Not for quotation or ISSN 0265 9778

citation without the express

permission of the authors.

Adelina Broadbridge is Senior Lecturer at the University of Stirling, STIRLING FK9 4LA
and Henry P Morgan, was a former Buying Director of Options NI Ltd.

Research Paper 0001

CONSUMER BUYING BEHAVIOUR

OF, AND PERCEPTIONS
TOWARDS,
RETAIL BRAND BABY PRODUCTS

Adelina Broadbridge
&
Henry Morgan

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this research paper are the responsibility of the authors alone.
 1

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 2

INTRODUCTION

The growth and development of retail brands has experienced considerable change over the
last few decades. For many retailers the strategy of offering a lower quality, lower price own
brand alternative has altered to one of directly competing with manufacturer brands in terms
of quality, design and packaging. In turn, consumer acceptance of retail brands has grown,
with many consumers now believing they represent good value for money and having as
much confidence in retail brands as in manufacturer brands (Laaksonen, 1994; Laaksonen
and Reynolds, 1995). For some consumers, retail brand products are regarded as superior to
well known manufacturers brands (Gallup, 1997). So a definition of a successful brand as
being a product which the user perceives as possessing sustainable unique added values
which match customer needs more closely (de Chernatony and McDonald, 1998) or
representing a variety of ideas and additional attributes (Gardner, 1955) can now be extended
to many retail brand products.

A brand depicts not just a physical product but a relationship with its customers. This
relationship is personified either by the organisation’s name (e.g. Kelloggs, Tesco) or by the
brand name on the product itself (e.g. Persil, St. Michael). Research has indicated that in
product areas where there is a dominance of manufacturer brands, so the less successful retail
brands will be (Morris, 1979; Hoch and Banerji, 1993). This is related to the observation that
the more distinctive a brand position is, the less likelihood that the consumer will accept a
substitute (de Chernatony, 1989). This discloses the role of the perceived risk in the
consumers’ buying process when considering substitute retail brands.

PERCEIVED RISK

Cox (1967) theorises that risk may be perceived by the consumer if s/he is uncertain what
s/he wants; is unsure of which purchase will best match his/her goals; and/or if s/he perceives
possible adverse consequences if the purchase is made. This has led to a definition of risk as
being ‘the consumer’s perceptions of the uncertainty and adverse consequences of buying a
product or service’, (Dowling and Staelin, 1992: 119). Most consumers are risk adverse
(Laaksonen, 1994) although the extent of risk perceived varies between people (de
Chernatony and McDonald , 1998). As such various studies have explored the measurement

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 3

of risk (cf Nicosia, 1969; Roselius, 1971; Jacoby and Kaplan, 1972; Bettman, 1973; Kaplin et
al, 1974; Stem et al, 1977; Dowling 1986; Mitchell and Prince, 1993; Mitchell, 1997). This
has led to several dimensions of consumer risk being identified: performance risk, physical
risk, financial risk, social risk, psychosocial risk and time risk. Price, performance, perceived
quality and value for money all interact to influence the degree of perceived risk consumers
experience. Consumers however, generally seek to reduce risk in their decision making
processes (Bauer, 1960), and do so in a variety of ways (Mitchell and McGoldrick, 1996).
Amongst these may be reliance on a previous success or experience with a brand;
recommendations by family, friends or salespersons or sampling the product before making a
purchase.

Well known and familiar brands have traditionally offered the consumer a means to reduce
risk (de Chernatony and McDonald, 1998) and make rapid choices. This is because well
established brands are, to consumers, synonymous with quality (Jacoby et al 1971; 1977; Rao
and Monroe, 1989), credibility and confidence, and as Bellizzi et al (1981) additionally
found, reliability and prestige. Dunn et al (1986) found that consumers’ brand preferences
were related to their risk perceptions of the preferred brand as well as the perceived risk of
other alternative brands.

In the 1970s uncertainty regarding retail brand quality and perceptions of risk associated with
retail brand purchase were key variables that discriminated retail label prone buyers from
manufacturer prone buyers (Bettman and Park, 1980). More recently, because retailer brands
have traded up in terms of quality and price, so the perceived risk in purchasing these goods
has been reduced (Burt, 1992) and quality of own label products is now regarded as
synonymous with manufacturer brands (Buck, 1993). However consumers’ perception and
acceptance of retail brand products differs with experience, and confirming earlier studies
(Cunningham, 1967; Jacoby and Kaplan, 1972; Livesey and Lennon, 1978), Burt (1992)
acknowledges that risk tolerance varies with the type of product purchased.

A higher risk tolerance usually occurs when the consumer requires greater assurance about
quality rather than price although for high priced items, social and performance risk may
slow the growth of retail brands (McGoldrick, 1990). Performance risk has also been
associated with consumer resistance in purchasing some retail brands (Dunn et al, 1986;

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 4

Sargent, 1996). Furthermore, Sheath and McGoldrick (1981) found that while consumers
may purchase a retail brand for their own personal consumption, resistance was shown when
the same product was to be used with or by others. The extent of the perceived risk may
depend on a combination of the length of time that the own brand has been established, the
marketing support given to it by the retailer, and the consumers’ perceptions of the retailer’s
overall reputation (McGoldrick, 1990).

THE BABY CARE PRODUCT MARKET

For the purposes of the current investigation consumer perceptions and buying behaviour
within the baby care product category were examined. This category may offer limited
potential for retail brand development because it not only offers the perceived risk as
theorised by Cox (1967), but it is also dominated by few manufacturers: notably Johnson &
Johnson, Proctor & Gamble and Kimberley Clarke. While own brands within the general
health and beauty business is a fast growing market (with Boots being the dominant player),
within the baby care product market, however, manufacturer brands prevail. These
manufacturer brands are additionally endorsed by hospitals who provide samples for new
mothers to try which aids the risk reduction process identified by Bauer (1960). Hence, is
likely that hospitals will be regarded as a reliable source of recommendation in the promotion
of manufacturer labels. Such distinctive brand positions mean there may be less likelihood of
consumers accepting a substitute product. Furthermore, it is a product category where there
is an initial inability to adequately assess the product performance as consumption is
undertaken by babies and toddlers. Thus it is reasonable to assume the baby care product
category is one where consumers require greater assurance about quality than price. Despite
retail brands trading up in terms of quality, the risk tolerance associated with this product
category may remain high. No comprehensive evidence is available which explores
consumers’ total perceived risk involved in buying retail brand baby care products, although
for cosmetics which may carry some similar risk, research has demonstrated consumers’
preference for the image and reassurance provided by major brands (Mintel, 1998).

Despite a declining birthrate, the baby care products market showed year on year growth
during the 1990s. The market leader, with over two thirds of sales (68.6%) was Johnson &
Johnson - a position they have managed to maintain year on year. The market has

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 5

experienced change, however. Other manufacturer brands have suffered business decline
(e.g. Infacare), while leading supermarket retail brands (Tesco, Sainsbury, Safeway) have
performed reasonably well and increased their sales volume. So, while Johnson & Johnson
dominate the sector, some of the smaller manufacturers have been threatened by the
development of retail brand substitutes. The retail brand baby care product category,
however, accounts for less than 25% of the overall market, a large proportion of which is
attributable to Boots who have gained high public esteem and trust, and are treated as a brand
in their own right and marketed as such to the consumer. No previous research exists which
shows any obvious physical quality differences between manufacturer brands and retailer
brand baby care product ranges. Despite an increase in sales from supermarket label baby
care product ranges, the question remained to what extent there would be enough consumer
acceptance and trust to warrant the introduction of an additional retail brand baby care
product range onto the market.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of the current research was to investigate consumer reaction to, and acceptance of,
the introduction of an own brand baby care product range within Options NI Ltd. (a group of
22 drug stores located in prime shopping centres in Northern Ireland). Until recently Options
enjoyed a highly protected position; it had no major competitors within the health and beauty
market and held a large market share of the mother and baby market. This was partially
attributed to them adopting a cost focus strategy by offering competitively priced
manufacturer brands to consumers. This had resulted in one of the company’s primary
strengths being its dominance of sales within the mother and baby business. Since 1996
however, this strong market position has been eroded with the arrival and swift expansion of
large mainland chains such as Boots, Tesco, Safeway and Sainsbury. These retailers, with
their economies of scale, efficient store operations and effective product management
constituted a threat to Options and the market share they once enjoyed. Options realised the
need to develop a differentiation strategy in the face of these competitive threats. An integral
part of their marketing strategy was to retain customer loyalty and secure business survival in
the long-term. One such differentiation strategy discussed by the board of directors was the
further development of their own brand product ranges, which had been developed in the
manicure, and hair care product range with considerable success. Because the company had,

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 6

until now, enjoyed a strong market share in the mother and baby sector, one possible and
natural extension route for own label development was an introduction of an Options baby
care product range. The company acknowledged the various developments of retail brand
labels, and rather than develop a low quality, low cost alternative to the manufacturer brands,
it sought to develop a retail brand strategy that directly competed with the manufacturers
brands on the basis of quality and value for money thus broadening the product range and
enhancing the product market. To investigate the general perceptions and purchase
behaviour of retail brand versus manufacturer brand baby care products, and reach a decision
whether Options should pursue this differentiation strategy, consumer research was
undertaken. The research had a series of objectives:

• to examine consumers’ purchase behaviour of retail brand baby care products compared
with manufacturer brands;
• to establish whether consumers perceive a risk to exist when purchasing retail brand, as
opposed to manufacturer brand, baby care products;
• to investigate consumer reaction to the potential introduction of an ‘Options’ baby care
product range.

The results of these questions would enable the company to decide whether the pursuit of this
strategy would provide enough point of differentiation to compete with the new entrants of
mainland chains to Northern Ireland.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A two-stage research methodology consisting of both qualitative and quantitative research

techniques was adopted. The population was defined as ‘parents of children under the age of
five who use baby care products’. The research was confined to three main towns:
Portadown, Lisburn and Ballymena, selected for their population density and the degree of
competition (each town contained an Options, Boots, Tesco, Superdrug and Sainsbury store
as well as independent chemists). Belfast was excluded from the research because of the
location of certain stores on the outskirts of the city. Londonderry was excluded because of
its border location which, with the preponderance of cross-border shopping, had the potential
to skew the results.

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 7

The qualitative research comprised three focus groups, one in each of the three towns, and
consisted of eight participants in each. Most participants were female (96%) and married
(78%). Their ages ranged from 18 to 44, the majority (61%) being between the ages of 25
and 34. The quantitative research consisted of 408 face-to-face interviews in the same three
towns and based on the same population details using quota sampling methods. Two
sampling points were selected within each town; one within the shopping centre close to the
Options store; and the other on the High Street close to a major competitor. The research was
conducted in June and July 1998, over seven days per week and covering a variety of time
periods so as to capture as representative a sample of the population as possible.

Six product categories were chosen for investigation for potential inclusion in an Options
brand baby care range: baby lotion, baby shampoo, baby wipes, cotton buds, cotton wool and
disposable nappies. Several criteria were employed in selecting these product categories.
Baby lotion and shampoo were selected because these were product categories where the
major manufacturer brands dominated. Given their brand positions, their ease of substitution
via the introduction of a retail brand may be particularly vulnerable to risk tolerance by
consumers. Baby wipes were chosen because this was the fastest growing market within the
baby care sector and thus represented potential for growth in the retail brand market. Cotton
buds had been identified by a supplier as having potential retail brand status. Cotton wool
was investigated as Options already carried this product under their own label beauty range,
and so it would be relatively easy to repackage this under a baby care product range.
Disposable nappies were chosen because, although an oligopolistic situation reigned, they
accounted for a large volume of the market.

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 8

FINDINGS

Customers’ purchase behaviour of retail brand baby care products compared with
manufacturer brands.

With regard to actual purchase, more than half of all the focus group participants and almost
three quarters (72%) of the questionnaire survey respondents had tried retail brand baby
products (often when on promotion). There was little evidence, however, of any loyalty for
using retail brand baby care products. For example, none of the focus group respondents
claimed to use them regularly and only a third used them occasionally. Their major reason
for returning to manufacturer brands was the perceived performance, physical and financial
risk associated with retail brands. Quality was a major issue with the focus group
participants. While acknowledging the major manufacturer brands were more expensive than
retail brands, they felt that they were paying for a premium product. Price was an issue but
quality and risk were higher on the agenda: ‘I will buy the major manufacturer brands on
promotion but will not switch brands if another comparable baby lotion or shampoo is on
price offer’, and confirming Sheath and McGoldrick’s (1981) findings: ‘I would buy myself
a cheaper product to save money before buying a cheaper baby toiletry product’.

Place of purchase also appeared to be an important determinant in the purchase of baby care
products which confirms previous research (cf Roseluis, 1971; Prasad, 1975; Korgaonkar,
1982; Taylor and Rao, 1982; Yavas and Tuncalp, 1984; Mitchell and Greatorex, 1989). All
focus group respondents stated they preferred to shop for baby toiletries in a chemist that
sold a range of brands rather than a supermarket because of the staff knowledge and
assistance that could be given within this ‘safe’ environment. One respondent stated: ‘I
associate a chemist with the continuation of health care. Trained staff are on hand to assist
and I can seek advice if need be’ while another commented: ‘Experienced staff talk to young
children, and they make you feel human - I feel comfortable to discuss a problem or
concern’. Thus these consumers sought risk reduction strategies in their decision making
process via relying on professional recommendation and store image/reputation. In addition
to being the most mentioned shopping destination for baby toiletries, Boots outranked the
supermarkets with regard to retail brand baby care product purchases. This was owing to
Boots being regarded by the respondents as a heritage brand, similar to Johnson & Johnson,

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 9

rather than a retail brand. This may be owing to its well-established close association with
the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, toiletries and beauty products.

Supermarkets as opposed to independent chemists were the preferred destination for nappies
however because of convenience, although total reliance was given to manufacturer brands
(all focus group participants used Pampers or Huggies). These were perceived as providing
the best quality and offered no perceived risk of failure compared to a supermarket brand of
nappy where financial and performance risk existed owing to its perceived inferior status: ‘I
used Tesco nappies once - it was a total waste of time and money. I would rather spend more
money and be satisfied and confident with the absorbency of the product’.

The results of the research showed that many respondents were willing to trial retail brand
baby care products although repeat purchase behaviour was limited. Manufacturer brands
were regarded as synonymous with quality and reliable performance, which could be
reinforced by professional recommendation at point of purchase. High awareness of
manufacturer brand name created a unique loyalty relationship and was regarded as a risk
reliever by respondents. Boots provided the exception, owing to its positioning in the
consumers’ minds as a brand in its own right. However, similar purchase behaviour of retail
versus manufacturer products were not exhibited by these respondents when comparing other
product areas (see below).

Consumer perceptions of risk in purchasing retailer brands as opposed to manufacturer

brand baby care products.

The perceived risk of purchasing retail brand baby care products was alluded to in the
previous section. Previous research has shown that a combination of variables can interact to
influence the degree of perceived risk involved in purchasing a product, while various risk
reduction strategies are utilised by consumers in their choice behaviour. The current research
aimed to explore these two areas.

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 10

To test Burt’s (1992) assertion that consumers’ perception of the risk involved in purchasing
retailer brands has declined owing to retailers trading up in terms of own brand quality and
price offering and Laaksonen and Reynolds’ (1995) observation that UK consumers
demonstrate a general acceptance of retail brands, the focus group discussions explored
participants’ reactions to retailer brand food stuffs before exploring their attitude and
behaviour toward retailer brand baby care products. The discussions revealed that
respondents considered some retail brand foods (particularly Marks and Spencer, Tesco and
Sainsbury) were as good, if not better than similar manufacturer brands. However when
questioned if they would try a retailer label baby food, these same respondents claimed
reluctance to trying it. Most believed that there was not the same risk involved in buying
retail brand food stuffs as opposed to retail brand baby care products. The questionnaire
survey revealed that three quarters of the respondents had purchased retail brand general food
stuffs (75%) and adult toiletry products (77%). When asked to indicate the level of perceived
risk involved in buying seven retail brand products, respondents considered cotton buds and
washing powder to carry the most perceived risk while instant coffee, shower gel and cotton
wool were considered to be purchases with lowest risk involvement. They were uncertain
about the perceived risk involved in purchasing retailer brand baby wipes or baby lotion. So
while the respondents were in general not risk adverse to using retail brand products, the
findings reveal that various factors may influence the degree of risk perceived in purchasing
retail brand baby care products.

The group discussions attempted to assess the combination of variables which interact to
influence the degree of risk involved in purchasing baby care products. All the dimensions of
risk play some part in comprising the total risk involved, while product type also appeared to
influence trial behaviour. The amount of stake in the purchase, the quality of the product and
the adverse consequences of buying the wrong product can be summarised by one focus
group participant’s observation: ‘I am just so frightened to try products on my baby’s skin. It
is just impossible to know if the quality is as good as a manufacturer’s brand. How can the
child tell you that it irritates their skin? It’s too late if a rash breaks out’.

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 11

Both the focus group and the questionnaire survey revealed that respondents varied in their
actual trial of certain products. While many of the survey respondents had tried retail brand
cotton wool (76%), baby wipes (74%) and cotton buds (70%), considerably fewer had tried
retail brand baby lotion (49%), baby shampoo (47%) and nappies (45%). These findings
corresponded with those of the focus groups, the exception being cotton buds, where
participants viewed manufacturer brand cotton buds as a preferred choice. This was owing to
the perceived inferior quality, and hence risk, of the retail brand option, as one respondent
stated: ‘ I noticed that they had an offer on Tesco cotton buds, but instead I bought my
regular Johnson & Johnson cotton buds, just in case the quality wasn’t as good’. One
explanation for the different trial rates of products from the questionnaire survey may be that
those with higher adoption rates (i.e. cotton wool, baby wipes and cotton buds) were also
products used by adults as part of their health and beauty regime, and so are not confined to
use by the baby. Three quarters of the respondents claimed to use cotton wool (75%) and
cotton buds (76%) for their own use compared with a third (31%) who make personal use of
baby wipes. Therefore an element of experience with the product may be used to reduce the
risk of using the product on the baby, while in some cases, the use may be confined to adults.
This was reinforced by the risk reduction strategies chosen by respondents in purchasing
baby care products.

Both the qualitative and quantitative research showed that respondents adopted similar risk
reduction strategies in their purchase of baby care products. The questionnaire survey
revealed that the reputation of the brand (and store) strongly influenced consumer behaviour,
followed by recommendations made by professionals, family or friends. Furthermore, those
mothers who received a ‘bounty bag’ at hospital, containing trial samples of the major
manufacturers products, experienced a reduction of risk in their decision making process. It
also served to reinforce the brand perception at an early stage, as one focus group participant
commented: ‘I received trial Johnson & Johnson and Pampers products from the hospital.
These products are tried and tested products; I just don’t see any risk in the quality of these
products’. The majority of consumers did not generally purchase the brand which was on
current promotion (unless in instances to trial), and would not switch brands if their preferred
brand was not on promotion.

Using a series of semantic differential scaling questions, respondents from the questionnaire

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 12

survey were asked to compare certain brands against certain variables (quality, price, value
for money, degree of risk in the purchase, brand name, and effectiveness of product) for three
types of baby products - baby lotion, baby wipes and cotton buds. Figures 1-3 show the
findings. For baby lotions (Figure 1) and cotton buds (Figure 2), the brands Johnson &
Johnson, Boots and Superdrug were compared. In both product categories, Johnson &
Johnson were perceived to have the higher quality and most effective product, with the
highest price and most well known brand name. The Johnson & Johnson brand was
considered to carry the least perceived risk. Superdrug, on the other hand, was regarded as
having the poorest quality product, with least effectiveness, the most perceived risk and least
well known brand name. It was also considered to be the poorest value for money despite
being the cheapest. The Boots products fell into the middle range, except that they were
regarded as better value for money than the Johnson & Johnson products. The comparison of
baby wipes (Figure 3) showed similar results, although Pampers, Boots and Tesco baby
wipes were compared. Pampers consistently performed the best, while Tesco performed least
well. Again, Boots fell into the middle range except for being perceived the best value for
money. In comparing retail brands, Superdrug’s brand is perceived to be of higher risk than
Tesco or Boots brand. This may be associated with its perceived brand image of being a cost
cutting discount type of drug store.

Although respondents were used to purchasing retail brand products in general, a

combination of factors appear to influence the degree of risk they associate with the purchase
behaviour of retail baby care products. Risk tolerance was found to vary product type which
confirms assertions made by Burt (1992). Recognised risk reduction strategies were utilised
although these were sometimes detrimental to the trial of retail brands.

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 13

Consumer reaction to the potential introduction of an ‘Options’ baby toiletry range

Given the findings of the first two objectives it was necessary to ascertain whether
respondents would try an own brand baby care range offered by Options. To ascertain
respondents’ overall impression of ‘Options’ reputation as a store, the focus groups first
explored various dimensions about the company in general. The results demonstrated that
‘Options’ was highly regarded by consumers for offering high quality merchandise, good
customer service levels and good value for money.

The focus group participants displayed some surprise about the introduction of an own brand
Options baby care product range, and appeared unaware that Options currently had an own
brand offering (despite it being a lucrative venture for the company). The strategy was rather
incongruous to them as they regarded the store as one for offering manufacturer brands at
competitive prices. However, nearly all respondents indicated some interest in trying an
Options brand of baby wipes and cotton wool. Less than half, however, said they would try a
baby lotion or baby shampoo, claiming it to carry a higher perceived risk (particularly in the
case of allergy). Less than a quarter would trial Options own brand nappies if they were
introduced because of their loyalty to the manufacturer brands and previous poor experience
with other retailer brand nappies. These findings reflect those reported earlier that certain
product categories, for whatever reason, carry a higher perceived risk than do others.

The questionnaire results confirmed these findings, with cotton wool and baby wipes being
the most likely ‘Options’ brand baby product to be trailed, followed by cotton buds, baby
lotion and baby shampoo. It is difficult to assess whether those products with higher
expected trial rates would be used by the respondents themselves rather than for baby usage,
and no definite purchase intentions were found by the research. The questionnaire was
unable to explore any views on the perceived risk of Options as an own brand range, but the
company strengths from the customer perspective appeared to lie with the offering of
manufacturer brands at competitive prices rather than the pursuit of an own brand strategy.
Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that consumers would attribute a certain amount of
perceived risk to the introduction of an Options own brand baby product range.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 14

This research investigated consumer perceptions and buying behaviour of baby care products.
The results of the primary research indicated that consumers need to feel confident with the
product in terms of reliability and performance, and confirming research by Quelch and
Harding (1996), brand names provided this assurance of quality with baby products. In
agreement with Morris (1979) and de Chernatony (1989), it appeared that the more
distinctive a brand positioning is, the less likelihood that the consumer will accept a
substitute or own brands. The current findings on retail label baby care products would
support Burt’s (1992) and Laaksonen’s (1994) views that certain product categories carry a
stronger preference for manufacturers brands and are prone to a higher risk than others.
Products causing potential allergy to babies skin (eg shampoo, lotion) were perceived as
carrying greater risk than others (eg cotton wool). Parents were more concerned about the
quality of products and the reduction of performance and physical risk than financial risk.
Furthermore, the reinforcement of manufacturer brands by hospital professionals could
significantly increase the perceived social risk associated with purchasing a retail brand.

Upholding the work of Baltas (1999), the heavy advertising and image building of
manufacturer brands may also be differentiating factors in consumers’ choice for
manufacturer over retail brand baby care product ranges, while product importance and
experience level with retail brands (Livesey and Lennon, 1978) also could be plausible
reasons for the choice of manufacturer over retail brand baby care products. Experience
levels with retail brand baby care products varied according to product type, but were
generally lower than other retail brand product categories, and demonstrated little repeat
purchase activity.

Various risk reduction strategies were adopted by respondents, including those found by
Mitchell and Prince (1993) and Mitchell and McGoldrick (1996): pre-purchase product trial,
the advice of family and friends, professional recommendation, store reputation, choosing a
more expensive product and choosing a well-known manufacturer brand. The dominance of
manufacturer brand (in particular Johnson & Johnson), the difficulty of assessing product
performance during consumption (Sargent, 1996), together with the perceived performance,
physical, social and financial risk of buying baby products places considerable overall risk to
the introduction of an own label branding strategy.

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 15

For some retailers (such as Marks & Spencer and Boots) own brand has been a major and
integral part of the their growth strategy, while in other cases retail brand ranges have never
risen beyond mediocrity and have been introduced as a defensive rather than a positive
strategy (Laaksonen and Reynolds, 1995). To excel, Laaksonen and Reynolds (1995)
maintain, the retailer must use own brands as part of an offensive strategy. This can be
achieved either by offering the cheapest prices or by being the best in the market by having
value-added own brands. The introduction and development can be viewed as a strategy for
improving store image and profitability by offering an exclusive product and extended choice
to the customer (Baltas, 1999).

It was recommended that Options did not pursue a strategy of developing its own range of
baby care products. This recommendation was founded on a variety of reasons. Despite
some respondents stating they might trial some products from an Options baby care product
range, Options in general was not associated as a store to purchase own brands. Rather, its
reputation has been built from a store offering competitively priced manufacturer bands, and
thus may be perceived by its customers as being a discounter store, close in image to
Superdrug. If this were the case, it would be very difficult to build the necessary brand
loyalty to make such a range a success. It would appear that Options were working on a
defensive rather than offensive strategy in their response to the intensification of mainland
UK entrants. In the baby care product category an offensive own brand strategy would be
difficult to achieve, as offering the cheapest prices (Laaksonen and Reynolds, 1995) may not
be seen as offering quality, thereby increasing the various dimensions of risk perceived by
the consumers.

Given the manufacturer dominance in the market, which is reinforced by hospitals and heavy
advertising, it is unlikely that Options could successfully adopt a value-added own brand
strategy as proposed by Laaksonen and Reynolds (1995) as it is difficult to assess what the
value-added contribution would be in the case of an own brand baby care product range.
While Options could extend the choice to consumers (Baltas, 1999) by introducing their own
brand baby care product range, it is unlikely they could offer an exclusive product offering.

The development of an own brand baby care range by Options would appear to be a high risk

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 16

strategy. Failure would occur owing to insufficient differentiation of an own brand range
from the retailer’s total offer and from the competitors offer, thus causing lack of clarity in
the proposition of the customer. It is concluded that there would be insufficient consumer
acceptance and trust of the Options own brand label to warrant its introduction. If Options
were to embark on an own brand strategy, it should concentrate on developing low risk
product categories such as bath and shower products for the adult market, rather then invest
in high risk areas such as baby care products.

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 17

REFERENCES

Baltas, G. (1999) ‘Understanding and Managing Store Brands’, The Journal of Brand
Management, 6(3), 175-187.

Bauer, R.A.(1960) ‘Consumer Behaviour as Risk Taking’, in Hancock, R.S. (Ed.) Dynamic
Marketing for a Changing World, 43rd Conference on the American Marketing Association,
Chicago: American Marketing Association, 389-98.

Bellizzi, J.A.; Krueckberg, H.F.; Hamilton, J.R. and Martin, W.S. (1981) ‘Consumer
Perceptions of National, Private and Generic Brands’, Journal of Retailing, 57(4), 56-70.

Bettman, J.R. (1973) ‘Perceived Risk and Its Components: A Model and Empirical Test’,
Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 184-190.

Bettman, J.R. and Park, C.W. (1980) ‘Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase
of Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocal Analysis’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 7, December, 234-48.

Buck, S.F. (1993) ‘Own Label and Branded Goods in Fmcg Markets: An Assessment on the
Facts, The Trends and The Future’, The Journal of Brand Management, 1(1), 14-21.

Burt, S. (1992) ‘Retailer Brands in British Grocery Retailing’, Institute for Retail Studies
Working Paper 9204, University of Stirling, Stirling.

Cox, D. F. (1967) ‘The Sorting Rule Model of Consumer Product Evaluation Process’, in
Cox, D.F. (Ed.) Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, Boston, MA:
Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 317-23.

Cunningham, S.M. (1967) ‘Perceived Risk and Brand Loyalty’, in Cox, D.F. (Ed.) Risk
Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, Boston, MA: Graduate School of
Business Administration, Harvard University.

de Chernatony, L. (1989) ‘Branding in an Era of Retail Dominance’, International Journal of

Advertising, 8, 245-260.

de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1998) Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer,

Service and Industrial Markets, Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann.

Dowling, G.R. (1986) ‘Perceived Risk: The Concept and its Measurement’, Physical and
Marketing, 3, 193-210.

Dowling, G. and Staelin, R. (1992) ‘A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk Handling
Activity’, Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 119-34.

Dunn, M.G.; Murphy, P.E. and Skelly, G.U. (1986) ‘Research Note: The Influence of
Perceived Risk on Brand Preference for Supermarket Products’, Journal of Retailing, 62(2),
204-216.

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 18

Gallup (1997) ‘Private Label in Europe: “Today’s Consumers”, A Study on Behalf of Private
Label Manufacturers Association, London: Gallup.

Gardner, B.B. (1955) ‘The Product and the Brand’, Harvard Business Review, March/April,
33-39.

Hoch, S.J. and Banerji, S. (1993) ‘When Do Store Brands Succeed?’, Sloan Management
Review, 34, 57-67.

Jacoby, J., Olson, J.C. and Haddock, R.A. (1971) ‘Price, Brand, Name and Product
Composition as Determinations of Perceived Quality’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(6),
570-579.

Jacoby, J.; Szybillo, G.T. and Busato-Schach, J. (1977) ‘Information Acquisition Behaviour
in Brand Choice Situations’, Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 209-216.

Jacoby, J. and Kaplan, L (1972) ‘The Components of Perceived Risk’, in Venkatesan, M.

(ed), Third Annual Conference, Association for Consumer Research Proceedings, University
of Chicago, 382-393.

Kaplin, L.B.; Szybillo, G.J. and Jacoby, J. (1974) ‘Components of Perceived Risk in Product
Purchase: A Cross-Validation’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 287-291.

Korgaonkar, P.K. (1992) ‘Consumer Preferences for Catalogue Showrooms and Discount
Stores: The Moderating Role of Product Risk, Journal of Retailing, 58(3), 75-88.

Laaksonen, H. (1994) Own Brands in Food Retailing Across Europe, Oxford: Oxford
Reports on Retailing, Oxford Institute of Retail Management.

Laaksonen, H. and Reynolds, J. (1995) ‘Own Brands in Food Retailing Across Europe’,
Journal of Brand Management, 2(1), 37-46.

Livesey, F. and Lennon, P. (1978) ‘Factors Affecting Consumers’ Choice Between

Manufacturer Brands and Retailer Own Labels’, European Journal of Marketing.

McGoldrick, P.J. (1990) Retail Marketing, London: McGraw-Hill.

Mintel (1998) Toiletries and Cosmetic Retailing.

Mitchell, V-W. (1997) ‘Risk Perceptions in Grocery Retailing’, Proceedings of the 31st
Annual Conference of the Academy of Marketing, Marketing Without Borders, 8-10 July,
Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan University, 637-46.

Mitchell, V-W and Greatorex, M. (1989) ‘Risk Reducing Strategies Used in the Purchase of
Wine in the UK’, International Journal of Wine Marketing, 1(2), 31-46.

Mitchell, V-W. and Prince, G.S. (1993) ‘Retailing to Experienced and Inexperienced
Consumers: A Perceived Risk Approach’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 21(5), 10-21.

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

 19

Mitchell, V-W. and McGoldrick, P.J. (1996) ‘Consumers’ Risk Reduction Strategies: A
Preview and Synthesis’, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, 6(1), 1-33.

Morris, D. (1979) ‘The Strategy of Own Labels’, European Journal of Marketing, 13, 55-78.

Nicosia, F.M. (1969) ‘Perceived Risk, Information Processing and Consumer Behaviour: A
Review Article’, Journal of Business, 42(2), 162-6.

Prasad, K.V. (1975) ‘Socioeconomic Product Risk and Patronage Preferences of Retail
Shoppers’, Journal of Marketing, 39(3), 42-7.

Quelch, J.A. and Harding, D. (1996) ‘Brands Versus Private labels: Fighting to Win’,
Harvard Business Review, January-February, 99-109.

Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1989) ‘The Effects of Price, Brand Name and Store Name on
Buyers’ Perceptions of Product Quality’, Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 351-357.

Roselius, T. (1971) ‘Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods’, Journal of Marketing,

35, (1), 56-61.

Sargent, J. (1996) ‘Strategies for Brand Success’, Adamp, 31(3) 16-18.

Sheath, K.J. and McGoldrick, P.J. (1981) Generics: Their Development in Grocery Retailing
and the Reactions of Consumers, UMIST, Manchester.

Stem, D.E.Jr.; Lamb, C.W. Jr and MacLachlan, D.L. (1977) ‘Perceived Risk: A Synthesis’,
European Journal of Marketing’, 11(4), 312-319.

Taylor, R.L. and Rao, C.P. (1982) ‘An Assessment of the Interaction Effects of Brand and
Store Reputation on Consumer Perceived Risk and Confidence’, Akron Business and
Economic Review, 13(2), 43-47.

Yavas, U. and Tuncalp, S. (1984) ‘Perceived Risk in Grocery Outlet Selection: A Case Study
in Saudi Arabia’, European Journal of Marketing, 18 (3), 13-25.

 Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.