vortrag international conference business excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009

7/31/2019 Vortrag International Conference Business Excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009

1/24

Chair forMarketing and RetailingTrier UniversityProf. Dr. Prof. h.c. B. Swoboda

EMPIRICAL STUDY ON FORMATS

PERCEPTION OF RETAILMARKETING

Bernhard Swoboda, Bettina Berg, Dan Cristian Dabija

International Conference Business ExcellenceOctober 17th 2009


2/24

Relevance and Objectives

Retail brand perception, store image or even the positioning of retail

firms have frequently been examined in research and practice formany years. (e.g., Steenkamp and Wedel 1991; Chowdhury et al. 1998)

Studies analysing retail formats on the basis of retailer attributesperceived in a particular retail sector are relatively seldom.(e.g., Solgaard and Hansen 2003; Morschett et al. 2006)

Studies analysing retail formats in emerging countries are relativelyscarce. (Uusitalo and Rkman 2007; Goldmann 2000; White and Absher 2007)

How do retailer attributes impact on store image

in an emerging country grocery retail sector, and

comparing known retail formats, i.e. hypermarkets, supermarkets,discounters, neighbourhood stores, and cash & carry stores?

International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 2


3/24

1. Theory and hypotheses

Development of conceptual framework

Conceptual framework and hypotheses

2. Methodology

Empirical design and sample

Appropriateness of scales

3. Results

Results specific to the Romanian grocery retail sector

Retail format-specific results

4. Conclusion and limitations

Agenda



4/24

Store image is defined as the way in which a retail store is anchored

in the consumers memory, partly by the functional qualities andpartly by an aura of psychological attributes.(Martineau 1958)

Consumers evaluate stores on the basis of the retailer attributesoffered. (Mazursky and Jacoby 1986)

Controversy between the theory of stimulus discrimination and the

theory of stimulus generalization. (Till and Priluck 2000) Individual retailer attributes are not perceived in isolation, but are linked to one

another. (Marks 1976)

Argumentation is based on simplification thesis and the importance of keyinformation. (Wu and Petroshius 1987)

Conceptual Framework

Different attributes dominate consumers perception

in particular retail formats.



5/24


Price

Service

Communication

Location

Store layout

Store image


Retail formats

Assortment


6/24

Hypotheses

H1: The perception of service, assortment, and location dominates theimage of supermarkets. (McDonald 1991, Solgaard and Hansen 2003)

H2: The perception of assortment, price, and store layout dominates theimage of hypermarkets. (Seiders and Teigert 2000, Solgaard and Hansen2003, Castrillo, Forn and Mira 1997)

H3: The perception of price and location dominates the image ofdiscounters. (Solgaard and Hansen 2003, Morschett et al. 2006)

H4: The perception of location, service, and assortment dominates theimage of neighbourhood stores. (Swoboda/Morschett 2001, Tordjman 1994)

H5: The perception of assortment, communication, and price dominatesthe image of cash & carry stores. (no consumer-related studies but withanalogies to hypermarkets)

H6: The impact of each of the retailer attributes (assortment, store layout,location, communication, price, and service) on store image differs

between formats. (Solgaard and Hansen 2003, Morschett et al. 2006)International Conference Business Excellence

Chart 6


7/24

Research Context

Romania

one of the larger Eastern European country-markets, 22m inhabitants

approx. 4,500 EUR GDP per person

Consumers

53% of the population live in cities

25 cities have more than 100,000 inhabitants

consumer spending of 2,500 EUR per person per annum

49% of consumer spending is spent on food

Grocery retail market

dynamic retail sector with a market volume of 25bn EUR

approx. 10% annual growth

low concentration rate with the top 5 retailers having a total share of only 22% largest retail company is Metro Group, which was the first mover in the

Romanian grocery retail market with the C&C format 1997

Auchan is one of the last followers, entered the market two years ago



8/24




2. Methodology



3. Results




Agenda



9/24

Translation-backtranslation method

Measurement of all items with Likert-type scale (from 1=totallydisagree to 7=totally agree)

At the beginning of the questionnaire: respondents had to list which

grocery stores they frequently use (asking about one retail store) No check on the choice of retail formats

Empirical design

Methodology



10/24

Methodology

Sample

2,825 face-to-face interviews basing on quota sampling (sex and age)(Reynolds, Simintiras and Diamantopoulos 2003)measuring consumerperceptions

Twelve grocery companies assigned to five retail formats are included:

hypermarkets (minimum retail floor space of 8,500 m) supermarkets (retail floor space of 1,000-5,000 m)

discounters (maximum retail floor space of 1,000 m)

cash & carry stores (minimum retail floor space of 7,500 m)

neighbourhood stores (retail floor space of 100-750 m)



11/24

All constructs were tested for reliability; item reduction after item-to-

total correlation (acc. to Churchill 1979) Unidimensionality of store image construct was scrutinized using

exploratory factor analysis:

AVE of 61.5%

KMO measure of sampling adequacy of .787 (middling acc. to Kaiser/Rice 1974)

2 of Bartletts test of sphericity of 3,183.4 (df=6 and p=.000) Discriminant validity for the model could be approved (acc. to Fornell

and Larcker 1981)

Appropriateness of Scales



12/24

Explorative Factor AnalysisPerception of Retailer Attributes

Principal Axis Factor Analysis

Items (split-half method)

Factor 1:Assortment/

store layout

Factor 2:

Location

Factor 3:

Communication

Factor 4:

Price

Factor 5:

Service

Very good store layout .811

Very pleasant shopping atmosphere .725Always very clean store .720Very good assortment .649

Always very good quality of the products .647

Optimum location for me .878

Other retailers near the store .783Other grocery retailers near the store .761All products easy to find .3491

Frequent advertising -.891

Excellent advertising -.826Very informative advertising -.801Always reasonable prices .799

Very good price/performance ratio .761

Steady prices .691Good price level compared to competitors .668

Friendly and helpful store staff .251 .868Good service .370 .837

Well trained/highly qualified store staff .675

Eigenvalues 6.460 2.460 1.570 1.420 1.040

Share of explained total variance 33.99% 12.96% 8.30% 7.48% 5.46%

KMO measure of sampling adequacy: .894; Chi2of Bartletts test ofsphericity: 25,098.4 (sign. p=.000).Note: Factor loadings below .1 are not displayed; 1 Item was excluded because of a factor loading below .4 acc. to Nunnally/Bernstein 1994.


13/24

Split-half method

2

dfNFITLICFIGFIAGFIRMSEASRMR

818.0

125.967.965.972.967.955.044.034

.39

.27

.35

.40

.26

.64

Frequent advertising

Excellent advertisingVery informative advertisingAlways reasonable prices

Very good price/performance ratiod13

Very good store layoutd1

Always very clean stored3

Optimum location for med6

Other retailers near the stored7

d9

d10

d11

d12

Very pleasant shopping atmosphered

2

Steady pricesd14

Good price level compared to competitorsd15

Other grocery retailers near the stored

8

Very good assortmentd

4

Very good assortmentd

5

.74

.79

.72

.65

.66

.78

.78

.69

.67

.88

.83

.80

.87

.77

.79

Assortment/store layout

Location

Communication

Price

Confirmatory Factor AnalysisPerception of Retailer Attributes

.26

Friendly and helpful store staffGood service

Well trained/highly qualified store staff

d16

d17

d18

.86

.85

.68Service

.49

.15

.71



14/24




2. Methodology



3. Results




Agenda



15/24


Price

Service

Communication

Location


Store image

N=2,825

2

dfNFI:TLI:CFI:GFI:AGFIRMSEA:SRMR:

1,267

194.957.957.964.958.945.044.036

Note: ****


16/24

Impact of Perceived Retailer Attributes on Store ImageAccording to Retail Formats

Retail Format-Specific Results

Retailer attribute on storeimage

Cash & carrystores

(N=435)Discounters

(N=307)Hypermarkets

(N=809)Neighbourhood

stores

(N=373)Supermarkets

(N=901)Assortment/store layout storeimage .33****(.51) .61****(.82) .39****(.59) .58****(.99) .56****(.90)Location store image .22****(.31) .08*(.06) .13****(.11) .22****(.19) .09***(.08)Communication store image .06ns

(.01) .08ns

(.09) .05ns

(.06) .03ns

(.02) .06ns

(.07)Price store image .23***

(.30) .10ns

(.17) .11*.

(.16) -.02ns

(-.02) .03ns

(.05)Service store image .10ns

(.13) .04ns

(.05) .15***(.18) .17*(.20) .13***(.17)Goodness of fit statistics: GFI=.930; AGFI=.909; NFI=.922; CFI=.954; TLI=.945; RMSEA=.022; SRMR=.051;=2,259.1; df=970.Note: ****


17/24

Note: ****


18/24




2. Methodology



3. Results




Agenda



19/24

Implications

Study supports some interesting results from previous studies, but alsodiscloses new findings for an Eastern European Market

Study reveals an appropriate method for analysing store image on the basis ofseveral retailer attributes

Conclusion and Limitations

(1) Consumer perceptions of assortment/store layout has an impor-

tant effect on store image in Romanian grocery retail sector in gene-ral and (2) is also the most important construct for all retail formats inbuilding store image, whereas communication has no influence.

Limitations and further research

General: Further research is required as this is an initial study in Romania,impact of communication has to be investigated as well as the one extractedfactor for store layout and assortment constructs

Methodical: Check of retail formats to assure better opportunities forcomparisons, investigation in other countries to validate measurements and tocompare results between countries, inclusion of moderating factors (e.g.

shopping motives or involvement), longitudinal analysis to examine impactsover time International Conference Business ExcellenceChart 19


20/24


Thank you for your attention!

Bernhard SwobodaBettina Berg

Dan Cristian Dabija


21/24


Backup


22/24

Construct Items

Store layout(acc. to Chowdhury/Reardon/Srivastava 1998)

1) I like the store layout at X very much.2) I can find my way around easily at my nearest X branch.3) The X store is well-assorted.4) The shopping atmosphere at the X store is very pleasant.5) The X store is always very clean.

Assortment(acc. to Chowdhury/Reardon/Srivastava 1998)

1) The assortment at the X store is very good.2) At the X store I can find all the products I need very easily.3) The products are always available at the X store.4) The X store offers plenty of own brands.5) The quality of the products sold at X is always very good.

Location(acc. to Anselmsson 2006)

1) The X store has an optimum location for me.2) There are other retailers near the X store.3) There are other grocery retailers near the X store.

Communication(acc. to Hansen/Deutscher1977/78)

1) The X store has excellent advertising.2) I often see advertising by the X store.3) Advertising for the X store is very informative.4) The X store has credible communication.5) In addition to typical information, advertising by the X store also provides additional

information on the firm.

Price(acc. to Arnold/Oum/Tigert 1983;Grewal et al. 1998;Yoo/Donthu/Lee 2000)

1) I think the prices at the X store are always reasonable.2) I find that most products are offered at favourable prices over a long period.3) I find the price/performance ratio very good at the X store.4) I find the special offers by the X store very attractive.5) Compared to its competitors, the X store has a good price level.

Service(acc. to Sirdeshmukh/Singh/Sabol2002)

1) Service is good at the X store.2) The X store staff is friendly and helpful.3) The X store staff is well trained/highly qualified.4) The X store staff does not hesitate to solve my problems.5) I appreciate having a product return guarantee at the X store.

Measurement of Retailer Attributes



23/24

Construct Items

Store image(acc. to Verhoef/Langerak/Donkers 2007)

1) The X store is a well known brand.2) The X store is a unique brand.3) The X store is a likable/attractive brand.4) The X store is a strong brand.

Measurement of Store Image



24/24

Discriminatory Power of the Model(total sample)

Squared correlations between constructs

N=2,825


LocationCommuni-

cationPrice Service Store image

AVE .52 .65 .71 .52 .64 .50Assortment/store layout .52 -Location .65 .08 -Communication .71 .17 .15 -Price .52 .42 .07 .16 -Service .64 .51 .03 .07 .25 -Store image .50 .49 .32 .14 .27 .32 -Note: AVE=Average Variance Explained.

Discriminant Validity of all Constructs

International Conference Business ExcellenceCh 24

vortrag international conference business excellence 2009 - 17-10-2009

Documents