLIC

ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3

Conference Proceedings

© Faculty of Economics

VSB - Technical University Ostrava, 2015

-634-

BENEFITS OF PRODUCT PROTECTIVE MARKING

Michal Stoklasa1, Halina Starzyczná

2

1 Slezská univerzita, Obchodně podnikatelská fakulta, Univerzitní nám. 1934/3,73340 Karviná

Email:[email protected]

2 Slezská univerzita, Obchodně podnikatelská fakulta, Univerzitní nám. 1934/3,73340 Karviná

Email:starzyczná@opf.slu.cz

Abstract: The main aim of this article is to identify the attitude of Moravian-Silesian consumers to the product

protective marking, based on its benefits. The authors therefore define brand in marketing, product protective

marking, brand benefits, and brand value. After the secondary research on theoretical background, authors

research the current situation of product protective marking in the Czech Republic and design their own

categorization. This is the first benefit of this article that can be used by our Czech ministries to make the

situation in product protective marking a bit clearer. The primary research is conducted on representative

sample of 719 for Moravian-Silesian region, based on 4 demographic characteristics: age, gender, education,

and income. The main goals are to assess consumers’ knowledge of these brands and what benefits the brands

provide. The outcomes are mostly according to premises from the secondary research, 73.1 % of respondents

check only sometimes or only for specific brands that they know. The perceived benefits of consumer brands,

EU Geographical Indication, and regional brands are described. Based on this, two conclusions are drawn: the

ministry of Agriculture should adopt our categorization and educate consumers, and companies should choose

regional brand when thinking about product protective marking.

Keywords: brand, brand benefits, product protective marking, consumer brands, EU Geographical Indication,

regional brands.

JEL classification: M31.

1. Introduction

The European Union seeks to promote the product protective brands in the framework of its economic

policy, to help small businesses and craftsmen gain a competitive advantage in the European single

market. Small manufacturers are not suited to fight with established local or even multinational

competitors. One of the possible solutions is to engage in wider group of products with the same

characteristics and common promotion, known as product protective brands. This offers a

competitive advantage created by the use of already-known brand positioning, which allows

consumers to easily and quickly recognize products with certain characteristics. The EU itself

provides for several kinds of product protective markings, for other it issues recommendations, and

many more are developing in different Member States. In the Czech Republic, there is a wide range

(hundreds) of these brands and consumers have a hard time understanding what each of them on

product packaging means. Categorization of these brands is in the Czech Republic not clear. Even the

websites of individual ministries and their supported organizations publish different facts and no

coherent categorization has been determined.

This article aims to identify the attitude of Moravian-Silesian consumers to the product protective

marking, based on its benefits. The authors therefore define the brand in marketing, product

protective marking, and design their own categorization of product protective marking used in the

Czech Republic. A research will be conducted on representative sample of the MS region to

determine consumer attitudes toward these brands. The main goals will be to assess their knowledge

of these brands and what benefits the brands provide.




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-635-

2. Brands and brand systems in marketing

The terms trademark/brand/marking are in certain situations nearly interchangeable but for the

purpose of this article mean different things and need to be defined. Therefore, in this chapter the

authors define brand in marketing with closer look on differences with trademarks and markings,

define product protective markings, benefits of brands, and brand value.

2.1 Definition of brand in marketing

The American Marketing Association (In Vysekalová et al., 2011, p. 136) defines a brand as follows

"Brand name, title, character, artistic expression, or a combination of the foregoing criteria. Its

purpose is to distinguish the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers of goods or services

from competing vendors." This definition is taken over by many authors (Kotler and Keller, 2007;

Keller, 2007; Anchor and Kouřilová, 2008). The brand is a product or service and its features

differentiate it in some way from other products or services that are designed to satisfy the same needs

(Kotler and Keller, 2007, p. 312). These differences may be rational and tangible, relating to product

design, or symbolic, emotional and intangible, related to what the brand represents. Brands

themselves are valuable intangible assets which need to be handled with care (Keller, 2007).

Vysekalová et al. (2011, p. 136) states that the brand is what sells. Consumers can evaluate exactly

identical product differently, depending on the brand it carries. Brand reflects perception and

sometimes typical features of the consumers that buy them (Kotler and Keller, 2007, p. 312). Brand

value is the added value of products and services. This value can be reflected in how consumers think,

feel and behave in regard to a particular brand, as well as it may be reflected in prices, market share

and profitability of the brand (Kotler and Keller, 2007, p. 314). Hesková (2008) states that the

marketing view of the brand is much broader than the above definition. "The brand is a powerful

incentive that should cause awareness of the overall image of the product, respectively about the

added value.” (Hesková, 2008, p. 4).

Another view of the brand offers according to Vysekalová et al. (2011, p. 136) Bárta: "Brand =

Product + added value" and it "leaves ample room for the characteristics of what is herein referred to

as an added value." Authors consider this view of the brand to be beneficial because it allows an easy

explanation for the consumer motivation to buy certain protective branded products. For example,

consumer choosing a regional brand (Beskydy product) could be motivated by the connection with

the place where he was born, grew up and lives; consumer choosing consumer brand (Czech Made)

could be patriotic.

An important aspect of a brand is its positioning. Kotler and Keller (2007, p. 332-341) characterize

the positioning as placing the brand in the minds of consumers to maximize the potential benefits of

the company over the competition. Vysekalová et al. (2011, p. 136) adds that the brand positioning is

a collection of perceptions in the mind of the customer and should answer questions such as veracity,

specificity and product compatibility with the position that is desired over the competition.

Pelsmacker, Guenes and Bergh (2003, p. 60) reported that brand binds to a key product and its

different functional and emotional value compared to the competition. Authors understand brand

positioning as a kind of consumer simplification that is created in the mind for each brand based on

the experience with the product, so it can be easily distinguished from the competition. It is therefore

important to create positive associations with the brand.

Marketing term "brand" is not clear in the Czech legislation, as it only knows the concept of a

trademark. It is governed by Act no. 441/2003Sb., On Trademarks. Under this act, each trademark is

a brand, but a brand is a trademark only if it was registered as a trademark. Another term used is

“marking” – it is being used by the EU to define product protective marking – basically “brands” that

customers can see on the product packaging. In this article, both marking and branding are used

respectively to its meaning.




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-636-

Brands guaranteed by the state can be seen as the beginning of integrated systems (programs) of

product marking, so-called multilevel brand, which serves to link the various fragmented systems of

quality marking. Efficient joint marketing communication could help individual protective markings,

whether it is any type of product (food, cosmetics, textiles, art products, souvenirs, etc.). (Kerr, 2006)

These systems promoted by states and the EU showed the way to other brands.

Branded programs are composed of several previously separate brands, which use the same

criteria for product evaluation. Thus facilitating consumer market orientation, which is currently

flooded with a wide range of various brands. Hesková (2006, p. 107) states that consumers nowadays

know paradoxically less brands due to their excessive quantity. These brands are then not able to

affect consumer behaviour, as was the intention of their creators. This is because of the lack of brand

marketing communication, lack of consumer education and problems with the quality for consumer

protection. (Hesková, 2006, p. 107)

For better consumer orientation, the brand programs could be grouped into 4 groups (Hesková,

2006, p. 107-108):

State brands (programs) - the first state brand program in the world appeared at the end of

the 19th century, their development began after World War II (Keller, 2007). In the Czech

Republic, the boom can be seen in the last decade, frequent are environmental programs

and so-called Bio-brands, e.g. "BIO - product of ecological agriculture". Furthermore, the

government branded programs include Consumer Brands, e.g. Czech Quality and KLASA.

Brands (programs) of professional unions and associations - these branded programs are

focused on brand connection with a certain level of quality. Another very strong new trend

are the regional programs originating in response to the single European market, these

programs in some aspects may be included in the state branded programs (because they are

often times regulated by the regional government). Examples could be program of network

quality hotels "Korunka" or "Bavarian Quality Assured".

Corporate brands - have the longest tradition. These are classic manufacturers brands (e.g.

Pepsi, Shell), but since the 70s of the 20th century Europe also sees a strong expansion of

private retailers brands (e.g. Tesco Quality, K-Classic). Branded corporate programs use

further division according to the following criteria (Hesková, 2006, p. 109):

o Economic Level - wholesale, retail, alliances etc.

o Sector - food, textiles, automotive etc.

o Organizing principle - branches, cooperative association, franchising etc.

o Form – brands of manufacturers, private discounters, department stores etc.

EU brands – created by the European Union and applicable after adoption of the Acquis

Communautaire in the member state. The advantage is their validity throughout the whole

territory of the EU. The EU began to use the geographical branding after 1995 (Germany,

the Netherlands, and Ireland) to support some lagging sectors (Hall, 2004). Examples

include the geographical indication of products. Furthermore, a number of brands has been

established in the field of eco-labels, for example "The EU Eco-mark" (in accordance with

the Regulation no. 1980/2000). (Kaufmann and Durst, 2008)

2.2 Brand benefits for various target groups

Brand offers many benefits to consumers, traders and producers. As follows from the preceding

definition of positioning, the brand can facilitate buying decisions by reducing the time and reducing

the risk of purchases (Cayla and Eckhardt, 2007). For consumers, brands offer a significant decrease

in product search cost (Keller, 2007). For traders, brands are important because a strong brand attracts

customers and enhances the traders’ image (Pelsmacker, Guenes and Bergh, 2003, p. 75). Novotný

and Duspiva (2014) describe the contribution to traders in increased customer confidence, and also in




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-637-

reduced risk from buying products of famous brands, which creates good distribution relationships.

Authors consider the advantage of a strong brand for the trader to be all marketing communications

that the producer offers on favourable terms (POP / POS materials, advertisement, etc.). For

producers, brands are again significant in terms of reducing the risk, because the consumer purchases

the known product again. Horner and Swarbrooke (2003) describe the benefits of increasing the

producers’ strength to retailers, protection against competition in the form of ability to set a higher

price for well-known brand, and cutting costs by maintaining loyal customers accustomed to buy one

brand. Keller (2007) mentions the producers’ opportunity to create a market entry barrier for other

companies with a strong brand, which is a significant competitive advantage.

Hesková (2008, p. 5) provides the following five benefits of brands:

Brand is a tool of differentiation – sets apart from the competition.

Brand is a tool to guide the customer in the market - it is a guarantee of quality.

Brand is a tool of manufacturer and distributor relationship – gives assurances.

Brand is a barrier to entry for competitors - its non-price tool.

Brand is a value for the producer - increasing intangible assets of the company.

These benefits also imply certain brand value that is discussed below.

2.3 Brand value

According to Aaker (2003, p. 8), brand value is a "set of benefits (assets) and disadvantages

(liabilities) associated with a name and a brand symbol, which increases or decreases the value that

product or service brings the company and / or customer." This value consists of four, later expanded

into five, categories (Aaker, 2003, p. 8):

Knowledge of the brand.

Loyalty to the brand.

Perceived Quality.

Associations connected with the brand.

Other proprietary brand assets.

To calculate brand value, there are a number of methods, e.g. according to Pelsmacker, Geuens

and Bergh (2003, p. 67), these are: financial analysis, market analysis, brand analysis, analysis of

legal aspects. Pelsmacker, Geuens and Bergh (2003, p. 69) "for marketers, the value of the brand in

terms of customers is more important than its financial value.", this brand value in terms of customer

can be expressed by the following factors:

Awareness.

Perceived Quality.

The induced associations.

Other assets.

High brand loyalty.

According to Pelsmacker, Geuens and Bergh (2003, p. 69) "Each of these factors is determined

and influenced by the marketing communications and strategy, and brings many benefits."

Brand awareness

Brand awareness comprises of two categories, brand recognition and brand recall. Brand

recognition defines Keller (2007, p. 98) as the ability to confirm an earlier acquaintance with the

brand, if the customer is given the necessary impulse, Aaker calls this the brand identification. Brand

recall defines Keller (2007, p. 98) as the ability to recall a brand for a product category.

Brand loyalty

According to Aaker (2003, p. 20), the value of the brand is largely made up of customer loyalty

and brand loyalty. Pelsmacker, Geuens and Bergh (2003, p. 73) say that "the true value of the brand is




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-638-

a reality only when the customer purchases the brand and is loyal to it, we can say that the real asset

for the company is the loyalty to the brand." Aaker states 5 categories of customers according to their

loyalty: non-customers (buying competitors’ goods or are not interested in the product line at all),

price sensitive customers (the price is critical for them), passively loyal customers (buying brand

because of habit), customers on tilt (randomly buying more brands), loyal customers (with high

loyalty). Pelsmacker, Geuens and Bergh (2003, p. 73) also reported five categories according to

customer loyalty: price switcher, vague, disloyal; happy, accustomed to buy, who has no reason to

change; satisfied buyer who switches between brands; buyer that favours our brand, has a relationship

with it; determined buyer.

Perceived Quality

According to Keller (2007, p. 264), there is no need to define quality as an independent category,

as it can be defined as the overall level of product quality, perceived by the customer compared to

adequate alternative. According to Aaker (2003, p. 17), it is necessary to make this a separate

category because of its importance, even though the perceived quality of the product is related to the

brand associations.

Associations connected with the brand

According to Aaker (2003, p. 23), "brand value is also largely supported by the associations,

which customers connect with the brand. In the background of these associations is the brand identity

- that is, what the brand has to create in the customer's mind." Pelsmacker, Geuens and Bergh (2003,

p. 72) reported six categories of associations connected with the brand: the specific qualities, abstract

qualities, functional benefits, psychosocial benefits, value, final value.

3. Methods and Sample

The authors deal with this topic for over 6 years. During this time, several researches have been

conducted, leading to tens of articles and several monographs. The process of creating this article was

as follows: secondary research on the theoretical background, secondary research on articles about

the examined topic (to find out what research has already been done in the EU and the CR), secondary

research on the current state of product protective markings (as this area is unclear to Czech

ministries, consumers and companies), and finally own primary research on the areas that needed to

be examined more closely.

For the own primary research, quota sampling was used (based on data from the Czech Statistical

Office), four demographic factors were taken into account: gender, age, education and income.

Overall, there are 1.048.000 inhabitants in Moravian-Silesian Region in the category of 15 and older,

so with a 5 % error the minimum number of questionnaires is over 384.

In total, 1.956 questionnaires were collected in several phases. From these, representative sample

has been formed (according to demographic criteria of gender, age, education and monthly net cash

income) for the Moravian-Silesian region consisting of 719 questionnaires. Demographic

characteristics of the sample are shown in Tab. 1. For each demographic factor the values shown are:

target value (as determined by the Czech Statistical Office for the whole region), the actual relative

value and absolute value. The highest deviation of the sample is 0.2 %, for example in the category of

net monthly cash income of 30.001 CZK and more, that is in absolute terms one respondent.

The whole questionnaire consisted of 11 questions structured into 5 areas based on Aakers brand

value for customers. For this article, only four questions focused on the benefits of product protective

marking were chosen. Questions with multiple choices were weighted and data were transformed into

normalised data.




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-639-

Tab. 1. Sample characteristics

Factor Category Target

(in %)

Actual relative

(in %)

Actual

absolute

Gender Female 51 51.2 368

Male 49 48.8 351

Age 15-24 14 13.9 100

25-34 16.4 16.6 119

35-44 18.1 18.2 131

45-54 15.9 15.7 113

55-64 16.4 16.4 118

65-74 11.8 11.9 86

45+ 7.4 7.3 52

Education Primary or none 18.3 18.1 130

Secondary 37.1 37.3 268

Secondary

diploma 31.7 31.7

228

Tertiary 12.9 12.9 93

Income 10.000 CZK 39.7 39.5 284

10-20.000 CZK 53.6 53.7 386

20-30.000 CZK 5.8 5.8 42

30.000 CZK+ 0.8 1.0 7

Source: own research

One hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 1: The loyalty to product protective marking is dependent on knowledge of benefits.

4. Results and Discussion

This chapter is structured into secondary research on the current state of product protective marking,

own primary research, and hypothesis verification.

4.1 Current state of product protective marking in the Czech Republic

Currently, there is around 200 different brands that can be used as the product protective marking in

the Czech Republic. Each year, around 30 more are established. Additionally, there are several

hundreds more brands that are used locally. There is no way that consumers, and even companies, can

know them all and know what benefits these brands should bring them. The categorization of

protective marking in the Czech Republic is not clearly stipulated. Even the websites of individual

ministries and their sponsored organizations publish different facts and no coherent categorization

has been determined. Therefore, the authors create their own categorization based on several other

works, mainly Vinklerová (2011), that recognizes consumer brands, geographic marking of goods

and regional brands, and Hesková (2006), that was explained in chapter 2. The final categorization

proposed by the authors is as follows:

Consumer brands – these are the most common brands in product protective marking (more

than 100 with a steady rise each year). The main aim is to protect the consumer. Only a few

are guided by the ministry of agriculture, majority are private brands. The most known are:

KLASA, Czech Made, Czech product, Czech Quality.

Geographical Indication of goods – is defined by the EU as “A geographical indication is a

distinctive sign used to identify a product as originating in the territory of a particular

country, region or locality where its quality, reputation or other characteristic is linked to its

geographical origin.” There are 3 distinct categories. As an example, we can name:

“Olomoucké tvarůžky”, “Třeboňský kapr”, “Hořické trubičky”.




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-640-

Regional brands – the basic idea is heavily promoted by the EU. We can distinguish 3 groups

of regional brands: state governed, nation-wide private systems, and local regional brands.

o State governed regional brand – “Regionální potravina” (Regional Food) was created

in 2010 by the Ministry of Agriculture to promote domestic local producers of food

products and to teach Czech consumers to buy these products.

o Nation-side private system of regional brands – “Asociace regionálních značek” (The

Association of Regional Brands) is a system of currently 23 regional brands that

follow the same rules. The principles are very common to the state governed regional

brand, but cannot be enforced onto companies, leading to various failures of whole

regional brands.

o Local regional brands – dozens of small regional brands that are not a part of any

bigger system.

The outcome of the analysis is more than 40 pages of information. That is clearly not suited to

be published in the scope of one article. Therefore, the authors want to present only the final

outcome of the whole analysis – the benefits of each category, see Tab. 2. For the category of

consumer brands, 2 of the most known are chosen.

Tab. 2. Benefits of various product protective markings

Association of regional

brands

State regional brand Geographical

Indication

Czech Quality KLASA

Quality products Quality products Quality products Quality products Quality products

Promotion Promotion Promotion Promotion Promotion

SME support SME support SME support

Joint distribution

Consumer pride in

region

Consumer pride in

region (strong)

Consumer pride in

region (indirectly)

Environmental

protection

Environmental

protection (indirectly)

Supporting region Supporting region

Tourism


As we can clearly see, the consumer brands do not offer a lot to consumers and producers. There

are no ways how to exact any of the “promised” benefits. The geographical indication is strictly

governed by the EU and is valid throughout the whole EU, offering real benefits to both consumers

and companies using it. However, acquiring such a brand is not easy. The regional brands offer the

most benefits. Acquiring the state brand is very hard, making it virtually impossible for small

companies. Acquiring the brand of the Association of regional brands is easy, fast, however

consumers are not very well informed about this system of branding, making its benefits only virtual.

Another problem is that two of the brands in the Association have failed (ended) in recent years.

4.2 Own primary research on product protective marking in the CR

Question No. 1 “Do you follow protective marking on product packaging?” The aim of this question

was to find out whether consumers are interested in product protective marking, if they perceive it as

something to be concerned of, or whether they just ignore it and make their purchase decisions based

on other criteria. This question also divided the sample into two groups for certain other questions and

their statistical analysis. Due to the limited scope of this article, this division will not be elaborated on

any further.

The premise based on the research of other authors was that majority of consumers are

uninterested in product protective marking even after all the efforts carried out by the Ministry of




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-641-

Agriculture. Another premise was that consumers only know specific product protective markings –

mainly the famous brands, such as Czech Made or KLASA. The results mainly supported these

premises with only 6.3 % of respondents feeling strongly positive about product protective markings,

meaning always checking all markings on the product packaging. Whole 43.3 % of respondents

check for specific markings and 29.8 % check for markings only sometimes. The rest of the sample

were negative, with 11.4 % almost never checking and 9.3 % never checking, see Tab. 3.

Tab. 3. Do you follow protective marking on product packaging?

Answers Q. no. 1 Absolute

frequency

Relative

frequency (%)

Always check all markings 45 6.3

Check for specific markings 311 43.3

Sometimes check for markings 214 29.8

Almost never pay attention to markings 82 11.4

Never 67 9.3


The outcome of the first question was anticipated, hence the questionnaire continued with the

second question focused on knowledge of the specific product protective markings.

Question No. 2 “Do you know specific product protective markings?” The aim of this question was

to find out whether consumers have a knowledge of the most common protective markings. It was

divided into two parts. The first part tested whether they have any knowledge at all and are able to

name the brands from memory – brand awareness. The second part involved description of basic

brands with logos – brand recall. The premise was that consumers confuse all these product protective

markings and only remember the most famous brands with no real understanding about the actual

benefits these brands should offer them.

The outcome was not surprising, 97 % (698 in absolute numbers) of the respondents had a brand

awareness and 100 % had a brand recall. Interesting are the top brands that occurred in TOM (top of

the mind), see Tab. 4.

Tab. 4. Top brands in brand awareness

Type of brand Frequency

absolute

Relative

frequency (in %)

Regional branding 226 31.4

Consumer brands 121 16.8

EU protective marking 31 4.3


In this question, the interviewers showed the respondents prepared foiled slides with famous

brands and their division into 3 categories, as explained in chapter 4.1. These were further used in

following questions.

Question No. 3 “What benefits do you associate with these brands?”. The aim of this question was

to find out the benefits that consumers associate with each category of the product protective marking

and with some of the most famous brands. Therefore, the question had to be divided into several

stages. The first stage examined spontaneous knowledge of benefits of the 3 proposed categories. The

second stage examined the spontaneous knowledge of benefits of the most famous brands (KLASA,

Czech made, Regionální potravina, ARZ brands). The third stage examined how consumers feel

about the proposed benefits, shown in Tab. 2 of this article, both to category and to specific brands.




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-642-

The premise was the same as with the previous question, consumers confuse all these product

protective markings and only remember the most famous brands with no real understanding about the

actual benefits these brands should offer them.

The outcomes of this vast question will not be all examined in this article due to the limited scope.

All the data had to be sorted out, normalized and the outcomes are 5 page long tables. We will provide

here a summarization of the outcomes, see Tab. 5. The TopX awareness is spontaneous knowledge of

respondents on the benefits of each of the categories. The TopX negative is a benefit that they would

never assign to the product category. And the TopX recall are the benefits from Tab. 2 reordered how

respondents perceive them.

Tab. 5. Summary of consumer perceived benefits

Characteristics Consumer brands

EU Geographic

Indication Regional brands

Top1 awareness Promotion Quality products Quality products

Top2 awareness Czech Expensive Cheap products

Top3 awareness Quality products Very unique Unique

Top4 awareness

Environmentally

friendly Unattainable Supporting region

Top1 negative Quality products Promotion Tourism

Top2 negative SME support Consumer pride Consumer pride

Top1 recall Promotion Quality products Quality products

Top2 recall SME support Promotion Promotion

Top3 recall Quality products Consumer pride Supporting region

Top4 recall

SME support


Some of the results were striking, some not. Respondents associate consumer brands with

promotion, products being Czech, of a good quality, and environmentally friendly. They perceive

them as the ones from TV, talked about by the media, and some of an extremely good value for the

quality. But on the other hand, they perceive some of the products as the worst ones on the market,

due to the several media scandals. When shown the proclaimed benefits, respondents feel that the

brands help the companies promote the products and support their business, but may also provide

harmful image.

The EU Geographic Indication gets associated with quality products that are expensive due to

being very unique, thus unattainable. Respondents feel that the EU should promote them more,

because the majority thought that these are just regular regional brands. When shown the proclaimed

benefits, respondents agree with the presented table.

The regional brands get associated with quality products that are also cheap and unique. The

brands are perceived as supporting the development of the region on the inside, not on the outside – to

tourists, because of the consumer pride. When shown the proclaimed benefits, respondents almost

agree with the presented table.

Question No. 4: “Do you stay loyal to these product brands based on the benefits they bring you?”

The aim of this question was to assess whether respondents perceive the benefits as strong enough to

make them loyal to the product with the product protective marking on the packaging.

The results are as follows: completely agree 63.3 %, agree 17 %, neutral 3.1 %, disagree 9.6 %,

completely disagree 7.1 %.




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-643-

4.3 Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis 1: The loyalty to product protective marking is dependent on knowledge of benefits.

Verification of the hypothesis was carried out using chi-square test, a statistical test of

independence. Tested are loyalty to product protective marking (Q. no. 4) and the knowledge of

benefits (Q. No. 3). The starting point is the observed frequency and the expected frequency. The test

is performed at the significance level α = 0.05, i.e. 5 %. The output of the statistical program IBM

SPSS for chi-square test may have 2 variants: Sig. (Significance) < α meaning that variables are

related, Sig. > α meaning that variables are not related. The value of Pearson Chi-Square test then

indicates the criterion. If it falls within the field of adoption, at a significance level of 5 % the null

hypothesis (H0) on the independence of the characters not reject. If it does not fall into the field of

adoption, the alternative hypothesis (H1) can be accepted.

To determine loyalty to product protective marking on knowledge of benefits we have formulated

following two statistical hypotheses:

H0: The loyalty to product protective marking is not dependent on knowledge of benefits.

H1: The loyalty to product protective marking is dependent on knowledge of benefits.

The results of the test are shown in Tab. 6. The value of Sig. 0.000 is less than the specified value

level of significance, the variables are related. The test criterion is 204.650 and thus does not fall into

the field of adoption, at a significance level of 5 % the null hypothesis (H0) on the independence of

the characters is rejected and we accept the alternative hypothesis H1, that there is some dependence.

We can say that: dependence of loyalty to product protective marking on knowledge of benefits is

statistically significant.

Tab. 6. Chi-Square Test Knowledge * Loyalty

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 204,650a 16 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 190,421 16 ,000

N of Valid Cases 719

a. 4 cells (16,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected

count is 3,20.


The hypothesis 1 “The loyalty to product protective marking is dependent on knowledge of

benefits” has been confirmed.

5. Conclusion

The main aim of this article was to identify the attitude of Moravian-Silesian consumers to the

product protective marking, based on its benefits. The authors therefore had to define the brand in

marketing, product protective marking, brand benefits for various target groups, and brand value.

After the secondary research on theoretical background of the examined issue, authors researched the

current situation of product protective marking in the Czech Republic and designed their own

categorization of product protective marking used in the Czech Republic. This is the first benefit of

this article that can be used by our Czech ministries to make the situation in product protective

marking a bit clearer. Current situation of inconsistent information leads to confusion and losses to

companies (not receiving the benefits they are paying for when registering for a brand) as well as

consumers (no consumer can know all 200 brands with all their proclaimed benefits). The secondary

research then continued on current state of research in this area.




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-644-

The primary research was conducted on representative sample for Moravian-Silesian region.

Nearly 2 thousand questionnaires were collected, out of which a representative sample of 719 was

formed, based on 4 demographic characteristics: age, gender, education, and income. The main goals

were to assess consumers’ knowledge of these brands and what benefits the brands provide. The

whole research has a much larger scope than this article, thus only partial results of 4 questions were

presented.

The outcomes of the research were mostly according to premises from the secondary research.

Only 6.3 % of respondents always follow product protective marking on packaging, 73.1 % check

only sometimes or only for specific brands that they know. The most known category are the regional

brands, with 31.4 %, followed by the consumer brands with 16.8 % and EU Geographical Indication

with 4.3 %. The main result are the consumer perceived benefits from question no. 3. The consumer

brands are perceived as well promoted Czech products with good quality, but unfortunately harmed

by several media scandals, thus sometimes perceived with negative image. The EU protective

marking is perceived as top quality products, unique, expensive, and thus unattainable. Majority of

respondents have very limited information about this system of marking. And lastly the regional

brands, perceived as quality products that are cheap and unique. The respondents have the best

opinions about these brands.

We may conclude this article with two pleas. The first is to the Ministry of Agriculture to make the

situation on the Czech market with product protective marking clearer (by utilizing our

categorization). Enforce the ruling that these brands need to have some tangible benefits (a good start

would be to use our Tab. 2). And promote consumer education. The second is to companies, we

wholeheartedly recommend to look into regional brands when thinking how to increase

competitiveness through product protective marking, as these are the most positively accepted by

consumers.

The paper was financially supported by the Moravian-Silesian Region within the project number

02618/2014/RRC of grant title 3: Talented students’ support, under the program Science and

Research Support in the Moravian-Silesian Region 2014.

Literatura

[1] Aaker, D. A. 2003. Brand building – budování obchodní značky. Brno: Computer Press.

[2] Anchor, J. R. and T. Kouřilová. 2008. Consumer perceptions of Tesco own brands: the Czech

Republic and the United Kingdom. E+M Ekonomie a management, vol. 4, pp. 119-131.

[3] Cayla, J. and G. M. Eckhardt. 2007. A Cultural Approach to Branding in the Global Marketplace.

Journal of International Marketing, vol. 16, issue 4, pp. 86-112.

[4] Hall, J. 2004. Branding Brittain. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10th ed. vol. 2, pp. 171-185.

[5] Hesková, M. 2006. Cestovní ruch: pro vyšší odborné školy a vysoké školy. Fortuna.

[6] Hesková, M. 2008. Brand management – Značka jako nehmotné aktivum firmy. Škoda Auto a.s.

VŠ.

[7] Horner, S. and J. Swarbrooke. 2003. Cestovní ruch, ubytování a stravování, využití volného času.

Aplikovaný marketing služeb. Praha: Grada Publishing.

[8] Pelsmacker, P. D., Geuens, M. and J. V. Bergh. 2003. Marketingová komunikace. Praha: Grada

Publishing.




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-645-

[9] Kaufmann, H. R. and S. Durst. 2008. Developing inter-regional brands. EuroMed Journal of

Business, 3rd ed. vol. 1, pp. 38-62.

[10] Keller, K. L. 2007. Strategické řízení značky. Praha: Grada Publishing.

[11] Kerr, G. 2006. From destination brand to location brand. The Journal of Brand Management, vol.

13, issue 4, pp. 276-283.

[12] Kotler, P. and K. L. Keller. 2007. Marketing management. Praha: Grada Publishing.

[13] Novotný, J. and P. Duspiva. 2014. Faktory ovlivňující kupní chování spotřebitelů a jejich význam

pro podniky. E+M Ekonomie a management, vol. 17, issue 1, pp. 152-166.

[14] Vysekalová, J. et al. 2011. Chování zákazníka. Praha: Grada Publishing.

[15] Vinklerová, E. 2011. Význam a možnosti používání zeměpisného a nezeměpisného označení

zboží. Diplomová práce. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

benefits of product protective marking …...marketing view of the brand is much broader than the...

Documents