Antecedents of the difference in perceived risk between store brands and national brands

Abstract

PurposeThe present study sets out to analyze the effects that a set of variables related to purchasing behaviour has on the difference in perceived risk between store brands and national brands.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology proposed to achieve the objective consists of analyzing the existing relationship between different aspects relating to purchasing behaviour of the consumer and the difference in perceived risk between the two types of brands through a causal and integrated model. Such a model covers both the direct effects and the indirect effects caused by these variables jointly. In order to do so data were obtained from two groups of people, which has allowed for cross‐validation of the methodology used, which, in turn, permitted a greater generalization of the results.FindingsThe variables which have proven to be most relevant when explaining this difference are the perceived quality of the store as opposed to that of the national brands, familiarity with the store brands and confidence in the extrinsic attributes of the product to assess its quality.Originality/valuePrevious empirical research has focused primarily on the individual effects of these variables. A causal model is proposed capable of demonstrating that, besides the direct effect of a variable on the difference in perceived risk between store brands and national brands, there may be other ways for this variable to exercise its influence. This is important because of the implications for retailers when managing their own brands.

Antecedentes Da Intenção De Compra De Marcas Próprias: Um Estudo No Mercado Emergente

“…Isso ocorre porque o risco percebido tende a ser mais baixo quando os preços são mais altos, uma vez que os consumidores assumem uma relação linear entre preço e qualidade (Olbrich & Jansen, 2014). Assim, a inferioridade percebida nas marcas próprias é uma fonte de incerteza acerca do nível de satisfação para os consumidores desse tipo de marca, aumentando o risco associado à sua compra (Mieres, Martín, & Gutiérrez, 2006). Seis diferentes tipos de riscos percebidos são encontrados na literatura: risco financeiro, social, físico, psicológico, de tempo e de desempenho (Laforet, 2007;Mitra, Reiss, & Capella, 1999;Solomon, 2011;Stone & Gronhaug, 1993).…”

“…O risco social relaciona-se à força da crença do cliente de que ele possa ser avaliado negativamente por terceiros devido à marca escolhida (Liljander, Polsa, & Riel, 2009). O risco físico é o medo causado pela possibilidade de um produto prejudicar a saúde ou ferir fisicamente uma pessoa (Mieres et al, 2006). O risco psicológico pode ser descrito como a antecipação de possível decepção por parte do consumidor em selecionar um produto de má qualidade, afetando seu bemestar mental (Ueltschy, Krampf, & Yannopoulos, 2004).…”

Factors Influencing Customer Perceived Quality and Purchase Intention toward Private Labels in the Vietnam Market: The Moderating Effects of Store Image

“…With respect to private labels, familiarity is empirically proved as an important factor that motivates private label proneness by declining uncertainty. When private labels are more familiar to the buyers, the difference of risk perception between national brands and private labels becomes smaller (Mieres et al, 2006).…”

“…In the study of analyzing the difference between private labels and national brands, Mieres et al (2006) believe that familiarity factor motivates the buyers to judge private labels as high quality alternatives when they lack experience about these products. This is to say, when consumers get more knowledge or information about private labels, they perceive their quality to be less different in comparison with national brands .…”

“…All of the 25 items measuring seven variables were adapted from previous studies. Financial risk, performance risk and physical risk were adapted from Mieres et al (2006) and Stone & Grønhaug (1993). Familiarity came from the research of Simonin and Ruth (1998) (as cited at Lin, 2013 andDick et al, 1995).…”