Copyright subsists in all papers and content posted on this site.

Transcription

1 Student First Name: Reham Student Second Name: Ebrahim Copyright subsists in all papers and content posted on is site. Furer copying or distribution by any means wiout prior permission is prohibited, except for e purposes of non-commercial private study or research, as defined in e Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or as oerwise auorised by statute. To obtain permission, please contact e auor of e relevant paper in e first instance or copyright@brunel.ac.uk wi details of your request. 1

2 A Structural Evaluation of e Determinants of Consumer Brand Preferences for Mobile Phones in Egypt Abstract The main aim of is paper is to determine e antecedents of consumers preferences for mobile phone brands, and in turn its impact on eir choices. In particular, e role of multiaspects brand experience and brand knowledge on brand preferences, wi regard to consumer personality. Semi-structured interviews were conducted wi consumers to describe eir experiences wi eir preferred brands and elicit e attributes, benefits, and traits consumer associated to eir preferred brands. Data was en collected from mobile phones users in Egypt using survey instrument, a total of 353 responses were received. Structure equation modelling was used to analyse e data. Keywords: Brands, Consumer preference, experience marketing 1. Introduction Brand is a very important tool in today s market for bo consumer and company. For e consumers, brands act as a differentiating tool between products at act as a quality signals and facilitate decision making. In today s market, brands are considered one of e company valuable assets (Kotler et al, 2009). Investigating brands in high-tech products and how consumers form eir preferences is of increased importance. There is a general consensus at branding becomes more important as high-tech products become accessible to mass consumers. Advances in technology changes consumer experiences wi high-tech products and increase e similarity between products. High-tech products are facing fierce 2

3 competition and suffer from commoditisation. Consumers are unable to differentiate between brand attributes on rational bases when making choices. Therefore, ere is a call for building strong brands able to deliver memorable experiences oer an e utilitarian value of e brand in order to win consumer preferences and build long term relationships. Given e rapid changing nature of technological market, managers are interested in understanding e drivers of consumer brand preferences. Consumer preference is considered as a learning construct conducted from experiences and knowledge (Howard and She, 1967). This paper focuses on investigating e determinants of brand preference and studying its impact in turn on brand choice. The main eme is to consider e direct impact of consumer multi-experience aspects wi e brand on brand preference and indirect rough brand knowledge elements. 2. Theoretical background Brand preferences refer to e consumers behavioural tendencies reflecting eir attitudes toward brand. Due to e importance of understanding consumer brand preference formation, it was e core of interest of several science disciplines: economic, social-psychology, and marketing. Consumer brand preference was studied as part of consumer decision making process and brand choice models. In is essence, ere are two common approaches in e social-psychology contributes in studying preferences formation; e archaeology and architecture. The archaeology assumes at consumers have well-defined, stable, consistent preferences (Payne et al, 1999). This approach is analogous to e economic view of preference formation as a function of e utility maximisation. The shortcoming of ese 3

4 assumptions of is view is it prevent having a clear explanation of preference formation (Albanese, 1987; Samuels, 1978). The architecture view, nearest to e actual world, support e constructive nature of preferences; but at e point of decision making based on e interaction between consumer experiences and knowledge, and e processing capacities such as e task and context factors (Payne et al, 1999; Payne et al, 1992). Despite e growing consensus of preference construction still very little is known about e factors affecting is construction process (Yoon and Simonson, 2008). Zajonc and Markus, (1982) argue e preference construction at e point of decision making suggesting e possibility at consumer develop his preference prior to decision making and choices. This eme of preference development prior to consumer choices was considered by psychological eories and models such as e multi-attribute models and e information processing eories. The multi-attribute models such as Rosenberg, (1956) and Fishbein, (1965) models, utilise e expectancy-value eory of attitude in understanding consumer behaviour. Accordingly, brand preference was explained based on e consumers beliefs about e cognitive value of e brand derive from e brand attributes (Erickson et al, 1984; Ryan and Bonfield, 1975). The oer stream of psychological eories such as Howard and She, (1967) eory of buyer behaviour and Bettman, (1979) - information processing model follow e central route in explaining consumer brand choice. This stream was guided by common sequential steps; e awareness and exposure to e brand related stimuli are e starting point followed by experience and knowledge acquisition reaching e choice and e purchasing action rough e development of preferences (Biehal and Chakravarti, 1986; Foxall, 1983). Consumer learning plays a fundamental role in ese eories and models of consumer behaviour (Bettman, 1979; Engel et al, 1971; Howard and She, 1968). Learning directs consumer 4

5 choices and behaviours its impact is examined by brand knowledge and experience (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Bettman and Park, 1980; Hutchinson and Alba, 1991). Consumer preference is considered as a learning construct conducted from experiences and knowledge (Howard and She, 1967; She, 1968). Several limitations have been directed to ese eories and models emphasising at being bounded to rationality impede e capacity of ese models in explaining consumer preferences and choices (c.f. Dube et al, 2003; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Zajonc, 1980; Allen et al, 2005). Holbrook and Hirschman, (1982) describes ese models as traditional models at lack e utilisation of oer experiential aspects contributes to better understanding of consumer behaviour. They suggest e consideration of e experiential aspects such as sensorial, feelings, hedonic, and symbolic along e flow of information rough e decision making process. Thus, e experiential view provides broader view of consumer behaviour instead of being limited to e rational choice and e cognitive aspects of e brand. It was also emphasised at e affective experience plays a role in shaping consumers preferences for brands (Dube et al, 2003). Accordingly, understanding consumer preferences for brands based on e experiential view means raising not only e role of e emotional influences but also e symbolic aspects of e brand in shaping preference, raer an, focusing on e brand attributes. The consideration of e experiential view in preference formation is very important in today s market facing e shift from traditional market to experiential market. Experiential marketing appears in response to bo e advance of information technology and e omnipotence of brands (Schmitt, 1999). Experiential market is characterised by building preference and consumer relationship by delivering valuable experiences (Carbone and Haeckel, 1994). Consumers in experiential 5

6 market are human beings affected by e emotional, sensorial, symbolic, and functional created by experiencing e brand (Brakus et al, 2009; Schmitt, 1999). The importance of studying antecedents of brand preference has raised recently (Singh et al, 2005), concurrent wi e necessity of exploring e short term and long term impact of brand experience on building strong preferences (Brakus et al, 2009). There is quite paucity in marketing literature of studies providing a comprehensive model of brand preference. Therefore, e current study focus on consumer experience and knowledge wi e brand as e main drivers of his preferences and choices. 2. Research Meods 2.1 Procedures and Sample This study follows e mixed-meods in data collection. The first phase of data collection includes semi-structured interviews were conducted wi five marketing expert and four heterogeneous focus groups. The aims of ese interviews were to conceptualise consumer brand preferences, determine e dimensions describing consumers brand experiences, and e traits of e brand elements constituting consumer brand knowledge. Accordingly, from e first study e first draft of e survey instrument can be developed. The second phase; quantitative study, was conducted using cross-sectional survey instrument. 2.2 Purifying Measurement Items Following Churchill, (1979) paradigm e initial pool of measurement items was generated from bo sources: e literature review and semi-structured interviews. Brand preference measurement items were developed from (Hellier et al, 2003; Jamal and Good, 2001; Jamal 6

7 and Al-Marri, 2010), Cronbach s alpha for ese items (6 items) was 0.9. Brand experience measurement items developed from (Brakus et al, 2009; Chang and Chieng, 2006). Cronbach s alpha for each of e five dimensions of brand experience: sensorial (3 items), emotional (6 items), intellectual (6 items), behavioural (6 items), and social (4 items) was 0.88, 0.87, 0.88, 0.9, and 0.9 respectively. The associated reliable brand attributes were six traits; Cronbach s alpha for e brand associated attributes was The associated reliability alpha coefficient for brand benefits of e eight traits was Brand personality was measured based on e big-five personality traits, since Aaker s, (1997) measurement items were criticised for being not generalised cross-culturally (e.g. Geuens et al, 2009). Through e exploratory factor analysis only four dimensions were detected. The Cronbach s alpha for e four dimensions: extraversion (5 items), agreeableness (7 items), consciousness (5 items), and openness (6 items) was , 0.85, and 0.9 respectively. The human-brand congruence was measured by computing e difference between e scores between brand personality ratings and corresponding human personality ratings, and en averaged across all personality attributes for each respondent (Sirgy et al, 1997; Kresmann et al, 2006). Lastly, e brand choice measurement items were developed from (Erdem et al, 2005; Suh, 2009) and its Cronabch s alpha value was 0.7. A pilot study was conducted wi 56 respondents to assess e content validity and e reliability of e measurement items in e first draft of e survey instrument. The content validity was tested based on bo expert and non-expert opinion. The reliability was diagnosed using Cronbach s alpha and item-total correlation. Items wi item-total correlation less an 0.5 were dropped and at e constructs level e Cronbach s alpha was 7

8 exceeding 0.7. The questionnaire was first written in e English language revised by two marketing academics, translated into Arabic and en back translated. The purified items were all included in e second draft of e survey instrument and used in e data collection of e main survey. 2.3 Main Survey The data were collected using questionnaires in Egypt during 2011, participants from bo gender (66% males and 38% females) wi age ranged from 18 to 45 years were selected randomly.. Table 2 presents e descriptive statistics of e sample. Participants living in big cities in Egypt were addressed at shopping malls at different times during e whole week. A total of 353 valid questionnaires were received and reduced to 325 after data cleaning. Based on Hair et al, (2010) e number of ese responses is considered satisfactory and meet e requirement of sample size needed to operate structural equation modelling. 2.4 Data Analysis Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine e factors and its loading. Crossloaded items and items wi low communality were deleted. Structural equation modelling using AMOS was used to analyse e data, bo e structural and e measurement model have good fit indices 3. Discussion and Conclusion The results support e main argument of e study at even for high-tech products like mobile phones e cognitive processing of information does not contribute to preference 8

9 formation. Consumer preferences were determined mainly by eir different experiences wi e brand. This came in consistent wi e literature at consumer learn eir preferences from eir experiences (She, 1968; Erdem, 1998). The brand experience affects directly and indirectly e brand preferences; even more, e indirect effect of brand experience is higher an e direct impact of brand attributes and functional benefits on brand preference. This supports e experiential view at consumers are more concerned wi e non-cognitive experiential aspects (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1980; Schmitt, 1999). The oer factors at contribute in e development of brand preferences are e functional and e symbolic values of e brand. The impact of e brand symbolic value presented by e brand personality alone is slightly higher an e impact of brand attributes on brand preference. However, e total impact of e symbolic components of e brand presented by e bo e brand personality and e personality congruence between e brand and e human is higher an e direct impact of e brand attributes. Moreover, e impact of bo brand attributes and e functional benefits on brand preference is almost equal to e total impact of e symbolic values. lastly, e impact of brand preference on e brand choice was supported. 9

10 References: Churchill, G.A. (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research,16, Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7 Edition, PEARSON Howard, J. A. She, J. N. A Theory of Buyer Behaviour. John Wiley and Sons, New York, Kotler, P., Keller, K.L., Brady, M., Goodman, M. and Hansen, T. (2009), Marketing Management, Pearson/Prentice Hall 10

11 Brunel Business School - Doctoral Symposium 27 & 28 March 2012 Yoon, song-oh and Simonson, Itamar. (2008), Choice set configuration as a determinant of preference attribution and streng, Journal of Consumer Research, 35(August), Zajonc, Robert B. and Markus, Hazel. (1982), Affective and cognitive factors in preferences, Journal of Consumer Research, 9,