Pergamon

Journal of Retailing 78 (2002) 9199

Antecedents of private label attitude and national brand promotion

attitude: similarities and differences
Judith A. Garretsona,*, Dan Fisherb, Scot Burtonc
a
Department of Marketing, E.J. Ourso College of Business Administration, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
Department of Marketing and Transportation, Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
c
Department of Marketing and Transportation, Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA

Abstract
A model that addresses the similarities and differences in conceptual antecedents of attitudes toward private label grocery products and
national brand promotions is proposed and tested. The proposed model is tested using a sample of 300 consumers who were recruited from
grocery stores, provided behavioral data from sales receipts of their shopping trip, and responded to a survey that contained multi-item
construct measures. We predict and find in the study that both price and nonprice related constructs impact both private label attitude and
national brand promotion attitude, but the directionality and strength of several of these relationships differ. Implications of these findings
for retailers and national manufacturers are discussed. 2002 by New York University. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Since price deals on grocery items are offered in various
forms, consumers wanting to save money at grocery retailers have a number of alternatives from which to choose. For
instance, consumers can redeem manufacturers coupons,
take advantage of a stores advertised specials, search for
shelf or display discounts, or buy private label brands.
Broadly, however, consumers seeking to save money have
two options. They can seek a national brand being marketed
on deal. Alternatively, they can opt for a private label brand
that is typically priced below nonprice promoted nationally
branded goods.
Although deal or private label prone consumers share
the goal to save money when they shop, we know little
about the extent to which their savings behaviors share
similar patterns. Numerous prior studies have addressed
the characteristics of the deal prone shopper or the private label prone consumer separately (see Batra and
Sinha, 2000; Richardson, Jain, and Dick, 1996; Blattberg
and Neslin, 1990). While a recent study by Ailawadi,
Neslin, and Gedenk (2001) has identified some general
similarities and differences between the two groups, this

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-225-578-6539.

E-mail address: garretson@lsu.edu (J.A. Garretson).

field of inquiry remains ripe for further exploration.

Questions regarding why consumers with a common goal
to save money have different attitudes toward and purchasing habits for national brand deals and private label
brands remain unanswered.
The purpose of this research acquires particular relevance when the strategic implications are considered.
Price oriented customers play an important role in affecting the balance of power between national brand manufacturers and retailers. Retailers may employ their private
labels strategically to decrease the space available for
national brands. They may also use private labels to
pressure manufacturers to compete more vigorously on
price in order to win back share lost to the private label.
At the same time, the national brand manufacturer may
be seeking means to counter the increasing private label
incursion without eroding brand loyalty through excessive price promotions.
We believe that understanding more about why price
oriented consumers have different attitudes toward private
labels and national brand promotions will have important
implications for both manufacturers and retailers in their
battle for this target market. Toward this end, we propose
and test a model that addresses the similarities and differences between consumer attitudes toward national brand
promotions and private label brands and identifies whether
any distinctions affect brand loyalty.

0022-4359/02/$ see front matter 2002 by New York University. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 2 2 - 4 3 5 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 7 1 - 4

92

J.A. Garretson et al. / Journal of Retailing 78 (2002) 9199

Two perspectives: national brand manufacturers and

retailers
The relationship between manufacturers and retailers can
be characterized as both one of dependency and a struggle
for channel control. This curious amalgam creates uneasy
alliances between the parties as they need each other and yet
simultaneously compete to maximize their share of channel
profit. Manufacturers build their power through customer
loyalty. Loyal consumers are more likely to pay full price
for their favorite brands and look for them in any store they
shop. If not found, they may shop elsewhere. If enough
consumers act in this manner, retailers will be compelled to
carry the national brands and be vulnerable to terms not
open to much negotiation.
Retailers acquire power similarly through the strength
of their appeal to consumers. In recent years, private
label brands have aided this end by building unique
consumer interest in their stores. One consequence is that
private label brands now comprise 20% of all unit sales
in the grocery channel in the United States. They also
represent a large portion of the current growth in supermarket sales (Thompson, 1999) and occupy higher unit
market share than the top national brands in 77 out of 250
categories (Kahn and McAlister, 1997; Quelch and Harding, 1996; Wellman, 1997). Some forecast that private
labels might attract 40% or more of US supermarket sales
(Denitto, 1993). Since private labels typically carry a
higher per unit margin than national brands, retailers
have an additional incentive to extend their proprietary
items.
A common response to private labels by manufacturers
has been to increase promotional spending in attempts to
halt the migration of value-conscious consumers. Sales promotions in recent years have accounted for an overwhelming 74% of the total marketing budget of US packaged
goods manufacturers, an increase of 9% in the past decade
(Cox Direct, 1998; Ailawadi, Neslin and Gedenk, 2001).
While evidence suggests that national brand promotions,
such as coupons, are effective deterrents of private label
penetration (Sethuraman and Mittelstaedt, 1992; Blattberg
and Wisniewski, 1989), other studies indicate that significant and frequent price promotions on national brands may
erode brand loyalty (Gedenk and Neslin, 1999). If such
erosion results, national brand counteroffensives to private
labels may diminish brand loyalty. Procter and Gambles
attempted move to value pricing was based partially on the
belief that their promotions were undermining brand loyalty
(Shapiro, 1992).
Arguably, there may be both significant economic and
noneconomic similarities and differences between constructs that influence consumer attitudes toward national
brand promotions and private label brands. Value conscious consumers are interested in saving money, of
course, but the monetary savings gained from buying a
national brand on promotion (when available) versus a

private label brand may often be negligible. While the

average private label brand retails for about 30% less
than the national brand (Sethuraman, 1992), national
brand promotions typically deliver price discounts of 20
to 30% (IRI Marketing Fact Book, 1996; Ailawadi, Neslin and Gedenk, 2001). This indicates the possibility of
factors other than price at work that lead consumers to
have more favorable attitudes toward deals or private
label brands.

The proposed model: rationale and hypotheses

Private label attitude and national brand promotion
attitude
Similarities or differences in consumer reactions to national brand promotions and private labels may be ascertained by identifying antecedents to them both. As shown in
Fig. 1, we propose a set of such antecedents and hypothesize
their effects on private label attitude and national brand
promotion attitude.
Value consciousness has been defined as a concern for
paying low prices subject to some quality constraint
(Lichtenstein, Ridgway and Netemeyer, 1993, p. 235).
Similarly, product value is often characterized as the
ratio of the perceived quality of a product divided by the
price paid for that product (Zeithaml, 1988). For private
label brands, promotional messages used by retailers often focus on encouraging consumers to use product value
as the determinant attribute in private label evaluations,
rather than absolute quality perceptions or quality inferences associated with national brand names. It also has
been suggested that where consumers balance price and
quality there is a more favorable attitude toward private
labels (e.g., Deveny, 1993; Liesse, 1993). Thus, given the
literature on price and value relationships (Zeithaml,
1988) and empirical research that has identified valuerelated measures as positively related to private label
attitude (Burton et al., 1998; Richardson, Jain and Dick,
1996), we conclude that consumer value consciousness
should directly and positively affect attitudes toward private label products.
For promoted national brands, research drawing from
acquisition-transaction utility theory (Thaler, 1985) indicates that consumers with favorable attitudes toward deals
tend to be value conscious (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990;
Garretson and Burton, 1998), but do not necessarily consider a price reduction as a sign of poor product quality
(e.g., Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Lichtenstein, Ridgway
and Netemeyer, 1993). Arguably, they do not attribute a
temporary price deal for a nationally branded product as
indicative of a reduced level of quality, thus acquisition
utility is not affected. From this, we anticipate that the
combination of the original price cue (i.e., the normal retail
price consumers use as a reference) and the brand cue offset

J.A. Garretson et al. / Journal of Retailing 78 (2002) 9199

93

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the antecedents of private label attitude and national brand promotion attitude.

negative perceptions that could be attributed to the product.

As such, we believe that consumers attitude toward national brand promotions will also be directly and positively
influenced by value consciousness.
Hypothesis 1a: Value consciousness will have a positive
effect on private label attitude.
Hypothesis 1b: Value consciousness will have a positive
effect on national brand promotion attitude.

While we expect value consciousness to influence both

private label attitude and national brand promotion attitude positively, we believe that a price-quality association will negatively impact private label attitude and
positively affect national brand promotion attitude. This
price-quality construct has been defined as the generalized belief across product categories that the level of a
price cue is related positively to the quality level of the
product (Lichtenstein, Ridgway and Netemeyer, 1993).
Drawing from attribution theory (Sawyer and Dickson,
1984), a low price for private label brands may be attributed to some problematic aspect of the product, which is
then perceived as inferior in the overall level of quality.

Such concerns have led many retailers and private label

manufacturers in the U.S. to focus upon improvements in
quality and, where possible, demonstrations of quality
(Dhar and Hoch, 1997). Still, the continuously low prices
combined with the infrequent professionally developed
advertising campaigns might offer more evidence for
those who associate price with quality that private label
brands are undesirable.
In contrast to the predicted negative effect of pricequality association on private label attitude, we expect
that price-quality association will positively impact individuals general attitude toward national brand promotions. Behavioral evidence for this effect is found in
Blattberg and Wisniewskis (1989) discovery of asymmetric price competition. Price deals on higher-price,
higher quality brands are found to steal share from comparable brands in the same price-quality tier and also
from lower tier brands, including private label brands.
Price promoted lower-tier brands, however, do not steal
share away from higher tier brands, but only impact
comparable brands within their own price-quality tier.

94

J.A. Garretson et al. / Journal of Retailing 78 (2002) 9199

Unlike for private label brands, the low price represents

a temporary price reduction and national advertising coverage serves to reaffirm positive attributes and quality,
making the reduced price unlikely to be attributed to
inferior quality. Based on the above discussion, the hypotheses concerning price-quality association are offered
below.
Hypothesis 2a: A price-quality association will have a
negative effect on private label attitude.
Hypothesis 2b: A price-quality association will have a
positive effect on national brand promotion attitude.

In addition to more rational price-perception variables,

more ego-related variables are directly and positively
expected to impact private label attitude and attitude
toward national brand promotions. Recent empirical research in sales promotion has identified the potential
importance of these types of variables (Ailawadi, Neslin,
and Gedenk, 2001; Chandon, Wansink, and Laurent,
2000). One such psychological construct is smart shopper
self-perception, an ego-related variable pertaining to consumers need for intrinsic rewards from price savings
achieved through shopping (Schindler, 1992). Unlike the
psychological constructs including mavenism and innovativeness addressed in the research reported by Ailawadi, Neslin and Gedenk (2001), smart shopper selfperception represents more ego-related benefits such as a
sense of accomplishment, a boost in self-esteem, and
pride in shopping savoir fare (Mano and Elliott, 1997;
Schindler, 1988). Previous work dealing specifically with
this ego-related variable reveals that consumers differ in
their need to receive such psychological benefits from the
shopping act, and such differences in felt needs may be
reflected in manifest purchase behaviors. For example,
nonutilitarian value associated with achieving a lower
price has been linked to those who are prone to deals
(Schindler, 1992; Chandon, Wansink, and Laurent, 1999;
Garretson and Burton, 1998).
While we expect that smart shopper self-perception will
favorably impact both attitude toward both private label
products and national brand promotions, we predict a more
positive effect of this ego-related construct on attitude toward national brand promotions. Retailers typically market
store brands as lower price options. As such, these store
brands are consistently priced at lower levels, thus requiring
no effort on the consumers part to locate a deal. In contrast,
nationally branded products are not always offered at one
low price.
Contrarily, shoppers cannot expect to find nationally
branded products on promotion each time they patronize a
retail store. More importantly, the locating of bargains on
national brands may represent more of a challenge and
become more of an ego-gratifying experience than merely
picking up continuously low priced private label products.
Because of this, we expect smart shopper self-perception to

affect consumers attitude toward national brand promotions

more positively than their attitude toward private labels.
Hypothesis 3a: Smart shopper self-perception will have
a positive effect on private label attitude.
Hypothesis 3b: Smart shopper self-perception will have
a positive effect on national brand promotion attitude.
Hypothesis 3c: The effect of smart shopper self-perception on national brand promotion attitude will be more
positive than its effect on private label attitude.

The role of brand loyalty

As shown in Fig. 1, we expect that brand loyalty tendencies will be negatively related to both attitude toward private label brands and national brand promotions. Brand
loyal consumers display a stronger tendency to purchase the
same brands they have always bought and, compared to
those who are more likely to seek variety, are less likely to
switch to new and unfamiliar brands. Past researchers have
suggested that consumers concerned with paying lower
prices are less loyal toward specific brands (Blattberg and
Neslin, 1990), and instead, tend to exhibit stronger variety
seeking tendencies (Garretson and Burton, 1998). Generally, these consumers may be more concerned with the
transactional utility associated with product purchases than
with benefits associated with the repetitive purchase of any
particular brand.
However, we expect that the impact of brand loyalty on
private label attitude will be more negative than that on
national brand promotion attitude. While existing research
demonstrates that brand loyal consumers are not likely to
engage in significant variety seeking behaviors, it is feasible
to anticipate that loyal consumers will hold more negative
attitudes toward private label brands than toward national
brands. Unlike national brands, store brands are likely to be
less familiar to consumers because few store brands are
promoted with professionally developed national campaigns. While brand loyal consumers should generally hold
a negative attitude toward purchasing national brands on
deal, they are less likely to perceive deals on their preferred
brands as unfavorable (Krishnamurthi and Raj, 1991). This
combined with consumers unfamiliarity and lack of established favorable associations for private label brands should
result in more negative attitudes toward private labels.
Hypothesis 4a: The presence of brand loyalty will have
a negative effect on private label attitude.
Hypothesis 4b: The presence of brand loyalty will have
a negative effect on national brand promotion attitude.
Hypothesis 4c: The effect of brand loyalty on private
label attitude will be more negative than its effect on
national brand promotion attitude.

In addition, we argue that this proclivity to purchase

specific brands on a more consistent basis, relative to the
consumer norm, will be positively influenced by a belief in

J.A. Garretson et al. / Journal of Retailing 78 (2002) 9199

95

Table 1
Overview of the multi-item measures
Multi-Item Scale Measures

Coefficient

# of
Items

Sample Items

Private Label Attitude

.89

Value Consciousness

.86

Price-Quality Association

.85

Smart Shopper Self-Perception

.94

Brand Loyalty

.91

National Brand Promotion

Attitude

.90

When I buy a private label brand, I always feel that I am getting a good deal.
I love it when private label brands are available for the product categories I purchase.
When purchasing a product, I always try to maximize the quality I get for the money I
spend.
I generally shop around for lower prices on products, but they still must meet quality
requirements before I buy them.
The old saying you get what you pay for is generally true.
The price of a product is a good indicator of its quality.
When I go shopping, I take a lot of pride in making smart purchases.
When I shop smartly, I feel like a winner.
Once I have made a choice on which brand to purchase, I am likely to continue to
purchase it without considering other brands.
Even though certain products are available in a number of different brands, I always
tend to buy the same brand.
I love special promotional offers for products.
Im usually not motivated to respond to promotional deals on products. (Reverse
coded)

the price-quality relationship (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990)

and negatively influenced by value consciousness (Lichtenstein, Netemeyer and Burton, 1990). These predictions are
consistent with value conceptualizations that suggest that
value conscious consumers are more inclined to search for
products with superior combinations of price and quality,
and in a price competitive and dynamic marketplace are less
likely to engage in routinized brand choice behavior. H5
follows.
Hypothesis 5a: Value consciousness will have a negative
effect on brand loyalty.
Hypothesis 5b: Price-quality associations will have a
positive effect on brand loyalty.

Impact on market place behaviors

The final paths in the model indicate relationships
between the two primary constructs of private label attitude and consumers attitude toward national brand promotions and the respective purchase behavior related to
each construct. Previous research indicates that such a
link may be attenuated due to a variety of factors (e.g.,
situational influences, attitude accessibility at the time of
the behavior, involvement, differences due to level of
abstraction). However, attitude theory suggests that the
general attitudes toward private labels and national brand
promotions will be manifested (at least to some degree)
in actual market place behavior. Thus, we predict that
private label attitude will be positively related to the
percentage of private label brands purchased and attitude
toward national brand promotions will be positively re-

lated to the percentage of products purchased on promotion on a given shopping trip.

Hypothesis 6a: Private label attitude will positively influence the percentage of private label products purchased.
Hypothesis 6b: National brand promotion attitude will
positively influence the percentage of promoted products
purchased.

Methodology
Study sample and procedure
Our sample consisted of shoppers from a grocery store
chain in the Midwest. As the shoppers were exiting the
store, they were approached by interviewers and asked if
they would participate in a university-sponsored project
regarding shopping attitudes and behaviors. Those who
agreed to participate were asked to relinquish their scannerbased receipts. These receipts contained behavioral purchase information, including the total number of private
label products, total number of promoted products, and total
number of products purchased by each shopper. Respondents were then provided with a self-administered survey
and postage paid envelope so that they could complete the
remaining questions at home.
Of approximately 900 surveys distributed, 300 provided
complete information for all of the multi-item measures in
the model (response rate of 33%). The median household
income category ranged from $35,000 to $49,999, and 78%
of the respondents were women.

96

J.A. Garretson et al. / Journal of Retailing 78 (2002) 9199

Table 2
Model fit and tests of proposed relationships in the model
Model Fit Statistics

2
1198.09

df
581

Structural Relationships:
Hypothesized Paths

H1a: Value Consciousness 3 Private Label Attitude

H1b: Value Consciousness 3 National Brand Promotion Attitude
H2a: Price-Quality Association 3 Private Label Attitude
H2b: Price-Quality Association 3 National Brand Promotion Attitude
H3a: Smart Shopper Self-Perception 3 Private Label Attitude
H3b: Smart Shopper Self-Perception 3 National Brand Promotion Attitude
H3c: H3bH3a
H4a: Brand Loyalty 3 Private Label Attitude
H4b: Brand Loyalty 3 National Brand Promotion Attitude
H4c: H4a H4b
H5a: Value Consciousness 3 Brand Loyalty
H5b: Price-Quality Association 3 Brand Loyalty
H6a: Private Label Attitude 3 Percent of Private Label Products
H6b: National Brand Promotion Attitude 3 Percent of Promoted Products

GFI
.82

AGFI
.79

CFI
.91

TLI
.90

Proposed
Relationship

Completely
Standardized
Coefficients

t-value

positive
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
more positive
negative
negative
more negative
negative
positive
positive
positive

.17
.13
.15
.22
.16
.48

2.40a
2.03b
2.24b
3.45a
2.52a
6.90a
4.77a,c
2.44a
1.25
3.15a,c
4.03a
4.30a
3.68a
2.30b

.16
.08
.25
.28
.22
.14

p .01
p .025
c
The t-values for both H3c and H4c were calculated to determine the significance of the differences between the hypothesized paths using the coefficients
as outlined in Cohen and Cohen (1983, pgs. 56 57).
a

Overview of the measures

Reliabilities (coefficient alphas), number of items, and
sample items for each of the multi-item measures are shown
in Table 1. A six-item private label attitude measure was
drawn from Burton et al. (1998). Other measures were taken
from prior research and/or existing compilations of latent
construct measures (e.g., Bearden and Netemeyer, 1998;
Lichtenstein, Ridgway and Netemeyer, 1993). Both the percentage of private label purchases and percentage of promoted product purchases were single item measures derived
from the information provided on the sales receipt. Percentage of private label purchases was calculated as the number
of private label items purchased divided by the total number
of items purchased. The number of items purchased on sale
or with a coupon divided by the total number of the items
purchased represented the percentage of promoted products
purchased.

Results
Measurement properties
We used confirmatory factor analysis to assess the measurement model consisting of all items designed to measure
the six latent constructs. Standardized factor loadings from
this analysis ranged from 0.58 to 0.95 (all t-values 10.50,
p .001), with one exception. (One item of value consciousness produced a standardized loading of only 0.41

(t 7.08, p .001) and was weaker than desired.) The

comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and
root mean squared error (RMSEA) were 0.91, 0.90, and
0.06, respectively, and each meets or exceeds advocated
levels (Bollen, 1989). Given the large number of indicators
in the model and sample size, these results are considered
supportive of the construct measures (Gerbing and Anderson, 1992).
Discriminant validity between constructs was next assessed using standard advocated tests (e.g., comparing average variance extracted estimates for each pair of constructs to the square of the phi correlations (N2)). All tests
of discriminant validity were met. In sum, we concluded
that our results on convergence among items and discriminant validity were acceptable.
Structural model results and tests of hypotheses
concerning proposed paths
Results pertaining to overall model fit and structural path
estimates are shown in Table 2. The overall fit statistics
(CFI 0.91; TLI 0.90; RMSEA 0.059) indicate an
acceptable level of fit between the hypothesized model and
these data.2 In general, the pattern of the path estimates is
consistent with the hypothesized model shown in Fig. 1.3 Of
the fourteen hypothesized relationships, thirteen are in the
predicted direction and significant (p .025 or better). As
expected, the antecedents to private label attitude and national brand promotion attitude differ in terms of strength
and directionality. For example, the impact of price-quality

J.A. Garretson et al. / Journal of Retailing 78 (2002) 9199

association on these constructs differs in terms of directionality. Also, both smart shopper self-perception and brand
loyalty influence these two constructs differently in terms of
strength. Furthermore, the model shows interesting relationships between brand loyalty and various constructs, and the
hypothesized paths between the attitudes and market place
behaviors are both significant.4

Discussion
In this research we investigate similarities and differences between the antecedents of national brand promotion
attitude and private label attitude. To our knowledge, this
study is the first empirical test of a model that incorporates
private label and consumer promotion attitude scales, actual
behavioral measures, and latent construct antecedents, such
as price-quality associations and the ego-related, smart
shopper self-perception.
Key similarities and differences toward off-price buying
A key empirical finding in our study is that value-consciousness is positively related to attitudes towards both
private labels and national brand promotions. Thus, while
value-consciousness helps explain why some shoppers pay
less, it does little to distinguish attitudes toward national
brand promotions and private label brands. With coefficients nearly identical for both relationships, value-consciousness is a motivation for consumers who have positive
attitudes toward national brands or private label brands.
While value-consciousness is a commonality among
consumers who seek price savings, the perception of price
in terms of its relationship to product quality, had the opposite effect. For these consumers, the lower average prices
of the private labels cause such products to be regarded as
less attractive. Quite likely, the low price on private labels
signals inferior quality for consumers. In contrast, these
same buyers viewed national brands on price promotion
more favorably. For these consumers, price promotions may
represent a way to achieve savings without feeling that
quality was being sacrificed. This finding is both consistent
with, and further illuminates, prior behavioral research examining national brand price promotions and private label
market share (Blattberg and Wisniewski, 1989; Sethuraman
and Mittelstaedt, 1992).
Consistent with our expectations, we found smart shopper self-perception to represent another basis for differentiation in attitudes toward national brand promotions and
private labels. Smart-shoppers are interested in saving
money, of course, but how they go about saving this money
is also important to them. Unlike previous work concerning
differences between store brand and national brand consumers (Ailawadi, Neslin and Gedenk, 2001), we tested the
direct impact of this ego-related construct on attitudes toward private labels and national brand promotions. Our

97

results show the path between smart shopper self-perception

and national brand promotion attitude to be significantly
more positive than that between smart shopper self-perception and private label attitude (p .01).
Prior empirical results have established an underlying
ego-dimension to consumers deal proneness and suggested
that it is an important determinant of deal prone behavior
(Schindler, 1992; Chandon, Wansink, and Laurent, 1999).
However, we show this powerful, ego-related dimension of
smart shopping to be less influential for private labels.
Because many consumer promotions may not be available
to all consumers or at all times, and may involve some
search, smart shoppers may find the excitement of the hunt
to be a major reinforcement of their favorable attitude toward these type of promotions.
The question of brand loyalty
From a theoretical perspective, we show the market for
products sold at price discounts to comprise a complex
segment largely drawn to buying for value. However, a key
finding is that within this group value-conscious consumers
are less loyal to national brands and inclined to switching or
buying private labels. In other words, value-conscious consumers may be favorably predisposed both to national brand
promotions, private label brands, or a combination of both.
Another finding provides further clarification for the
above result. Specifically, shoppers who see a linkage between the price of a brand and its quality, or perceive of
themselves as smart-shoppers, are more likely to seek price
savings in promotions of national brands. Consumers who
seek pure value, however, or who have no pretensions with
respect to their shopping acumen, find that private labels
satisfy their needs. These shoppers may carry an unadorned
need for a consistent lower price and thereby exhibit little
systematic loyalty to national brands.
Surprisingly, and against our hypothesis, consumers with
brand loyal tendencies appear not to have negative attitudes
toward promotions of these private label brands. While the
relationship between brand loyalty and private label attitude
is significant and negative, the negative path from brand
loyalty to national brand promotion attitude did not reach
significance. Krishnamurthi and Raj (1991) offer a possible
explanation for the nonsignificant path in their study that
examined the relationship between brand loyalty and national brand promotion attitude. They found that brand loyal
consumers are interested in price promotions for their preferred brands. Consumers anticipate promotions for their
favorite brands and use these occasions to stockpile inventory. We conclude from this that many brand loyal consumers are less adverse toward promotions because of the price
savings for brands they prefer.
In sum, we find off-price shopping preferences to be
driven by a complex set of factors. Value consciousness is
part of this set, but attitudes toward national brand promotions and private labels are also influenced by additional

98

J.A. Garretson et al. / Journal of Retailing 78 (2002) 9199

factors, specifically price-quality associations and smart

shopper self-perception.
These findings hold insights as to strategies that the
different members of the channel may employ to strengthen
their positions. In particular, manufacturers may employ
promotions to appeal, either explicitly or implicitly, to consumers who like to perceive of themselves as smart shoppers. It may even be possible to design promotions to
accentuate the skill that is associated with finding the best
deals. Throughout all, a subtle echoing of the relationship of
quality to the price may prove additionally attractive. More
broadly, strategic efforts to limit promotional activities may
result in the loss of customers who added marginal profit to
suppliers through the purchase of their brands on deal.
At the same time, 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. Mimicking national brand promotional practices, a promotional practice that may be increasing, might also have the same effect.
Limitations and future research
Refinements to our empirical research may be made on a
number of fronts. The behavioral measures of private label
purchases and promoted product purchases were based on
only one shopping trip and situational variables may
strongly affect purchases on any single occasion. While
purchase behavior findings were significant, measurement
over many trips would provide results that would carry
more confidence.
Also, we used a six-item scale to measure private label
attitude. Other research has employed an index measure for
private label usage (e.g., never, sometimes, often, always)
across different product classes (Ailawadi, Neslin and Gedenk, 2001; Richardson et al., 1996). Hence, it is not clear
how our results would compare to prior research.
There are numerous opportunities to contribute to this
stream of research. To benefit national brand manufacturers,
more research is necessary to understand which promotion
types most contribute to smart-shopper self-perception. Related to this, future investigations concerning the impact of
different price promotions on short-term and long-term
brand loyalty may offer insight to manufacturers. Some
studies suggest that price promotions will harm brand loyalty (perhaps weakening perceptions of superior quality)
while others suggest that they help stave off private label
penetration and result in loyal consumers loading up on
their favorite brands during promotion events.
Retailers may benefit from research that specifically addresses strategies that strengthen the value perceptions as-

sociated with private labels while concurrently demonstrating that lower prices of private label brands are not
associated with inferior quality. Future research should address the effectiveness of different promotion and packaging techniques in changing quality perceptions, inferences
about the price-quality relationship, and the overall perception of value delivered by private label brands.

Notes
1. All items used, means and correlations for all measures, detailed results from a confirmatory factor analysis of the scales, and tests of discriminant validity are
available upon request from the first author.
2. Acceptable fit is further supported by the results of the
equation offered by Maiti and Mukherjee (1990) that
addresses the maximum GFI for a given model. Based
on this equation, which takes into account the sensitivity of both the number of indicators and sample size
in the calculation of GFI, the best GFI this model
could produce is 0.904. The GFI of our model is 0.82
or 91% of the best possible result for this model.
3. Two additional models were also performed to assess
the relationships from private label attitude to national
brand promotion attitude and from national brand promotion attitude to private label attitude. In each case,
the path estimate between these two constructs was
nonsignificant and did not improve the model fit.
4. As suggested by a reviewer, two versions of the model
were run to assess the presence of paths from (1)
national brand promotion attitude to percentage of
private label purchases and (2) private label attitude to
percentage of promoted product purchases. The results
of both models revealed nonsignificant paths.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank L.P. Bucklin and the
reviewers for their helpful comments.

References
Ailawadi, K., Neslin, S. A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the valueconscious consumer: Store brands versus national brand promotions.
Journal of Marketing, 65(January), 71 89.
Batra, R., & Sinha, I. (2000). Consumer-level factors moderating the
success of private label brands. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 175191.
Bearden, W. O., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1998). Handbook of marketing
scales. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Blattberg, R. C., & Neslin, S. A. (1990). Sales promotion: Concepts,
methods, and strategies. (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blattberg, R. C., & Wisniewski, K. J. (1989). Price-induced patterns of
competition. Marketing Science, 18(4), 81100.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York, NY: John Wiley.

J.A. Garretson et al. / Journal of Retailing 78 (2002) 9199

Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Garretson, J. A.
(1998). A scale for measuring attitude toward private label products
and an examination of its psychological and behavioral correlates.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(4), 293306.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency
framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing,
64(4), 65 81.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (1999). Hedonic and utilitarian
consumer benefits of sales promotions. Cambridge, MA: Marketing
Science Institute, (Report No. 99 109).
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analyses for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cox Direct (1998). 20th annual survey of promotional practices. Largo, FL:
Cox Direct.
Denitto, E. (1993). No end to march of private label. Advertising Age, 11
(November 1), 5 6.
Deveny, K. (1993). Bargain hunters bag more store brands. Wall Street
Journal, April 15. pp. B1, B10.
Dhar, S. K., & Hoch, S. J. (1997). Why store brand penetration varies by
retailer. Marketing Science, 16(3), 208 227.
Garretson, J. A., & Burton, S. (1998). An examination of the economic,
shopping-related, and psychological profiles of highly coupon and sale
prone consumers. In D. Grewal & C. Pechmann (Eds.), Marketing
theory and applications-proceedings of the AMA winter educators
conference (pp. 9, 36 37). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Gedenk, K., & Neslin, S. A. (1999). The role of retail promotion in
determining future brand loyalty: Its effect on purchase event feedback.
Journal of Retailing, 75(4), 433 459.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of
goodness of fit indices for structural equations models. Sociological
Methods and Research, 21(November), 132 60.
IRI Marketing Fact Book (1996). Annual Report. Information Resources,
Inc.
Kahn, B. E., & McAlister, L. (1997). Grocery revolution: The new focus on
the consumer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Krishnmaurthi, L., & Raj, S. P. (1991). An empirical analysis of the
relationship between brand loyalty and consumer price elasticity. Marketing Science, 10(2), 172183.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1990). Distinguishing
coupon proneness from value consciousness: An acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(July), 54 67.

99

Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price

perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of
Marketing Research, 30(May), 234 45.
Liesse, J. (1993). Big name marketers are being stalked by strong, high
quality store brands. Advertising Age, April 12. pp. 1, 4.
Maiti, S. S., & Mukherjee, B. N. (1990). A note on the distributional
properties of the Jo reskog and So rbom fit indices. Psychometrika,
55(December), 721726.
Mano, H., & Elliott, M. T. (1997). Smart shopping: the origins and
consequences of price savings. In M. Brucks & D. J. MacInnis (eds.),
Advances in consumer research., Vol. 24 (pp. 504 510). Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research.
Quelch, J., & Harding, D. (1996). Brands versus private labels: Fighting to
win. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 99 111.
Richardson, P. S., Jain, A. K., & Dick, A. (1996). Household store brand
proneness: A framework. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 159 185.
Sawyer, A. G., & Dickson, P. R. (1984). Psychological perspectives on
consumer response to sales promotion. In K. E. Josz (Ed.), Research on
sales promotions: Collected papers (pp. 121). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Schindler, R. M. (1988). The role of ego-expressive factors in the consumers satisfaction with price. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 1(1), 34 39.
Schindler, R. M. (1992). A coupon is more than a low price: Evidence from
a shopping-simulation study. Psychology & Marketing, 9(6), 43151.
Sethuraman, R. (1992). Understanding cross-category differences in private label shares of grocery products. Marketing Science Institute
Technical Working Paper, Report Number 92128.
Sethuraman, R., & Mittelstaedt, J. (1992). Coupons and private labels: A
cross-category analysis of grocery products. Psychology & Marketing,
9(6), 487500.
Shapiro, E. (1992). P&G takes on the supermarkets with uniform pricing.
New York Times, April 26, Section 3, p. 5.
Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing
Science, 4(Summer), 199 214.
Thompson, S. (1999). The new private enterprise. Brandweek, May 3,
36 48.
Wellman, D. (1997). Souping up private label. Supermarket Business,
52(October), 1320.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value:
a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing,
52(July), 222.