Attitudinal Loyalty Personality trait or brand specific?

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Attitudinal Loyalty Personality trait or brand specific?"

Lee Patterson
6 years ago
Views:

1 Attitudinal Loyalty Personality trait or brand specific? Rebekah Bennett * Graduate School of Management University of Queensland and Sharyn Rundle-Thiele School of Marketing University of South Australia Abstract A combination of two main measurement approaches have been advocated in the marketing literature for the measurement of attitudinal loyalty; namely brand-specific measures and personality trait measures. This paper demonstrates that attitudinal loyalty should be measured using brand specific measures rather than measures which relate to an individual s propensity to be brand loyal, as brand-specific measures will better explain purchasing behavior in this business-to-business service market. This paper also demonstrates that brandspecific measures and personality trait measures should not be combined to form an overall assessment of attitudinal loyalty in a business to business service market, as the measurement approaches are divergent. Introduction The impetus for this study was a conceptual article that suggested attitudinal loyalty should be measured using both brand-specific measures and individual measures, such as propensity to be brand loyal (Mellens et al1996). This study empirically tests Mellens et al's (1996) proposition. There is little consistent research available on the measurement of attitudinal loyalty. Traditionally brand attitudes have been advocated as measures of attitudinal loyalty, however there is some debate about the measures for brand attitudes. Brand attitudes have been measured using multi-attribute measures (Keller 1993), personality measures (Raju 1980), commitment measures (Martin and Goodell 1991; Mellens et al 1996; Traylor 1981), and intention to purchase measures (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Machleit, Allen and Madden 1993; Mackenzie and Spreng 1992; Miniard, Bhatla and Rose 1990; Mittal 1990; Smith and Swinyard 1983). While research has shown that loyalty varies across product categories rather than being customer specific (Sheth, Mittall & Newman 1999; Cunningham 1956), there are still proponents of the measurement of loyalty as a personality trait (Mellens et al 1996; Raju 1980). Therefore it is the purpose to test the relationship between customer specific and brand specific attitudinal loyalty. Furthermore this paper tests the relationship between these measures and telephone directory advertising purchasing. Commitment measures and intention to purchase measures are both brand-specific and measure the purchaser s predisposition to purchase the brand on the next purchase occasion or, in other words, attitudinal loyalty. Two hypotheses were proposed to meet these needs: H 1: Propensity to be brand loyal measures are not related to brand-specific measures of attitudinal loyalty in a business to business service market. H 2: Brand-Specific measures of attitudinal loyalty explain telephone directory advertising purchasing better than propensity to be brand loyal measures. Methodology This paper uses data from the (business to business) directory advertising market in the Gold Coast region of Australia. This study was conducted in 1998 using a combination of mail questionnaires and purchasing data. It is important to note that there were three main competitors present in the market at the time of the survey; 97

2 Yellow Pages, the Phone Directory Company (PDC) and Gold Coast Colour Pages (BMA). A total of two hundred and sixty seven (267) responses were received which was a 20% response rate. Directory advertising was selected, as it is common business service purchased where there are well-known brands. The Gold Coast was chosen, as it is the most competitive area in Australia for directory advertising. Directory advertising is also a high involvement purchase, 80% of the purchasers in Yellow Pages are small business ( and this expenditure represents the majority if not all of their advertising expenditure. For many businesses, the selection of directory advertising takes multiple consultations and is considered a major purchase (Open Mind 1997). The respondents were asked to indicate their preferred brand (defined as the brand they spent the highest proportion of their advertising budget on) by circling one of the available brands listed. They were then asked to complete the survey in relation to this brand for the brand specific measures. Respondents were asked to relate to their purchasing in general and to complete the survey. The brand-specific measure consisted of five items scored on a five-point bi-polar semantic differential scale. The items were sourced from previous research that used brand-specific measures and these are listed in appendix 1 (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Machleit, Allen and Madden 1993; Miniard, Bhatla and Rose 1990; Mittal 1990; Smith and Swinyard 1983; Traylor 1981). The propensity to be brand loyal measure consisted of a five-point likert scales. The items were sourced from previous research on personality-trait driven research on brand attitude and are again detailed in appendix 1 (Mellens, Dekimpe and Steenkamp 1996; Raju 1980). Behavioral loyalty was captured through purchasing data, which was determined following the return of questionnaires by matching the questionnaire identification to the corresponding purchasing data. The behavioral loyalty measure was operationalised as the amount of money spent on the preferred brand. It is important to note that this measure may also be considered as a measure of advertising/ promotional spend for (at least some) smaller businesses surveyed. The mean for the behavioral loyalty measure was $4,278 with a minimum of $30 and a maximum of $60,750. It is important to note that ninety-percent of the sample had an advertising directory spend below $10,832. Results and Discussion Before addressing the hypotheses we must first assess the validity and the reliability of the two types of attitudinal loyalty measures. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to remove those indicators that did not closely reflect the concept. This was done by identifying the indicators with standardised residuals greater than 2.54 (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). These high residuals mean that the indicator is not a good estimate of the observed data and thus will reduce the goodness-of-fit. Appendix 1 presents the eliminated and retained items. Five brand-specific items had standardised residuals less than 2.54 and lambda coefficients greater than The measures appear to be uni-dimensional, as there was no correlation allowed between the indicators. Brandspecific measures explain at least 58% of the variance, which suggests the brand-specific indicators exhibit convergent validity. The indicators also appear to have high reliability as evidenced by the composite reliability of 0.94 and variance extracted estimate of The latent concept of propensity to be brand loyal explained at least 33% of the indicator s variance, which suggests the indicators of propensity to be brand loyal exhibit convergent validity. The indicators also appear to have reliability as evidenced by the composite reliability of 0.79 and variance extracted estimate of This paper will now continue by addressing each hypothesis in turn. The first hypothesis will be tested using correlation analysis. A measure can adequately represent a concept when it correlates or "converges" with other supposed measures of that concept (Heeler and Ray 1972). We can have greater confidence in the fact that each is an appropriate measure of loyalty where proposed measures are statistically significant and positively associated. The second section of the results will address the remaining hypothesis that brand specific measures will explain telephone directory advertising purchasing better than propensity to be brand loyal measures using regression analysis. Correlation and regression analyses are two statistical techniques that are widely used in analysing the relationship between variables in a single data set (Ehrenberg 1999). H 1: Propensity to be brand loyal measures are not related to brand-specific measures of attitudinal loyalty in a business to business service market. 98

3 This hypothesis was tested using (Pearson) correlation with the outcome being a non-significant relationship (p=0.8) between these two concepts. The results of the correlation analysis (r=0.1) indicate that an individual's propensity to be brand loyal is not related to brand specific measures of attitudinal loyalty in the telephone directory market. H 2: Brand-Specific measures of attitudinal loyalty explain telephone directory advertising purchasing better than propensity to be brand loyal measures. This hypothesis was tested using simple regression of each type of attitudinal loyalty measure on purchasing behavior and the results are displayed in table 1 below. The only statistically significant relationship (p<0.001) was between the brand-specific measures of attitudinal loyalty and telephone directory advertising behavior. However, brand specific measures of attitudinal do not sufficiently explain purchasing behavior in the directory advertising market. Table 1 Regression Coefficients for Brand-specific and Personality Trait measures of brand attitude, and behavioural brand loyalty Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Coefficients T Sig. R 2 B Std. Error Beta Brand-Specific Propensity to be brand loyal From Table 1 we can see that for each 1 point change in attitudinal loyalty there is a $1,861 increase in expenditure on the preferred brand. The results of this paper suggest that there is no relationship between an individual's propensity to be loyal and attitudinal loyalty, when captured with brand specific measures or purchasing behavior in this directory advertising market. The results of this paper also suggest there is a (very weak) relationship between attitudinal and behavioral loyalty in the telephone directory advertising market. Conclusions Brand-specific measures and propensity to be loyal measures are not measures of the same concept, namely attitudinal loyalty. Aggregating the scores as recommended by Mellens et al (1996) would reduce efficiency of explanation for marketing practitioners'. For example, a composite measure could not distinguish whether the attitudinal loyalty reflects that the individual had a positive attitude toward buying the brand or whether the individual had a propensity to be loyal in this business to business service market. This research has demonstrated that attitudinal loyalty in business-to-business service markets should be measured using brandspecific measures rather than a general personality trait, which supports the proposition by Sheth et al (1999) that personality measures do not explain (or even predict) purchasing behavior. Finally this paper suggests that only brand-specific measures are likely to be relevant to the measurement brand loyalty. Future research is recommended to test these scales in the consumer and durable goods sectors and identify if the hypotheses are upheld in different sectors. In addition, it would be useful to consider the relationship between personal purchasing involvement and propensity to be brand loyal. For example, do advertising directory buyers have personal involvement in the purchase decision or are they simply ordered to buy certain directory advertising. References Ajzen, I, and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural Equation Modelling in Practice, A Review and Recommended Two- Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103, Cunningham, R.M., (1956), Brand Loyalty - What Where How Much? Harvard Business Review 34, Dekimpe, M. G., Steenkamp, J., Mellens, M. and Abeele, P.V. (1997), Decline and Variability in Brand Loyalty, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1999), 99

4 Gordon, G.L, Calantone, R.J. and di Benedetto, C.A. (1993), Brand Equity in the business-to-business sector. Journal of Product & Brand Management 2, Heeler, R.M. and Ray, M. L. (1972), Measure Validation in Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, 9, Hutton, J. (1997), A study of brand equity in an organisational-buyer context. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 6, Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualising, measuring and managing customer based brand-equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, Machleit, K.A, Allen, C.T. and Madden, T.J. (1993), The Mature Brand and Brand Interest, An Alternative Consequence of Ad-Evoked Affect. Journal of Marketing, 57, Mackenzie, S.B, and Spreng, R.A. (1992), How does motivation moderate the impact of central and peripheral processing on brand attitudes and intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, Martin, C L, and Goodell, P.W. (1991), Historical, Descriptive and Strategic Perspectives on the Construct of Product Commitment. European Journal of Marketing, 25, Mellens, M, M. Dekimpe, G. and J. B.E.M Steenkamp. (1996), A Review of Brand-Loyalty Measures in Marketing. Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, 41, Miniard, P.W, S. Bhatla, and R.L. Rose (1990), On the formation and relationship of ad and brand attitudes, an experimental and causal analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, Mittal, B. (1990), The relative roles of brand beliefs and attitude toward the ad as mediators of brand attitude, a second look. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, Open Mind Research (1997), Yellow Pages - Segmentation Preliminary Profiling. Pacific Access, Melbourne Raju, P. (1980), Optimum Stimulation Level, Its relationship to Personality, Demographics and Exploratory Behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, Sheth J.N., Mittall B. & Newman B.I. (1999), Consumer Behavior & Beyond. Dryden Press Sydney. Smith, R.E., and, and Swinyard, W.R. (1983), Attitude- behavior consistency, the impact of product trial versus advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, Traylor, M.B. (1981), Product Involvement and Brand Commitment. Journal of Advertising Research 21, Uncles, M. and Laurent, G. (1997), Editorial, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, Appendix 1: Eliminated And Retained Items (Bold Indicates Retained Item) Brand Specific Scale Q1. Please indicate which ONE of the following directories are your preferred choice for advertising in (that is the directory on which you spend most of your directory advertising budget). [ ] Yellow Pages [ ] Big Colour Pages [ ] Phone Directory Company Please complete the rest of the survey on this directory Q2. Please circle the level of commitment you have to advertising in your preferred directory Uncommitted Committed Q3. Below is a scale about your attitude towards your preferred choice of directory. Please mark your response on each row to indicate your opinion. 100

5 Purchasing advertising with my preferred directory in the next issue would be: Bad : : : : Good Unpleasant : : : : Pleasant Unfavorable : : : : Favorable Negative : : : : Positive Undesirable : : : : Desirable Foolish : : : : Wise Unlikely : : : : Likely Q4. Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with this statement. I would recommend my preferred directory to other people. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Propensity to be brand loyal scale This question relates to your view on purchasing in general. Please circle the category that best reflects your opinion. 1 = Strongly disagree 2= Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5= Strongly Agree I would rather stick with a brand I usually buy than try something I am not very sure of. If I like a brand, I rarely switch from it just to try something different I rarely introduce new brands and products to my colleagues I rarely take chances by buying unfamiliar brands even if it means sacrificing variety. I usually buy the same brands even if they are only average I would rather wait for others to try a new brand than try it myself I would rather stick to well known brands when purchasing directory advertising

Customer Loyalty: Do Brands Still Matter?

Customer Loyalty: Do Brands Still Matter? University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Tourism Travel and Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally 2009 ttra International Conference Customer Loyalty: Do Brands