See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222142354

Store brands and retail differentiation: The

influence of store image and store brand
attitude on store own brand...

Article in Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · November 2003

DOI: 10.1016/S0969-6989(02)00054-1

CITATIONS READS

155 3,805

2 authors, including:

Collleen Marie Collins

Simon Fraser University
8 PUBLICATIONS 481 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Collleen Marie Collins on 20 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (2003) 345–352

Store brands and retail differentiation: the influence of store image

and store brand attitude on store own brand perceptions
Colleen Collins-Dodd*, Tara Lindley
Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6

Abstract

Store’s own brands can provide important opportunities for retail differentiation if they are considered by consumers to be
uniquely associated with store image. A survey of shoppers measured attitudes toward individual stores’ images and store brand
perceptions, as well as general attitudes toward store brands. A regression analysis demonstrates a positive relationship between
consumers’ perceptions of individual store own brands and their associated store’s image dimensions and attitudes toward store
brands in general.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Retailing; Store brands; Store image

1. Introduction are viewing private label products as ‘‘an opportunity

Store brands have become an important contributor
to retail differentiation and basis for building store
loyalty. Store brands (also known as own brand, house
brands or private label brands) now account for ‘‘one of
every five items sold every day in US supermarkets, drug
chains and mass merchandizersy a $43.3 billion
segment of the retailing business (Private Label Manu-
facturers’ Association, 1999). Store brand growth has
begun to outpace overall sales growth in grocery and
drug stores as of 1998 (Thompson, 1999). In Britain,
house brands have reached close to half of grocery sales.
For example, Asda’s private label share reached 46
percent, with Sainsbury at 45 percent and Safeway at
39.4 percent (Rogers, 1998). In some categories, house
brands are the market share leader, creating store
loyalty through their exclusive distribution (Corstjens
and Corstjens, 1995).
Traditionally, retailers have focussed on the benefits
provided by higher private label margins (Fitzell, 1992).
Increasingly, retailers and consumers alike are coming
to believe that ‘‘private label is a ‘brand’ like any other
in the marketplace’’ (Private Label Manufacturers’
Association (PLMA), 1999). More importantly, retailers
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-604-291-5836;
fax: +1-604-291-4920.
E-mail address: dodd@sfu.ca (C. Collins-Dodd).
for building store image and differentiating their stores
from competitors’’ (PLMA, 1999). In the French
grocery market, where store brands are well established,
mature store brand market share is negatively correlated
with the retail-manufacturer brand price gap. This
indicates that store brands can establish customer
loyalty to such degree that the price gap between store
brands and manufacturer brands can be reduced (Wile-
man and Jary, 1997). With the overwhelming success of
some private labels in European retail (e.g. Marks and
Spencer, Asda, Tesco, Carrefour) and the popularity of
President’s Choice private label in Canada, strong retail
brands have become the source of intense interest
(Wileman and Jary, 1997).
Corstjens and Lal (2000) have demonstrated analyti-
cally and empirically that premium quality store brands
play a role in store loyalty by increasing customers’
switching costs between stores. They found that
shoppers who were more store loyal purchased a greater
share of basket from among that store’s own brands.
Inertia is the key driver in their model—satisfaction with
store brands leads to repeated purchase of that unique
brand. This greater loyalty creates profitability for store
brands even without the traditional assumption of
higher margins.
At the same time as we have seen this enhanced role
for store brands, we also find that, typically, loyalty-
based brand equity is created by consistently high levels

0969-6989/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 6 9 8 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 5 4 - 1
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
346 C. Collins-Dodd, T. Lindley / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (2003) 345–352
of investments in product quality, innovation and
marketing support (Aaker, 1993). However, retailers’
traditionally thin margins do not provide the funding to
invest in innovation or marketing support. The multi-
plicity of product offerings greatly complicates the
branding problems with hundreds of categories compared
to brand extensions across two to 20 categories at most
for manufacturers’ brands. In addition, retail culture is
generally not supportive of ‘in-house’ product develop-
ment and required supply chain investment (Wileman
and Jary, 1997). (For a fascinating insight into the
internal struggles behind the development of President’s
Choice see, Kingston’s, 1994, biography of Dave Nichol.)
Therefore, it is not surprising that commitment to
strong private label programs has been slow to develop.
However, strong private label programs that differentiate
among competitors can contribute to the lifetime value
retailers derive from their customers through both brand
and store loyalty.
A strong relationship between store and store brand
image is the fundamental requirement for a successful
differentiation strategy. Past research on store brands
has generally focussed on consumers’ attitudes toward
store brands in general or they have utilized behavioral
data. The purpose of this study is to examine the
relationship between consumers’ perceptions of specific
stores and their associated store brands, controlling for
attitudes toward store brands in general.
2. Literature review
2.1. Cue utilization theory
Cue utilization theory conceptualizes products as an
array of extrinsic and intrinsic cues that serve as quality
indicators. Extrinsic cues are peripherally related to the
product (price, brand name, packaging, store name).
Intrinsic cues are the characteristics of the core product
itself (ingredients, taste, smell, texture). The cue utiliza-
tion literature has found repeatedly that brand name is
one of the most important cues of product quality
(Dawar and Parker, 1994). In fact, blind taste tests have
demonstrated that extrinsic cues, in particular brand
name and price, often explain more variance in
perceptions of product quality than do intrinsic cues
(Richardson et al., 1994; Allison and Uhl, 1964). Among
the extrinsic cues, store name typically has a very small
effect on perceived quality (Dawar and Parker, 1994;
Rao and Monroe, 1989; Dodds et al., 1991; Grewal
et al., 1998). This result is not surprising given that these
studies have only examined well-known manufacturer
brands. The exception, Richardson et al. (1994), found
that private label extrinsic cues (including package and
lower than national brand prices) lead to judgements of
inferior product quality, but better value for money than
a leading national brand in five grocery categories.
Interestingly, the actual product ingredients themselves
(intrinsic cue) were judged to be of similar or even better
quality, in a taste test, than the national brand,
depending on the brand name manipulation. This study
reinforces the view that consumers believe that private
label products offer good value for money, but lower
quality than national brands, but it did not relate
consumers’ perceptions of the store to the private label.
Jacoby and Mazursky (1984) explicitly considered the
link between brand and store image. They found that
manufacturer brand—store combinations were evalu-
ated in a complex manner. Retailers with an unfavor-
able image could improve that image by carrying brands
with a more favorable image, and conversely, a retailer’s
image could be damaged by association with unfavor-
able brands. For brands, a somewhat different pattern
was observed. Although a strong brand could not be
harmed by association with an unfavorable store, a
positive retailer image could not help a brand with an
unfavorable image. This study establishes that a store—
brand link is possible. However, it used well-known
national brands and an experimental design that limits
its generalizability to store brand conditions.
The price–quality heuristic also plays a role in the
evaluation of private label brands. The blind taste test
results for private labels also included lower prices as
cues, so consumers may have been responding to the
price information as well as the brand information,
although for the most part, consumers expect private
label products to be cheaper than national brands (Food
Marketing Institute, 1994). A recent study found that 71
percent of consumers surveyed had tried private label
products because of low prices and 70 percent said they
did not sacrifice quality (‘‘Whatever happened to brand
demand’’?, 1995). A Nielsen study, however, found that
only 17 percent of consumers buy exclusively on the
basis of price, and the cheapest brands are seldom the
most popular (Rubel, 1995). The belief in a price–
quality relationship, coupled with the fact that price
does not invariably dominate consumers choices, helps
explain why private labels have traditionally gained only
limited market shares (Ehrenberg et al., 1997). Retailers
who have relied on private labels’ lower prices to achieve
sales are coming to realize that brand building strategies
may be worthwhile.
2.2. Brand equity and brand extensions
Store brands, particularly when they include the store
name or logo in the brand or on the package, can be
viewed as an extension of the brand name of the store
itself. Store brands represent an extensive and highly
complex umbrella branding strategy. First, store image
itself is more complex and dynamic than product
associations. Second, private labels can extend to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Collins-Dodd, T. Lindley / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (2003) 345–352
hundreds of categories. Third, although fit seems
obvious, store and store brand positioning may not be
consistent on all attributes (e.g. a low-price store may
carry a premium private label, that although cheaper
than leading manufacturers’ brands, may not be the
lowest price offering in the category). But at the heart of
it, affect generalization from store to store brand and
vice versa, should apply just as it does with other brand
extensions. Retailers can leverage positive store attitudes
to increase awareness and build positive store brand
attitudes by using packaging, merchandizing and
advertising strategies to reinforce the linkage.
We can also make the argument that store brands can
influence store image, as did Jacoby and Mazursky
(1984). In fact there may be reciprocal effects, with
causality moving in both directions. Where the store
image is weak and uncertain in the minds of consumers
due to inconsistent positioning across store outlets or
changes over time, a strong private label program
(combined with a consistent store image strategy) can
contribute to the store’s image. Typically, we expect that
the more mature and strongly held brand attitude will
dominate the developing brand attitude.
2.3. Private label attitudes
Most private label research has concerned attitudes,
behaviors and market segments for private labels (or
generic products) in general, i.e. ‘‘private label prone-
ness’’. One stream has examined the characteristics of
private label and generic purchasers. For example,
Granzin (1981) identified differences among high,
medium and non-users of generic products for demo-
graphic characteristics (income, children, age, home
ownership, car ownership), price/quality emphasis,
brand loyalty, discount store patronage and risk taking.
More recent research examines the antecedents and
outcomes of a generalized private label attitude. Factors
that have been shown to influence store brand attitudes
or proneness include: consumer price consciousness,
price–quality perceptions, deal proneness, shopping
attitudes, impulsiveness, brand loyalty, familiarity with
store brands, reliance on extrinsic cues, tolerance for
ambiguity, perceptions of store brand value, and
perceived differences between store brands and national
brands (Burton et al., 1998; Richardson et al., 1996).
Store image was not included in these conceptualiza-
tions because they deal with generalized attitudes
toward store brand rather than any store brand in
particular.
In summary, cue utilization theory suggests that store
image can be a determinant of product quality. Further,
if we consider store brands to be a brand extension of
the store brand itself, then the brand extension literature
further supports the notion that store associations and
evaluations can be generalized to store brands (and
347
perhaps vice versa). And finally, we have evidence that
consumers appear to hold generalized attitudes toward
private labels that influence purchase behavior, and are
themselves influenced by a wide variety of factors.
However, none of these three streams of research have
considered consumers’ perceptions/evaluations of indi-
vidual store brands.
3. Hypotheses
It is generally accepted that consumers hold different
perceptions of individual retailers, in large part because
retailers strategically position themselves differently in
the minds of consumers (e.g. Louviere and Johnson,
1990). In addition, Gordon’s (1994) qualitative study of
store brands found that there are no ‘‘generic’’ store
brands, but rather, as different retailers occupy different
positions in consumers’ retail configurations, consumers
hold distinct beliefs about competing store brands.
Therefore, because consumers’ overall images of retai-
lers are unique from each other, so too are their overall
images of the respective store brands. Hence:
H1. Perceptions of store brands differ across stores
Store brands are different from other brands in that
they are not only exclusive to specific retailers, they are
also owned by the retailer. Hence, the extrinsic cue
provided by the store should be much more relevant
than is the case for national brands. Because the store
name provides a highly relevant cue for the store brand,
it can act like the original brand in a brand extension,
providing a basis for overall affect generalization as well
as generalization of specific attributes. Therefore:
H2. Consumers’ perceptions of store image and store
brand image are positively associated
Consumers also appear to hold generalized attitudes
toward store brands that influence their propensity to
purchase store brands in general. These attitudes toward
store brands are related to perceptions of quality
differences between store brands and national brands,
perceived value for money of store brands, perceived
risk associated with store brands, familiarity with store
brands and reliance upon extrinsic cues such as brand
name, as well as demographic characteristics of con-
sumers (Richardson et al., 1996). These attitudes appear
to be unrelated to any store specific perception. There-
fore:
H3. In addition to their store image perceptions,
consumers’ store brand perceptions are also positively
associated with their overall attitude toward store brands
4. Method
While private labels are employed throughout many
retail sectors, this study examines store brands within
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
348 C. Collins-Dodd, T. Lindley / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (2003) 345–352
the grocery sector. Due to its size and significance, the
grocery sector has been the focus of much of the recent
attention concerning the growth of store brands and the
possible decline in power and value of leading national
brands (Wileman and Jary, 1997). Accounting for 30–50
percent of all retail spending, grocery is the largest sector
in retailing. Grocery also carries the most established
private label market in Canada, where the research was
conducted (Brand Strategy September, 1995).
In Canada, 75 percent of the grocery market is
concentrated among the top five supermarket chains,
some of which are regional (Wileman and Jary, 1997).
The top three retailers in terms of local market share,
Safeway, Superstore, and Save-On Foods, should be
representative for this study. Each of these supermarket
giants also has an organized store brand program in
place that is distinctive from each other.
4.1. Sample
Research reveals that the proximity of a store to a
consumer’s home exerts a significant influence on the
consumer’s evaluation and patronage of the store (Eppli
and Shilling, 1996). In this study we are interested in
consumers’ attitude toward the brand name of the
store, which should be fairly consistent across its
various locations in the case of retail chains. Because
locational convenience might produce a halo effect
on the other dimensions of store image, we were
concerned that the store image–store own brand
relationship would not be generalizable across locations,
therefore, we wanted to control the effect of location.
In effect, it is possible that a convenient location
could drive shopping behavior and in turn influence
consumers’ store image perceptions on non-location
dimensions.
Therefore, to minimize the influence of store location
on store and store own brand evaluations, consumers
residing in a single neighborhood who were a fairly
similar distance from each of the three stores under
observation were selected as a convenience sample for
the study. In addition, the local Safeway and Save-On
Foods were located across a parking lot from each
other, making them virtually equidistant to the respon-
dents.
A researcher personally contacted each household at
their residence. The family member responsible for
household grocery purchases was asked to complete the
questionnaire. The questionnaires were subsequently
collected in person from each household.
4.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The
first section assessed store selection and perception. The
importance of various store attributes in the store
selection process was measured using a 7-point likert
scale anchored by (1) Not Important and (7) Very
Important. The importance attributes were derived from
underlying store image dimensions identified by
Chowdhury et al. (1998) in their review of literature
on store image dimensions. The store image attributes
measured were: product variety, employee service, store
atmosphere, prices, and product quality and overall
attitude. These store image dimensions were employed
to measure the store image of Safeway, Save-On Foods
and Superstore. Friendly employees and store atmo-
sphere were combined into a single atmosphere variable
to make the items commensurate with the store brand
image items presented later. The image statements were
measured using a 7-point likert scale, anchored by (1)
Strongly Disagree and (7) Strongly Agree, where 7
represented the most positive level. Because there are no
commensurate convenience perceptions for products
compared to store convenience, we did not include a
convenience dimension.
The second section of the questionnaire assessed
brand selection and evaluation, as well as general
attitudes towards store and national brands. In order
to evaluate store brand images, respondents were asked
to rate store brands associated with each of the three
stores, using the same 7-point likert scale that was used
for the store image dimensions. The store brand items
used to measure the image of Safeway Select (Safeway),
Western Classics (Save-On), and President’s Choice
(Superstore) were very similar to those employed to
measure store image. Items included store brand variety,
quality, low prices, value, appealing packaging and
overall attitude.
Several items from Richardson et al. (1996) and
Burton et al. (1998) concerning national and store
brands in general were used to gauge overall attitude
towards, and beliefs about store brands. These were:
always purchase store brands, purchase store brands
in certain categories, purchase national brands only
when on sale, purchase store brands when cheaper,
store brand quality as good as national brands, store
brands offer substantial savings). Seven-point likert
scales were used to measure agreement with the brand
statements. To determine relative expenditures on store
brands and national brands, respondents were asked to
allocate $100 dollars among various store brands
and national brands. As a control, respondents were
asked to report the distance to each of the stores from
their home.
A pre-test was completed with 10 respondents. It
was found that several respondents could not consis-
tently offer an opinion due to their unfamiliarity with,
or indifference towards certain stores and store brands.
Consequently, no opinion options were added to
the store and brand image questions in the final
questionnaire.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Collins-Dodd, T. Lindley / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (2003) 345–352 349

Table 1
Store/store brand perceptions and behavior

Mean percent total Percent of Mean store Mean percent Mean store brand
grocery respondents who perception expenditures store perception
expenditures spend most brands

Safeway 43.6 36.6 4.87 15.3 4.26

Save-on 29.3 21.5 4.73 15.3 4.16
Superstore 8.8 18.3 3.82 6.4 4.08
Other 18.3 23.7

Ratings: 1=Least Favorable 7=Most Favourable.

5. Results Table 2
Store perceptions (mean ratings, standard deviations)
In the neighborhood selected, 148 households were Safeway Save-on Superstore
contacted and 103 completed the questionnaire (69.6 nn
Variety 5.26 (1.26) 5.56 (1.25) 4.74 (1.72)
percent response). All but one of the questionnaires was Product qualitynn 5.19 (1.09) 5.11 (1.24) 4.25 (1.55)
usable. Low pricesnn 3.24 (1.35) 4.67 (1.35) 5.16 (1.77)
Not surprisingly, the most important determinants of Value for Moneynn 4.04 (1.80) 4.24 (1.61) 3.80 (1.96)
store selection were quality products, convenient loca- Pleasant atmospherenn 5.88 (1.14) 4.48 (1.55) 2.70 (1.56)
tion and value. Store brand offerings were the least Overall attitudenn 5.41 (1.43) 4.60 (1.66) 3.21 (1.97)
Minimum n 88 83 61
important attribute, although 36 percent of respondents
nn
rated store brands as 6 or 7 (1=Not important 7=Very Indicates po0:05 (repeated measures ANOVA) 1=Least Positive
important). Only 7 respondents reported never purchas- 7=Most Positive.
ing store brands. Safeway was the most popular and
highly rated store, followed by Save-On Foods and
Great Canadian Superstore (Table 1). Store brands Table 3
followed a similar pattern. Virtually every respondent Store brand item evaluations
had shopped at Safeway to some degree (only 8 percent
Safeway Save-on Superstore
spent nothing at Safeway), although the same is not true
for Save-On (24.5 percent spent nothing at Save-On) or Variety 4.62 (1.26) 4.68 (1.45) 4.60 (1.30)
Superstore (69 percent spent nothing at Superstore). We Product qualityn 4.79 (1.30) 4.51 (1.47) 4.53 (1.29)
Low prices 4.07 (1.46) 4.44 (1.48) 4.42 (1.26)
note that fewer respondents evaluated Superstore Value for money 3.82 (1.54) 3.95 (1.59) 3.79 (1.49)
characteristics, which is to be expected given that a Packaging 4.25 (1.41) 4.08 (1.59) 3.74 (1.59)
considerable percentage spent nothing on average each Overall 4.43 (1.65) 4.17 (1.69) 4.02 (1.56)
month at Superstore. Even fewer respondents evaluated attitudenn
Minimum n 61 37 44
each store brand, with as many as 27 percent, 35 percent
and 38 percent reporting no opinion for Safeway, Save- n
Indicates po0:10:
nn
On and Superstore brands, respectively. Indicates po0:05 (repeated measures ANOVA) 1=Least Positive
Multi-item measures of store brand image as well as 7=Most Positive.
generalized attitude toward store brands were subject to
a principal components factor analysis to determine an overall store brand attitude variable. This variable
dimensionality. Reliabilities were then calculated for was significantly correlated with the importance rating
each scale. Store brand image items were factor analyzed of store brands in store choice decisions (r ¼ 0:45;
separately for each store/brand. In every case, only one po0:01) and the percentage expenditure on all store
factor obtained an eigenvalue greater than one, and all brands (r ¼ 0:56; po0:01) Table 2.
multi-item scale reliabilities as measured by Cronbach’s
Alpha were greater than 0.83 (Table 4). Because the 5.1. Store brands are distinct
loadings were unique for each store and store brand,
composite store brand image variables were created by Stores appeared to hold quite unique positions with
averaging the six items for store brand. respondents (Table 2). Safeway was perceived most
Six items that measured attitudes toward store brands favorably for atmosphere, Save-On for variety and
in general were also factor analyzed. Again, a single Superstore for low prices. Repeated measures Anova
eigenvalue was greater than one. Although the factor supported significant differences among stores across all
explained only 47.33 percent of the total item variance, measures. Store brand evaluations were less distinct
the six items achieved an acceptable reliability of 0.76 (Table 3). Repeated measures Anova showed significant
(Cronbach’s alpha). The items were averaged to create difference among brands for overall attitude (po0:05),
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
350 C. Collins-Dodd, T. Lindley / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (2003) 345–352

Table 4 Table 6
Factor analysis/reliabilities for store image and store brand image
items
Coefficient Std. Sig. Tolerance
Percent variance Cronbach’s Error
explained alpha
(a) Standardized regressions coefficients: dependent variable: Safeway
Safeway store brand image 63.04 0.87 store own brand image
Save-On store brand image 78.65 0.96 General attitude 0.48 0.10 0.00 0.85
Superstore store brand image 65.63 0.90 toward store brands
Safeway store 0.23 0.12 0.05 0.43
variety
Safeway store 0.04 0.16 0.78 0.38
Table 5 quality
Mean store brand image evaluations by store most shopped Safeway store low 0.006 0.09 0.94 0.68
prices
Store shopped most Safeway Save-On Superstore Safeway store value 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.44
brand brand brand for money
Safeway store 0.30 0.13 0.02 0.47
Safeway shoppers 4.57 3.36 3.97
atmosphere
Save-On shoppers 4.81 5.26 4.54
Overall Safeway 0.09 0.13 0.45 0.29
Superstore shoppers 3.73 4.00 4.63
store attitude
Other shoppers 4.38 3.57 3.85
R2 0.50
Repeated measures Anova multivariate tests (Pillai’s Trace; Wilks
Lambda) (b) Dependent variable: Save-On store own brand image
General attitude 0.51 0.10 0.00 0.79
Value F Sig toward store brands
Save-On store 0.09 0.20 0.67 0.30
Store brand 0.07 1.34 0.27 variety
0.93 1.34 0.27 Save-On store 0.01 0.19 0.95 0.28
Store brand  Store most 0.44 3.54 0.004 quality
shopped Save-On store low 0.02 0.11 0.84 0.50
0.61 3.46 0.005 prices
Save-On store value 0.26 0.13 0.05 0.35
Note: Store brands within subjects; store most shopped between
for money
subjects.
Save-On store 0.03 0.11 0.81 0.46
atmosphere
Overall Save-On 0.29 0.16 0.08 0.22
quality (po0:10) and recommend to a friend (po0:10). store attitude
An Anova of the store brand image composite variable
showed no significant difference across stores. However, R2 0.68
once we introduced the store respondents shopped at
(c) Dependent variable: Superstore store own brand image
most, the store brand image by store most shopped
General attitude 0.35 0.11 0.00 0.86
interaction was significant. As we see in Table 5, toward store brands
respondents rated their ‘‘own’’ store’s brands most Superstore store 0.03 0.11 0.76 0.34
favorably and significantly different from other stores. variety
Thus we do not find support for Hypothesis 1 as stated, Superstore store 0.33 0.16 0.04 0.23
quality
in fact, the relationship is somewhat more complex than
Superstore store low 0.10 0.11 0.34 0.37
we had originally expected. prices
Superstore store 0.09 0.13 0.48 0.22
value for money
5.2. Store brands and store image association
Superstore store 0.08 0.12 0.51 0.37
atmosphere
Simple pair-wise correlations between all comparable Overall Superstore 0.07 0.14 0.66 0.15
store and store brand items for each of the three stores store attitude
were significantly correlated (po0:05), suggesting that
R2 0.59
the items which characterized the store brand image
were related to their respective store image items.
Regression analysis of the influence of store image stores. Interestingly, the determinant store image vari-
items on store own brand image, controlling for ables were different for each store. So not only are the
generalized store brand attitudes, supported Hypotheses store brand images different, they are also uniquely
2 and 3 (Table 6). A store image item was a significant related to the unique positioning of each store. Safeway
predictor of store brand image for each of the three is recognized for its atmosphere and variety, Save-On
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Collins-Dodd, T. Lindley / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (2003) 345–352
for its value for money (and relatively weak atmo-
spherics at the time), and Superstore for the quality of
its products (especially its own brand President’s Choice
line of goods).
The regressions in Table 6 also show that all store
brand images shared a common generalized store brand
attitude component. Hence, it appears that store brand
images are comprised of at least two components: one
store specific and one that is applicable to all store
brands in general, supporting Hypotheses 2 and 3.
To check for multicollinearity, tolerance levels were
all above 0.10. In addition, to further test whether store
brand image was unique to each store, regression
analyses that included other store’s image variables as
independent variables found no significant cross-store
effects.
We tested for halo effects of location (as measured by
distance) and percent of grocery budget spent at each
store. Store image was statistically significant in
predicting store brand evaluations even after accounting
for % spending at that store. As expected by the sample
selection criteria that controlled location, location was
not significant in predicting store brand evaluations. In
addition, distance was not significantly correlated with
individuals’ proportion of spending at each store. This
confirms our expectation that location would not be the
driving force in the store choice and hence store brand
attitudes for this sample.
6. Discussion and conclusions
The results of this study confirm that a generalized
attitude toward store brands is an important determi-
nant of individual store brand evaluations, as has been
implied by previous research but not empirically tested
with specific store brands. Importantly, we also found
support for the influence of the store image on specific
store brand evaluations. This supports the notion that
store brands are seen as extensions of the store image
and can, therefore, contribute to store differentiation in
the minds of consumers. That store brands were rated
most highly by those who shopped most at each store
may be explained by greater experience or familiarity,
but we also found that the store image–store own brand
relationship was significant even after we controlled for
spending. This also points to the possibility that store
brands may also contribute to store loyalty or, alterna-
tively, provide an important source of higher margin sales
with more loyal customers. Either way, the store wins.
While we have generally assumed that store image
that influences store brand image, this is not the only
possible causal direction. Store brands may also
contribute to the store’s image. We expect that this
would particularly be the case for stores that only carry
their own brands (e.g. Marks and Spencer, Club
351
Monaco) or for new stores or major repositioning. In
the stores under consideration in this study, all are very
well established, as are their private label programs
(Superstore, the most recent entrant with the fewest
stores, has been in this marketplace over 10 years.
Safeway, in particular, has a long history of private
label, although the Safeway Select and Western Classic
labels are relatively new (3 years at most)).
The relatively weaker association between Safeway
and its private label compared to Save-On was some-
what surprising given the fact that Safeway is included
in the private brand name, ‘‘Safeway Select’’. We noted
that Safeway shoppers (i.e. those who shopped most at
Safeway) placed the lowest importance on store brands
in their store selection compared to shoppers at the
other stores (po0:05) and they also purchased the
highest percentage of national brands. Safeway shop-
pers purchased 61.77 percent national brands vs. 42.25
percent and 35.76 percent for Save-On and Superstore
(po0:05). Superstore’s advertising focus on its private
label products combined with Safeway’s customers’
lower price sensitivity (po0:10) may at least partially
explain this result.
A key limitation of this research involves the subset
of store image variables selected. We have not included
location or other aspects of convenience, which
traditionally comprise a dimension of store image
(Chowdhury et al., 1998). Instead we chose to focus
on those attributes of store’s brand image that would be
considered commensurate with stores’ own brand
product image.
In addition, we have not determined the relative
influence of these image variables compared to location
on store choice. We would expect in general that
location would dominate store brand perceptions in
store choice. As we have seen above, store brands may
play a relatively minor role in store choice, especially for
some stores. However, in a competitive marketplace
with strong locational competition, store brands may be
the added dimension of advantage for success.
This contribution of store brand name is subject to a
further caveat. If store image within a chain tends to be
variable across locations, then the opportunity to build
the link between the brand name of the store and its own
brands is also variable. In this case, the brand equity of
the store’s brand itself would be questionable.
Within the limits of this study’s convenience sample of
respondents and self-report measures of purchasing
behavior, it appears reasonable to conclude that private
labels should be considered in broader store positioning
strategies as they are influenced by (or even contribute
to) store image evaluations. They can and do appear to
differentiate among retailers, especially among retailers’
best customers. Retailers can use their store brands to
build loyalty by creating exclusive products that are
consistent with their overall store image.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
352 C. Collins-Dodd, T. Lindley / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (2003) 345–352
This paper fills a gap in the literature relating to store
brands as individual brands. Previous research has dealt
with the phenomenon of store brands as a concept that
is different from national brands, but does not explore
store specific brand influences. We believe that it is time
to open up the discussion of brand issues as related to
store brands.
References
Aaker, D.A., 1993. Brand Equity and Advertising, Advertising’s Role
in Building Strong Brands. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hills-
dale, NJ.
Allison, R.I., Uhl, K.P., 1964. Influence of beer brand identification on
taste perception. Journal of Marketing Research 2, 36–39.
Brand Strategy, 1995. Research Digest, September 29.
Burton, S., Donald, R.L., Richard, G.N., Judith, A.G., 1998. A scale
for measuring attitude toward private label products and an
examination of its psychological and behavioral correlates. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 26 (4), 293–306.
Chowdhury, J., Reardon, J., Srivastava, R., 1998. Alternative modes
of measuring St Jhinuk ore image: an empirical assessment of
structured versus unstructured measures. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice 6 (2), 72–86.
Corstjens, J., Corstjens, M., 1995. Store Wars: The Battle for
Mindspace and Shelfspace. Wiley, Chichester, England.
Corstjens, M., Lal, R., 2000. Building store loyalty through store
brands. Journal of Marketing Research 37, 281–291.
Dawar, N., Parker, P., 1994. Marketing universals: consumers’ use of
brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as
signals of product quality. Journal of Marketing 58, 81–95.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., Grewal, D., 1991. Effects of price, brand
and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of
Marketing Research 28, 307–319.
Ehrenberg, A., Schriven, J., Barnard, N., 1997. Advertising and price.
Journal of Advertising Research 37, 27–35.
Eppli, M.J., Shilling, J.D., 1996. How critical is a good location to a
regional shopping centre? The Journal of Real Estate Research 12,
459–468.
View publication stats
Food Marketing Institute, 1994. Consumer Perspectives on National
and Store Brands FMI, Washington, DC.
Fitzell, P.B., 1992. Private Label Marketing in the 1990s: The
Evolution of Price Labels into Global Brands. Global Book
Productions, New York.
Granzin, K.L., 1981. An investigation of the market for generic
products. Journal of Retailing 57 (4), 39–55.
Grewal, D.R., Krishnan, J.B., Norm, B., 1998. The effect of store
name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations
and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing 74 (3), 331–352.
Gordon, W., 1994. Retailer brands—the value equation for success in
the 90s. Journal of the Market Research Society 36 (3), 165–181.
Jacoby, J., Mazursky, D., 1984. Linking brand and retailer images: do
the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits? Journal of
Retailing 60 (2), 105–122.
Kingston, A., 1994. The Edible Man: Dave Nichol, President’s Choice
and the Making of Popular Taste. MacFarlane, Walter and Ross,
Toronto.
Louviere, J.J., Johnson, R.D., 1990. Reliability and validity of the
brand-anchored conjoint approach to measuring retailer images.
Journal of Retailing 66 (4), 359–382.
Private Label Manufacturers’ Association, 1999. Store Brands Today,
http://www.plma.com/storeBrands/sbr99.html
Rao, A.R., Monroe, K.B., 1989. The effects of price, brand name
and store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality:
an integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research 26 (3),
351–357.
Richardson, P.S., Dick, A.S., Jain, A.K., 1994. Extrinsic and intrinsic
cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of
Marketing 58, 28–36.
Richardson, P.S., Jain, A.K., Dick, A.S., 1996. Household store brand
proneness: a framework. Journal of Retailing 2 (72), 159–185.
Rogers, D., 1998. Asda Nears 50 percent Own Label Sales. Marketing:
London, 5.
Rubel, C., 1995. Price, quality important for private-label goods.
Marketing News 29, 24–27.
Thompson, S., 1999. The new private enterprise. Brandweek 40 (18),
36–48.
‘‘Whatever happened to brand demand’’?, 1995. American Demo-
graphics, January, 48–49.
Wileman, A., Jary, M., 1997. Retail Power Plays: from Trading to
Brand Leadership. Macmillan Business, Great Britain.