Has brand loyalty declined? A longitudinal analysis of repeat. purchase behavior in the UK and the USA

Transcription

1 Has brand loyalty declined? A longitudinal analysis of repeat purchase behavior in the UK and the USA John Dawes Associate Professor, University of South Australia, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute Lars Meyer-Waarden* Full Professor, EM Strasbourg HuManiS, Carl Driesener, Senior Lector, University of South Australia, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute *61 avenue de la Forêt Noire Strasbourg Cedex, meyerwaarden@emstrasbourg.eu 0

2 La fidélité à la marque a-t-elle décliné? Une analyse longitudinale des achats Résumé : répétés en Grande-Bretagne et aux Etats-Unis Cette recherche analyse l hypothèse d un changement à long terme de la fidélité à la marque dans une grande variété de catégories de produits de grande consommation sur des périodes allant de six à treize ans. L'étude utilise le paramètre de changement Dirichlet S, comme indicateur de fidélité. Les résultats sont mitigés. La fidélité diminue seulement dans 7 des 15 catégories de produits analysées en Grande Bretagne et dans 2 des 6 catégories aux Etats-Unis. Le déclin de la fidélité n est ainsi pas un phénomène universel mais dépend de la catégorie de produits et apparaît comme un processus très lent. Mots-clés : évolution fidélité à la marque, achats répétés, panel consommateur, modèle Dirichlet. Has brand loyalty declined? A longitudinal analysis of repeat purchase Abstract : behavior in the UK and the USA This research examines long-term loyalty change in a wide variety of FMCG categories in the UK and USA, over time periods between six to thirteen years. The study uses the Dirichlet S category switching parameter as the loyalty indicator. The findings provide mixed evidence. Only in 7 out of 15 UK categories and 2 of 6 US categories loyalty is slightly declining. Loyalty decline appears to be product category-specific, rather than a universal phenomenon, and furthermore appears to be a very slight and slow process. Keywords: Evolution brand loyalty, repeat-purchase, consumer panel, Dirichlet model. 1

3 Has brand loyalty declined? A longitudinal analysis of repeat purchase behavior in the UK and the USA Introduction A critical issue for the long term profitability of a firm is its capability to make customers loyal and a large number of loyal customers is a competitive asset for a brand. Considerable energy and money are invested in tools to maintain brand loyalty. For example, retailers, such as Carrefour spend more than 80 million per annum in marketing actions such as loyalty programs. Given these figures and the importance of loyalty for profitability (Reinartz & Kumar 2000), it is no wonder that marketers are worried about recurring claims in the managerial press that the loyalty is eroding (Dubow, 1992; Kapferer, 2005). Nevertheless, only two empirical studies have investigated the evolution of loyalty (and this only on the medium term; e.g. one to two years; Johnson 1984; Dekimpe et al., 1997). A further problem is that the studies were conducted in the 1980 s and changes could have prompted significant shifts. Therefore, research is needed to clarify this topic. Our research contributes by conducting a large-scale study in which we analyze the long term evolution of loyalty over six to thirteen years in two country-markets: the UK and USA. We first describe the rationale for loyalty decline and past studies. We then outline our analysis, namely the Dirichlet model. We then describe panel data from 21 consumer goods (FMCG) categories that we use to examine brand loyalty. This is followed by the results and the discussion as well as directions for future research. 2

4 1. Rationale for loyalty decline, and past studies There is a general agreement throughout academic literature that loyalty consists in one behavioural dimension and another related to attitudes, where commitment and trust are the essential features (Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978; Morgan & Hunt 1994) as the combination of these two components permits to distinguish two types of customer loyalty. Loyalty is an intrinsic quality directly attributable to clients, and is in general not perpetual as consumers may be dissatisfied (Oliver, 1999), or have variety seeking behavior (Chintagunta, 1998). Furthermore in most repertoire markets (i.e. FCMG), brand loyalty is difficult to achieve by brand preference nor by marketing actions, and only 3-5% of the customers are 100% sole-loyal (Ehrenberg, 1988). There are several reasons to think loyalty could be declining. First, customer loyalty is managed with minimal differentiation across the entire customer base. Thus, individual customer differences may get ignored. Second, brand loyalty is often said to be replaced by price loyalty. Price promotions are more prevalent than in the past, which sensitizes consumers to buy only on deal (Mela, Jedidi, and Bowman, 1998). In turn, buying deal to deal could widen brand repertoires and decrease loyalty. Third, there has been considerable growth in both the number of brands (including private-label brands) available and the range of product variants being offered in the past twenty years. It is reasonable to think that this proliferation widens consumer repertoires and thus decreases loyalty. Another argument is that today s consumer is more discerning and discriminating than 3

5 their forebears, more cynical about brands and hence potentially less brand loyal (O'Dell and Pajunen, 2000). Finally, the 2007/08 global financial crisis caused a decrease in consumer buying power, resulting in belt-tightening. Trimming expenditure on the part of consumers could prompt more switching between brands to take advantage of temporary promotions. Given these significant market changes over the last 15 or so years, and the continual assertions of declines in brand loyalty, a careful examination of loyalty decline is warranted. As mentioned earlier, empirical evidence on long term erosion of loyalty is scarce. We now briefly review the work that has been done to date. Johnson (1984) examined 50 major brands in 20 US product categories over a period of eight years. He found some decline in loyalty for certain brands, but noted the decline often accompanied category growth. That is, growth in the category attracted new brands, which broadened consumer repertoires. Johnson concluded there was some evidence of loyalty decline, but its magnitude was small. More recently, Dekimpe et al. (1997) found little evidence that loyalty was declining in a study using data from 21 FMCG categories covering a one- to two-year period ( ). Therefore, while these studies find little evidence of loyalty decline more investigation is needed. First, Johnson s and Dekimpe et al s study were conducted respectively 25 years and 14 years ago. Consumers and markets may have changed since then. Also, the Dekimpe et al. study was conducted over data periods of up to two years, which may not be enough to detect long-term changes in loyalty. The authors therefore recommend that future research should use longer time periods. It is also worth noting that both studies 4

6 have focused on brand loyalty that may decline for all sorts of reasons, usually outside the control of the marketer, which does not necessarily mean that overall loyalty is similarly changing. To examine overall loyalty, it is important to examine the overall switching between all brands (i.e. category level). Furthermore, brand level loyalty metrics are potentially confounded by factors including the time period of analysis and changes in category purchasing. Consumers buying the category more or less often than in the past would confound the use of metrics such as average frequency of purchase for brands, because the rate at which a brand is purchased is by definition affected by the overall rate at which the category is purchased. Similarly repeat rates are affected by market share, so that a declining repeat rate may be a function of a declining market share. 2. Research method and analysis of brand loyalty This study focuses on behavioral loyalty namely, observed repeat purchasing over time, which is the mostly used approach. Many researchers (e.g., Kahn et al., 1986; Ehrenberg, 1988; Fader and Schmittlein, 1993; Ehrenberg et al., 2000) believe that repeat purchasing captures the loyalty of a consumer and suggest that attitude is not relevant to determining loyalty. While some might see the absence of attitudinal data as a shortcoming, it is reasonable to think that if attitudes do exert some influence on loyalty we should see the end result of attitude change on behavior over the long-term analysis of purchasing conducted here (Sharp et al. 2002). Moreover, no long-term database of consumer attitudes to brands exists. 5

7 The issue with behavioral loyalty metrics such as market share changes, purchase frequency, repeat rates is that they are potentially confounded by changes in category purchasing or market share shifts. For example, if we only examine the average purchase frequency for brands, a decline in this metric could indicate loyalty decline or merely reflect a change in category-level purchase rates. Similarly, if the average brand repertoire size is increasing this could either be a loyalty change or a change in the frequency with which the category is bought. Finally, if we look at loyalty (i.e. share of requirements, purchase rate), changes in brand loyalty could be due to changes in market share since market share and loyalty are systematically related (Ehrenberg, 1988). To control for the confounding factors such as category-level purchasing and changes in brand share, we use the Dirichlet multinomial model (Goodhardt et al., 1984) to measure loyalty. Our choice is based on different considerations: First of all, the model is well established in the marketing literature (Fader and Schmittlein, 1993), and has contributed to elaborating certain empirical regularities using the theory of repeat buying. Second, the data requirements are few (product category penetration and purchase frequency, as well as brand market shares). The model s parameters have clear managerial interpretations. Third, the model produces the S category switching parameter, which is independent of the time frame of analysis, category purchasing or other issues that affect the more traditional behavioral loyalty metrics metrics (Ehrenberg, Uncles and Goodhardt, 2004). S is the sum of the individual Dirichlet brand parameters and measures heterogeneity in the distribution of brand choice probabilities across the buyer population. Using the S parameter neatly ties in with the perspective that increased switching between all brands 6

8 (not just between a subset) implies decreasing loyalty (to all brands) within that category. A lower S implies decreased switching between brands and higher loyalty; conversely a higher S signal more brand switching hence lower loyalty. Importantly, S is an unconfounded measure of loyalty, because the latent brand choice probabilities are not affected by changes in category purchasing, nor by the time period of analysis, though the observed behavior in each case would be. Full details about S and the procedure for calculating S can be found in Annex C in Ehrenberg s book (1988) or in Rungie et al. (2003). We supplement S with another measure, being the average repertoire size (e.g. number of brands a customer buys at least once in the twelve months time period). We use the DIRICHLET software (Kearns, 1999), to estimate the Dirichlet model and S parameters. Consumer panel data were provided by Kantar UK covering between 7 and 13 years of the period July 1998 to June 2010 for 15 FMCG categories. US data were provided by Nielsen, covering 6 categories for the period inclusive 1. We analyze the top twenty brands in each category that includes an all others aggregation of all the remaining minor brands (Ehrenberg, 1988). For every category the analysis was performed on yearly time frames, using the first, second, and subsequent years (e.g. time period of 52 weeks for all of analyses). Hence for those categories with 13 years of data, we conducted 13 analyses. 1 The choice of UK and USA markets is due to data convenience but enhance also the external validity of the results as markets dynamics are similar in both markets. 7

9 3. Results 3.1. Category level characteristics Before examining loyalty changes we look at general purchasing trends. From Table 1 we see that category purchase frequency is trending downward (consumers are buying less often) in 4 categories (margarine, tea bags, instant coffee, laundry detergents) and is staying stable or is growing in 11 categories (breakfast cereals, butter, crackers, crisps and savory snacks, dog food, cat food, shampoo, fabric conditioner, cough liquid, tooth paste, body spray and deodorants) in the UK. The downward changes in buying frequency could be due to larger pack sizes being offered and a broader category evolving, with new formula variants (i.e. diet variants and new tastes for cereals and crisps). For laundry detergent, the rising popularity of concentrates is a likely reason for both occasions, and trip volume, declining over time. Table 2 shows that category purchase frequency is decreasing in 3 categories (fabric conditioner, margarine, body spray and deodorants) and is staying stable or is growing in 3 categories (breakfast cereals, cat food, yoghurt) in the US. It is worth noting that breakfast cereals and margarine look quite different in the US data compared to the UK data. US buyers are shown as buying cereal 12 occasions per year, but UK buyers buy 25 occasions per year. A check revealed the total number of packs bought per year is approximately the same across the two markets, therefore it seems US buyers buy more product per trip. For margarine, US buyers buy about 6.0 times per year, but UK buyers buy twice as often; and indeed the number of packs bought in a year in the UK is also higher. We do not have data to compare typical pack sizes in the US to UK, but a reasonable explanation might be that sizes are larger in the US. 8

10 In summary, some of the categories are trending down in annual purchase frequency, while others are increasing. These changes in category-level buying statistics justify the use of the Dirichlet S parameter since it controls for such changes in category buying rate. While strictly speaking the Dirichlet is designed for stationary markets, it is robust to the modest changes in annual purchasing rates seen in these categories. Year Breakfast Cereals 9 Avg. change/year Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S 3,1 3,2 3,4 3,5 3,4 3,4 3,3 3,3 3,3 3,5 3,8 3,8 3,8 1% Repertoire size 3,9 4 3,9 3,9 3, ,1 4,1 4,2 4,9 4,9 4,8 1% Butter Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S - - 1,4 1,3 1,3 1,4 1,4 1,3 1,3 1,2 1,1 1,1 1,1-1% Repertoire size - - 2,5 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,3 2,3 2,1 0% Margarine Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S - - 1,8 1,7 1,8 2 1,9 1,8 1,7 1,8 2,1 2,8 2,8 2% Repertoire size - - 3,2 3,1 3,2 3,3 3,2 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,2 3,9 3,7 1% Tea Bags Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S ,2 1,2 1,2 1,1 1,2 1,4 1,4 1,4 2% Repertoire size 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 0% Instant Std. Coffee Cat. Purch. frequency ,5 6,5-1% Dirichlet S 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,1 1 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,9 1,4 1,2-1% Repertoire size 1, ,9 2 1,8 1,8 1,8 1,7 1,6 1,5 2,1 2-1% Crackers Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S ,2 2,5 2,6 2,6 2,5 2,2 2,2 2,1 2 1,9-1% Repertoire size - - 2,3 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,9 2,4 2,4 2,3 2,3 2,3-1%

11 Crisps & Sav Snacks Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S 3,4 3,3 3,5 3,5 3,6 4,4 4,9 4,4 4,2 4,2 4,1 4,1 4,1 1% Repertoire size 4 3,8 3,8 3,7 3,6 3,8 3,8 3,6 3,7 3,7 6,3 6,3 6,2 2% Cat Food Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S - - 8,4 9,6 7,7 5,7 6,2 5,6 6,9 6,5 6,4 6,3 6-1% Repertoire size - - 5,4 5,1 4,8 4,7 4,8 4,9 5 4,8 4,8 4,7 4,5 0% Dog Food Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S - - 2,7 2,8 3,1 3,3 3,3 3,1 2,7 2,6 2,6 3,3 3,1-1% Repertoire size - - 3,8 3,8 3,7 3,9 3,8 3,6 3,6 3,6 3,8 3,8 3,6 0% Shampoo Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S - - 2,8 2,8 2,9 2,7 2,7 2,8 2,6 2,7 2,6 2,6 2-1% Repertoire size - - 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,2 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,1 2,1 0% Fabric Conditioner Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S 1,4 1,4 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,4 1,1 1,1-1% Repertoire size ,9 1,9 1,9 0% Cough Liquid Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S - - 1,3 1,3 1,4 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3-1% Repertoire size - - 1,3 1,3 1,5 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,1-1% Laundry Detergents Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S 1,1 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,2 1,1 1,1 1,2 1,4 1,5 1,7 1% Repertoire size 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,3 2,3 2,4 2,3 2,2 2,4 2,4 2,5 2,4 2,4 0% Toothpaste Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S 1,4 1,7 1,6 1,8 1,8 1,8 1,6 1,6 1,7 1,7 1,9 2 2,2 1% Average Repertoire size 2,3 2,3 2,2 2,2 2,1 2,2 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,2 0% 10

12 Bodysprays & Deo Cat. Purch. frequency % Dirichlet S - - 2,6 2,2 2,1 2,3 2,2 2,1 1,9 2,5 2,5 2,9 3 1% Repertoire size - - 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,3 2,6 2,6 2,7 2,7 1% Average all categories Cat. Purch. frequency 0,30% Dirichlet S 1,8 1,8 2,4 2,5 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,4 0,02% Repertoire size 0,08% (-): Data not available for this category for a given year Table 1. Purchasing & Loyalty Metrics for UK categories (1 year = 52 week periods) Year Breakfast Cereals Avg. change/year Cat. Purch. frequency ,1% Dirichlet S 6,5 6,7 6,4 6,4 6,4 6,4-0,3% Repertoire size 7,1 7,2 7,1 7,1 7,1 7,1-0,1% Margarine Cat. Purch. frequency 6,7 6,5 6,4 6,4 6,3 6,1-0,7% Dirichlet S 1,4 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,3 0,4% Repertoire size 2,3 2,2 2,1 2,2 2,1 2,1-0,5% Yogurt Cat. Purch. frequency 9,3 9,5 9, ,6% Dirichlet S 1,7 1,9 1,7 2 2,2 2,2 3,5% Repertoire size 2,6 2,9 2,8 3,1 3,2 3,3 2,6% Cat Food Cat. Purch. frequency ,2% Dirichlet S 2,1 1,7 2,1 2,1 1,7 1,8-0,8% Repertoire size 3,2 3,2 3,1 3,2 3 3,1-0,4% Fabric Conditioner Cat. Purch. frequency 3,3 3,4 3,4 3,3 3,1 3,1-1,0% Dirichlet S 2, ,8 2,6 2,8 0,0% Repertoire size 1,8 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,1 2,1 0,5% 11

13 Bodysprays & Deodorants Cat. Purch. frequency 3,1 3,1 3,1 3 3,1 3,1-0,2% Dirichlet S 2,5 2,4 2,2 2,3 2,5 2,3 0,0% Repertoire size 2 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,1 2,1 0,3% Average over all categories Cat. Purch. frequency 0,01% Dirichlet S 2,7 2,8 2,7 2,8 2,8 2,7 0,45% Repertoire size 0,41% Table 2. Purchasing & Loyalty Metrics for US categories (1 year = 52 week periods) 4.2. Results for the S brand switching parameter The S parameter for the UK and US markets (as shown in Table 1 & 2) is well within the bounds typically observed for FMCG. In most markets S varies between 1 and 10 (Driesener, 2005; Jarvis, Rungie and Lockshin, 2007) and these product categories are normal in terms of loyalty. The first finding is that the extent of brand loyalty across these categories is quite different. Breakfast cereals, cat food as well as crisps and savory snacks show considerably more switching (the absolute values of S are higher) between brands than tea bags, coffee, butter, crackers, yoghurts, dog food, fabric conditioners, shampoos, cough liquids, laundry detergents and body sprays (controlling for the differences in category buying frequency). The key finding for this research is that S exhibits an upward trend only in 7 out of the 15 UK categories (breakfast cereals, margarine, tea bags, crisps and savory snacks, laundry detergents, bodysprays), and in 2 (margarine, yoghurt) out of the 6 US categories (42% of 12

14 both UK and US categories), indicating loyalty decline. On the other hand there is a decreasing trend in 8 UK categories (butter, coffee, crackers, cat food, dog food, shampoos, fabric conditioners, cough liquids), and 4 US categories (breakfast cereals, cat food, fabric conditioner, bodysprays), indicating loyalty stability or increase (58% of both UK and US categories). Overall, the correlation between S and the repertoire size is high (0,69) indicating that when the number of brands bought increases S also increases which in turn means higher switching behavior and lower loyalty. Switching seems to be thus to be confounded for these categories (breakfast cereals, margarine, tea bags, crisps and savory snacks, laundry detergents, bodysprays, yoghurt) with increased repertoire sizes, buying multiple brands and variants (flavors, packages, ), and reflects variety seeking (Chintagunta, 1998). The reason for decreased switching for other categories (butter, coffee, butter, crackers, cat- /dog food, shampoos, fabric conditioners, cough liquids), could be that the repertoire size decreases. The involvement and perceived risk of switching for these categories might also be higher. Finally, overall in all categories in the UK and US markets the Dirichlet S brand switching parameter is trending up respectively only by 0.02% and 0.45% per year. Therefore, loyalty decline seems a very weak and slow process on average. There is a slight general upward trend for S between 2008 and 2009 that might be related with the global economic/financial crisis that might result in more price-oriented smart shoppers who switch between brands to take advantage of temporary price promotions. 13

15 5. Conclusion, managerial implications, limitations and further research The findings of this research provide mixed support for the proposition that consumers are exhibiting declining loyalty. Only in 9 from 21 UK and US categories loyalty is slightly and slowly declining. Increased repertoire sizes reflect variety seeking. Brand changes seem to be facilitated by lower involvement, risk of switching and cognitive dissonance that might decrease loyalty. In 12 categories loyalty is staying stable or is even growing. The higher involvement, perceived risk of switching and cognitive dissonance for these categories might influence positively motivation as well as research of information and might explain the higher degree of loyalty (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985). The overall results here are somewhat reassuring for marketers loyalty for their brands is not going out the back door. Likewise, the results are a counterpoint to the notion that brand loyalty is gradually declining over time. If marketing were truly less effective now than twenty years ago, we might have expected to see much more marked changes in buying behavior than noted here. Our results support Johnson's contention (1984) that this 'decline' may be more of a buzz-word than a well founded empirical fact. Our analysis has also shown an indication that category average purchase frequency might exhibit in some categories a noticeable downward trend over time. This is an important phenomenon to track and determine if there is a possible link to category purchasing metrics and the extent of brand loyalty. It is not reasonable to assume that an improved customer relationship will automatically stimulate more demand and greater loyalty, because most consumers buy only what they need and have good reasons to 14

16 remain loyal to multiple stores. Moreover, because customers purchase amount is typically stable across stores, it is difficult to increase their average purchase amount (Ehrenberg, 1988). It is also worth noting that the global financial crisis may still be playing out in these categories, and that some of the smallish decreases in brand loyalty could be partly attributed to belt-tightening over the period In that time period, there tends to be a lowering in loyalty that has not as yet recovered for some categories. This hypothesis is worthwhile to be developed in further research. In this research, we aim at testing a real phenomenon (e.g. decrease or increase of loyalty) but not at explaining it (because the lack of investigations). Although the Dirichlet model is well established in the marketing literature, the absence of marketing, product-category, and consumer covariates is a limitation. More research is needed on what causes differences in loyalty, and on the effects and relative contribution of marketing-mix factors, as well as product-category characteristics and consumer characteristics in explaining these differences. The Pareto/NBD model incorporating covariates could be an alternative (Castéran, Meyer-Waarden and Benavent, 2007). We plan to extend this study to other FMCG categories in order to generate empirical generalizations as loyalty likely depends on the product category. The findings represents an exciting opportunity for further research are there some categories that do show loyalty decline and others than do not, and if so, what is the difference between such categories? Are categories with heighted levels of in-store promotions the ones that show more apparent loyalty decline? Is it easier to build loyalty in some product categories 15

17 than in others and why? Does brand extension and repertoire increase lead to less loyalty? Do certain categories succeed in disproportionately attracting brand-loyal consumers and why? Which marketing mix variables are most effective in building a loyal consumer base? What is the role of consumer characteristics? These are all important questions for future research. Our results are also specific to FMCG and probably cannot be generalized to other categories. Existing literature proposes several other factors, such as competitive structure, and has argued that loyalty is higher in categories or sectors that involve consumers more (e.g., baby products, clothing). Further research in other areas should test how these and other factors influence brand loyalty, though such efforts might be difficult in industries that lack marketwide scanner-panel data on competitive purchasing. 16

18 References: Castéran, H., Meyer-Waarden, L., and Benavent, C. (2007), Incorporating covariates into the Pareto/NBD model to model customer lifetime value, German-French Conference for Quantitative Marketing, ESSEC. Chintagunta P. (1998), Inertia and Variety Seeking in a Model of Brand-Purchase Timing, Marketing Science, 17, 3, Dekimpe, M., Steenkamp J.B., Mellens M., and Vanden Abeele P. (1997), Decline and variability in brand loyalty, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14,5, Driesener, C. (2005), Empirical generalisations in the parameter values of the Dirichlet model: an examination across 50 categories. University of South Australia, Adelaide. Dubow, J. S. (1992), Occasion-based vs user-based benefit segmentation: A case study, Journal of Advertising Research, 32, 2, Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1988), Repeat buying, facts, theory and applications, London, C. Griffin and Co. Ltd, Oxford University Press New York. Ehrenberg ASC., Barnard N., and Sharp, B. (2000), Decision models or descriptive models, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Ehrenberg, A.S.C, Uncles M., and Goodhardt G. (2004), Understanding brand performance measures: Using Dirichlet benchmarks, Journal of Business Research, 57, 12, Fader, P. and Schmittlein, D. (1993), Excess behavioral loyalty for high-share brands: deviations from the Dirichlet model for repeat purchasing, Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 4,

19 Goodhardt, G., Ehrenberg, A.S.C., and Chatfield, C. (1984), The Dirichlet: a comprehensive model of buying behaviour, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 147, 5, Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978), Brand loyalty: measurement and management, Wiley, New York. Jarvis W., Rungie C. and Lockshin L. (2007), The polarisation method for merging data files and analysing loyalty to product attributes, prices and brands in revealed preference, International Journal of Market Research, 49, Johnson, T. (1984), The myth of declining brand loyalty, Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 1, Kahn B., Kalwani M. and Morrison D. (1986), Measuring variety seeking and reinforcement behaviors using panel data, Journal of Marketing Research, 23, Kapferer, J.N. (2005), The post-global brand, Journal of Brand Management,12,5, Kearns, Z. (1999), Dirichlet solver software, University Massey, New Zealand. Laurent G. and Kapferer J.N. (1985), Measuring consumer involvement profiles, Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 1, Mela, C. F., Jedidi, K., and Bowman, D. (1998), The Long-Term Impact of Promotions on Consumer Stockpiling Behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 2, Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of marketing relationships, Journal of Marketing, 58, 3, O'Dell, S., and Pajunen, J. A. (2000), The butterfly customer: Capturing the loyalty of today's elusive customer, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. 18

20 Oliver, R. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, 63, 4, Reinartz W. and Kumar V. (2000), On the Profitability of Long-Life Customers in a Noncontractual Setting: An Empirical Investigation and Implications for Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 64, 4, Rungie, C., Goodhardt, G., and Driesener, C. (2003), Calculation of the brand performance measures for the Dirichlet model, School of Marketing, University South Australia, Adelaide. Sharp A. Sharp, B. and M. Wright (2002), Questioning the value of the True brand loyalty distinction, International Journal of Research in Marketing 19, 1,