International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management

Drivers of store brand usage in an Asian emerging market: evidence from Vietnam
Mbaye Fall Diallo

Article information:
To cite this document:
Mbaye Fall Diallo , (2015),"Drivers of store brand usage in an Asian emerging market: evidence from
Vietnam", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Iss 12 pp. 1144 - 1161
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-07-2014-0086
Downloaded on: 20 November 2015, At: 07:55 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 51 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 20 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Susanne Beck, Peter Kenning, (2015),"The influence of retailers family firm image on new product
acceptance: An empirical investigation in the German FMCG market", International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Iss 12 pp. 1126-1143 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJRDM-06-2014-0079
Elaine L Ritch, (2015),"Consumers interpreting sustainability: moving beyond food to fashion",
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Iss 12 pp. 1162-1181 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-04-2014-0042
Thomas L. Powers, Eric P. Jack, (2015),"Understanding the causes of retail product returns",
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Iss 12 pp. 1182-1202 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-02-2014-0023

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more
information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

IJRD
M
43,1
2

Drivers of store brand usage in

an Asian emerging market:
evidence from Vietnam
Mbaye Fall Diallo

Department of Marketing, IMMD, University

of Lille II, Roubaix, France and
LSMRC Lab, Skema Business
School, University of Lille,
Lille, France

1144
Received 4 July 2014
Revised 18 July
2014
25 July 2014
24 November 2014
30 November 2014
24 March 2015
Accepted 26 May
2015

International Journal of
Retail & Distribution
Management
Vol. 43 No. 12, 2015

Abstract
Purpose Although they are increasingly offered by mass retailers in Asia, store
brands (SBs) are not well understood in Asian countries. The purpose of this
paper is to investigate how store and brand-level factors affect consumer usage
of SBs in an Asian emerging country.
Design/methodology/approach A consumer survey, based on sample of 445
respondents, is undertaken in two competing modern retail chains in Vietnam.
Structural equation modelling is used to test the research hypotheses. A latent
interaction variable was created to test the moderation of store familiarity. Findings
Results indicate that SB price image, consumer attitude towards SBs and SB
perceived value influence most strongly SB usage in Vietnam, whereas store image
perceptions have no direct effect on it. Some investigated relationships differ across
store formats. Overall, store familiarity has a weak direct effect on SB usage, but its
interaction effects differ depending on store format.
Research limitations/implications The study is limited because it investigated only
one Asian country and two retail chains. Besides, it did not account for effect of
product categories on SB usage. Practical implications Findings indicate that a
positive store image is not sufficient to increase consumer usage of SBs in
Vietnam. Retailers should be especially careful when designing retail outlets in this
market, where consumers seem attached to traditions. Results highlight the
importance of taking measures to develop more positive attitudes towards SBs.
Also, store familiarity has a weak effect on SB purchase and should therefore be
monitored more carefully by retail chains operating in Vietnam.
Originality/value This research is the first to address Vietnamese consumer
usage of SBs. In contrast to their counterparts in other emerging countries,
Vietnamese consumers do not strongly rely on store image when purchasing SBs.
Their focus is rather on brand perceived value. These results challenge conventional
wisdom that attributes a low utilitarian value orientation to Asian consumers.
Keywords Vietnam, Store brand, Brand value, Image perceptions, Store familiarity,
Store format
Paper type Research paper

1.Introduction
Despite several favourable conditions in Asia, such as higher disposable
income among Asian grocery shoppers, store brands (SBs which
are heavily discounted grocery brands in contrast with national
brands) have not achieved the same success in Asia than in Western
countries (Mandhachitara et al., 2008). SBs are increasingly the focus of
investigation of marketing scholars and retail managers interest in the
Asian context (Au-Yeung and Lu, 2009; Jin and Suh, 2005; Lin et al.,
2009). Professional studies have also underlined the potential of SBs
in Asia in the coming years (Nielsen, 2011a). Retailers operating in
Asia are also endeavouring to leverage SBs as a way to improve

store image
pp. 1144-1161
Emerald Group Publishing
Limited 0959-0552
DOI 10.1108/IJRDM-07-20140086

and store traffic (Wu et al., 2011) and to increase retail margins (AuYeung
The author would like to thank Dr Min Huan Luong (University of Hanoi/Vietnam
Chamber of Commerce) for his help, especially on data collection.

and Lu, 2009). Nevertheless, consumer behaviour towards SB

products is less understood in a less-developed emerging country
such as Vietnam, despite the increasing modernisation of the retail
landscape, the institutional changes taken by public authorities to
foster foreign direct investment and the growth of SB product
ranges. Existing research on SBs in emerging countries is focused
on BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China); however, a better
understanding of consumer behaviour towards modern retailing in
other emerging markets is needed (Mai and Smith, 2012). Nguyen et
al. (2013) recently stressed the importance of understanding the
Vietnamese retail sector. Indeed, international retailers are now
present in many emerging countries and should have deep insights
into SB adaptation strategies in these markets with different cultural
contexts.
Previous research on Asia has investigated several variables in relation
to SBs, such as price and quality perceptions (Lupton et al., 2010),
innovativeness ( Jin and Suh, 2005), consumer perceptions of the
retailer origin (Cheng et al., 2007) and store attributes (Wu et al., 2011).
However, researchers have given consumer familiarity less attention in
prior studies on Asia, though it has several managerial implications
in Asian emerging markets. Modern retail chains must face competition
from traditional retail outlets in Asia, especially in Vietnam, where
traditional styles of shopping are still dominant (Maruyama and Trung,
2007). Consequently, there is a need for a better understanding of
SB consumer behaviour in this country in comparison with other Asian
and other emerging economies. Indeed, consumers in emerging markets
are not a homogeneous group. Thus, each emerging country should be
investigated individually, to understand its unique nature and to
appropriately fulfil the needs of its consumers (Cao and Pederzoli, 2013).
Consequently, the aim of this research is to investigate how store
and brand-level factors affect SB usage in different retail chains in an
Asian emerging country (Vietnam). Therefore, this paper contributes to
existing research in the following ways: first, we propose and test a
conceptual model to investigate the effect of store and brand-level
factors on SB usage in an emerging country (Vietnam). Vietnamese
consumers are living in a challenging transition period in which they
must make the choice between modernity and tradition (Mai and Smith,
2012). Indeed, the rise of modern retailing contrasts with the presence
of traditional retail outlets in Vietnam, and consumers must decide which
retail sector to patronise based on purchasing power (Maruyama and
Trung, 2012). Second, we assessed the direct and the moderating
effect that store familiarity has on the proposed framework.
Investigating consumers familiarity with the store is critical in
emerging markets, in which consumers have fewer opportunities to
patronise modern retail outlets, because most people there still buy in
traditional retail outlets (Maruyama and Trung, 2007). We assess both
the direct and the moderating effects of store familiarity in the
same model, to give a more holistic view of the nature of the
relationships between store familiarity and SB usage in an emerging
country.
The organisation of the paper is as follows. First, we present the
theoretical framework and our hypotheses development. Second,
we explain the research methodology, based on a survey of
Vietnamese consumers. Third, we describe the findings step-bystep, including measurement and hypotheses testing. Finally, we
discuss the results and highlight the theoretical and managerial
implications arising from them, as well as avenues for further research.

2. Conceptua
l
framework
and
hypotheses
developme
nt
Based
on
previous
research on
the
consumption
of
modern
products in
Vietnam
(Maruyama
and Trung,
2007;
McDonald et
al.,
2000;
Speece and
Huong,
2002)
and
on

Drivers of store brand

usage

1145

IJRD
M
43,1
2

1146

Asian emerging countries in general (Cheng et al., 2007; Jin and Suh,
2005; Wu et al., 2011), several factors are supposed to affect SB
usage in Vietnam. SB usage refers to an active buying behaviour
including looking for SBs and buying them effectively during the
shopping trip (Ailawadi et al., 2001). However, variables at the store level
(e.g. store image, store familiarity) and at the brand level (e.g. SB
perceived value, SB attitude) are likely to affect the most consumer
behaviour in emerging countries in general (Cheng et al., 2007; Jin and
Suh, 2005). Therefore, they are the focus of this research.
Specifically, SB perceived value is chosen instead of perceived
quality because we studied mainstream SBs which are more valuefocused than premium SBs (positioned on quality). In turn, SB price
image is investigated because it is more dynamic (multi dimensional)
than other constructs analysed previously in the literative on Asia
(e.g. price consciousness and perceived price) and it reflects store
image perceptions. We analyse a relevant set of these factors based on
the aforementioned studies and develop the research hypotheses before
presenting a conceptual model to be tested empirically.
Effects of store image and SB price image
Martineau (1958) defined store image as perceptions of the store that
help consumers make evaluations of the store. More specifically, store
image is shaped in the shoppers mind partly by functional qualities
and partly by an array of psychological attributes (Collins-Dodd and
Lindley, 2003). SB price image can be defined as a global representation
of the relative level of prices of SBs, including financial and non-financial
(psychological) benefits (Jara and Cliquet, 2012).
Prior studies have established the relationship between store image
perceptions in emerging markets (Diallo, 2012; Wu et al., 2011). In the
Vietnamese context, Maruyama and Trung (2012) showed that store
image cues referred to as service and operation play an important
role for Vietnamese consumers shopping in modern retail outlets
(domestic and foreign retailers) compared with traditional outlets
(traditional markets and family-run stores). They reported several
store image attributes that contribute strongly to retailers
performance (e.g. shopping environment, product display, service,
advertising and promotion and the attitude of sales staff). These
results confirm prior studies in the Asian context, showing that store
image perceptions positively affect consumer behaviour towards
retailer products and brands (Wu et al., 2011). They are also consistent
with cue utilisation theory, which states that store image can be a
determinant of product quality and perceptions (Semeijn et al., 2004).
Therefore, store associations and store evaluations can be generalised
to SBs sold in the store (Collins-Dodd and Lindley, 2003). Chang and
Luan (2010) showed also that store image dimensions such as store
atmosphere, service personnel and merchandise are important
factors in Chinese consumers perceptions of modern retailing. Nguyen
et al. (2007) provided evidence that store image perceptions have a
positive effect on consumer behaviour for Vietnamese consumers. In
the same vein, Diallo (2012) showed that store image perceptions
affect both SB purchase and SB price image in the context of an
emerging country. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1a. Consumers store image perceptions have a positive influence
on SB usage.

H1b.

Co
nsu
me
rs

store image perceptions have a positive influence on SB price

image.
Price perception is generally considered to be a key factor in firms
success in emerging countries (Beneke et al., 2013; Speece and
Nguyen, 2005). Previous research in the Asian

context has shown that local and traditional retailers have

competitive price advantages over international retailers (Cheng et
al., 2007). Bao et al. (2011) showed that SB image, mainly shaped by
price perceptions, positively influences SB purchase intention. In the
context of emerging countries, Diallo (2012) found a significant effect of
SB price image on SB purchase intention in Brazil. In the
Vietnamese context, Nielsen (2011b) emphasised the critical role of
pricing and promotion for consumers. Speece and Nguyen (2005) also
addressed the issue of brand price image perception in relation to
country-of-origin (COO) image in Vietnam. They showed that price
cutting by the Korean brands does little to attract customers away
from the higher perceived quality of Japanese brands. Because SBs
are positioned on price advantages compared with national brands,
we expect that SB price image will have a positive influence on SB
usage, as has been observed in other emerging countries (e.g. Diallo,
2012). As a consequence, we make the following deduction:
H2. SB price image has a positive influence on SB usage.
Effects of SB perceived value and attitude
In the current research, we define perceived value (following a
utilitarian approach) as the desire to pay a low price for a product
moderated by some quality constraints (Burton et al., 1998).
Consumer attitude towards SBs refers to a general evaluation of a SB
products formed over time (Burton et al., 1998; Jin and Suh, 2005).
Research in emerging countries has established the positive effect of
perceived value on SB purchase behaviour in the Asian context ( Jin
and Suh, 2005), but also in other emerging countries such as Brazil
(Diallo, 2012). Speece and Huong (2002) showed that Vietnamese
urban middle-class consumers are strongly value oriented in their
shopping behaviour, desiring fairly good quality and service but also
factoring price into their considerations. Therefore, because SBs are
highly positioned on utilitarian benefits (Beneke et al., 2013; Diallo et
al., 2013), we posit that Vietnamese consumers will rely on SB
perceived value in their shopping behaviour in modern retailing. SBs
do have the advantage of being accessible to Vietnamese middle-class
consumers (Nielsen, 2011a). With their utilitarian value positioning,
they constitute a viable alternative to national brands and a good
buy compared with products sold in traditional retail outlets. Thus:
H3a. SB perceived value has a positive influence on SB usage.
Prior studies in emerging countries has also emphasised the effect of
perceived value on consumer attitudes towards SBs. For example, Jin
and Suh (2005) highlighted a significant and positive influence of
perceived value on SB attitude in Asia (South Korea). Such a result
was previously established in other contexts (Burton et al., 1998).
Consequently, we expect a positive relationship between SB
perceived value and consumer attitude towards SBs in the
Vietnamese market. Given their price quality positioning, SBs
actually constitute an affordable means for Vietnamese consumers to
have access to higher quality modern products (Nielsen, 2011a).
Therefore, we propose:
H3b. SB perceived value has a positive influence on attitude
towards SBs.

Previous
research has
shown that
attitudes
towards SBs
have
a
positive
effect
on
consumer
purchase
behaviour
(Burton
et
al.,
1998).
Similarly,
research
in
emerging
countries has
empirically
established
the positive
influence of
attitudes
towards SBs
on
consumer
purchase
behaviour in
Asia ( Jin and
Suh, 2005).
SBs
are
relatively
new in Asia
(Au-Yeung
and
Lu,
2009),
and
consumers in
emerging
markets
generally
have a

Drivers of store brand

usage

1147

IJRD
M
43,1
2

1148

favourable attitude towards new products (Wang et al., 2008). Wang

et al. (2008) showed also that the attitude of Chinese consumers
towards new products has a positive effect on their consumption
behaviour. Maruyama and Trung (2012) report that Vietnamese
consumers have an increasing acceptance of modern retail formats
that offer new SB products, especially in urban areas. Therefore, we
anticipate that:
H4. Attitude towards SBs has a positive influence on SB usage.
Direct and moderating effect of store familiarity
Alba and Hutchinson (1987) defined familiarity as the number of
product related experiences that have been accumulated by the
consumer (p. 411). In emerging countries, store familiarity is a
critical factor in assessing store image and in explaining consumption
behaviours. Lin et al. (2009) reported a similar conclusion for brand
familiarity, which reduces perceived risk associated with SBs in the
Taiwanese market. Store familiarity is also a component of the
consumers knowledge of the retailer. In fact, emerging markets
consumers with greater store familiarity will have better knowledge of
retail outlets and more opportunities to develop relationships with store
personnel. Along this line, Paswan et al. (2010) emphasised that
consumers in emerging markets may prefer smaller retail stores
because they are familiar with the local store owners or personnel.
According to Sheau-Fen et al. (2012), the role of familiarity becomes
more significant in influencing consumer choice and decision
making for SBs that are purchased frequently. They also showed that
store familiarity has a positive effect on SB purchase behaviour in two
Asian countries: Malaysia and China. The same rationale can be
extended to the Vietnamese context, in which some consumers have
more access to modern retailing and others still do their shopping at
traditional retail outlets (Maruyama and Trung, 2012; Nguyen et al.,
2013). Therefore, we hypothesise that:
H5. Store familiarity has a positive effect on SB usage.
Furthermore, although only few studies have focused on the moderating
effect of store familiarity in emerging countries (e.g. Ha and Jang, 2010;
Paswan et al., 2010), we expect the level of store familiarity to affect
significantly the relationships between SB usage and its antecedents
(i.e. store image, SB price image, consumer attitude towards SBs
and SB perceived value). In fact, Vietnamese consumers have
different levels of experience with modern retailing based on their
income and consumption habits. Some consumers usually shop in
modern stores, whereas others make purchases in traditional
retail outlets (Nguyen et al., 2013; Maruyama and Trung, 2012).
Hence, Vietnamese consumers with greater store familiarity would be
more prone to develop positive perceptions of store image, SB price
image and SB value than those with lower store familiarity. For
instance, a positive perception of store image combined with a
higher level of familiarity would lead to a higher level of purchase
intention in Vietnam. We also anticipate that a positive SB price image
associate to greater level of familiarity lead to higher purchase
intentions. In fact, Vietnamese consumers with higher store
familiarity still tend to focus on price perceptions because of their
lower purchasing power compared to their Western counterparts. In
addition, because these consumers have more experiences with SBs,

they
devel
op
more
favou
rable

attitudes towards SBs such as the interaction between store

familiarity and SB attitude leads to higher SB purchase intentions.
Paswan et al. (2010) report similar consumption patterns in another
emerging country (Mexico), where smaller retailers perform well due to
greater store familiarity. The moderating role of familiarity was also
demonstrated in the Asian

context by Ha and Jang (2010), who showed that in South Korea

perceived value affects purchase intentions in different ways depending
on the level of consumer familiarity. Based on these considerations, we
propose the following hypotheses:
H6a. A higher level of store familiarity associated with positive
store image perceptions affects positively SB usage.
H6b. A higher level of store familiarity associated with a positive
SB price image affects positively SB usage.
H6c. A higher level of store familiarity associated with a positive SB
perceived value affects positively store brand usage.

Drivers of
store
brand
usag
e
1149

H6d. A higher level of store familiarity associated with a positive

attitude towards SBs affects positively SB usage.
Figure 1 presents our conceptual model and summarises the research
hypotheses.
3. Methodology and empirical study
This research is based on a survey undertaken in the Vietnamese
market. We chose Vietnam as a focus for both theoretical and practical
reasons. First, Nguyen et al. (2013) stressed that Vietnam is a posttransition economy particularly worthy of exploration given the wellknown firm-level challenges for retailers in achieving acceptance of
their Western retail formats. Second, according to Maruyama and
Trung (2012), whereas traditional retailers (wet market retailers and
family-run stores) continue to vastly outnumber modern retailers, the
development of the modern retail business sector has been impressive
in Vietnam, occurring as it has over a relatively short period of time. In
addition, retail businesses recognise that the Vietnamese market still
represents a huge potential, because the demands of Vietnamese
consumers have not been fully satisfied. For example, the French
retailer Auchan intends to invest 500 million euros in Vietnam in the
next ten years, and Singapores leading retail company, NTUC
FairPrice, and Saigon Co.op of Vietnam have been licensed to set up
a joint venture by opening two mega-supermarket chains[1].
Though SBs are not yet well developed in Vietnam,

Figure 1.
Conceptual

Store familiarity

Store image perceptions

H6a H6b H6c H6d

H1b +

SB price-image

H1a +

H5 +

H2 +
SB usage

H3a +
SB perceived value

H3b +

Attitude towards SBs

H4 +

model and
hypotheses

IJRD
M
43,1
2

1150

retailers are trying to market the product lines with their own brands
and believe that in the coming years one out of four products will be of
their own brand[2]. Furthermore, according to the 2011 Nielsen
Shopper Trends, SBs are 15-30 per cent lower in price than
manufacturer brands in Vietnam; therefore, they would be a highly
appropriate tool for targeting the emerging middle class in Vietnam
(Nielsen, 2011a).
Data collection
Data were collected using a questionnaire administered by
investigators (enroled in management classes) specially trained for
the survey as in Paswan et al. (2010). Native speakers of
Vietnamese double back-translated the questionnaire, following the
collaborative and iterative translation framework suggested by
Douglas and Craig (2007). Respondents were intercepted while
shopping in Big C (a hypermarket) and in Fivimart (a supermarket) in
Hanoi in March 2010. We selected Hanoi because it has a good
representation of modern retailing (along with Ho Chi Minh City) in
Vietnam (Maruyama and Trung, 2012). In addition, it is a location in
which customers are more familiar with modern retailing because they
frequently go to supermarkets for their daily needs (Yang et al., 2011).
Our selection of the two retail chains was based on these criteria: first,
they are among the leaders in the Vietnamese retail market; second,
they have the widest ranges of SB products in Vietnam; and third,
they target the same consumer segment (urban consumers with
medium-to-high income levels). Furthermore, because these two retail
chains operate two different store formats, targeting them allowed us to
consider the issue of smaller vs larger stores in emerging markets,
following Paswan et al. (2010). Created in 1998, Big C is a wholly
owned subsidiary of the French retailer Casino. It is an early pioneer of
the hypermarket format in Vietnam and the market leader due to its
pattern of growth and its efforts to benefit the social and economic
environment of its stores. Fivimart is a local supermarket chain
operated by the company Nht Nam and founded in 1997. It has 16
stores in Hanoi as of June 2013. In 2012, Fivimart entered the Top 500
best retailers list in the Asia Pacific region.
We asked respondents to refer clearly to brands with the retailer
name, the focus of this research. As risk profiles can differ
substantially across product categories (Zielke and Dobbelstein,
2007), we referred to food products, such as juices and yoghurts,
where SBs are frequently purchased in Vietnam. Because the
reasons for shopping may vary depending on the time of day and the
day of the week, we collected data at different times of the day and
on different days of the week. The data collection process allowed us
to gather an overall sample of 445 respondents. The data comprises a
general sample of 173 respondents for exploratory factor analysis and a
non-student sample of 272 usable questionnaires for the final
analyses (NBig C 130 and NFivimart 142). Respondents were well
distributed across age, gender, household income and education
(Table I). No significant differences were found between the two

Gende % Family income per

r
month
18-25 21 Men
40
$450-900
26-34 29
$901-1,790
35-49 22
$1,791-4,900

Age

50-64 16 Femal
Table I.
Sample description W 64 09 e

60

W$4,900

Education

47.1 No education
26.1 High school
19.1 Bachelor not achieved
Specialised (High school
+ 2)
07.7 Bachelor
Master/PhD

%
0.
22.
7
8
22.
8
14.
3
26.
5
12.
9

segments based on socio-demographics. Overall, respondents tended

to be between 26 and 49 years old (51 per cent), to belong to the
middle/higher-income class in Vietnam (53 per cent had a family
income of at least $900 per month), to be female (59 per cent) and to
be well educated (more than 50 per cent had at least a bachelors
degree).
Measurement of variables
We chose measurement tools based on the consumer and market
characteristics of Vietnam (a less-developed retail market).
Therefore, to measure store image perceptions, we used nine
items from Semeijn et al. (2004). They are distributed across three
dimensions: layout, merchandise and service. These items are similar to
those researchers used in previous studies in emerging countries,
making further comparison more feasible (see Chang and Luan,
2010; Nguyen et al., 2007). We measured SB price image with six
items adapted from previous research in emerging countries (Diallo,
2012). SB perceived value was measured in relation to four
parameters adapted from Burton et al. (1998). Consumer attitude
towards SBs was measured with four items adapted from Garretson et
al. (2002). These two scales were also used by Jin and Suh (2005) and
found to be appropriate in an Asian context (South Korea). SB usage
(dependant variable) was measured using three items adapted from
Ailawadi et al. (2001). For store familiarity, we used an objective
measure composed of two parameters (frequency of store visits in a
month and length of store use) adapted from Diallo et al. (2013). Using
objective measures helps avoid limitations related to self-reported
scales that might lead to confusion with other underlying factors.
4. Analyses and results
Measurement model assessment
Exploratory factor analysis (n 173) allowed first to check items
loadings ( W0.5) and scales reliability (W 0.7) in the Vietnamese
context. We then tested the measurement models for this study using
confirmatory factor analysis (n 272), to verify the extent to which our
specification of the factors matched the actual data (Gerbing and
Anderson, 1988). We used maximum likelihood estimation and
bootstrapping on the covariance matrix with Amos 18. To evaluate
measurement model fit, three types of fit indices (absolute,
incremental and parsimonious) were used, following the suggestions of
Jackson et al. (2009). The overall measurement models fit indices
2
indicated satisfactory model fit ( 315.88, df 330, p o 0.70;
2
RMSEA 0.019; CFI 1; TLI 1 and /df 0.95). The internal
consistency of each of the constructs was adequate because composite
reliability ( ) values were above the recommended cutoff criteria
(0.7) in each sample (Table II). Table II shows also that the
convergent validity of the constructs is fulfilled because the AVE
values ( VC) are greater than 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The
discriminant validity of the constructs is supported because the
constructs AVE values are greater than their squared correlations
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (Table II).
Next we verified measurement invariance so that the results could be
examined and interpreted across the two retail chains investigated.
Previous research suggested that at least two main levels of
invariance should be achieved: configural and metric invariance
(Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). Configural invariance
assesses whether the basic factor structure holds for the two groups,

whereas
metric
invariance
refers to the
extent
to
which
the
relationships
between the
factors and
the
items
are
equivalent
across
the
two groups
(Campbell et
al.,
2008).
We
estimated
the
measureme
nt
model
across
the
retail chains
and found a
good fit for
both
samples: Big
2
C:

386.78, df
330, p
0.017;
RMSEA

0.037; CFI
0.97; TLI
0.97 and

Drivers of store brand

usage

1151

IJRD
M
43,1
2

1152

Constructs
AVE

Dimensions and measurement items

Store
image
perceptio
ns
0.76
AVE
0.52

Layout: 0.87
Physical facilities are visually appealing
Store layout is clear
Easy to find articles on promotion
Merchandise: 0.89
Merchandise is available when needed
Store offers high-quality merchandise
Store offers a broad assortment
Service: 0.88

Stand. loadinga

0.71
0.87
0.79
0.84
0.81
0.85
0.82
0.91
0.64

0.310.69

0.3 0.74
1

Employees are knowledgeable

0.87
Employees are courteous
0.80
Employees are willing to find customer solutions 0.88
SB perceived relative price: 0.84
0.84
I found low-priced SB product ranges in this store
SB
compared to other stores
0.81
price- All SB products in this store seem to be cheaper than
AVE
0.67
image
those in other stores
0.77
0.80
I think that the SBs in this store are low priced
to
other stores
0.83
compared
0.81
SB perceived benefit: 0.86
I have bought more SB products than I planned
this
store
0.83
to buy
in
I was tempted to buy more SB products in this
really
needed
0.82
store than
I
I bought some SB products not on my list in this
0.81
SB
Istore
am very concerned about SB prices, but I am
perceived concerned
equally
value
about SB product quality
0.87
0.87
When grocery shopping, I compare the prices of
SBs to be sure I get the best value for money
0.74
When purchasing a product, I always try to
maximise
SB qualitythe
for the money I spend
0.74
When I buy SB products, I like to be sure that I
am moneys
my
getting worth
0.83
Attitude
For most product categories, the best buy is
usually
towards
the
SBs
0.81
SBs
I love it when SBs are available in the product
0.86
categories

SB
usage
0.85
Table II.
Psychometric
quality
of
measurement
scales

Store
familiarit
y
0.72

I purchase
0.75
When I buy a SB, I always feel that I am getting a good
deal
0.74
In general, SBs are good quality products
0.82
I buy SBs when I go shopping
0.79
I look for SBs when I go shopping
0.77
My shopping cart always contains several SBs products
Frequency of store visit
0.86
Length of store use

rb

0.29 0.72

0.440.64

0.4 0.6
4
7

0.4 0.6
6
3

0.4 0.6
7
0

0.600.65
0.87
0.530.57

0.64

Notes: aAll standardised loadings are significant at p o 0.01; bhighest squared

correlation between the construct of interest and other constructs

/df 1.17; Fivimart: 375.77,2 df 330, p 0.042; RMSEA

0.031; CFI 0.97; TLI 0.97 and /df 1.13. These results suggest
satisfactory configural invariance. We subsequently verified metric
2
invariance through a delta test (a comparison between a freely
estimated model and another model in which loadings were
2
constrained to equality). We found satisfactory metric invariance: (df)
16.71 (19), p W 0.05. Thus, satisfactory measurement invariance
is achieved and meaningful comparisons can be made between the
two retail chains.

Drivers of
store
brand
usag
e

Structural model and main hypotheses

1153
Before testing the hypotheses, structural model fit needed to be
assessed. The results of model estimation show that fit indices are
satisfactory,
based on accepted levels in previous studies (overall
2
sample: 654.79, 2df 339, p o 0.00; RMSEA 0.059; CFI 0.92;
TLI 0.92; and /df 2 1.93). Similar results are obtained in
subsamples from Big C ( 569.54, df 339, p o 0.00; RMSEA
0.073;2 CFI 0.89; TLI 0.88;
2
and /df 1.68) and Fivimart ( 531.91, df 339, p o 0.00;
2
RMSEA 0.064; CFI 0.91; TLI 0.90; and /df 1.56). It is
therefore appropriate to conclude that the
hypothesised model acceptably fits the data. Furthermore, the
results indicate that the predictors explain substantial amounts of
variance in the dependant
variable:Fivima
SB
Big
usage: 2Over 0.58, R2 0.59 and R2 0.59.
all
R
Table III shows the structural coefficients for estimating our model. The effect of store
image perceptions on SB usage is not significant ( p W 0.05), which
rejects H1a. However, an assessment of indirect effects, through
bootstrapping (see Cheung and Lau, 2008), shows that store image
perceptions affect significantly SB usage via the mediation of SB price
image ( 0.22, p o 0.01). This result means that for Vietnamese
consumers, store image becomes a determinant of SB usage only when
the SB price promise is fulfilled. H1b is supported because store image
perceptions significantly affect SB price image. The latter has a
positive effect on SB usage, which supports H2. However, this
relationship is not significant in Fivimart (supermarket), suggesting that
this retail chain

Directs effects
H1a+: store
image

Total
sample
(n
272)

Standardised
coefficientsa Big
C sample
(hypermarket)
(n 130)

Fivimart
sample
(supermarket)
(n 142)

perceptionsSB usage
0.14 ns [0.04; 0.33] 0.02 ns [0.38; 0.23] 0.25
ns [0.01; 0.60]
H1b+: store image
perceptionsSB price image
0.60 [0.44; 0.73]** 0.58 [0.33; 0.75]** 0.58 [0.33;
0.82]**
H2+: SB price-imageSB usage
0.38 [0.16; 0.61]**
0.56
[0.28; 0.89]** 0.18 ns [0.17; 0.59]
H3a+: SB perceived valueSB
usage
0.35 [0.21; 0.51]** 0.29 [0.08; 0.52]** 0.41 [0.18;
0.64]**

H3b+: SB
perceived
valueattitude
towards SBs
0.49 [0.36; 0.60]**
0.42 [0.22; 0.59]**
0.55 [0.35; 0.69]**
H4+: attitude
towards SBsSB

usage
0.27 [0.07; 0.44]**
0.22 ns
[0.02; 0.53]
0.29 [0.06; 0.58]*
H5+: Store familiaritySB
usage
0.25 [0.08; 0.41]** 0.33 [0.04; 0.61]* 0.25 [0.03;
0.44]*
Notes: ns, not significant. aAssociated bootstrap intervals [lower bound; upper
bound] should not include zero for significance of the relationship. *p o 0.05;
**p o 0.01
Table III.
Main
hypotheses
testing with
bootstrap
intervals

IJRD
M
43,1
2

1154

has to improve its SB pricing strategy. The SB perceived value

influences not only the SB usage, but also attitudes towards SBs.
These results give support to H3a and H3b and show that perceived
value is an important factor for Vietnamese consumers, regardless of
the retail format. Furthermore, meditation analyses showed that
perceived value has an indirect effect on SB usage ( 0.13, p o
0.01). H4 is also supported, because the attitude of consumers
towards SBs has a significant effect on SB usage, but the effect is not
significant at Big C (hypermarket). Similarly, store familiarity has a
significant effect on SB usage ( 0.25, p o 0.01), supporting H5.
This effect is, however, stronger for Big C in comparison with
Fivimart, in contrast with previous findings in other emerging
countries (Paswan et al., 2010). To assess the strength of these results
relative to sample size, we used the bootstrapping procedure in Amos
18 (Bootstrap BC, 1,000 replications, CI 95 per cent), following the
recommendations of Cheung and Lau (2008). We found stable results
because the coefficients have the same significance with the
bootstrap sample, meaning that the results are not likely to be
subject to sample size. We discuss the results in the conclusion
section.
Moderation of store familiarity and effects of covariates
To assess the moderating effect of store familiarity, we created
latent interaction variables using Amos 18. To address multicollinearity
issues, which lead to instability in the estimation of coefficients, doublemean centring was undertaken, following the recommendations of Lin
et al. (2010). Therefore, for each latent interaction variable, we first
centre each of the observed variables and then form the product term
and re-centre it. To statistically test the moderation of store
familiarity, we examined t-tests and p-values associated with the
effect of latent interaction variables. Table IV shows that no interaction
effect is significant in the overall sample, which rejects H6a, H6b,
H6c and H6d. However, model estimation in subsamples indicates
three moderating effects of store familiarity for Big C in relation to
store image perceptions ( 0.24, p o 0.05), SB perceived value (
0.25, p o 0.01) and attitude towards SBs ( 0.26, p o 0.01).
These findings emphasise that familiarity is not yet a leading factor in
the Vietnamese market, in contrast with Western countries (Diallo et al.,
2013) and emerging countries such as Mexico (Paswan et al., 2010).
However, the results highlight differences between Big C (bigger
format) and Fivimart (smaller format) in terms of store familiarity,
though these results should be considered with caution because
bootstrap intervals suggest the possibility of no significance,
depending on sample sizes (Table IV). We discuss these results in
the next section.

Moderating effect of
store familiarity

Total
sample
(n
272)

Big C
(hypermarke
t) (n 130)

Fivimart
(supermarke
t) (n 142)

Table IV. Moderating effect of store familiarity and effects of covariatesa

H6a: SFAM
SIPSB
usage
0.11 ns [0.09;
0.31]
0.24
[0.19;
0.80]*
0.07 ns [0.55;
0.86]

H6b: SFAM SBPISB usage

0.00 ns [0.12; 0.12] 0.12 ns [0.05; 0.33]
0.12 ns [0.30; 0.06]
H6c: SFAM SBPVSB usage
0.10 ns [0.03; 0.22]
0.25 [0.02; 0.45]**
0.04 ns [0.24; 0.11]
H6d: SFAM ATSBSB usage 0.09 ns [0.07; 0.22]
0.26 [0.17; 0.47]**
0.07 ns [0.40; 0.13]
Notes: ns, not significant; SFAM, store familiarity; SIP, store image perceptions; SBPI,
SB price-image; SBPV, SB perceived value; ATSB, attitude towards SBs. Model fit
with covariates: 2 776.49; df 411, p o 0.00; RMSEA 0.057; CFI 0.92;
TLI 0.91 and 2/df 1.88. aWith associated bootstrap intervals [lower bound;
upper bound]. *p o 0.05; **p o 0.01

5. Discussions and implications

Discussion and theoretical implications
This research shows that several factors determine SB usage in the
Vietnamese market. The results indicate that SB price image and SB
perceived value have the strongest effect on SB usage. These
findings stress that Vietnamese consumers focus on price cues and
utilitarian values in their usage SB products. The importance of SB
price image can be related to consumer price sensitivity as well as to
retailers efforts to offer affordable SB products to consumers in
Vietnam, especially in Big C. This focus on price-related factors has
been reported in other emerging countries (Beneke et al., 2013;
DAndrea et al., 2006). It can also be associated with the search
by Vietnamese consumers for sales promotions. Nielsen (2011b)
found that Vietnam has the most promotionally focused shoppers in
Asia, with 87 per cent of consumers open to buying through sales
promotions compared with a regional average of 68 per cent. The effect
of SB perceived value can be analysed similarly and may be related
to the rising cost of everyday consumer goods, which has prompted
shoppers to be even more value conscious than before (Nielsen,
2011b). Compared with findings reported in previous research in Asia
(e.g. Jin and Suh, 2005) and in Western countries (Diallo et al., 2013),
SB perceived value carries a higher importance for Vietnamese
consumers. The effect of this variable is also stronger for the
supermarket chain Fivimart (direct 0.41, p o 0.01) than for Big C, the
hypermarket chain (direct 0.29, p o 0.01). Another explanation of
the highest overall importance of SB perceived value (direct 0.35,
p o 0.01 and indirect 0.13, p o 0.01) may be related to
Vietnamese cultural values, in which Fivimart is more rooted.
Vietnamese cultural and traditional values, mainly shaped by Buddhism
and Confucianism (Le Monkhouse et al., 2013), attribute a great
importance to balance in life and consumption. Therefore, focusing on a
SBs perceived utilitarian value may allow Vietnamese consumers to
avoid wasting money and remain consistent with their cultural and
traditional values. This result contrasts with recent findings showing
a low utilitarian value orientation for Chinese consumers (Zhang et al.,
2014). The effect of attitude towards SBs in our research is also
positive ( 0.35, p o 0.01), but it is rather weak compared with
previous studies in other Asian emerging countries (e.g. Jin and Suh,
2005). This finding shows that attitude is not yet an important factor
in Vietnamese consumer usage of SBs, regardless of the retail chain
format. It also explains why SB market shares are still low in
Vietnam.
Store image perceptions (i.e. layout, merchandise and service) did
not seem to be a leading factor in SB purchase, because they have
only an indirect effect on SB usage. This result contrasts with previous
research in other emerging countries, in which store image more
strongly and directly affected SB purchase behaviour (Diallo, 2012;
Wu et al., 2011). By investigating the relationship between store image
perceptions and SB usage, this research complements previous studies
that focused only on store image perceptions in Vietnam. For
example, Maruyama and Trung (2012) showed that Vietnamese
consumers have positive perceptions of store image cues in
supermarkets. This study adds richness to our understanding of
Vietnamese consumption behaviour by showing that a positive
perception of store image does not necessarily lead directly to positive
SB usage. The contrast with findings from other emerging countries
may be explained by different cultural values and consumer
characteristics.

The
results
of
this
study
indicate that
store
familiarity is
positively
related to SB
usage;
however, the
strength of
this effect is
rather weak
overall (
0.25, p o
0.01).
This
finding
corroborates
previous
studies
showing the
specific
characteristic
s
of
Vietnamese
consumers
with regard
to
their
frequency of
store
visits
(McDonald et
al., 2000). It
also

Drivers of store brand

usage

1155

IJRD
M
43,1
2

1156

points out a contrast with findings from other emerging markets. In

Vietnam, we do not find a difference in favour of the smaller retail
format, which was the case for Mexican consumers (Paswan et al.,
2010). Rather, we found a slightly stronger effect of store familiarity
in the hypermarket retail chain (Big C), which illustrates that even
though the supermarket format (Fivimart) has a better SB perceived
value, it does not perform well in terms of store familiarity.
Furthermore, our assessment of the moderating role of store familiarity
did not demonstrate any significant effect in the overall sample,
confirming the weak effect of this variable. However, the interaction
between store image perceptions and store familiarity significantly
affects SB usage in the hypermarket format (Big C), highlighting
again the greater role of store familiarity in the bigger format.
Similar results concerning the moderation of store familiarity are
found in the relationships between SB perceived value and SB usage
as well as between attitude towards SBs and SB usage in Big C.
These results have several managerial implications, which we analyse
below.
Managerial implications
The results of this study allow the researchers to derive several
managerial implications for retail firms operating in Vietnam. First, the
stronger effect of SB price image and SB perceived value indicates
that Vietnamese consumers seem to give a priority to price-related
constructs in their purchase of SB products. Therefore, retailers should
further focus their communication strategies on these dimensions.
However, because price does not entail either brand attachment or
store loyalty in the long run, we recommend that retailers focus on SB
perceived value and on other variables such as brand attitude, to
promote store loyalty and to foster retail sales in Vietnam.
Compared with traditional retail outlets (i.e. wet markets), modern
retailers are not sufficiently competitive in terms of price (Maruyama
and Trung, 2012). Therefore, focusing only on SB price image may
harm retail sales in the long run. This recommendation is
especially true for Big C (hypermarket), where SB price image
strongly affects SB usage. Conversely, Fivimart (supermarket),
where SB price image does not affect SB usage, should focus on
price to attract more consumers through sales promotions and retail
branding. This retailer, though a local one, is perceived to be
expensive by most Vietnamese consumers. Therefore, it should focus
on SB price ranges positioned to reach less wealthy consumers and
improve store traffic. This latter recommendation is also related to
store familiarity, the effect of which is found to be weaker in Fivimart.
The hypermarket chain should pay attention to the perceived value of
its SBs, which less strongly affect SB usage compared with the
supermarket chain ( 0.29, p o 0.01 vs 0.41, p o 0.01). A
similar consumption pattern was highlighted by Yang et al. (2011),
who argued that smaller Vietnamese retailers remained surprisingly
competitive, partly due to the preference of many consumers for
convenience as well as the ability to purchase food close to their
homes. Second, regardless of store format, retailers in the
Vietnamese market should concentrate on measures that improve
consumer attitudes towards SBs. The effect of this variable on SB
usage is rather weak. In general, Asian consumers do not seem to
have strong and positive attitudes towards SBs. Previous studies have
emphasised the difficulties in developing SBs in Asia (Mandhachitara
et al., 2008). Consequently, retailers should improve consumers

attitu
des
towa
rds
SBs

in Asian markets, especially in Vietnam, via marketing efforts and

customer relationship management. Strengthening customer
experience with SBs, through in-store preference tests, can help
improve SB perceived quality and then the attitude towards SBs
compared with

those towards products offered in traditional retail settings where a

large majority of Vietnamese consumers continue to shop. More
importantly, leveraging Vietnamese cultural values (e.g. group
status, respect and reciprocity) is a key option for modern retailers
attempting to develop more positive attitudes towards SBs that
carry the retailers name. Vietnamese consumers are trying to reconcile
modern influences with traditional values-that is to say, the
traditional self with the modern self (Mai and Smith, 2012). Retail
brand management practices should, therefore, be consistent with
consumers desires to find the best balance between tradition and
modernity. This suggestion is probably more appropriate for the
hypermarket chain (Big C), which is perceived as foreign and which is
a setting where SB perceived value less strongly affects SB usage.
Third, our findings show that store image perceptions do not have a
direct effect on SB usage. This result is disturbing for retail chains
operating in Vietnam and throughout Asia. Previous studies
showed that Vietnamese consumers have a good perception of
overall image (Nguyen et al., 2007). However, our findings indicate that
there is not a strong direct spillover effect of store image perceptions on
SB usage, even though retail chains operating in Vietnam and other
parts of Asia are trying to leverage their store image to foster retail
sales. We suggest that modern retailers revamp their store image
development strategies by adapting them further to the local
context through the use of local architectural designs in store facilities.
They should also foster social interaction within the store. Modernity
associated with Western-style retail chains should not overpower
the expression of the local culture in store image management.
Practises adopted in the early development of modern retailing in
Taiwan can be comprehensively transferred to Vietnam and other
Asian countries. They consisted of adopting store layouts resembling
traditional markets to promote consumer acceptance of modern
retailing.
Limitations and further research
As one of the first of its kind in the Vietnamese market, this study
provides a good starting point for further research on SBs in
Vietnam. As to limitations, first, the researchers focused only on two
grocery retail chains, located in Hanoi. Given the rapid development of
the Vietnamese retail structure, other sectors and other locations
(e.g. Ho Chi Minh City) need to be investigated to further
understand SB usage in Vietnam. For example, fashion retailers, such
as Zara, offer their brands in Vietnam as well as in other Asian
countries. It would be interesting to understand how store image
perceptions and perceived utilitarian and non-utilitarian values
affect SB usage of specialty retailers. Nguyen et al. (2007) showed
that shopping motivation positively affects Vietnamese consumer
loyalty towards hypermarket retail chains; however, their study was not
focused on branding issues, which have become an important subject of
research in Asia (Swoboda et al., 2012). Second, this research was
focused on image factors and did not investigate COO image,
because the retail chains investigated are not associated with a
specific COO in their communication with consumers. Nevertheless,
COO image is another interesting subject that deserves more attention
from marketing researchers. In the Vietnamese context, Speece and
Nguyen (2005) showed that COO is important to consumer
behaviour by stressing that price cuts made by Korean brands do
little to attract customers towards their products and away from the
perceived higher quality Japanese brands. This subject is all the

more
interesting
because
local
firms
(e.g.
Fivimart) are
doing
well
and
are
increasingly
tempted
to
expand
to
other
emerging
countries.
Third,
this
study
focused
on
Vietnam

Drivers of store brand

usage

1157

IJRD
M
43,1
2

1158

for theoretical and practical reasons; however, because each emerging

country has its own market and consumer characteristics, comparing
Vietnam to other emerging and developed countries would be an
important area for further research on SBs. For example, Cheng et
al. (2007) found that Taiwanese consumers differentiate between
international (foreign) and local SBs in terms of brand personality
and brand leadership. It is not clear, however, whether Vietnamese
consumers would have similar perceptions. Furthermore, our results
indicate that the relationships between SB price image, SB perceived
value and SB purchase intention is similar to those found in
developed countries (e.g. Diallo et al., 2013). Therefore, qualitative
research and cross-country investigations are needed to understand
the rationale behind such results and the specificity of Vietnamese
consumers.
Notes
1. Source:
www.gba-vietnam.org/uploadfiles/file/NEWSLETTER/2013/JUNE
%20(10_05)/D_M-% 20Legal%20updates%20-%2001%20to%2015%20May_
%202013.pdf (accessed 15 April 2014).
2. Source: VietNamNet, http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/business/7859/sbv-to-keepclose-eyes- on-lendersinvestments.html (accessed 15 April 2014).

References
Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S.A. and Gedenk, K. (2001), Pursuing the value
conscious consumer: store brands versus national brand promotions,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 71-89.
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, W.J. (1987), Dimensions of consumer expertise,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 411-454.
Au-Yeung, A.Y.S. and Lu, J. (2009), Development of retailers own label
products in Taiwan,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 540554.
Bao, J., Bao, Y. and Sheng, S. (2011), Motivating purchase of private brands:
effects of store image, product signatureness, and quality variation,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 220-226.
Beneke, J., Flynn, R., Greig, T. and Mukaiwa, M. (2013), The influence of
perceived product quality, relative price and risk on customer
perceived value: a study of private label merchandise, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 218-228.
Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D., Netemeyer, R. and Garretson, J. (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, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 293-306.
Campbell, H.L., Barry, C.L., Joe, J.N. and Finney, S.J. (2008), Configural,
metric and scalar invariance of the modified achievement goal
questionnaire across African American and White university students,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 9881007.
Cao, L. and Pederzoli, D. (2013), International retailers strategic responses
to institutional environment of emerging market: multiple case studies in
China, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 41
No. 4, pp. 289-310.

Chang,
E.C.

and Luan, B. (2010), Chinese consumers perception of hypermarket store

image,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 512527.

Cheng, J.M.S., Chen, L.S.L., Lin, J.Y.C. and Wang, E.S.T. (2007), Do
consumers perceive differences among national brands, international
private labels and local private labels? The case of Taiwan, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 368-376.
Cheung, G.W. and Lau, R.S. (2008), Testing mediation and suppression
effects of latent variables: bootstrapping with structural equation
models, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 296-325.
Collins-Dodd, C. and Lindley, T. (2003), Store brand and retail differentiation:
the influence of store image and store brand attitude on store own brand
perceptions, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp.
345-352.
DAndrea, G., Schleicher, M. and Lunardini, F. (2006), The role of promotions
and other factors affecting overall store price image in Latin America,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 34 No.
9, pp. 688-700.
Diallo, M.F. (2012), Effects of store image and store brand price-image on store
brand purchase intention: application to an emerging market, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 360-367.
Diallo, M.F., Chandon, J.L., Cliquet, G. and Philippe, J. (2013), Factors
influencing consumer behaviour towards store brands: evidence from the
French market, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 422-441.
Douglas, S.P. and Craig, C.S. (2007), Collaborative and iterative translation:
an alternative approach to back translation, Journal of International Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Garretson, J.A., Fisher, D. and Burton, S. (2002), Antecedents of private
label attitude and national brand promotion attitude: similarities and
differences, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 91-99.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), An updated paradigm for scale
development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 186-192.
Ha, J. and Jang, S. (2010), Perceived values, satisfaction, and behavioral
intentions: the role of familiarity in Korean restaurants, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 2-13.
Jackson, D.L., Gillaspy, J.A. and Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009), Reporting practices
in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations,
Psychological Methods, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 6-23.
Jara, M. and Cliquet, G. (2012), Retail brand equity: conceptualization and
measurement, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No.
1, pp. 140-149.
Jin, B. and Suh, Y.G. (2005), Integrating effect of consumer perception
factors in predicting private brand purchase in a Korean discount
store context, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 62-71.
Le Monkhouse, L., Barnes, B.R. and Pham, T.S.H. (2013), Measuring Confucian
values among East Asian consumers: a four-country study, Asia Pacific
Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 320-336.
Lin, G.C., Wen, Z., Marsh, H.W. and Lin, H.S. (2010), Structural equation
models of latent interactions: clarification of orthogonalizing and doublemean-centering strategies, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 374-391.

Lin,

Y.L.,
Marshall,
D.
and
Dawson,
J. (2009),
Consume
r
attitudes
towards a
European
retailers
private
brand
food
products:
an
integrate
d model
of
Taiwanes
e
consume
rs,
Journal
of
Marketin
g
Manage
ment,
Vol.
25
Nos 9/10,
pp. 875891.

Drivers of store brand

usage

1159

IJRD
M
43,1
2

1160

Lupton, R.A., Rawlinson, D.A. and Braunstein, L.A. (2010), Private label
branding in China: what do US and Chinese students think, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 104-113.
McDonald, H., Darbyshire, P. and Jevons, C. (2000), Shop often, buy little:
the Vietnamese reaction to supermarket retailing, Journal of Global
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 53-71.
Mai, N.T.T. and Smith, K. (2012), The impact of status orientations on purchase
preference for foreign products in Vietnam, and implications for
policy and society, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 52-60.
Mandhachitara, R., Shannon, R.M. and Hadjicharalambous, C. (2008), Why
private label grocery brands have not succeeded in Asia, Journal of Global
Marketing, Vol. 20 Nos 2/3, pp. 71-87.
Martineau, P. (1958), The personality of the retail store, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 47-55.
Maruyama, M. and Trung, L.V. (2007), Traditional bazaar or supermarkets: a
probit analysis of affluent consumer perceptions in Hanoi, The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol.
17 No. 3, pp. 233-252.
Maruyama, M. and Trung, L.V. (2012), Modern retailers in transition
economies: the case of Vietnam, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 32 No.
1, pp. 31-51.
Nguyen, H.T.H., Wood, S. and Wrigley, T. (2013), The emerging food retail
structure of Vietnam: phases of expansion in a post-socialist environment,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 4 No. 18,
pp. 596-626.
Nguyen, T.T.M., Nguyen, T.D. and Barrett, N.J. (2007), Hedonic shopping
motivations, supermarket attributes, and shopper loyalty in
transitional markets: evidence from Vietnam, Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 227-239.
Nielsen
(2011a),
Vietnam
grocery
report,
available
at:
http://fr.slideshare.net/nielsenvietnam/
vietnam-grocery-report-2011
(accessed 15 June 2014).
Nielsen (2011b), Vietnamese shoppers are the most prolific promotionseekers in Asia Pacific, Document ACNielsen, available at:
www.nielsen.com/intl/vn/news-insights/
press/english/2011/vietnameseshoppers-are-the-most-prolific-promotion-seekers-in-a.
html#sthash.64M5CiYQ.dpuf (accessed 15 June 2014).
Paswan, A., Pineda, M.D.S. and Ramirez, F.C.S. (2010), Small versus large
retail stores in an emerging market-Mexico, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 667-672.
Semeijn, J., van Riel, A.C.R. and Ambrosini, B.A. (2004), Consumer
evaluations of store brands: effects of store image and product
attributes, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp.
247-258.
Sheau-Fen, Y., Sun-May, L. and Yu-Ghee, W. (2012), Store brand proneness:
effects of perceived risks, quality and familiarity, Australasian
Marketing Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Speece, M. and Huong, L.T.T. (2002), Attitudes of mini-supermarket shoppers in
Hanoi, Vietnam: a case study in the early development of modern
retailing, Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 187-212.

Speec
e
,
M
.
a
n
d
N
g
u

yen, D.P. (2005), Countering negative country-of-origin with low prices:

a conjoint study in Vietnam, Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 39-48.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), Assessing measurement
invariance in cross-national consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-90.
Swoboda, B., Pennemann, K. and Taube, M. (2012), The effects of perceived
brand globalness and perceived brand localness in China: empirical
evidence on Western, Asian, and domestic retailers, Journal of
International Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 72-95.

Wang, G., Dou, W. and Zhou, N. (2008), Consumption attitudes and adoption of
new consumer products: a contingency approach, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 1/2, pp. 238-254.
Wu, P.C.S., Yeh, G.Y.-Y. and Hsiao, C.-R. (2011), The effect of store image
and service quality on brand image and purchase intention for private
label brands, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 30-39.
Yang, A., Do, B., Wang, G.L., Chang, L.Y. and Hung, F.C. (2011), Assessing
competitiveness of foreign and local supermarket chains in
Vietnamese market by using Fuzzy TOPSIS method, E3 Journal of
Business Management and Economics, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 209-216.
Zhang, S.S., van Doorn, J. and Leeflang, P.S.H. (2014), Does the importance
of value, brand and relationship equity for customer loyalty differ
between Eastern and Western cultures, International Business Review,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 284-292.
Zielke, S. and Dobbelstein, T. (2007), Customers willingness to purchase new
store brands,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 112-121.
Further reading
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, N. (1998), The effect of store
name, brand name and price discounts on consumers evaluations and
purchase intentions, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 331-352.
Parsons, A.G., Ballantine, P.W. and Wilkinson, H. (2012), Country-of-origin
and private-label merchandise, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.
28 Nos 5/6, pp. 594-608.
About the author
Dr Mbaye Fall Diallo is an Assistant Professor at the University of Lille 2
(Institute of Retail Marketing and Management IMMD) and Member of the
LSMRC Lab (Universit de Lille-Skema Business School). He obtained his PhD in
Management Science at the Aix-Marseille University in 2011-2012. He is the
member of scientific associations including Association for Consumer
Research, Association for Education and Research in Commercial
Distribution, European Marketing Academy and the French Association of
Marketing (AFM). His research interests lie in the field of retail
internationalisation in emerging countries, store brands and quantitative data
analysis (structural equation modelling and econometrics of panel data). His
work has been published in journals such as European Business Review,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, International Business
Research, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
Service Industries Journal, Revue Management et Avenir, Revue Franaise
de Gestion, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, and in conferences
proceedings such as INFORMS Marketing Science, European Association for
Education and Research in Commercial Distribution, European Marketing
Academy, International Conference of Marketing Trends, Association
Franaise de Marketing Congress, etc. He is the author/co-author of two books
and six book chapters on retail branding and management. Additionally, he
has been a visiting scholar at the University of Brasilia (Brazil) and a Visiting
Professor at the University of Stirling (Scotland). He serves as a reviewer for
several academic journals (International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Service Industries Journal, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Economies
et Socits) and scientific conferences (AMA, EMAC, EAERCD, AFM, Etienne
THIL). Dr Mbaye Fall Diallo can be contacted at: mbayefall.diallo@univ-lille2.fr

Drivers of
store
brand
usag
e
1161

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Trnh iu khin ca vic s dng thng hiu ca hng trong mt th trng mi ni chu
: bng chng t Vit Nam
Mbaye Fall Diallo
S Marketing, IMMD, i hc Lille II, Roubaix, Php v
LSMRC Lab, SKEMA Business School, i hc Lille, Lille, Php
Tru tng
Mc ch - Mc d h ang ngy cng c cung cp bi nh bn l ln chu , ca
hng thng hiu (BGS) cha c hiu r cc nc chu . Mc ch ca bi vit ny
l iu tra lm th no ca hng v thng hiu cp yu t nh hng s dng ca
ngi tiu dng ca BGS mt nc chu mi ni.
Thit k / phng php / cch tip cn - Mt cuc kho st ngi tiu dng, da trn mu
ca 445 ngi tr li, c thc hin trong hai chui bn l hin i cnh tranh Vit
Nam. M hnh phng trnh cu trc c s dng kim tra cc gi thuyt nghin cu.
Mt bin tng tc tim tng c to ra kim tra s iu tit ca ca hng quen
thuc. Kt qu nghin cu - Kt qu ch ra rng hnh nh gi SB, thi ca ngi tiu
dng i vi BGS v SB nhn thc nh hng gi tr mnh m nht SB s dng Vit
Nam, trong khi nhn thc ca ca hng nh khng c tc dng trc tip trn . Mt s
mi quan h iu tra khc nhau gia cc nh dng lu tr. Nhn chung, ca hng quen
thuc c nh hng trc tip yu vo cch s dng SB, nhng hiu ng tng tc ca n
khc nhau ty thuc vo nh dng lu tr.
Hn ch nghin cu / tc ng - Nghin cu ny c gii hn bi v n iu tra ch c
mt quc gia chu v hai chui bn l. Bn cnh , n khng gii thch c tc dng
ca cc loi sn phm v s dng SB.
ngha thc tin - Kt qu nghin cu cho thy mt hnh nh ca hng tch cc l khng
tng vic s dng ca ngi tiu dng ca BGS ti Vit Nam. Cc nh bn l nn
c bit cn thn khi thit k ca hng bn l ti th trng ny, ni ngi tiu dng dng
nh gn lin vi truyn thng. Kt qu ni bt tm quan trng ca cc bin php pht
trin thi tch cc hn i vi BGS. Ngoi ra, ca hng quen thuc c tc dng yu trn
SB mua v do nn c theo di cn thn hn bi cc chui bn l ang hot ng ti
Vit Nam.
c o / gi tr - nghin cu ny l ngi u tin gii quyt vic s dng ca ngi
tiu dng Vit ca BGS. Ngc li vi cc i tc ca h cc nc ang pht trin khc,

ngi tiu dng Vit Nam khng da nhiu vo ca hng hnh nh khi mua BGS. Trng
tm ca h l kh v thng hiu gi tr nhn thc. Nhng kt qu ny thch thc quan
nim thng thng rng cc thuc tnh nh hng gi tr thc dng thp cho ngi tiu
dng chu .
Keywords Vit Nam, ca hng thng hiu, gi tr thng hiu, nhn thc hnh nh, ca
hng quen thuc, nh dng ca hng
Loi giy giy Nghin cu
1. Gii thiu
Mc d c mt s iu kin thun li trong khu vc chu , chng hn nh thu nhp cao
hn nhng ngi mua hng tp ha Chu, ca hng thng hiu (BGS - c nhiu
chit khu thng hiu tp ha trong tng phn vi cc thng hiu quc gia) khng
t c thnh cng tng t chu so vi cc nc phng Ty (Mandhachitara et
al ., 2008). BGS ang ngy cng tp trung iu tra ca cc hc gi tip th v quan tm
qun l bn l trong bi cnh chu (Au-Yeung v Lu, 2009; Jin v Suh, 2005;. Lin et al,
2009). Nghin cu chuyn mn cng nhn mnh tim nng ca BGS chu trong
nhng nm ti (Nielsen, 2011a). Cc nh bn l ang hot ng ti chu cng ang n
lc tn dng BGS nh mt cch ci thin hnh nh ca hng v ca hng giao thng
(Wu et al., 2011) v tng li nhun bn l (Au-Yeung v Lu, 2009). Tuy nhin, hnh vi ca
ngi tiu dng i vi sn phm SB l t hiu mt nc km pht trin mi ni nh
Vit Nam, bt chp s hin i ha ngy cng tng ca th trng bn l, nhng thay i
v th ch c thc hin bi c quan cng quyn thc y u t trc tip nc ngoi
v s pht trin ca sn phm SB dao ng. Hin nghin cu trn BGS cc nc ang
pht trin l tp trung vo cc nc BRIC (Brazil, Nga, n v Trung Quc); Tuy nhin,
mt s hiu bit tt hn v hnh vi ca ngi tiu dng i vi bn l hin i ti cc th
trng mi ni khc l cn thit (Mai v Smith, 2012). Nguyen et al. (2013) gn y
nhn mnh tm quan trng ca s hiu bit v lnh vc bn l Vit. Tht vy, cc nh bn
l quc t hin c mt ti nhiu quc gia ang pht trin v cn phi c nhng hiu bit su
vo SB chin lc thch ng cc th trng ny vi bi cnh vn ha khc nhau.
Nghin cu trc y v chu iu tra mt s bin lin quan n BGS, chng hn
nh gi c v cht lng nhn thc (Lupton et al., 2010), sng kin ci tin (Jin v Suh,
2005), nhn thc ca ngi tiu dng v ngun gc hng bn l (Cheng et al., 2007 ) v
cc thuc tnh lu tr (Wu et al., 2011). Tuy nhin, cc nh nghin cu a ra t quen
thuc ca ngi tiu dng ch trong cc nghin cu trc v chu , mc d n c
nhiu ngha quan qun l ti cc th trng chu mi ni. Chui bn l hin i phi
i mt vi s cnh tranh t cc ca hng bn l truyn thng chu , c bit l Vit
Nam, ni m phong cch truyn thng ca mua sm vn cn chim u th (Maruyama v
Trung, 2007). Do , c mt nhu cu cho mt s hiu bit tt hn v hnh vi ca ngi
tiu dng SB t nc ny so vi cc nn kinh t mi ni chu v khc khc. Tht
vy, ngi tiu dng ti cc th trng mi ni khng phi l mt nhm ng nht. Nh
vy, mi quc gia mi ni cn c iu tra ring, hiu bn cht c o ca n v
ph hp p ng nhu cu ca ngi tiu dng ca mnh (Cao v Pederzoli, 2013).

Do , mc ch ca nghin cu ny l iu tra lm th no ca hng v thng hiu

cp yu t nh hng SB s dng trong chui bn l khc nhau trong mt t nc ang
pht trin chu (Vit Nam). Do , bi vit ny gp phn vo vic nghin cu cc cch
sau y hin c: u tin, chng ti xut v th nghim mt m hnh khi nim iu
tra tc ng ca ca hng v thng hiu cp cc yu t trn vic s dng SB mt t
nc mi ni (Vit Nam). Ngi tiu dng Vit ang sng trong mt thi k qu y
thch thc, trong h phi a ra la chn gia hin i v truyn thng (Mai v Smith,
2012). Tht vy, s gia tng ca bn l hin i tng phn vi s hin din ca cc ca
hng bn l truyn thng ti Vit Nam, v ngi tiu dng phi quyt nh bn l khu vc
bo tr da trn sc mua (Maruyama v Trung, 2012). Th hai, chng ti nh gi trc
tip v hiu qu qun lu tr quen thuc c trn khung xut. Quen iu tra ca ngi
tiu dng vi cc ca hng l rt quan trng trong cc th trng mi ni, trong ngi
tiu dng c t c hi bo tr cc ca hng bn l hin i, bi v hu ht mi ngi vn
mua ti cc ca hng bn l truyn thng (Maruyama v Trung, 2007). Chng ti nh gi
c trc tip v tc ng iu ha ca ca hng quen thuc trong cng mt m hnh,
cung cp cho mt ci nhn ton din hn v bn cht ca cc mi quan h gia cc ca
hng quen thuc v s dng SB mt t nc mi ni.
Cc t chc ca bi bo nh sau. u tin, chng ti trnh by cc l thuyt v pht trin
cc gi thuyt ca chng ti. Th hai, chng ti gii thch cc phng php nghin cu,
da trn cuc kho st ngi tiu dng Vit. Th ba, chng ti m t cc kt qu bc-bystep, bao gm o lng v th nghim gi thuyt. Cui cng, chng ti tho lun v cc
kt qu v lm ni bt ngha l lun v qun l pht sinh t h, cng nh con ng
nghin cu.
Da trn nghin cu trc y v vic tiu th cc sn phm hin i ti Vit
Nam (Maruyama v Trung, 2007; McDonald et al, 2000;. Speece v Hng,
2002). V cc nc chu mi ni ni chung (Cheng et al, 2007; Jin v Suh
nm 2005;. Wu et al, 2011), mt s yu t c cho l s nh hng n SB s
dng Vit Nam. S dng SB dng ch mt hnh vi mua hot ng bao
gm c tm kim BGS v mua chng mt cch hiu qu trong cc chuyn i
mua sm (Ailawadi et al., 2001). Tuy nhin, cc bin mc lu tr (v d nh
hnh nh ca hng, ca hng quen thuc) v cp thng hiu (v d nh SB
gi tr cm nhn, SB thi ) c kh nng nh hng n hnh vi ca ngi
tiu dng cc nc ang pht trin ni chung (Cheng et al, 2007. Jin v Suh,
2005). V vy, h l nhng trng tm ca nghin cu ny. Gi tr c bit, SB
nhn thc c chn thay v cht lng cm nhn bi v chng ti nghin
cu BGS chnh l gi tr tp trung hn BGS cao cp (v tr trn cht lng)
nhiu hn. i li, SB nh gi c iu tra bi v n l nng ng hn (a
chiu) so vi cc cu trc khc c phn tch trc y trong literative v
chu (v d nh thc v gi c v gi nhn thc) v n phn nh nhn thc
ca ca hng nh. Chng ti phn tch mt b c lin quan ca cc yu t ny
da trn cc nghin cu ni trn v pht trin cc gi thuyt nghin cu trc
khi trnh by mt m hnh khi nim phi c kim tra bng thc nghim.
nh hng ca hnh nh lu tr v hnh nh SB gi
Martineau (1958) xc nh tr nh nh nhn thc ca cc ca hng m gip

ngi tiu dng nh gi ca cc ca hng. C th hn, lu tr hnh nh c

nh hnh trong tm tr ca ngi mua sm mt phn bi cht chc nng v
mt phn ca mt lot cc thuc tnh tm l (Collins-Dodd v Lindley, 2003).
SB nh gi c th c nh ngha nh l mt i din ton cu v mc
tng i ca gi ca BGS, bao gm c li ch (tm l) ti chnh v phi ti
chnh (Jara v Cliquet, 2012).
Cc nghin cu trc thit lp cc mi quan h gia nhn thc lu tr hnh
nh trong cc th trng mi ni (Diallo, 2012; Wu et al, 2011.). Trong bi cnh
Vit Nam, Maruyama v Trung (2012) cho thy cc du hiu lu tr hnh nh
gi l "dch v v hot ng" ng mt vai tr quan trng i vi ngi tiu
dng Vit mua sm ti cc ca hng bn l hin i (cc nh bn l trong nc
v nc ngoi) so vi cc ca hng truyn thng (ch truyn thng v gia nh
chy cc ca hng). H bo co mt s thuc tnh lu tr hnh nh ng
gp mnh m cho hiu sut bn l (v d nh mi trng mua sm, trng by
sn phm, dch v, qung co v xc tin v thi ca nhn vin bn hng).
Nhng kt qu nghin cu trc y khng nh trong bi cnh chu , cho
thy nhn thc ca ca hng nh tch cc nh hng n hnh vi ca ngi
tiu dng i vi cc sn phm bn l v thng hiu (Wu et al., 2011). H
cng ph hp vi l thuyt s dng cue, trong ni rng ca hng hnh nh
c th l mt yu t quyt nh cht lng sn phm v nhn thc (Semeijn et
al., 2004). V vy, cc hip hi v cc nh gi ca hng ca hng c th c
tng qut cho BGS bn ti cc ca hng (Collins-Dodd v Lindley, 2003).
Chang v Lun (2010) cng cho thy rng kch thc lu tr hnh nh nh kho
kh quyn, nhn vin phc v v hng ha chnh l yu t quan trng trong
nhn thc ca ngi tiu dng Trung Quc 'ca bn l hin i. Nguyen et al.
(2007) cung cp bng chng cho thy nhn thc lu tr hnh nh c tc
ng tch cc n hnh vi ca ngi tiu dng i vi ngi tiu dng Vit.
Trong bi cnh , Diallo (2012) cho thy nhn thc ca ca hng nh nh
hng n c hai mua SB v SB nh gi trong bi cnh ca mt t nc mi
ni. V vy, chng ti xut cc gi thuyt sau y:
H1A. Nhn thc lu gi nh ca ngi tiu dng c nh hng tch cc i vi
vic s dng SB.
H1B. Nhn thc lu gi nh ca ngi tiu dng c nh hng tch cc trn SB
nh gi.
Nhn thc gi ni chung c coi l mt yu t quan trng trong s thnh
cng ca cc cng ty cc nc mi ni (Beneke et al, 2013;. Speece v
Nguyn, 2005). Nghin cu trc y trong bi cnh chu cho thy rng
cc nh bn l a phng v truyn thng c li th cnh tranh so vi gi bn
l quc t (Cheng et al., 2007). Bo et al. (2011) cho thy SB hnh nh, ch
yu c hnh thnh bi nhng nhn thc gi, tch cc nh hng n SB
nh mua. Trong bi cnh cc nc mi ni, Diallo (2012) tm thy mt tc
ng ng k ca SB nh gi trn SB nh mua Brazil. Trong bi cnh Vit
Nam, Nielsen (2011b) nhn mnh vai tr quan trng ca gi c v khuyn mi
cho ngi tiu dng. Speece v Nguyn (2005) cng cp n vn nhn
thc hnh nh gi thng hiu lin quan n t nc-of-x (COO) hnh nh ti
Vit Nam. H ch ra rng ct gi bi cc thng hiu Hn Quc lm rt t
thu ht khch hng t cht lng cm nhn cao hn cc thng hiu Nht

Bn. Bi v BGS c nh v trn li th v gi so vi cc thng hiu quc

gia, chng ti hy vng rng SB nh gi s c nh hng tch cc i vi vic s
dng SB, nh c quan st thy cc nc ang pht trin khc (v d
nh Diallo, 2012). Nh mt h qu, chng ti thc hin vic khu tr sau y:

H2. SB nh gi c nh hng tch cc i vi vic s dng SB.

nh hng ca SB gi tr cm nhn v thi
Trong cc nghin cu hin ti, chng ti xc nh gi tr nhn thc (sau y mt cch tip
cn thc dng) nh mong mun tr gi thp cho mt sn phm kim duyt bi mt s hn
ch cht lng (Burton et al., 1998). Thi ca ngi tiu dng i vi BGS cp n
mt nh gi tng hp ca mt sn phm SB hnh thnh theo thi gian (Burton et al,
1998;. Jin v Suh, 2005).
Nghin cu cc nc ang pht trin thnh lp cc hiu ng tch cc ca gi tr nhn
thc v hnh vi mua SB trong bi cnh chu (Jin v Suh, 2005), m cn cc nc mi
ni nh Brazil (Diallo, 2012). Speece v Hng (2002) cho thy ngi tiu dng trung lu
th Vit Nam ang mnh gi tr nh hng trong hnh vi mua sm ca h, vi mong
mun cht lng kh tt v dch v m cn gi bao thanh ton vo cn nhc ca h. Do
, v BGS c nh gi cao v tr trn li ch thit thc (Beneke et al, 2013;.. Diallo et
al, 2013), chng ti tha nhn rng ngi tiu dng Vit s da trn SB gi tr cm nhn
trong hnh vi mua sm ca h trong bn l hin i. BGS lm c li th l c th tip cn
vi ngi tiu dng trung lu Vit (Nielsen, 2011a). Vi nh v gi tr thc dng ca h,
h to thnh mt thay th cho thng hiu quc gia v mt mua tt so vi cc sn phm
c bn ti cc ca hng bn l truyn thng. Do :
H3a. SB gi tr nhn thc c nh hng tch cc i vi vic s dng SB.
Cc nghin cu trc cc nc mi ni cng nhn mnh n nh hng ca gi tr
nhn thc v thi ca ngi tiu dng i vi BGS. V d, Jin v Suh (2005) nhn
mnh mt nh hng ng k v tch cc ca gi tr nhn thc v thi SB chu
(Hn Quc). Kt qu nh vy trc y c thnh lp trong bi cnh khc (Burton et al.,
1998). Do , chng ti mong i mt mi quan h tch cc gia SB gi tr nhn thc v
thi ca ngi tiu dng i vi BGS ti th trng Vit Nam. Vi v tr cht lng gi
ca h, BGS thc s to thnh mt phng tin hp l cho ngi tiu dng Vit c th tip
cn vi cc sn phm hin i cht lng cao (Nielsen, 2011a). V vy, chng ti xut:
H3b. SB gi tr nhn thc c nh hng tch cc n thi i vi BGS.
Nghin cu trc y ch ra rng thi i vi BGS c nh hng tch cc n hnh
vi mua ca ngi tiu dng (Burton et al., 1998). Tng t nh vy, nghin cu cc
nc ang pht trin thc nghim thnh lp cc nh hng tch cc ca thi i vi
BGS v hnh vi mua ca ngi tiu dng chu (Jin v Suh, 2005). BGS l tng i
mi chu (Au-Yeung v Lu, 2009), v ngi tiu dng ti cc th trng mi ni ni
chung c mt thi thun li i vi sn phm mi (Wang et al., 2008). Wang et al.
(2008) cng cho thy thi ca ngi tiu dng Trung Quc i vi cc sn phm mi
c tc dng tch cc n hnh vi tiu dng ca h. Maruyama v Trung (2012) bo co
rng ngi tiu dng Vit Nam c mt s chp nhn ngy cng tng ca loi hnh bn l
hin i cung cp cc sn phm SB mi, c bit l cc khu vc th. Do , chng ti

d on rng:
H4. Thi i vi BGS c mt nh hng tch cc i vi vic s dng SB.
nh hng trc tip v iu ha ca nhng ca hng quen thuc
Alba v Hutchinson (1987) nh ngha quen thuc nh "s lng cc sn phm lin quan
n kinh nghim c tch ly ca ngi tiu dng" (p. 411). cc nc ang pht
trin, ca hng quen thuc l mt yu t quan trng trong vic nh gi tr nh v trong
vic gii thch hnh vi tiu th. Lin et al. (2009) bo co mt kt lun tng t cho s quen
thuc thng hiu, phng gim nhn thc ri ro lin quan BGS ti th trng i Loan.
Ca hng quen thuc cng l mt thnh phn ca kin thc ca ngi tiu dng ca cc
nh bn l. Trong thc t, ngi tiu dng th trng mi ni 'vi ca hng quen thuc hn
s c kin thc tt hn v cc ca hng bn l v nhiu c hi pht trin mi quan h
vi cc ca hng nhn s. Cng dng ny, Paswan et al. (2010) nhn mnh rng ngi tiu
dng ti cc th trng mi ni c th thch cc ca hng bn l nh hn bi v h quen
thuc vi cc ch s hu ca hng a phng hoc nhn vin. Theo Sheau-Fen et al.
(2012), vai tr ca s quen thuc tr nn quan trng hn trong vic tc ng tiu dng la
chn v ra quyt nh cho BGS c mua thng xuyn. H cng cho rng ca hng quen
thuc c tc dng tch cc n hnh vi mua SB hai quc gia chu : Malaysia v Trung
Quc. Cc l do tng t c th c m rng vi bi cnh ca Vit Nam, trong mt s
ngi tiu dng c quyn truy cp nhiu hn bn l hin i v nhng ngi khc vn
mua sm ca h ti cc ca hng bn l truyn thng (Maruyama v Trung, 2012; Nguyn
et al, 2013.). Do , chng ti a ra gi thuyt rng:
H5. Ca hng quen thuc c tc dng tch cc i vi vic s dng SB.
Hn na, mc d ch c mt vi nghin cu tp trung vo cc tc ng iu ha ca
nhng ca hng quen thuc cc nc mi ni (v d nh H v Jang, 2010;. Paswan et
al, 2010), chng ti k vng mc ca ca hng quen nh hng ng k mi quan h
gia vic s dng v SB tin thn ca n (tc l hnh nh ca hng, SB hnh gi c, thi
ca ngi tiu dng i vi BGS v SB gi tr cm nhn). Trong thc t, ngi tiu dng
Vit c mc khc nhau ca kinh nghim vi bn l hin i da trn thi quen thu nhp
v tiu dng ca h. Mt s ngi tiu dng thng mua sm ti cc ca hng hin i,
trong khi nhng ngi khc mua hng ti cc ca hng bn l truyn thng (Nguyen et al,
2013;. Maruyama v Trung, 2012). Do , ngi tiu dng Vit vi ca hng quen thuc
hn s d hn pht trin nhn thc tch cc ca hnh nh ca hng, SB hnh gi c v
SB gi tr hn nhng ngi c ca hng quen thuc thp hn. V d, mt nhn thc tch
cc ca cc ca hng hnh nh kt hp vi mt mc cao hn ca s quen thuc s dn
n mt cp cao hn ca nh mua Vit Nam. Chng ti cng d on rng mt SB
tch cc hnh nh gi s n mc cao hn ca s quen thuc dn n nh mua hng
cao hn. Trong thc t, ngi tiu dng Vit vi ca hng quen thuc cao hn vn c xu
hng tp trung vo nhn thc v gi v sc mua ca h thp hn so vi cc i tc
phng Ty ca h. Ngoi ra, bi v nhng ngi tiu dng c kinh nghim nhiu hn vi
BGS, h pht trin thi thun li hn i vi BGS nh s tng tc gia cc ca hng
quen thuc v SB thi dn n nh mua hng cao hn SB. Paswan et al. (2010) bo
co m hnh tiu th tng t mt nc mi ni (Mexico), ni m cc nh bn l nh

hn thc hin tt do ca hng quen thuc hn. Vai tr iu ha ca s quen thuc cng
c chng minh trong bi cnh chu ca H v Jang (2010), ngi ch ra rng
Hn Quc nhn thc gi tr nh hng n nh mua hng theo nhng cch khc nhau
ty thuc vo mc quen thuc ca ngi tiu dng. Da trn nhng nhn xt ny,
chng ti xut cc gi thuyt sau y:
H6a. Mt mc cao hn ca ca hng quen thuc gn lin vi nhn thc ca ca hng
hnh nh tch cc nh hng tch cc s dng SB.
H6b. Mt mc cao hn ca ca hng quen thuc gn lin vi mt hnh nh tch cc nh
hng n gi SB tch cc s dng SB.
H6c. Mt mc cao hn ca ca hng quen thuc gn lin vi mt gi tr SB nhn thc
tch cc nh hng tch cc ca hng s dng thng hiu.
H6d. Mt mc cao hn ca ca hng quen thuc gn lin vi mt thi tch cc i
vi BGS nh hng n vic s dng tch cc SB.
Hnh 1 trnh by m hnh khi nim ca chng ti v tm tt cc gi thuyt nghin cu.
3. Phng php lun v nghin cu thc nghim
Nghin cu ny c da trn mt cuc kho st c thc hin ti th trng Vit Nam.
Chng ti chn Vit Nam l mt trng tm cho c l thuyt v thc tin. u tin,
Nguyen et al. (2013) nhn mnh rng Vit Nam l mt nn kinh t sau qu trnh chuyn
i c bit ng thm d cho nhng thch thc cng ty cp ni ting cho cc nh bn
l trong vic t c s chp nhn ca hnh thc bn l phng Ty ca h. Th hai, theo
Maruyama v Trung (2012), trong khi cc nh bn l truyn thng (cc nh bn l trn th
trng m t v cc ca hng gia nh-chy) tip tc bao la ng hn cc nh bn l hin
i, s pht trin ca ngnh kinh doanh bn l hin i c n tng Vit Nam, xy
ra nh n c trn mt khong thi gian tng i ngn. Ngoi ra, cc doanh nghip bn
l nhn ra rng th trng Vit Nam vn l mt tim nng rt ln, bi v nhu cu ca ngi
tiu dng Vit khng hon ton hi lng. V d, cc nh bn l Php Auchan d nh
u t 500 triu euro vo Vit Nam trong mi nm ti, v cng ty bn l hng u ca
Singapore, NTUC FairPrice v Saigon Co.op ca Vit Nam c cp php thnh lp
mt lin doanh bng cch m hai siu chui -supermarket [1]. Mc d l BGS vn cha
c pht trin Vit Nam, cc nh bn l ang c gng th trng cc dng sn phm
vi nhn hiu ring ca h v tin rng trong nhng nm ti mt trong bn sn phm s
c thng hiu ring ca mnh [2]. Hn na, theo cc xu hng 2011 Nielsen Shopper,
BGS l 15-30 phn trm thp hn gi hn cc nhn hiu nh sn xut ti Vit Nam; do ,
h s l mt cng c rt thch hp cho vic nhm vo tng lp trung lu mi ni ti Vit
Nam (Nielsen, 2011a).
Thu thp d liu
D liu c thu thp bng cch s dng mt bng cu hi c qun l bi
cc nh iu tra (ghi danh trong cc lp hc qun l) c o to c bit
cho cc cuc kho st nh trong Paswan et al. (2010). Ngi bn ng ca i
Vit back-dch cc cu hi, sau khun kh hp tc dch thut v lp i lp li
ngh ca Douglas v Craig (2007). Tr li c chn li trong khi mua
sm ti Big C (mt i siu th) v ti Fivimart (siu th) ti H Ni thng ba
nm 2010. Chng ti chn H Ni v n c mt i din tt p ca bn l

hin i (cng vi Thnh ph H Ch Minh) ti Vit Nam (Maruyama v Trung,

2012). Ngoi ra, n l mt a im m khch hng quen thuc hn vi bn l
hin i bi v h thng xuyn i n cc siu th cho cc nhu cu hng
ngy ca h (Yang et al., 2011). La chn ca chng ta v hai chui bn l
da trn cc tiu ch: th nht, y l mt trong nhng nh lnh o trong th
trng bn l Vit Nam; th hai, h c phm vi rng nht ca cc sn phm
SB Vit Nam; v th ba, h nhm vo phn khc ngi tiu dng cng
(ngi tiu dng th vi trung bnh n cao thu nhp cp). Hn na, v hai
chui bn l hot ng hai nh dng ca hng khc nhau, nhm mc tiu
chng cho php chng ta xem xt vn nh vs cc ca hng ln ti cc th
trng mi ni, sau Paswan et al. (2010). To ra vo nm 1998, Big C l mt
cng ty con thuc s hu ca cc nh bn l Casino ca Php. N l mt nh
tin phong u ca cc nh dng siu th ti Vit Nam v cc nh lnh o
th trng do m hnh tng trng v nhng n lc ca mnh c li cho mi
trng kinh t v x hi ca cc ca hng ca mnh. Fivimart l mt chui
siu th a phng iu hnh bi cng ty Nht Nam v thnh lp vo nm
1997. N c 16 ca hng H Ni nh thng su nm 2013. Trong nm 2012,
Fivimart vo danh sch Top 500 nh bn l tt nht trong khu vc Chu
Thi Bnh Dng.
Chng ti hi ngi tr li tham kho r rng "thng hiu vi tn nh
bn l", trng tm ca nghin cu ny. Khi h s ri ro c th c s khc bit
ng k gia cc loi sn phm (ZIELKE v Dobbelstein, 2007), chng ti gii
thiu n cc sn phm thc phm, chng hn nh nc tri cy v sa
chua, ni BGS thng mua ti Vit Nam. V nhng l do cho vic mua sm c
th thay i ty thuc vo thi gian trong ngy v cc ngy trong tun,
chng ti thu thp d liu ti thi im khc nhau trong ngy v vo nhng
ngy khc nhau trong tun. Qu trnh thu thp d liu cho php chng ta thu
thp mt mu tng th ca 445 ngi tr li. Cc d liu bao gm mt mu
chung ca 173 ngi tr li cho phn tch nhn t khm ph v mt mu phi
sinh vin ca 272 bng cu hi c th s dng phn tch cui cng (NBig C
130 v NFivimart 142). Tr li c phn phi tt trn tui, gii
tnh, thu nhp h gia nh v gio dc (Bng I). Khng c khc bit c ngha
gia hai phn khc da trn x hi-nhn khu hc. Nhn chung, ngi tr li
c xu hng l t 26 n 49 tui (51 phn trm), thuc v tng lp trung /
cao thu nhp Vit Nam (53 phn trm c mt gia nh thu nhp t nht $
900 mi thng), l n ( 59 phn trm) v c gio dc tt (hn 50 phn
trm c t nht mt bng c nhn). o lng cc bin
Chng ti la chn cc cng c o lng da trn tiu dng v th trng
c im ca Vit Nam (mt th trng bn l km pht trin). V vy, o
lng nhn thc lu tr hnh nh, chng ti s dng chn mc t Semeijn et
al. (2004). H c phn phi trn ba kha cnh: b tr, hng ha v dch v.
Nhng mt hng tng t nh cc nh nghin cu s dng trong cc nghin
cu trc cc nc ang pht trin, lm cho so snh hn na kh thi hn
(xem Chang v Luan, 2010;. Nguyen et al, 2007). Chng ti o SB nh gi vi
su mt hng c chuyn th t nghin cu trc cc nc mi ni
(Diallo, 2012). SB gi tr nhn thc c o lin quan n bn thng s c
chuyn th t Burton et al. (1998). Thi ca ngi tiu dng i vi BGS
c o vi bn mc chuyn th t Garretson et al. (2002). Hai vy cng
c s dng bi Jin v Suh (2005) v tm thy l ph hp trong bi cnh
chu (Hn Quc). SB s dng (bin ph thuc) c o bng cch s dng
ba mc chuyn th t Ailawadi et al. (2001). i vi ca hng quen thuc,
chng ti s dng mt bin php quan gm hai tham s (tn s ca cc ca
hng ln trong mt thng v thi gian ca cc ca hng s dng) c
chuyn th t Diallo et al. (2013). S dng cc bin php khch quan gip
trnh nhng hn ch lin quan n quy m t bo co rng c th dn n s
nhm ln vi cc yu t c bn khc.
4. Phn tch v nh gi kt qu m hnh o lng

Phn tch nhn t khm ph (n 173) cho php u tin kim tra 'tri
(W0.5) v vy' mt hng tin cy (W 0.7) trong bi cnh Vit Nam. Sau
chng ti th nghim m hnh o lng trong nghin cu ny s dng
phn tch nhn t chng (n 272), xc minh mc m cc c im k
thut ca chng ti trong nhng yu t ph hp vi cc d liu thc t
(Gerbing v Anderson, 1988). Chng ti s dng c lng kh nng ti a v
bootstrapping trn ma trn hip phng sai vi Amos 18. nh gi m
hnh o lng ph hp, ba loi ch s ph hp (tuyt i, gia tng v tiu
dng tit kim) c s dng, sau nhng li ngh ca Jackson et al.
(2009). Ch s ph hp vi cc m hnh o lng ca tng th ch t yu cu
m hnh ph hp (2 315,88, df 330, po 0,70; RMSEA 0,019; CFI 1;
TLI 1 v 2 / df 0,95). S thng nht ni b ca mi ca cc cu trc
c y v tin cy composite () gi tr l trn cc tiu ch ct c
xut (0,7) trong mi mu (Bng II). Bng II cng cho thy rng hiu lc hi t
ca cc cu trc c thc hin bi v cc gi tr AVE (VC) u ln hn 0,5
(Fornell v Larcker, 1981). Hiu lc phn bit ca cc cu trc c h tr bi
v gi tr AVE ca cc cu trc ln hn mi tng quan bnh phng ca h
(Fornell v Larcker, 1981) (Bng II).
Tip theo chng ti xc minh bt bin o cc kt qu c th c kim tra
v gii thch qua hai chui bn l iu tra. Nghin cu trc y cho rng t
nht hai cp chnh ca bt bin cn t c: bt bin configural v metric
(Steenkamp v Baumgartner, 1998). Bt bin Configural nh gi xem cc
cu trc c bn yu t gi cho hai nhm, trong khi bt bin s liu cp n
mc m cc mi quan h gia cc yu t v cc mt hng tng ng
gia hai nhm (Campbell et al., 2008). Chng ti c tnh cc m hnh o
lng qua cc chui bn l v tm thy mt ph hp tt cho c hai mu: Big
C: 2 386,78, df 330, p 0,017; RMSEA 0,037; CFI 0,97; TLI 0,97
v 2 / df 1,17; Fivimart: 2 375,77, df 330, p 0,042; RMSEA
0,031; CFI 0,97; TLI 0,97 v 2 / df 1,13. Nhng kt qu ny cho tha
ng bt bin configural. Chng ti sau xc nhn bt bin s liu thng
qua kim tra mt vng ng bng 2 (mt so snh gia mt m hnh c tnh
mt cch t do v mt m hnh trong ti trng c hn ch n bnh
ng). Chng ti tm thy bt bin t yu cu s liu: 2 (df) 16.71 (19), p
W 0.05. Nh vy, tha ng bt bin o lng c thc hin v so snh c
ngha c th c thc hin gia hai chui bn l. M hnh cu trc v gi
thuyt chnh
Trc khi th nghim cc gi thuyt, kt cu m hnh ph hp cn c nh
gi. Cc kt qu ca m hnh d chng trnh ph hp vi cc ch s t yu
cu, da trn mc chp nhn trong cc nghin cu trc (mu tng
th: 2 654,79, df 339, po 0.00; RMSEA 0,059; CFI 0,92; TLI 0,92;
v 2 / df 1,93). Kt qu tng t cng thu c trong subsamples t Big C
(2 569,54, df 339, po 0.00; RMSEA 0,073; CFI 0,89; TLI 0,88;
v 2 / df 1,68) v Fivimart (2 531,91, df 339, po 0.00; RMSEA
0,064; CFI 0,91; TLI 0,90; v 2 / df 1,56). Do , thch hp kt lun
rng
m hnh gi thuyt c th chp nhn ph hp vi cc d liu. Hn na, kt
qu cho thy cc yu t d bo gii thch mt s tin ln ca phng sai
trong cc bin ph thuc: SB
0,58, R2
0,59 v R2
0,59.
Bng III cho thy cc h s cu trc c lng m hnh ca chng ti. Cc
tc dng ca ca hng
nhn thc hnh nh v cch s dng SB l khng ng k (p W 0,05), m t
chi H1A. Tuy nhin, nh gi v tc ng gin tip, thng qua bootstrapping
(xem Cheung v Lau, 2008), cho thy nhn thc ca ca hng nh nh hng
ng k SB s dng thng qua s trung gian ca hnh nh gi SB ( 0.22,

po 0.01). Kt qu ny c ngha l cho ngi tiu dng Vit, lu tr hnh nh

tr nn mt yu t quyt nh s dng SB ch khi li ha gi SB c ng
nghim. H1B c h tr bi v nhn thc ca ca hng nh nh hng ng
k SB nh gi. Sau ny c mt tc ng tch cc trn SB s dng, h tr H2.
Tuy nhin, mi quan h ny l khng ng k trong Fivimart (siu th), cho
thy rng chui bn l ny c ci thin chin lc gi SB ca n. NHNN
nhn thc nh hng gi tr khng ch s dng SB, m cn thi i vi
BGS. Nhng kt qu ny h tr cho H3a v H3b v cho thy rng gi tr cm
nhn l mt yu t quan trng i vi ngi tiu dng Vit, bt k nh dng
bn l. Hn na, phn tch thin cho thy gi tr nhn thc c tc ng gin
tip SB s dng ( 0.13, po 0.01). H4 cng c h tr, bi v thi ca
ngi tiu dng i BGS c mt tc ng ng k vo cch s dng SB,
nhng hiu qu l khng ng k ti Big C (siu th). Tng t nh vy, ca
hng quen thuc c mt tc ng ng k trn SB s dng ( 0,25, po
0.01), h tr H5. Hiu ng ny l, tuy nhin, mnh m hn cho Big C so vi
Fivimart, tri ngc vi nhng pht hin trc ti cc quc gia mi ni
khc (Paswan et al, 2010.). nh gi sc mnh ca cc kt qu lin quan
n kch thc mu, chng ti s dng cc th tc bootstrapping trong Amos
18 (Bootstrap BC, 1.000 ln lp li, CI 95 phn trm), theo khuyn ngh ca
Cheung v Lau (2008). Chng ti tm thy kt qu n nh bi v cc h s c
ngha tng t vi cc mu bootstrap, c ngha rng kt qu l khng c
kh nng b kch thc mu. Chng ti tho lun v cc kt qu trong phn
kt lun. Kim duyt cc ca hng quen thuc v nh hng ca bin s
nh gi hiu qu iu ha ca nhng ca hng quen thuc, chng ti to
ra cc bin tng tc tim tng bng cch s dng Amos 18. gii quyt
vn a cng tuyn, dn n s mt n nh trong vic c lng cc h
s, double-bnh nh tm c thc hin, theo khuyn ngh ca Lin et al.
(2010). Do , i vi mi bin tng tc tim tng, u tin chng ta tp
trung mi bin quan st v sau to thnh cc sn phm v hn gia li n.
kim tra thng k s iu tit ca ca hng quen thuc, chng ti kim
tra t-kim tra v p-gi tr lin quan n nh hng ca cc bin tng tc
tim tng. Bng IV cho thy khng c hiu ng tng tc c ngha trong cc
mu tng th, trong bc b H6a, H6b, H6c v H6d. Tuy nhin, m hnh d
ton trong subsamples ch ra ba tc ng iu ha ca ca hng quen thuc
cho Big C lin quan n nhn thc ca ca hng nh ( 0.24, po 0,05), SB
gi tr cm nhn ( 0,25, po 0.01) v thi i vi BGS ( 0,26 , po
0.01). Nhng pht hin ny nhn mnh rng s quen thuc cha phi l yu
t hng u ti th trng Vit Nam, ngc li vi cc nc phng Ty (Diallo
et al., 2013) v cc quc gia mi ni nh Mexico (Paswan et al., 2010). Tuy
nhin, nhng kt qu ni bt s khc bit gia Big C (nh dng ln hn) v
Fivimart (nh dng nh hn) trong cc iu khon ca ca hng quen thuc,
mc d nhng kt qu ny cn c xem xt thn trng v khong bootstrap
cho thy kh nng khng c ngha, ty thuc vo kch thc mu (Bng
IV ). Chng ti tho lun v cc kt qu ny trong phn tip theo.
5. Tho lun v ngha
Tho lun v l thuyt hm
Nghin cu ny cho thy rng mt s yu t xc nh SB s dng ti th
trng Vit Nam. Kt qu ch ra rng hnh nh gi tr v SB SB nhn thc c
hiu lc mnh nht trn vic s dng SB. Nhng pht hin ny nhn mnh
rng ngi tiu dng Vit tp trung vo cc yu t gi c v gi tr thit thc
trong vic s dng cc sn phm SB ca h. Tm quan trng ca SB hnh gi
c c th lin quan n nhy cm v gi ca ngi tiu dng cng nh nhng
n lc ca cc nh bn l cung cp sn phm SB gi c phi chng cho
ngi tiu dng ti Vit Nam, c bit l Big C. iu ny tp trung vo cc
yu t lin quan n gi c bo co cc nc ang pht trin khc
( Beneke et al, 2013;.. D'Andrea et al, 2006). N cng c th c kt hp vi
tm kim ca ngi tiu dng Vit i vi chng trnh khuyn mi bn hng.

Nielsen (2011b) cho thy Vit Nam c nhng ngi mua sm promotionally
nht tp trung chu , vi 87 phn trm ca ngi tiu dng m mua
thng qua chng trnh khuyn mi bn hng so vi trung bnh khu vc ca
68 phn trm. Hiu qu ca SB gi tr nhn thc c th c phn tch tng
t v c th lin quan n vic tng gi hng tiu dng hng ngy, m
nhc nh ngi mua hng l gi tr nhiu hn thc hn trc (Nielsen,
2011b). So vi kt qu bo co trong nghin cu trc chu (v d nh
Jin v Suh, 2005) v cc quc gia phng Ty (Diallo et al., 2013), SB gi tr
cm nhn mang mt tm quan trng cao hn cho ngi tiu dng Vit. nh
hng ca bin ny cng l mnh m hn cho cc chui siu th Fivimart
(direct 0,41, po 0,01) so vi Big C, chui i siu th (direct 0,29, po
0.01). Mt li gii thch v tm quan trng tng th cao nht ca SB gi tr
cm nhn (direct 0,35, 0,01 v po indirect 0.13, po 0.01) c th lin
quan n gi tr vn ha Vit, trong Fivimart l bt ngun t hn. Cc gi
tr vn ha v truyn thng Vit Nam, ch yu l hnh ca Pht gio v Nho
gio (L Monkhouse et al., 2013), thuc tnh mt tm quan trng rt ln
cn bng trong cuc sng v tiu dng. V vy, tp trung vo gi tr thc
dng nhn thc ca SB c th cho php ngi tiu dng Vit trnh lng
ph tin bc v vn cn ph hp vi cc gi tr vn ha v truyn thng ca
h. Kt qu ny tri ngc vi nhng pht hin gn y cho thy mt nh
hng gi tr thc dng thp cho ngi tiu dng Trung Quc (Zhang et al.,
2014). Hiu qu ca thi i vi BGS trong nghin cu ca chng ti cng
l tch cc ( 0,35, po 0.01), nhng n l kh yu so vi cc nghin cu
trc cc nc chu mi ni khc (v d nh Jin v Suh, 2005). Pht
hin ny cho thy thi cha phi l mt yu t quan trng trong vic s
dng ca ngi tiu dng Vit ca BGS, bt k nh dng chui bn l. N
cng gii thch l do ti sao th trng c phiu SB vn cn thp Vit Nam.
Nhn thc Lu tr hnh nh (tc l b tr, hng ha v dch v) dng nh
khng phi l yu t hng u trong SB mua, v h ch c tc ng gin tip
s dng SB. Kt qu ny tri ngc vi cc nghin cu trc cc nc
ang pht trin khc, trong lu tr hnh nh mnh m hn v trc tip nh
hng hnh vi mua SB (Diallo, 2012; Wu et al, 2011.). Bng vic nghin cu
mi quan h gia nhn thc lu tr hnh nh v s dng SB, nghin cu ny
b sung cho nghin cu trc y ch tp trung vo nhn thc ca ca hng
nh Vit Nam. V d, Maruyama v Trung (2012) cho thy rng ngi tiu
dng Vit Nam c nhn thc tch cc ca cc tn hiu hnh nh ca hng
trong siu th. Nghin cu ny cho bit thm s phong ph cho s hiu bit
ca chng ta v hnh vi tiu dng Vit bng cch hin th rng mt nhn thc
tch cc ca ca hng nh khng nht thit dn trc tip n vic s dng SB
tch cc. S tng phn vi nhng pht hin t cc nc ang pht trin khc
c th c gii thch bi cc gi tr vn ha khc nhau v c im ca
ngi tiu dng.
Cc kt qu ca nghin cu ny ch ra rng ca hng quen thuc l tch cc
lin quan n vic s dng SB; Tuy nhin, sc mnh ca hiu ng ny l kh
yu tng th ( 0,25, po 0.01). Pht hin ny chng thc cc nghin cu
trc y cho thy nhng c im c th ca ngi tiu dng Vit i vi
tn s ca cc ca hng thm vi (McDonald et al., 2000). N cng ch ra mt
s tng phn vi nhng pht hin t cc th trng mi ni khc. Vit
Nam, chng ti khng tm thy mt s khc bit trong li ca nh dng bn
l nh hn, l trng hp cho ngi tiu dng Mexico (Paswan et al,
2010.). Thay vo , chng ti tm thy mt hiu ng mnh hn cc ca hng
quen thuc trong cc chui siu th bn l (Big C), trong minh rng mc d
cc nh dng siu th (Fivimart) c mt gi tr SB nhn thc tt hn, n
khng hot ng tt trong cc iu khon ca ca hng quen thuc. Hn na,
chng ti nh gi v vai tr iu ha ca nhng ca hng quen thuc
khng chng minh bt k tc dng ng k trong mu tng th, xc nhn
hiu ng yu ca bin ny. Tuy nhin, s tng tc gia nhn thc lu tr

hnh nh v ca hng quen nh hng ng k s dng SB trong cc nh

dng siu th (Big C), lm ni bt mt ln na vai tr ln hn ca ca hng
quen thuc trong cc nh dng ln hn. Kt qu tng t lin quan n s
iu tit ca ca hng quen thuc c tm thy trong cc mi quan h gia
SB gi tr nhn thc v cch s dng SB cng nh gia thi i vi BGS v
SB s dng ti Big C. Nhng kt qu ny c nhiu ngha quan qun l m
chng ti phn tch di y.
Tc qun l
Cc kt qu ca nghin cu ny cho php cc nh nghin cu tm ra mt
vi tc qun l cho cc doanh nghip bn l ang hot ng ti Vit Nam.
u tin, cc hiu ng mnh m ca SB hnh gi c v SB gi tr nhn thc
ch ra rng ngi tiu dng Vit dng nh a ra mt u tin cho cc cu
trc lin quan n gi trong mua hng ca h cc sn phm SB. Do , cc
nh bn l nn tp trung hn na chin lc truyn thng ca h trn cc
kch thc. Tuy nhin, do gi khng gy hoc gn thng hiu hoc ca hng
trung thnh trong thi gian di, chng ti ngh rng cc nh bn l tp
trung vo SB gi tr nhn thc v trn cc bin khc nh thi thng hiu,
qung b ca hng trung thnh v thc y doanh s bn l ti Vit Nam. So
vi cc ca hng bn l truyn thng (tc l th trng m t), cc nh bn
l hin i l khng sc cnh tranh v gi c (Maruyama v Trung, 2012).
Do , ch tp trung vo hnh nh SB gi c th gy tn hi cho doanh s bn
l trong thi gian di. Li khuyn ny c bit ng i vi Big C (siu th),
ni hnh nh gi SB nh hng mnh m s dng SB. Ngc li, Fivimart (siu
th), ni SB nh gi khng nh hng n vic s dng SB, nn tp trung vo
gi thu ht ngi tiu dng nhiu hn thng qua chng trnh khuyn mi
bn hng v xy dng thng hiu bn l. Nh bn l ny, mc d mt trong
nhng a phng, c coi l t tin nht ca ngi tiu dng Vit. Do ,
cn tp trung vo SB phm vi gi v tr t tiu dng t giu c v ci thin
ca hng giao thng. ngh sau ny cng lin quan n lu tr quen thuc,
tc dng ca n c tm thy l yu hn trong Fivimart. Cc chui siu th
nn ch n gi tr nhn thc ca BGS ca n, m t nh hng ln n vic
s dng SB so vi chui siu th ( 0.29, 0.01 po vs 0,41, po 0.01). Mt
m hnh tiu th tng t nh c nhn mnh bi Yang et al. (2011),
ngi lp lun rng cc nh bn l nh hn Vit vn cnh tranh ng ngc
nhin, mt phn l do th hiu ca nhiu ngi tiu dng cho thun tin cng
nh kh nng mua thc phm gn nh ca h. Th hai, bt k nh dng
lu tr, cc nh bn l ti th trng Vit Nam nn tp trung vo cc bin
php ci thin thi ca ngi tiu dng i vi BGS. nh hng ca bin
ny vo cch s dng SB l kh yu. Ni chung, ngi tiu dng chu
dng nh khng c thi mnh m v tch cc i vi BGS. Cc nghin cu
trc nhn mnh nhng kh khn trong vic pht trin BGS chu
(Mandhachitara et al, 2008.). Do , cc nh bn l cn phi ci thin thi
ca ngi tiu dng i vi BGS ti cc th trng chu , c bit l Vit
Nam, thng qua nhng n lc tip th v qun l quan h khch hng. Tng
cng kinh nghim ca khch hng vi BGS, thng qua cc ca hng kim tra
s thch, c th gip ci thin nhn thc SB cht lng v sau l thi
i vi BGS so vi nhng ngi i vi sn phm c cung cp trong cc
thit lp bn l truyn thng khi m phn ln ngi tiu dng Vit tip tc
n ca hng. Quan trng hn, tn dng cc gi tr vn ha Vit (v d nh
tnh trng nhm, tn trng v h tng) l mt la chn quan trng cho cc
nh bn l hin i c gng pht trin thi tch cc hn i vi BGS
mang tn ca nh bn l. Ngi tiu dng Vit Nam ang c gng ha gii
nhng nh hng hin i vi nhng gi tr truyn thng- l ni, "t
truyn thng" vi "t hin i" (Mai v Smith, 2012). Thc hnh qun l
thng hiu bn l nn, do , ph hp vi mong mun ca ngi tiu dng
tm s cn bng tt nht gia truyn thng v hin i. Gi ny c l

thch hp hn cho cc chui siu th (Big C), c coi l nc ngoi v l

mt mi trng ni m SB gi tr cm nhn t nh hng mnh m s dng
SB.
Th ba, nhng pht hin ca chng ti cho thy nhn thc ca ca hng nh
khng c mt nh hng trc tip s dng SB. Kt qu ny l ng lo ngi i
vi cc chui bn l ang hot ng ti Vit Nam v trn ton chu . Cc
nghin cu trc y cho thy ngi tiu dng Vit c mt nhn thc tt v
hnh nh tng th (Nguyen et al., 2007). Tuy nhin, kt qu nghin cu ca
chng ti ch ra rng khng c mt tc ng ly lan trc tip mnh m v
nhn thc tr nh trn s dng SB, mc d cc chui bn l ang hot ng
ti Vit Nam v cc b phn khc ca chu ang c gng tn dng hnh
nh ca hng ca h thc y doanh s bn l. Chng ti ngh rng cc
nh bn l hin i ci t chin lc pht trin ca hng hnh nh ca mnh
bng cch thch ng thm cho h vi bi cnh a phng thng qua vic s
dng cc mu thit k kin trc a phng ti cc c s lu tr. H cng nn
tng cng cc tng tc x hi trong cc ca hng. Tnh hin i kt hp vi
chui bn l kiu phng Ty khng nn ch ng cc biu hin ca vn ha
a phng trong qun l lu tr hnh nh. Practises thng qua trong s pht
trin sm ca bn l hin i ti i Loan c th c chuyn giao ton din
vi Vit Nam v cc nc chu khc. Chng bao gm vic p dng ca
hng b tr ging nh cc th trng truyn thng thc y tiu dng chp
nhn bn l hin i.
Hn ch v nghin cu thm
L mt trong nhng ngi u tin ca loi hnh ny th trng Vit Nam,
nghin cu ny cung cp mt im khi u tt nghin cu thm v BGS
ti Vit Nam. Nh hn ch, u tin, cc nh nghin cu ch tp trung vo
hai chui bn l tp ha, t ti H Ni. Vi s pht trin nhanh chng ca
cc cu trc bn l Vit Nam, ngnh khc v cc a im khc (v d nh
thnh ph H Ch Minh) cn phi c iu tra hiu r thm SB s dng
Vit Nam. V d, cc nh bn l thi trang nh Zara, cung cp thng hiu
ca mnh ti Vit Nam cng nh cc nc chu khc. N s l th v
hiu cch ca hng nhn thc hnh nh v gi tr thc dng v khng nh
hng n nhn thc thc dng SB s dng ca cc nh bn l c sn.
Nguyen et al. (2007) cho thy rng ng c mua sm tch cc nh hng
khch hng trung thnh ca Vit Nam i chui siu th bn l; Tuy nhin,
nghin cu ca h khng tp trung vo cc vn xy dng thng hiu, m
tr thnh mt ch quan trng ca nghin cu chu (Swoboda et al,
2012.). Th hai, nghin cu ny tp trung vo cc yu t hnh nh v
khng iu tra COO hnh nh, bi v cc chui bn l iu tra khng c lin
kt vi mt COO c th trong giao tip vi ngi tiu dng. Tuy nhin, hnh
nh COO l mt ch th v m ng c ch nhiu hn t cc nh
nghin cu tip th. Trong bi cnh Vit Nam, Speece v Nguyn (2005) cho
thy, COO l quan trng i vi hnh vi ca ngi tiu dng bng cch nhn
mnh rng vic gim gi c thc hin bi cc thng hiu Hn Quc lm t
thu ht khch hng i vi sn phm ca h v trnh xa cht lng cao
thng hiu Nht Bn nhn thc. Vn ny l th v hn ht v cc doanh
nghip a phng (v d nh Fivimart) ang lm tt v ang ngy cng b
cm d m rng sang cc nc mi ni khc. Th ba, nghin cu ny tp
trung vo Vit Nam v l do l lun v thc tin; Tuy nhin, v mi quc gia
mi ni c th trng v ngi tiu dng c trng ring ca n, so snh Vit
Nam vi cc nc mi ni v ang pht trin khc s l mt lnh vc quan
trng nghin cu thm v BGS. V d, Cheng et al. (2007) thy rng ngi
tiu dng i Loan phn bit gia quc t (nc ngoi) v a phng BGS v
tnh cch thng hiu v s lnh o thng hiu. N khng phi l r rng,
tuy nhin, liu ngi tiu dng Vit s c nhn thc tng t. Hn na, kt
qu ca chng ti ch ra rng mi quan h gia hnh nh gi SB, SB gi tr
nhn thc v SB nh mua l tng t nh cc nc pht trin (v d nh

Diallo et al., 2013). Do , iu tra nghin cu v xuyn quc gia v cht

lng l cn thit hiu c l do ng sau kt qu nh vy v c
hiu ca ngi tiu dng Vit.
Ghi ch
1. Ngun: www.gba-vietnam.org/uploadfiles/file/NEWSLETTER/2013/JUNE
%20(10_05)/D_M-% 20Legal% 20updates% 20% 2001% 20to% 2015%
20May_% 202013.pdf (truy cp 15 Thng T 2014).
2. Ngun: VietNamNet, http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/business/7859/sbv-tokeep-close-eyes- trn ngi cho vay-investments.html (truy cp ngy 15
Thng T nm 2014).