See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352055640

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CUSTOMERS' PREFERENCE FOR NATIONAL

BRANDS VS. PRIVATE LABELS IN MEN'S APPAREL CATEGORY IN DELHI-NCR

Article · April 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 25

3 authors:

Md Chand Rashid Balgopal Singh

Galgotias University Banasthali University
13 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Harsh Purohit
Banasthali University
60 PUBLICATIONS   91 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Triple Entry Accounting View project

CENTRE FOR FINANCIAL PLANNING TRAINING AND RESEARCH FOR WOMEN View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Md Chand Rashid on 02 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CUSTOMERS'

PREFERENCE FOR NATIONAL BRANDS VS.
PRIVATE LABELS IN MEN'S APPAREL CATEGORY
IN DELHI-NCR
MD. Chand Rashid
Assistant Professor – Marketing Galgotias University, Greater Noida, UP

Dr. Harsh Purohit

Dean, Faculty of Management Studies-WISDOM,
Banasthali University, Tonk, Rajasthan

Dr. Balgopal Singh

Asst. Professor (Marketing) Faculty of Management Studies,
Banasthali University, Tonk, Rajasthan.

Abstract

Indian economy is no more a controlled economy. The retail sector is emerging as

one of the largest sectors of Indian economy. Apparel is the biggest segment in
modern retailing. Private labels are gradually flooding the Indian markets. They are
no more a 'cheap alternative' to national brands. They are becoming 'preferred
choice' with their own distinct identity. Private labels are widely becoming popular
in the organized retail segment. A large number of consumers are being attracted
towards private labels. Private labels play a big role in product differentiation for
retailers. They allow a retailer to wield more control and flexibility over
merchandise. National brands are actively making strategies to handle this
formidable scenario. It is interesting to know the factors driving customers towards
private labels and national brands.

Key Words: National Brands, Private Labels, Organized Retailing, Men's Apparel,
Consumer Behaviour, Consumer Preference

Page No. 25 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........
Background
Indian economy is no more a
controlled economy. The retail sector
is emerging as one of the largest sectors
of Indian economy. It accounts for 22
per cent of the country's gross
domestic product (GDP), (IBEF). The
modern retail market is close to 8% of
the total retail market, it means there is
huge scope for growth. (IRIS
Research). Economic growth, higher
disposable income along with
favorable demographic changes,
growth in the number of working
women, increasing nuclear families,
existence of largest young population,
growing urban and sub-urban
population, changing attitude towards
saving, international exposure,
lifestyle changes and easy access to
credit are some of the key growth
drivers for modern retail in India (KSA
Technopark, 2012).
Apparel is the biggest segment in
modern retailing. Apparel retailing is
rapidly penetrating in the class II and
class III cities. Consumers are
becoming more discerning and
discriminating in their choices. Private
Labels are growing rapidly throughout
the world. They are gradually flooding
the Indian markets as well. Initially the
private labels were developed and
Page No. 26 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
popularized in Europe. Over a period
of time private labels established their
credibility. They were not just a 'cheap
alternative' to national brands. They
became 'preferred choice' with their
own distinct identity.
The history of private labels grew with
the development of the retail industry.
The low price was the chief motivating
factor for the consumers to buy private
labels. Gradually the focus of retailers
shifted from simple low price products
to both inexpensive and quality
products. Private labels are widely
becoming popular in the organized
retail segment. A large number of
consumers are being attracted towards
private labels. According to Mudra
Institute of Communication,
Ahmadabad, the private labels market
in India is presently estimated at INR
13 billion which accounts for 10-12 %
of organized retail in India.
Retailers like Pantaloons (75%),
Shoppers' Stop (women wear 90%,
men' wear 70 %); Lifestyles (30%,
Max 75%), Westside (90%), Reliance
(80%), Spencer's (60%), Nilgiri
(38%), India Bulls/ Parimal (30%) and
Globus, AV Aditya Birla Retail, Infiniti
Retail, and Hyper city have increased
 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology
their focus on private labels (MICA,
Business World, KPMG, India Retail
Report 2013).
Private labels sales consist of only 10-
12% of organized retail sales (India
Retail Report, 2013). Therefore,
private label sales are less than 1% of
the total Indian retail business. This
indicates that India is untapped market
for private labels (KPMG). Shoppers'
Stop' ignited new hope for organized
retailing in 1991 with the launch of its
outlets. Five years later food retailing
was introduced. Food-World was
established in Chennai in May 1996.
Subhiksha, which is closed now, came
up in Chennai in 1997 and Nilgiris was
started in Bangalore in the mid-1990s.
Pantaloons a leading apparel retailer
began its operations in 1997-98.
During 1998 many new retailers
opened up their operation with their
own private labels. The TATA group
launched `Westside', Dubai-based
Landmark group opened Lifestyle
stores. Globus' came up in 1999.
These players have been the
trendsetters in fashion retailing.
The emergence of organized retailing
in India has made private labels
recognizable among large numbers of
Indians. India is witnessing an
extraordinary growth of private labels
in apparel and groceries categories.
Almost all leading retailers are
launching and promoting private
labels regularly. Now, private labels
are available in abundance in mega
stores like Shoppers' Stop, Westside,
Lifestyles, Max, Pantaloon, Spencer's,
Reliance trends and Globus etc. Today,
private labels are posing huge
challenges to the well-known national
and international brands. Many retail
companies are known to stock only
their own labels. Almost all entities in
the consumption chain are being
benefited with the popularity of private
labels.
Private labels play a big role in product
differentiation for retailers. They allow
a retailer to wield more control and
flexibility over merchandise.
Customized modifications can be
made effortlessly to suit the changing
customer profile and requirements and
tastes. Retailers have freedom to
provide superior service. They can
design customer friendly environment
to create positive store image and
positioning in the minds of prospective
customers. Retailers are able to source
raw materials for private labels at
lower cost. They avoid unnecessary
spending marketing activities and
Page No. 27 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........
intermediaries' margins. They can
develop strategic profitable
relationships with selective vendors of
their choice. The differentiation
enables retailers to gain price
premium/market share, positive brand
perception and favorable customer
behavior (customer loyalty).
Customers are the gainer. They get a
wider variety to select from. Their
needs are satisfied without pinching
their pocket much.
Private labels strategy is emerging as
an innovative business model. Private
labels are bridging the gap in most of
the retailers' product mix. They are
being aimed to fulfill the specific needs
of the consumers. Pricing strategy and
better control in deliveries are main
factors which are driving the sales
volumes of private labels. As it is
widely known that Indian consumers
are highly price conscious, therefore,
retailers are wisely pricing their
product to attract consumer towards
their product. Other factors which have
persuaded the retailers' to shift towards
private labels include direct hassle free
supply, greater margins and enhanced
inventory control. Apart from this,
private labels also give them
Page No. 28 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
considerable bargaining power vis-à-
vis manufactures of national-level
brands. It is also noteworthy that the
opportunities to introduce a wide range
of products are enormous. The main
USP of private labels is that they can be
customized as per the needs of
customers (Kumar and
Steenkamp,2007). They are effectively
promoted in various interesting ways
like innovative packaging,
promotional schemes and visual
merchandising within the retail store.
The consumer perceptions towards
private labels are changing. Private
labels are emerging as a key weapon in
the hands of retailers to counter
established brands. They are also
driving customer loyalty. Private
labels get more shelf space in the
leading stores. It boosts the retailers'
bargaining power with the
manufacturers. The channel power is
shifting in favor of the retailers. These
private brands are affecting national
brands in terms of price, preference,
availability, margin, packaging and
loyalty etc.Retailers are eliminating
the middlemen. Private labels are
reducing all the cost right from
 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology
sourcing, manufacturing and selling to
final consumers. They are a hot
property today and retailers are
building their market share through
private labels. Private labels now
compete with national brands in
almost all product categories. Private
labels offer diversity in product lines of
retailers. Now, private labels are
regarded as ideal substitutes for
national brands.
National brands are still the market
leaders. Their consumer base is very
strong. National brands are pioneer in
introducing new product features.
They invest heavily in research and
development. They continuously try to
reduce the manufacturing cost. They
have expertise to promote their brands
and aggressively pull and persuade
customers. They have competence to
develop new product and stay ahead of
competitors as trend setters. They can
fill the product lines gap proactively.
They have access to latest know how.
They have strong financial capability
to sourcing and manage economy of
scale efficiently. National brands
proactively maintain innovative gaps
of trendy fashions, design, style,
features, quality and fabrics to
differentiate from private labels. They
put wholesome efforts to provide value
for consumers. They carry out regular
research to try to understand customers
taste and preference. They have large-
scale expertise and money to spend on
promotional activities. They are
capable to tackle the private label
challenges head on. They know how to
change customers mind set, partner
effectively, innovate brilliantly, fight
selectively, price competitively,
improve product quality and market
creatively.
National brands assess competition
and customer mindset regularly. Their
merchandise provides value to meet
customers' satisfactions. They go all
out to win the customers trust to get
their patronage by providing quick
customer service. National brands are
familiar across the country. It helps to
leverage market expansion and profit
maximization continuously. As far as
segments within the Indian Apparel
Industry are concerned, men's wear is
the largest segment. (Data Monitor).
Page No. 29 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........
Source: Data Monitor
Need for the Study
In order to stock either private labels or
national brands or their right
proportion, it is very important for the
retailer to understand the consumer
buying behaviour towards either of
these. The retailers have to know about
the retail buying process of a consumer
to have long term and short term
success. Since men's apparel category
is the largest chunk of the apparel pie,
this study focuses on this category
only.
Literature Review
The phenomenal growth of private
labels in the developed world is
drawing the attention of Indian
retailers and national brands
Page No. 30 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
manufacturers (Batra and Sinha 2000).
Private labels' penetrations vary
between the countries, categories and
retailers. This has given rise to
investigate private label literature to
understand the consumer, products
attributes, retailers' image and market
factors for their success. These include
motivations and benefits of private
labels for retailers, consumer
segmentation studies, studies of
consumer perceptions, attitudes and
behaviour, retailers' positioning of
private labels and the strategic
reactions of national brand
manufacturers.
Earlier, national brands manufacturers
enjoyed great bargaining power over
retailers because they were dependent
on the manufacturers' products. The
 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology
situations changed with the
introduction of private label products.
Initially private labels were generic
low quality products, offered at low
prices. Nowadays, the image of private
label products has drastically changed
and a strong competition exists
between private labels and
manufacturer brands (Semeijn et al.,
2004; Kumar & Steenkamp, 2007).
Consumers purchase a particular brand
by weighing various factors like price,
quality, store image, risk etc. National
brands as well as private label brands
are fighting to attract the consumers on
these factors. In the beginning, lower
priced private label brands were
regarded as lower quality products
(Steiner 2004). Now, leading retailers
have improved the quality of their
private labels to the level of national
brands or, in some cases, even
exceeded the quality of the national
brands (Quelch and Harding, 1996).
There are empirical proofs that quality
private label brands differentiate a
retail store from others. It also helps to
create store loyalty (Corstjens and Lal,
2000; Shudir & Talukdar, 2004). A
retailer's profit margins go up with the
increase of private labels sales, Shudir
& Talukdar (2004).
Researchers believe that attitudes and
preferences are the most important
components for predicting the brands
choices (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
Consumers' reactions to national
brands and private labels are
influenced by a number of factors such
as consumers' value consciousness,
price-quality association, trust and
smart shoppers' self-perception
(Garretson et. al., 2002). Various
studies have indicated that consumers
who are price conscious are less loyal
toward specific brands (Krishnamurthi
and Raj, 1988).
Del Vecchio (2001) believed that
consumers look upon private label
products as competitive with
manufacturer's national brands with
regard to functional quality. Private
labels have poor quality image
(Vaidyanathan & Aggrawal, 2000).
Sestokaite (2010) concluded that
national brands buyers are sure about
product's high quality. Thus they are
ready to pay higher price. Sestokaite
also believed that private label brand
buyers hardly see any big difference in
quality between the two types of
brands and that is why do not want to
pay a premium price.
Richardson, Jain and Dick (1996)
found out that a person is less willing to
buy private labels if there is higher
Page No. 31 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........
perceived risk associated with them.
Consumers are likely to rely on brand
reputation to minimize risk. Hoch and
Banjeri (1993) as well as Semeijn and
Ambrosini (2004) concluded that the
success of private label products is
greater when there are insignificant
quality differences between private
labels and national brands. A number
of studies conducted by (Raju 1995;
Burton et. al., 1998; Ailawadi, Neslin
and Gedenk 2001) also indicated that
private labels perform better in
categories which are high price
sensitive. Consumers seem to take the
risk of buying private labels more often
when they have low financial risks.
Private labels are contributing
significantly to bottom lines, store
differentiation and trustworthiness
(Corstjens and Lal, 2000). Sales
volumes, market shares as well as the
appeal of private labels to consumers
have increasingly improved (e.g.
Dunne and Narasimhan, 1999).
“Keeping private labels provides
numerous advantages like high gross
margin, which can be 25% to 50%
higher compared to national brands”
(Keller, 1993). Private labels are
becoming reputed brands on their own
merit, identities and quality images
(Keller, 2007). The private labels have
become a strategic business tool for
Page No. 32 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
retail chains (Steiner 2004). The retail
chains are expected to gain enhanced
control over the brands they sell. They
want to leverage the acceptance of a
private label brand across all product
c a t e g o r i e s ( S t e i n e r, 2 0 0 4 ) .
(Narasimhan and Wilcox, 1998) found
that retailers are using successful
private label brands as bargaining
power for price negotiation with major
national brands manufacturers.
Anselmsson & Johansson (2007)
believe that when consumers purchase
more private labels they become more
loyal to the store.
Ailawadi et. al., (2001) believed that
understanding demographic factors
could be useful in formulating
appropriate marketing plan,
segmentation, targeting and
positioning (STP) strategies.
According to (Richard et. al., 1996)
older consumers with their vast
expertise might opt for private label in
place of national brands. According to
(Ailawadi, 2001) the studies
undertaken later on pointed out that
female were more likely to buy private
labels than male consumers.
Educated consumers are more quality
conscious (Ailawadi et. al., 2001).
According to Hoch (1996) they have
minor price sensitivity. Thus, they are
 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology
free to opt for national brands. Some
researchers have found that private
label buyers have lesser formal
education than national brand buyers
(Omar, 1994). Income always
influences the consumers purchasing
ability. Hoch (1996) pointed out that
other things being equal, high
household income have an obvious
negative association with private
labels purchase.
Richardson et. al., 1994 found that
image, brand name and packaging are
more important to consumers than
built-in quality. Image also elucidates
why consumers are ready to shell out a
premium for national brands over
private labels (Sethuraman, 2003).
Narasimhan and Dunne (1999)
affirmed that the choice decision
between private labels and national
brands is influenced by consumers'
perception of price and quality
association between them.
Earlier studies have already
established that the price is a key
indicator of quality. Hoch & Lodish
(1998) found that the price gap
between private labels and national
brands increases consumers' perceived
value for money (quality in relation to
price). Study undertaken by Ailawadi,
Neslin and Gedenk (2001) found that
private labels are deeply linked with
“outlet trustworthiness, price
consciousness, and lesser quality”
which indicates that at the cost of
quality consumers shift cheap price
factor to the store loyalty. The research
conducted by (Dick, Jain and
Richardson, 1997; Pauwels and
Srinivasan, 2004) found that the low
price positioning of private labels
leads to high store traffic and also
promotes store loyalty.
Regular sales promotions have been
common tactics used by national
brands to counter the private labels in
the last few decades. According to (
Lal, 1990; Quelch and Harding, 1996)
this is a helpful strategy to cut the
private label penetration into the
market. In the recent years leading
retailers have exercised meticulous
advertisements and promotional
efforts to highlight the quality features
of their respective private labels
(Akbay and Jones, 2005; Semeijn et.
al., 2004). According to Batra and
Sinha (2000), these marketing
activities have also established
customer loyalty.
The studies conducted by (Curhan,
1973; Dréje et. al., 1994; Desmet and
Page No. 33 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........
Renaudin, 1998) suggest that an
increased private labels shelf space
allotment would decisively have a
positive influence on the consumers'
motivation in buying private labels.
According to Hansen & Solgaard
(2004), consumers differentiate
between stores on various attributes
such as service, price and quality, the
image and positioning of a store.
Researchers have identified a variety
of store image dimensions such as
location, atmosphere, price,
promotion, quality, variety and service
(Ailawadi and Keller 2004). Vahie and
Paswan (2006), in their prominent
study, implied that the store
atmosphere has a significant impact on
th e p er ceiv ed q u ality o f th e
commodities and added that the price /
store image ratio has just a
considerable affect over the customer
satisfaction levels based on
merchandise.
Aaker (1999) emphasized that
developing product categories, which
are not in consonance with the
popularly known store image, might
have adverse outcomes. Vahie &
Paswan (2006) found that consumer
perceptions of private labels quality in
the apparel category are influenced by
Page No. 34 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
the store image dimensions of store
atmosphere and store quality.
The positioning of private labels is
influenced by the positioning
strategies of both retailers and
manufacturers. The studies on most
possible positioning of private labels
and national brands relative to each
other give a fairly mixed picture. Many
researchers advocated that national
brands should widen their distance
from private labels (Quelch and
Harding, 1996; Verhoef, Nijssen, 2002
) and differentiate through quality and
continuous innovation to provide
enhanced value for consumers (Hoch,
1996; Pauwels & Srinivasan, 2004).
Choi & Coughlan (2006) reported that
manufacturers of national brand are
determined to differentiate on the basis
of quality and product features from
private labels over time. (Choi &
Coughlan, 2006) observed that
national brands manufacturers are
trying continuously to distance their
brands from private labels. They
suggested retailers to position quality
private labels close to top national
brands.
Qbjectives Of The Study
Ø To determine the variables
which create preference for private
 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology
labels in men's apparel category
Ø To determine the variables
which create preference for national
brands in men's apparel category
Ø To develop a prediction model
for the preference of the above
mentioned two types of brands in
men's apparel category
Methogology
From the literature review, the
variables which create preference for
any type of brand in apparels were
identified. The private labels are a new
development in the apparel retail
scenario in India. Hence primary study
had to be done to capture the
customers; perceptions about these
variables. Looking at the objectives of
the study, there were the following
research questions which needed to be
answered:
Ø RQ1: What are the variables
which influence preference of private
labels in men's apparels?
Ø RQ2: What are the variables
which influence preference of national
brands in men's apparels?
Ø RQ4: Is there any difference in
the knowledge and preference levels of
private lables and national brands in
men's apparels?
Ø RQ3: Is there any difference in
the preference creating variables for
private labels and national brands in
men's apparels?
Descriptive research design has been
deployed in the study. Extensive
research on both primary and
secondary level was conducted.
Information gathered in literature
review and in discussion with industry
experts, led to the development of a
structured questionnaire for
facilitating quantitative research. All
the dependent variables were
researched using a 5-point Likert scale
where as most of the independent
variables like demographic data and
store choice were on nominal scale.
For the present study four major and
well-known apparel retail chains,
Pantaloon, Shoppers' Stops, Westside
and Lifestyles have been selected.
Cross-sectional design was used to
survey the respondents. Sample was
selected from Delhi, Noida,
Ghaziabad, Faridabad and Gurgaon
because this part of India is where the
maximum retail boom can be observed
due to continued growth and
development of malls culture and
acceptance by majority of shoppers. In
NCR majority of organized retails like
Reliance Trends, Big Bazaar,
Pantaloon, Shoppers Stops, Westside,
Page No. 35 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........
Max, Globus, lifestyles, Vishal are
easily accessible by the shoppers.
Before doing the survey, validity of
questionnaire was checked after the
detailed literature review and
discussions with senior managers of
leading retail chain and industry
experts of NCR Region of Delhi. Once
the questionnaire was finalized, the
data were collected using the mall-
intercept and convenience sample
survey method. In addition to this a
detailed discussions with the industry
experts, retailers and different
consumer segments were conducted.
The researcher did the Pilot study and
all the scale questions were tested for
reliability using Cronbach's alpha
(which was above 0.7 in all cases i.e.
very acceptable).
The sample was selected with respect
to both demographics (gender, age,
Sample Characteristics
The table given below shows the profile of the sample for this study.
Table 2: Sample Profile
Gender Male
88.70%
Age Group 20-34
73.00%
Marital Status Married
56.60%
Page No. 36 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
living area, employment status) and
private label vs. national brand
products' buying characteristics. The
area of NCR was divided into 9
geographic zones – North Delhi, East
Delhi, Central Delhi, South Delhi,
West Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad,
Gurgaon and Faridabad. The sample
size was decided after consultations
from the supervisors and various
experts in this area. 600 respondents
classified on basis of age, gender,
marital status, education income level
and type of profession were surveyed
for this study. 504 useable responses
were obtained which indicates a
healthy 83.3% conversion ratio.
Malhotra (2009) has advised that for
any empirical study like the one in
question, the sample size should be
300-500.
Female
11.30%
35-49 50-65
20.50% 6.50%
Single
44.40%
 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology

Education Up to 12th Bachelor Master and above Others

Level
3.00% 46.40% 47.00% 3.60%

Occupation Service Business Homemaker Students Others

72.40% 18.70% 4.40% 3.80% 0.80%

Monthly Up to 20000 21000 – 30000 31000- 41000

Household 41000 and
Income above
13.30% 22.20% 45.00% 19.40%

Since it was a purposive judgemental Rs.40000. Hence, the majority of the

study, the sample consisted of
predominantly male customers.
88.70% of the respondents were male.
Because the purpose of the study was
to understand the buying behaviour of
the male customers, intentionally more
male customers were targeted. Some
female shoppers were also interviewed
to get clear ideas about their shopping
behaviour of men's apparel as it is
known that they also buy various
products for their male family
members. The largest number (45%) of
the people surveyed was having
income between Rs.31000 and
respondents belonged to middle /
upper middle class income segment
and with majority of them in service or
business, the majority of the sample
belonged to SEC A2 and B1 category.
This sample is the optimal sample for
this study.
Data Analysis And Results
Secondary Data Analysis
According to India Retail Report 2013,
total value for the Clothing market in
India is Rs. 2, 20,000 crore. Out of this
the share of Modern Retail apparel
category is Rs. 74000 crore. The share

Page No. 37 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........

of apparel in modern retailing is 33% who replied in the affirmative were

(IRIS Research). Currently, menswear carried forward in the survey to the
is the biggest segment of the domestic next series of questions.
apparel market with 42% share of the Awareness of private labels
total pie while women's wear The respondents were checked for
constitutes 39% and kids wear 19%. their awareness of private labels. A
According to the latest trends, there significantly high number of
has been an increasing focus on private respondents (85.9%) know what
labels (IRIS Research Services). private labels are. This can be seen in
Private labels constitute around 21% the table given below. It seems to
of total sales in the Indian apparel indicate a very wide usage of private
sector. labels by retailers and the market
(http://tejas.iimb.ac.in/articles/98.php becoming mature enough to
). differentiate between private labels
Primary Data Analysis and national brands. This may be
The questionnaire opened with a attributed to the fact that Delhi-NCR
qualifying question to check whether has been witnessing rapid growth of
the respondent has any awareness of modern retail in the last 13 years.
private labels. Only those respondents
Table 3: Knowledge of private labels
Knowledge of private labels
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
yes 433 85.9 85.9 85.9
Valid no 71 14.1 14.1 100.0
Total 504 100.0 100.0

Preference of private labels vs. respondents to choose their most

national brands preferred category of men's apparels.
The next questions asked the The resultant graph is shown below.

Page No. 38 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology

Figure 1: Preference of Men's Apparel

Null Hypothesis: There is no higher level of preference (leading to

significant difference in the preference loyalty) of national brands over private
level of private labals and national labels, the data was subjected to chi-
brands in men's apparels. square test. The results are given
To test the hypothesis that there is below:

Table 4: Chi-square test: Preference of men's apparel

Preference of men's apparel
Observed N Expected N Residual
Private labels 172 252.0 -80.0
National brands 332 252.0 80.0
Total 504

Table 5: Test Statistics

T e st S ta tistics
K n ow led ge of priv ate lab els P refe ren ce of m e n's app a rel
C h i-S qu are 2 60 .0 08 a 5 0.79 4 a
df 1 1
A sym p. S ig. .0 00 .0 00
a . 0 ce lls (.0 % ) ha ve ex p ecte d fre qu en cie s les s th an 5. T he m in im um
ex p ecte d cell fr equ en c y is 25 2 .0 .

Page No. 39 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........

The chi-square is coming out to be apparel category.

significant at 99% confidence level
which means there is a significantly
larger preference for national brands
than private labels in men's apparel
category.
Null Hypothesis: There is no
association between awareness and
preference of private labels in men's
To test the hypothesis that the
respondents who are aware about the
private labels will show a greater
preference towards them, the data was
subjected to cross-tabulation with chi-
square test. The results can be seen
below:

Table 6: Knowledge of private labels * Preference of men's apparel Cross-tabulation

Knowledge of private labels * Preference of men's apparel Cross-tabulation
Count
Preference of men's apparel Total
Private labels National brands
Yes 161 272 433
Knowledge of private labels
No 11 60 71
Total 172 332 504

Table 7: Chi-Square Tests

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
sided) sided) sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 12.765a 1 .000
b
Continuity Correction 11.818 1 .001
Likelihood Ratio 14.293 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000
Linear-by-Linear
12.739 1 .000
Association
N of Valid Cases 504
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 24.23.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

Page No. 40 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology

Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .159 .000
Nominal by Nominal
Cramer's V .159 .000
N of Valid Cases 504
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null
hypothesis.

The Pearson chi-square indicates that labels

the null hypothesis of no association
between knowledge and preference of
private labels is not accepted.
However Phi and Cramer's V
measures show that the degree of
association between knowledge and
preference of private labels is very
weak. In other words, even though
most of the respondents were aware
about private labels, they showed a
significant preference for national
brands in men's apparel categories.
The private labels have moved beyond
the Awareness stage of AIDA
sequence but they need to do more
communication in building interest
and desire towards them in the minds
of customers.
Reasons for preferring private
12 attributes were identified from the
literature, which influence the
preference towards any kind of men's
apparels. The respondents' reactions
were captured on 5 point Likert scale
where 1 was most important to 5 being
least important.
It was decided to find the extent of
importance which each of these
attributes provides in preference of
private labels.
For each attribute, the hypothesis has
been constructed as shown below:
H01: Quality is an important attribute
in reasons for preference to purchase
private labels
H02: Price is an important attribute in
reasons for preference to purchase
private labels

Page No. 41 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........

H03: Packaging is an important attribute in reasons for preference to

attribute in reasons for preference to purchase private labels
purchase private labels H010: Durability is an important
H04: Convenience is an important attribute in reasons for preference to
attribute in reasons for preference to
purchase private labels
purchase private labels
H011: Social recognition is an
H05: Variety is an important attribute
important attribute in reasons for
in reasons for preference to purchase
private labels preference to purchase private labels
H06: Store image is an important H012: Distinctiveness is an important
attribute in reasons for preference to attribute in reasons for preference to
purchase private labels purchase private labels
H07: Brand image is an important (H0: Null hypothesis)
attribute in reasons for preference to To test these hypotheses, the data was
purchase private labels
subjected to single sample t-test. The
H08: Service is an important attribute
test value of 2 (important) was taken as
in reasons for preference to purchase
private labels the hypothized mean value. The results
H09: Promotion is an important for the private labels are given below.
Table 9: One-Sample Statistics
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean t Sig. (2-
tailed)
reason for preference to purchase private labels – quality 501 1.31 26.689 .000*
reason for preference to purchase private labels – price 501 1.53 16.393 .000*
reason for preference to purchase private labels - packaging 501 2.83 23.967 .000*
reason for preference to purchase private labels - convenience 501 2.17 4.642 .000*
reason for preference to purchase private labels – variety 501 1.68 -9.510 .000*
reason for preference to purchase private labels - store image 501 2.01 .294 .769
reason for preference to purchase private labels - brand image 501 1.75 -4.279 .000*
reason for preference to purchase private labels – service 501 1.81 -5.223 .000*
reason for preference to purchase private labels - promotion 501 2.35 8.492 .000*
reason for preference to purchase private labels - durability 501 1.82 -5.193 .000*
reason for preference to purchase private labels - social recognition 501 2.20 4.885 .000*
reason for preference to purchase private labels - distinctiveness 501 2.07 1.782 .075

Note: * means significant at 95% confidence level

Page No. 42 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology
Out of the 12 attributes, 2 null
hypotheses are not rejected – H06 for
store image and H012 for
distinctiveness. This means these two
attributes are important from the
customers' perspective. Out of the rest,
six attributes are coming out to be
significantly high in importance –
quality, price, variety, brand image,
service and durability. The stores
selling private labels in men's apparel
category should strive to incorporate
all of these aspects in their private
labels and then invest on building the
private label brand on these
positioning attributes. Four attributes,
which are significantly less important
according to this study are –
packaging, convenience, promotion
and social recognition.
Reasons for preferring national
brands
The same 12 attributes were surveyed
from the respondents for preferring
national brands. It was decided to find
the extent of importance which each of
these attributes provides in preference
of national brands.
As previously done, for each attribute
the hypothesis has been constructed as
shown below:
H01: Quality is an important attribute
in reasons for preference to purchase
national brands
H02: Price is an important attribute in
reasons for preference to purchase
national brands
H03: Packaging is an important
attribute in reasons for preference to
purchase national brands
H04: Convenience is an important
attribute in reasons for preference to
purchase national brands
H05: Variety is an important attribute
in reasons for preference to purchase
national brands
H06: Store image is an important
attribute in reasons for preference to
purchase national brands
H07: Brand image is an important
attribute in reasons for preference to
purchase national brands
H08: Service is an important attribute
in reasons for preference to purchase
national brands
H09: Promotion is an important
attribute in reasons for preference to
purchase national brands
H010: Durability is an important
attribute in reasons for preference to
purchase national brands
H011: Social recognition is an
important attribute in reasons for
preference to purchase national brands
H012: Distinctiveness is an important
Page No. 43 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........

attribute in reasons for preference to test value of 2 (important) was taken as

purchase national brands the hypothized mean value. The results
(H0 : Null hypothesis) for the national brands are given
To test these hypotheses, the data was below.
subjected to single sample t-test. The

Table 10: One-Sample Statistics

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean t Sig. (2-
tailed)
reason for preference to purchase national brands - quality 502 1.18 43.644 .000*
reason for preference to purchase national brands – price 502 1.67 10.480 .000*
reason for preference to purchase national brands - packaging 502 2.74 20.551 .000*
reason for preference to purchase national brands - convenience 502 2.20 5.617 .000*
reason for preference to purchase national brands - variety 502 1.63 11.217 .000*
reason for preference to purchase national brands - store image 502 2.06 1.494 .136
reason for preference to purchase national brands - brand image 502 1.52 14.661 .000*
reason for preference to purchase national brands - service 502 1.79 -5.771 .000*
reason for preference to purchase national brands - promotion 502 2.29 7.190 .000*
reason for preference to purchase national brands - durability 502 1.71 -8.819 .000*
reason for preference to purchase national brands - social recognition 502 2.07 1.738 .083
reason for preference to purchase national brands - distinctiveness 502 1.98 -.534 .593

Note: * means significant at 95% confidence level

Out of the 12 attributes, the default null image, service and durability. 3
hypothesis is accepted in 3 attributes – attributes, which are significantly less
H06 for store image, H011 for social important according to this study are –
recognition and H012 for packaging, convenience, and
distinctiveness. This means these 3 promotion.
attributes are important from the Comparison in preference of private
customers' perspective. 6 attributes are labels and national brands
coming out to be significantly high in The 2 sets of data, mentioned in the
importance for preference of national
above analysis were subjected to
brands – quality, price, variety, brand

Page No. 44 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology

paired sample t-test to identify the no difference in the mean perceptions

major differences in reasons for of any attribute for its influence on
preferring either private labels or private labels or national brands. The
national brands. The default null results are as follows:
hypothesis for this test is that there is

Parameter Mean for private labels Mean for national brands Sig. (2-
tailed)
quality 1.31 1.19 .000*
price 1.53 1.67 .000*
packaging 2.83 2.73 .002*
convenience 2.17 2.20 .373
variety 1.68 1.63 .201
store image 2.02 2.05 .384
brand image 1.76 1.52 .000*
service 1.81 1.79 .586
promotion 2.35 2.29 .075
durability 1.82 1.71 .000*
social recognition 2.20 2.06 .000*
distinctiveness 2.08 1.97 .001*

Note: * means significant at 95% confidence level

The results indicate that there is
significant difference between 7
attributes in influencing the preference
towards private labels and national
brands viz. quality, price, packaging,
brand image, durability, social
recognition and distinctiveness. By
looking at their means, we can see that
out of these 7, only 1 attribute - price is
coming out to be significantly more
important for preference of private
labels while rest 6 attributes are
coming out to be significantly more
important for national brands. Variety
and service are equally very high in
importance in both the categories,
store image is equally important while
convenience and promotion are
equally not important for both the
categories. The implications are
private labels have not been able to
match upto the benchmarks set by

Page No. 45 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........

national brands in various aspects and brands as the independent variables.

except prices they seem to lag behind
in all quality perceptions.
Creating a prediction model for
preference of private labels and
national brands
As a major contribution from the study,
the attempt was made to create a
mathematical model which can predict
the preference towards either private
label or national brand for any
c u s t o m e r. F o r t h i s p u r p o s e ,
Discriminant Analysis was identified
as the most appropriate technique in
which the categorical question of
choice of private label or national
brand will be the dependent variable
and the factors defining the attributes
which govern the preference of the
Hence the 24 variables in the above
analysis were first subjected to Factor
Analysis for dimension reduction.
Factor Analysis
Factor Analysis is an important
technique to reduce the data. This
technique looks at interdependence
among the variables. The variables,
which show higher degree of
correlation, based on the responses
from the customers are clubbed under
1 factor (linear combination of
variables). These factors can then be
used as new, exclusive variables in any
further multivariate analysis. The
results are of Factor Analysis are given
below:

Table 12: KMO and Bartlett's Test

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .671
Approx. Chi-Square 3758.553
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 276
Sig. .000

The KMO measure is much larger than Sphericity also came out to be
0.5 indicating that the sample was significant indicating enough level of
adequate for conducting factor correlation between the individual
analysis. The Bartlett's Test of variables. The following table shows

Page No. 46 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology

that 9 factors were extracted using factors are explaining 68.236%

Principal Component Analysis from variance in the data which is an
the original set of 24 variables. These 9 adequate result.

Total Variance Explained

Com Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
pone Loadings Loadings
nt Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance % Variance %
1 4.694 19.557 19.557 4.694 19.557 19.557 2.362 9.842 9.842
2 2.125 8.853 28.410 2.125 8.853 28.410 1.995 8.312 18.154
3 1.880 7.833 36.244 1.880 7.833 36.244 1.788 7.451 25.605
4 1.654 6.893 43.136 1.654 6.893 43.136 1.780 7.415 33.020
5 1.350 5.627 48.763 1.350 5.627 48.763 1.774 7.391 40.412
6 1.249 5.204 53.967 1.249 5.204 53.967 1.739 7.244 47.655
7 1.235 5.145 59.112 1.235 5.145 59.112 1.709 7.122 54.777
8 1.151 4.798 63.910 1.151 4.798 63.910 1.677 6.986 61.763
9 1.038 4.326 68.236 1.038 4.326 68.236 1.553 6.473 68.236
10 .957 3.989 72.224
11 .904 3.766 75.990
12 .834 3.473 79.463
13 .723 3.011 82.474
14 .692 2.883 85.357
15 .557 2.320 87.677
16 .505 2.102 89.779
17 .449 1.872 91.651
18 .409 1.705 93.355
19 .323 1.346 94.701
20 .304 1.266 95.967
21 .295 1.228 97.196
22 .251 1.045 98.241
23 .232 .967 99.208
24 .190 .792 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

The factors which have been extracted can be seen in the rotated component
matrix given below'

Page No. 47 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........

Table 14: Rotated Component Matrixa

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
reason for preference to purchase private labels – distinctiveness .830
reason for preference to purchase national brands – distinctiveness .808
reason for preference to purchase private labels - social recognition .656
reason for preference to purchase national brands - social recognition .512
reason for preference to purchase national brands - store image .770
reason for preference to purchase national brands - brand image .689
reason for preference to purchase private labels - store image .510
reason for preference to purchase private labels - brand image .508

reason for preference to purchase private labels - packaging .834

reason for preference to purchase national brands – packaging .782
reason for preference to purchase national brands – durability .872
reason for preference to purchase private labels - durability .831
reason for preference to purchase national brands – price .756
reason for preference to purchase private labels – price .670
reason for preference to purchase national brands - quality .598

reason for preference to purchase national brands - service .582

reason for preference to purchase private labels – service .556
reason for preference to purchase private labels – quality .541
reason for preference to purchase national brands – convenience .829
reason for preference to purchase private labels – convenience .818
reason for preference to purchase national brands – promotion .867
reason for preference to purchase private labels - promotion .735
reason for preference to purchase private labels – variety .819
reason for preference to purchase national brands - variety .771
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

The factors have been named as – F1: Exclusivity, F2: Image, F3: Packaging, F4:
Durability, F5: Price, F6: Experience, F7: Convenience, F8: Promotion and F9: Variety

Discriminant Analysis technique. Based on existing

Discriminant Analysis is a classification independent variables (scale data) and

Page No. 48 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology

dependent variables (categorical data), a
classification equation can be created.
This equation can also be used as a
prediction model to predict the
probability of the new respondent falling
into which category. Here Discriminant
Analysis is being used to predict the
preference of customers for private
labels or national brands.
The factors identified earlier were saved
as new variables for further multivariate
analysis. As explained earlier,
considering these factors to be
independent variables and preference of
men's apparel (private labels vs. national
brands) as dependent variable,
Discrminant Analysis was conducted.
The results are reproduced below:

Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions

Table 15: Eigenvalues

Eigenvalues
Function Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Canonical Correlation
a
1 10.031 100.0 100.0 .843
a. First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.

Table 16: Wilks' Lambda

Wilks' Lambda
Test of Function(s) Wilks' Lambda Chi-square df Sig.
1 .270 14.984 9 .031

The values of Eigenvalues, canonical situation. The Discriminant Function

correlation, Wilks' Lambda and p- equation can be seen from the table
value indicate that Discriminant given below.
Analysis is appropriate in this
Table 17: Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients
Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients
Function
1
F1 -.020
F2 -.489
F3 .393
F4 .149

Page No. 49 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........

F5 .484
F6 -.062
F7 .092
F8 .565
F9 .218
(Constant) .000
Unstandardized coefficients

Discriminant Function Z = -0.020F1 - Packaging, F4: Durability, F5: Price,

.489F2 +.393F3 +.149F4 +.484F5 - F6: Experience, F7: Convenience, F8:
.062F6 +.092F7 +.565F8 +.281F9 Promotion and F9: Variety)
(Where F1: Exclusivity, F2: Image, F3: For the prediction rule:

Table 18: Functions at Group Centroids

Functions at Group Centroids

Preference of men's apparel Function
1
Private labels -.244
National brands .126
Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions
evaluated at group means

The mean of this function lies at -
0.059. Any customer's perceptions can
be measured on the 9 independent
variables on a 1 to 5 scale and input in
the Discriminant Function equation. If
the Z score comes less than -0.059, the
customer is likely to prefer private
labels while for Z score higher than -
0.059, the customer is likely to prefer
national brands. This is the prediction
model for preference in men's apparel
category which has been developed in
this study.
To check the robustness of this model,
the 'leave one out' option was used in
SPSS to get the classification results,
which are reproduced below.

Page No. 50 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology

Table 19: Classification Resultsa,c

Classification Resultsa,c
Preference of Predicted Group Membership Total
men's apparel Private labels National brands
Private labels 160 10 170
Count
National brands 38 291 329
Original
Private labels 94.1 5.9 100.0
%
National brands 11.5 88.5 100.0
Private labels 147 23 170
Count
Cross- National brands 54 275 329
validatedb Private labels 86.5 13.5 100.0
%
National brands 16.4 83.6 100.0
a. 90.4% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
b. Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
c. 84.6% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.

The results show a high level of correct classification in cross-validated cases and
hence, the discriminant model is very robust and appropriate.

Conclusions And Recommendations typical AIDA sequence for private

Ÿ Close to 85% of respondents
were aware what private labels are. This
is a significant finding which shows the
level of exposure to modern retail, which
people in Delhi and NCR are having.
Ÿ There was a significantly larger
preference for national brands compared
to private labels. After looking at the
awareness levels and the preference
levels for private labels, it can be
concluded that there is a significant
drop from awareness to interest in the
labels.
Ÿ It is interesting to note that
there is negative correlation between
knowledge and preference of private
labels. In other words, even though
most of the respondents were aware
about private labels, they showed a
significant preference for national
brands in men's apparel categories.
The recommendation can be given that
the private labels have moved beyond
the Awareness stage of AIDA but the
stores need to do more communication

Page No. 51 / Vol.4 / Issue-1

Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........
in building interest and desire towards
their private labels in the minds of
customers.
Ÿ The study succeeded in
identifying six attributes, which came
out to be very high in importance for
inducing preference for private labels –
quality, price, variety, brand image,
service and durability. Two other
attributes also had a secondary
importance viz. Store image and
distinctiveness. Four attributes, which
were significantly less important,
according to this study are – packaging,
convenience, promotion and social
recognition. Quite clearly the attributes,
which directly impact the value-
proposition of the private labels, are high
on impact. The stores selling private
labels in men's apparel category should
strive to incorporate all of these aspects
in their private labels and then invest on
building the private label brand on these
positioning attributes.
Ÿ The study identified six
attributes, which came out to be very
high in importance for inducing
preference for national brands – quality,
price, variety, brand image, service and
durability. Three other attributes also
had a secondary importance viz. Store
image, social recognition and
Page No. 52 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
distinctiveness. Three attributes, which
were significantly less important,
according to this study are – packaging,
convenience, and promotion.
Ÿ As far as the comparative
analysis is concerned, the study
concluded that there is significant
difference in seven attributes in
influencing the preference towards
private labels and national brands viz.
quality, price, packaging, brand image,
durability, social recognition and
distinctiveness. Out of these seven, only
one attribute - price is coming out to be
significantly more important for
preference of private labels while rest six
attributes are coming out to be
significantly more important for
national brands. Variety and service are
equally 'very important' in both the
categories, store image is equally
'important' while convenience and
promotion are equally 'not important' for
both the categories. The implications are
private labels have not been able to
match up to the benchmarks set by
national brands in various aspects and
except prices they seem to lag behind in
all quality perceptions. Until the stores
selling private brands are able to rectify
 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology
this perception, customers are unlikely
to switch from national brands in a major
way.
Ÿ With the use of Factor Analysis
and Discriminant Analysis techniques, a
predictive model was established as
follows:
(Discriminant Function) Z = -0.020F1 -
.489F2 +.393F3 +.149F4 +.484F5 -
.062F6 +.092F7 +.565F8 +.281F9
(Where F1: Exclusivity, F2: Image, F3:
Packaging, F4: Durability, F5: Price, F6:
Experience, F7: Convenience, F8:
Promotion and F9: Variety)
Any customer's perceptions can be
measured on the 9 independent variables
on a 1 to 5 scale and input in the
Discriminant Function equation. If the Z
score comes less than -0.059, the
customer is likely to prefer private labels
while for Z score higher than -0.059, the
customer is likely to prefer national
brands.
Managerial Implications
The findings of the study can be useful to
in developing stronger store/PLs and in
increasing their presence and acceptance
amongst customers. A key finding is that
value-conscious consumers are less
loyal to national brands and inclined to
switching or buying private labels.
Retailers may gain sales for their private
label brands by continuously seeking to
improve customer perceptions of
quality. We see the negative perceptions
of private label quality to be a major
roadblock to increased volume. Efforts
to improve quality perceptions of private
labels might be accomplished by
upgrading the tangible quality of the
product, improving the packaging,
innovation, and educating consumers
about the how quality is built into the
product.
For critical success, retail marketers
have to learn more about customer needs
and desires and study their perceptions
of quality. This research shows that even
in an emerging market like India, where
perceptions towards PLs have taken
more time to be established, NBs are
definitely considered to be superior vis-
à-vis PLs. The success of PLs is
important to retailers and could be a
critical part of their strategy in terms of
competition, sourcing, supply chain
management, positioning, profitability
and expansion. Development of
acceptable- and sought after- PLs will
Page No. 53 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........
take time, effort and strategic vision on
the part of retailers.
Limitations And Directions For
Further Research
Ÿ First our analysis is restricted
to one category - men's apparels.
Future research should investigate the
relationships across different
categories to assess the
generalizability of our results.
Ÿ The scope of this study is
limited to DELHI and NCR. Inclusion
of more stores and private labels, in
varying geographic locations, would
enable the study of the relationship
between store image and private label
attitude to take account of a wider
range of retailer brand architectures.
References
1. Aaker DA, 1999, Building
Strong Brands, the Free Press, New
York.
2. Ailawadi, K. L., & Keller, K. L.
(2004). Understanding retail branding:
Conceptual insights and research
priorities. Journal of Retailing, 80(4),
331-342.
3. Ailawadi, K., Neslin, S. &
Page No. 54 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the Value
Conscious Consumer: Store Brands
Versus National Brand Promotions.
Journal of Marketing. Vol. 65 (1).
4. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M.
(1980). Understanding attitudes and
p r e d i c t i n g s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r.
Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
5. Akbay, C., Jones E. 2005. Food
consumption behavior of
socioeconomic groups for private
labels and national brands. Food
Quality and Preference 16 (7), 621-
631.
6. Anselmsson, J. & Johansson,
U. 2007. 'Corporate social
responsibility and the positioning of
grocery brands.' International Journal
of Retail and Distribution
Management, 35:10, 835-56.
Batra, R. & Sinha, I. (2000).
7. Consumer-Level Factors
Moderating the Success of Private
Label Brands. Journal of Retailing, 76
(2), pp. 175-191.
8. Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D. R.,
Netemeyer, R. G. & Garretson, J. A.
(1998). A scale for measuring attitude
toward private label products and an
 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology
examination of its psychological and
behavioral correlates. Academy of
Marketing Science Journal. Vol. 26 (4),
pp. 293-306.
9. Choi, S., A. T. Coughlan. 2006.
Private label positioning: Quality
versus feature differentiation from the
national brand. J. Retailing. 82(2) 79-
93.
10. Corstjens, M., & Lal, R.
(2000). Building store loyalty through
store brands. Journal of Marketing
Research, 37(3), 281-291.
11. Curhan, R.C., 1973. Shelf
space allocation and profit
maximization in mass retailing.
Journal of Marketing 37, 54-60.
12. D e l Ve c c h i o D , ( 2 0 0 1 ) ,
“Consumer Perception of Private
Label Quality: The Role of Product
Category Characteristics and
Consumer Use of Heuristics”, Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8
pp. 239–249, Elsevier Science
Limited.
13. Desmet, P., Renaudin, V.,
(1998). Estimation of product category
sales responsiveness to allocated shelf
spare. International Journal of
Research in Marketing 15, 443-457.
14. Dick, A. S., Jain, A. K., &
Richardson, P. S. (1997). How
consumers evaluate store brands.
Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 5, 19-28.
15. Dréje, X., Hoch, S.J., Purk,
M.E., 1994. Shelf management and
space elasticity. Journal of retailing 70
(4), 301-326.
16. Dunn, D. & Narasimhan, C.
(1999). The new appeal of private
labels. Harvard Business Review, Vol.
77(3), pp. 41-52.
17. Hansen, T., Solgaard, H. S.,
2004. New perspectives on retailing
and store patronage behaviour: A study
of the interface between retailers and
consumers. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
18. Hoch, S. & Banerji, S. (1993).
When Do Private Labels Succeed?
Sloan Management Review. Vol. 34,
pp. 57-68.
19. Hoch, S. J. (1996). How should
national brands think about private
labels? Sloan Management Review.
Vol. 37 (2), pp. 89-102.
20. Hoch, S. J., & Lodish, L. M.
(1998). Store brands and category
Page No. 55 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
Comparative Analysis of Customers' Preference For National Brands .........
management. Unpublished working
paper. University of Pennsylvania.
21. Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic
brand management: Building,
measuring and managing brand equity
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
22. Krishnamurthi, Lakshman and
S.P. Raj. 1988. A Model of Brand
Choice and Purchase Quantity Price
Sensitivities. Marketing Science. 7(1):
1-21
23. Kumar, Nirmalya, &
Steenkamp J. (2007) Private Label
Strategy: How to meet the store brand
challenge, Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
24. Lal, R. (1990). Manufacturer
Trade Deals and Retail Price
Promotions. Journal of Marketing
Research. Vol. 27, pp. 428-444.
25. Narasimhan, C., Wilcox, R.T.,
1998. Private labels and the channel
relationship: A cross-category
analysis. Journal of Business 71 (4),
573-600.
26. Omar, O.E., 1994.
Comparative product testing for own-
label marketing. International Journal
of Retailing and Distribution
Page No. 56 / Vol.4 / Issue-1
Management 22 (2), 12-17.
27. Pauwels, K., & Srinivasan, S.
(2004). Who benefits from store brand
entry? Marketing Science, 23(3), 364.
Quelch, J. A. & Harding, D. (1996).
Brand versus private labels: fighting to
win. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 74
(1), pp. 99-110.
28. Raju, J., Sethuraman, R., &
Dhar, S. (1995). The introduction and
performance of store brands.
Management Science, 41(6), 957-978
Richardson, P. S. (1997). Are store
brands perceived to be just another
brand? Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 6, 388-404.
29. Richardson, P. S., Dick, A. S.,
& Jain, A. K. (1994). Extrinsic and
intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of
store brand quality. Journal of
Marketing, 58(4), 28-36.
30. Richardson, P. S., Jain, A. K., &
Dick, A. S. (1996a). Household store
brand proneness: A framework.
Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 159-185.
31. Richardson, P. S., Jain, A. K., &
Dick, A. S. (1996b). The influence of
store aesthetics on evaluation of
private label brands. Journal of
Product and Brand Management 5 (1),
 Journal of Knowledge Management and Information Technology
19-28. Semeijn, J., van Riel, A. C. R.,
& Ambrosini, A. B. (2004). Consumer
evaluations of store brands: Effects of
store image and product attributes.
Journal of Retailing Sestokaite, A.
(2010). Consumer Orientations toward
32. Private Labels and National
Brands in the Different Product
Categories. Master thesis, Aarhus:
Aarhus School of Business,
Department of Marketing, (MAPP).
33. Sestokaite, A. (2010).
Consumer Orientations toward Private
Labels and National Brands in the
Different Product Categories. Master
thesis, Aarhus: Aarhus School of
Business, Department of Marketing,
(MAPP).
34. Sethuraman, R. (2003).
Measuring national brands' equity over
store brands. Review of Marketing
Science, Vol. 1.
35. Steiner, R. L. (2004). The
nature and benefits of national
brand/private label competition.
Review of Industrial Organization,
24(2), 105.
36. Sudhir, K., & Talukdar, D.
(2004). Does store brand patronage
improve store patronage? Review of
View publication stats
Industrial Organization, 24(2), 143-
160.
37. Vahie, A., Paswan, A., 2006.
Private label brand image: Its
relationship with store image and
national brand, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management
34(1), 67-84.
38. Vaidyanathan, R., & Aggrawal,
P. (2000). Strategic brand alliances:
Implications of ingredient branding for
national and private label brands.
Journal of product and Management 9
(4), 214-228, Semeijn, J., van Riel, A.
C. R., & Ambrosini, A. B. (2004).
Consumer evaluations of store brands:
Effects of store image and product
attributes. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 11
39. Venkatraman, M.P., 1990.
Opinion leadership, enduring
involvement and characteristics of
opinion leaders:a moderating or
mediating relationship? Advances in
Consumer Research 17, 60–67.
40. Verhoef, P.C, Nijssen, E.J.,
etal., 2002. Strategic Reactions of
national brand manufacturers towards
private labels. European Journal of
Marketing (36) 11/12, 1309-1326.
Page No. 57 / Vol.4 / Issue-1