Double Jeopardy – 50 Years On. Reviving a Forgotten Tool that Still Predicts Brand Loyalty

Graham, Charles; Bennett, Dag; Franke, K; Henfrey, C; Nagy-Hamada, May

doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.10.009

Cited by 30 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For almost 60 years, the pattern consistently shows that small brands have fewer buyers, who purchase slightly less frequently, and bigger brands have more buyers who buy slightly more frequently (Ehrenberg & Goodhardt, 2002;Sharp et al, 2012). The difference between big brands and small brands is the percentage of category buyers purchasing in the period, and not their loyalty (often measured as purchase frequency, or share of category) (Graham et al, 2017;Greenacre et al, 2015;Uncles & Kwok, 2009). The pattern occurs in FMCGs including instant coffee (Greenacre et al, 2015), toothpaste, carbonated soft drinks, yogurt, instant noodle, soy sauce (Uncles & Kwok, 2009), and many other categories such as washing detergent (Scriven et al, 2017).…”

Section: Dj-a Behavioral Loyalty Patternmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analyzing proprietary, private label, and non-brands in fresh produce purchases

Anesbury

Jürkenbeck

Bogomolov

et al. 2020

International Journal of Market Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When purchasing packaged products within a supermarket, consumers choose between proprietary or private label brands. However, when purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables, non-branded produce is the dominant option—with proprietary and private label brands only recently becoming available. Previous fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) research finds that proprietary and private label brands affect consumer loyalty—however, no research exists for fresh categories. This research is the first to determine the effect of emerging brands in fresh categories on consumer buying behavior. Our research examines consumers’ loyalty toward proprietary, private label, or non-branded fresh fruits and vegetables and the level of customer sharing between these options, using analytical approaches applicable to FMCG categories. The panel data contains nearly 46,000 households making over 8 million purchases in the United States during 2015. Results show that proprietary, private label, and now non-branded fresh produce have expected loyalty levels, for their size, and consumers share their purchases across the three options (i.e., consumers are not loyal to just one option). The study analyzes and interprets purchase data in fresh categories offering marketing academics and practitioners actionable advice for working with fresh produce purchase data.

show abstract

Section: Dj-a Behavioral Loyalty Patternmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For several decades, marketing researchers became accustomed to working with consumer purchase data in fast moving consumer goods (FMCGs), developing approaches to guide their analyses (Graham et al, 2017). When documenting brand loyalty relative to size, use double jeopardy (DJ) (Ehrenberg et al, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing proprietary, private label, and non-brands in fresh produce purchases

Anesbury

Jürkenbeck

Bogomolov

et al. 2020

International Journal of Market Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Allenby and Lenk, 1995; Bartels and van den Berg, 2011). The second reason for interest in NM is its relation to the well-known Double Jeopardy effect (Graham et al, 2017). Double Jeopardy is a pattern by which small brands obtain somewhat less loyalty, whereas large brands obtain somewhat higher loyalty from their buyers (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Natural Monopoly Effect in Brand Purchasing: Do Big Brands Really Appeal to Lighter Category Buyers?

Dawes

2020

Australasian Marketing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the Natural Monopoly [NM] effect, which is that large brands have buyers who are on average less frequent or ‘lighter’ purchasers of the product category. The study analyzes the NM effect for brands in 28 consumer goods categories in The Netherlands. The analysis employs a multiple regression with category purchase rate as the dependent variable; and brand penetration, together with brand price, brand type, average pack size and promotion incidence as independent variables. The study finds that higher brand penetration is indeed associated with a lower rate of category purchase, controlling for the other variables in the model. The NM effect is reasonably large: the largest two brands in a category tend to have a buyer base that on average purchase the category about 25% less frequently than those of the smallest two. The study also derives an explanation for how large brands are generally purchased more frequently, even when their buyer base on average buys the category less frequently. The findings imply that a focus on heavy category buyers is inconsistent with the goal of growing a brand.

show abstract

“…but gives no evidence of loyalty at the BOP or any other level. However, it has been repeatedly shown that most brand buyers in any customer base are predictably light buyers (Graham et al, 2017).…”

Section: Extending the Analysis To A New Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why include the BOP in your international marketing strategy

Nagy

Bennett

Graham

2019

IMR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to test the premise that brand growth can come from targeting the poorest consumers at the bottom of the economic pyramid (BOP). This study is the first that uses quantitative marketplace data covering BOP consumer purchase records. Design/methodology/approach The study uses newly available panel data from Egypt covering 15 months and 35 categories of frequently bought consumer goods. Brand penetration rates for socio-demographic tiers are established to explore brand purchasing. The metrics are: penetration, the number of buyers a brand has; and loyalty as measured by purchase frequency and share of category requirements. Findings Buyer behaviour patterns for the poorest consumers do not differ much from those in advanced economies; all brand performance metrics vary according to brand penetration – a double jeopardy effect, and the biggest brands are those that target the whole market, including the base. Research limitations/implications Data are from one country only and while the results confirm that patterns of brand buying in this BOP segment are like those in other markets, more research needs to be done to confirm the finding. Practical implications The biggest brands are those with the most customers, even if those customers are poor and do not buy very often. Growth can therefore be based on marketing interventions that appeal to the largest possible customer base. Social implications There are 2bn BOP consumers worldwide. This research shows that they may already be marginal members of modern economies and consumer culture. Originality/value This paper extends previous research on brand buying behaviour for the first time to the vast base of poor consumers who make up around half of the world’s population. This research shows that strategic approaches that emphasise increasing penetration are most likely to result in brand growth.

show abstract

Double Jeopardy – 50 Years On. Reviving a Forgotten Tool that Still Predicts Brand Loyalty

Cited by 30 publications

References 36 publications

Analyzing proprietary, private label, and non-brands in fresh produce purchases

Analyzing proprietary, private label, and non-brands in fresh produce purchases

The Natural Monopoly Effect in Brand Purchasing: Do Big Brands Really Appeal to Lighter Category Buyers?

Why include the BOP in your international marketing strategy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About