factors affecting the private label brands in f.m.c.g. sectorjoics.org/gallery/ics-1637.pdf ·...
Post on 01-Aug-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Factors affecting the Private Label Brands in F.M.C.G. Sector
(An empirical study at Allahabad)
AkankshaJaiswal 1jaiswal26akanksha@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research paper is to analyze and determine factors that affects the selection of
consumers for brands and are able to occupy their basket of purchase. In an organized retail market the
consumer is faced with a lot of options in terms of brands. There are nationalized brands, generic brands
as well as private labels. The research focuses on investigating the factors that affect the choice of
consumers for choosing private labels and determining which factor affects the choice more and in what
proportion. For this purpose, we have employed a multi-criteria decision-making tool AHP(Analytic
Hierarchy Process) to quantify factors & finding the relative importance of brands to consumers as why
they prefer one over the other.AHP is a tool developed by (Saaty, 1980), is a multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) process that helps in solving the complex problems in an efficient and effective way.
This study focuses on FMCG sector and restricted to the people of Allahabad. The sample size is 150.The
factors affecting the purchase are identified, sub-criteria is also considered and then the pair-wise
comparisons are performed to find the relative importance of a brand to consumers. The findings and
analysis of AHP model clearly reveals about the selection of consumers in terms of brands as why one is
preferable over the other or why one is less important than other. In addition, it also determines the
factors that affect their purchase, and the brands which successfully find a space in their basket,
quantitatively.
Keywords: AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), CR (Consistency Ratio), CI (Consistency Index), RI
(Random Index)
INTRODUCTION
Private labels are those products which are owned, manufactured & provided by retailers under their
name or under their branding. They are typically regarded as low cost alternative to nationalized &
generic brands available. Private labels growth in recent years had made both the retailers & customers
drive this segment’s popularity which provides numerous benefits to them.
The concept of private labels is not new. It was first used in the Atlantic & Pacific tea company. It was
partially built upon it’s freshly ground (in-store) 8 O’clock Coffee in the early 1900’s. The growth of
Sears-Roebuck was in part driven by a strategy of purchasing and developing its own brands (Craftsman,
Kenmore, etc.) which remain key American brand institutions. In Europe, Migros, Aldi and Tesco all
built successful retail empires based solely on the development and proliferation of their own brands. In
organized retails they occupy a large portion of the shelf space. The extensive literature Review reveals
various points about this. In developed markets, private labels occupy a noticeable level of share;
Switzerland 46 percent, U.K 44 percent, U.S 17 percent, Australia 14 percent [Nelson].
Over the past two decades, private label products have grown steadily in sales and often directly compete
for market share with national brands and generic brands.
In our study we are primarily concerned with determining& prioritizing the factors affecting the selection
of private labels over nationalized & generic brands which are an alternative to it. Analytical hierarchy
process is a structured technique to manage complex decisions. It provides a comprehensive and coherent
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org159
approach to structuring a problem. It is capable to recording a subjective as well as objective view of a
decision-maker.
Selection of these brands depends on various criteria. The exact evaluation of multi criteria may affect the
selection of private-label brands involves various qualitative & quantitative criteria. Hence, we have
deployed an AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) which is multi-criteria decision–making approach
introduced by (Saaty, 1980) (Satty, 1998) that is hierarchical in nature, which decomposed the
unstructured problem into lower levels of structured ones through pair-wise comparisons.
Figure 1: AHP Method Model
LITERATURE REVIEW
Private label (PL), or store brand, has been introduced by retailers to compete with national manufacturers
vertically, and with other retailers horizontally. PLs have been growing fast, adopted and sold in most of
North American super and hyper-super markets. According to (Richardson Paul, 1996), income and
household size do influence PL proneness (negatively for the first, positively for the second). (Dhar
Sanjay K, 1997)Dar and Hoch (1997) also show that the PL market share increases in areas where the
population is more aged or less wealthy. Cole and (Sethuraman Radj, 1999)demonstrate that the highest
PL proneness relies in the medium income classes. Binkley et al. (2001) find that well-educated people
are more prone to buy store brands.
(Steiner, 2004) summarizes a subset of the literature that argues that intra-store competition between NBs
and PLs is important for generating consumer welfare through lower overall prices and increased quality
and variety in supermarkets. Several studies have argued against the profitability of PL promotions
GOAL
Factor1 Factor3 Factor2
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org160
(Tellis G.J, 1995); (Ailawadi, 2001).A number of studies, including (Corstiens.M, 2000) and (Cotteril
R.W., 2000), as well as several summarized by (Steiner, 2004), have shown that the penetration as well as
the quality of PLs has shown a considerable increase within product categories. There are many examples
of
applications of multiple criteria decision making in literature (For instance: The evaluation of service
quality(Mousavi et al., 2010); Intercompany comparison (Limonand Martinez, 2006); The applications in
aggregate production planning (Harker and Vargas, 1987), Facility location selection (Mianabadi and
Afshar, 2008) and large scale nonlinear programming (Wang and Liang,2004).Despite the dearth of
studies on evaluating the selection criteria of brands, there has been a substantial amount of research into
the method of appraising the performance of private-label brands.
As the wants & desires of consumers are numerous which is backed by an ability to pay lead to the
various options available to them in terms of brands, national, private & generic, they can avail them at
their services and convenience. Even though the types of service one can avail from these brands are
comparable, still the benefaction among them is different. There are various multiple criteria that need to
be considered for selection of brands, which can have varying degrees of importance with respect to
alternatives available. So we need to calculate & compare different brands on the basis of multiple
identified factors. Considering the exhaustive list of factors is very difficult to manage, but their
immediate relevance to the topic cannot be ignored. Many researchers were of the view that private labels
and the effect of different factors on them, where the detailed study has still not undertaken, leads to a gap
in literature available among all the private labels variable or factors. To eliminate the literature gap and
to analyze the effect of factors and their relationship, we have divided them into four major criteria like
Quality, Price, Promotional offers, Accessibility. All these four factors have a prominent role in
determining and selecting the private labels.
OBJECTIVES & RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The aim of this paper is to analyze and evaluate the factors affecting the selection or sale of a private label
brands over the nationalized and generic brands. It is an empirical study conducted in Allahabad city on
over 150 consumers who shop often for brands and we employed a convenience sampling for collection
of data. The aim is to prioritize the factors affecting the private labels by quantifying it via application of
Analytic Hierarchy Process., which provides an effective means to quantify qualitative judgments of
respondent & useful in determining the relative importance of all the available alternatives.
The methodology adopted for this purpose can be segregated into two parts, firstly, Data collection and
secondly Data analytics.
For data collection a questionnaire has been used as survey instrument, using a Saaty scale to record the
responses of respondents. It has four sections for four criteria we are considering for our evaluation and
the sub-criteria as well. In total comparisons questions were used that helps us to prioritize the factors
within and between criteria different hierarchy level.
For Data Analytics we have employed AHP by decomposing a problem into lower decision level in
hierarchical form, then at each level a pair-wise comparisons is done through the response received from
consumers and finally on the basis of eigen-vector all the elements are prioritized using the relative
weights obtained.
Importance Decision Preference
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org161
1 Equal Preference
3 Moderate Preference of one over other
5 Strong Preference of one over other
7 Very Strong Preference of one over other
9 Extreme Preference of one over other
2,4,6,8 Intermediate Values
Table 1: Scale for pair-wise comparisons
DATA ANALYSIS
Firstly, priority weights are assigned to all criteria. Pair-wise comparisons are done between all the
criteria and sub-criteria at each hierarchy level, this will help us determine the relative importance of each
criteria. Hence, for n criteria there will be n*(n-1)/2 comparison values.In our study the four criteria
comparison is depicted in the diagram. The AHP can be applied by framing a problem into hierarchical
structure, then obtaining & comparing the decision matrix followed by checking the consistency and
calculating their local weights and then integrating to obtain a final weight of alternatives.
Figure 2: Four criteria pair-wise comparisons
Suppose there are M alternatives with n criteria having a relative weights w1,w2,w3,…..n.Each
alternative can be assessed in terms of decision criteria and relative weights of each criterion can be
Quality
Price
Promotional
offers
Accessibility
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org162
estimated as well. Let bij (i=1,2,3…M j=1,2,3……N) denote the performance value of the ith
alternative(Ai) in terms of jth criterion(Cj)
C1 C2 C3
Figure 3: Decision Matrix
Eigen-Value(EV) can be calculated using the formula:
EV=ƛmax*W, Where ƛmax is Eigen value,
max
1
( )1 ni
i i
AW
n W
Here, W is a non-zero eigen-vector. After normalization of W, its vector element it is considered as local
weight of each decision factor. Then consistency of user’s judgment is determined by the ratio of
Consistency Index (CI) to Random Index (RI) called the Consistency Ratio (CR).If the ratio is zero the it
is perfectly consistent and if less than 0.1 then the further calculation is consistent else needs adjustment.
max( )
( 1)
nCI
n
CR=CI/RI
Table 2: Consistency Index
Finally a global score is calculated using the product of each alternative with the criteria and the final
weight is obtained, larger the weight highest is the possibility of being a selected alternative.
Factors (n) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org163
Fig 4: Hierarchical structure of AHP with Pair-wise comparisons
This figure depicts the four level hierarchical structures of criteria with their sub-criteria and alternatives.
At first level the goal to be achieved is mentioned then in the second level the four major criteria or
factors affecting it are mentioned, then in the third level the criteria is subdivided into various sub-criteria
and lastly on the fourth level the alternatives are there for systematic pair-wise comparisons between all
the pairs. We obtain a final priority of alternatives by calculating at all the four levels.
Factors
affecting the
sale of Brands
Quality
Accessibility
Price
Promotional
Offers
Product
quality
Trust
Service
Quality
Bulk
Discount
Fashion
Festive
offers
Reward
Discount
Availability
Perceived
Use
Awareness
Demographics
Salary
Private-label
Brands
Generic Brands
National
Brands
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org164
From table 3 we can infer that in case of quality criteria out of all sub criteria priority of product quality
(0.637) followed by service quality (0.258) and trust (0.105). By comparing the brand alternatives with
reference to each sub criteria we can prioritize the brands in table 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 by calculating the
priority vector and the total weight has been calculated in table 3.4 for determining the factors which
affects its selection.
Like-wise in table 4 of promotional offers reward discount (0.731) has the highest priority followed by
bulk discount (0.188) and festive offers (0.081) and then comparing each alternative with reference to
each sub criteria and calculating their respective priority in table 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and then the final weight is
calculated in table 4.4.
In table 5 of criteria accessibility, availability (0.582) has the highest priority followed by awareness
(0.309) and perceived use (0.109). When computing the priority with reference to each sub criteria in
table 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and their overall weight is calculated in table 5.4.
From table 6, we can infer that demographics (0.637) has the highest priority followed by fashion (0.258)
and salary (0.105) and then in next three subsequent tables priority of each alternative with reference to
each sub criteria of price is determined and he their overall global weight is calculated in table 6.4.
Table 3: Comparisons of Criteria for Quality
Pair-wise Comparison of criteria with reference to QUALITY
QUALITY
Criteria Product Quality Service Quality Trust Priority vector
Product Quality 1 3 5 0.637
Service Quality 1/3 1 3 0.258
Trust 1/5 1/3 1 0.105
ƛmax=3.039, CI=0.019, CR=0.033 for RI=.58
Table 3.1: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Product Quality
Product
Quality
Criteria National
Brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 5 5 0.701
Generic Brands 1/5 1 1/3 0.097
Private-label Brands 1/5 3 1 0.202
ƛmax=3.136, CI=0.068, CR=0.075
Table 3.2: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Service Quality
Service
Quality
Criteria National
Brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 3 3 0.594
Generic Brands 1/3 1 2 0.249
Private-Label Brands 1/3 ½ 1 0.157
ƛmax=3.054, CI=0.027, CR=0.030
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org165
Table 3.3: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Trust
ƛmax=3.039, CI=.0.019, CR=0.021
Table 3.4: the calculation of weights for various alternatives for QUALITY
A B C D E F A*B+C*D+E*F
QUALITY
National Brands 0.637 0.701 0.258 0.594 0.105 0.637 0.666
Generic Brands 0.637 0.097 0.258 0.249 0.105 0.258 0.153
Private-label Brands 0.637 0.202 0.258 0.157 0.105 0.105 0.180
Table4: Pair wise comparisons of Criteria for Promotional offers
Promotional
Offers
Criteria
Bulk
Discount
Reward
Discount
Festive
Offers
Priority
vector
Bulk Discount 1 1/5 3 0.188
Reward Discount 5 1 7 0.731
Festive Offers 1/3 1/7 1 0.081
ƛmax=3.065, CI=0.032, CR=0.056 for RI=.58
Table 4.1: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Bulk Discount
Bulk
Discount
Criteria National
Brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 7 3 0.649
Generic Brands 1/7 1 1/5 0.072
Private-label Brands 1/3 5 1 0.279
ƛmax=3.065, CI=0.032, CR=0.036
Table 4.2: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Reward Discount
Reward
Discount
Criteria National
Brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 1/3 3 0.258
Generic Brands 3 1 5 0.637
Private-label Brands 1/3 1/5 1 0.105
ƛmax=3.039, CI=0.019, CR=0.021
Trust
Criteria National
Brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 3 5 0.637
Generic Brands 1/3 1 3 0.258
Private-label Brands 1/5 1/3 1 0.105
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org166
Table 4.3: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Festive Offers
Festive
Offers
Criteria National
Brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 1/7 1/3 0.081
Generic Brands 7 1 5 0.731
Private-label Brands 3 1/5 1 0.188
ƛmax=3.065, CI=0.032, CR=0.036
Table 4.4: Calculation of weights for various alternatives for PROMOTIONAL OFFERS
PROMOTIONAL
OFFERS
National Brands 0.188 0.649 0.731 0.258 0.081 0.081 0.318
Generic Brands 0.188 0.072 0.731 0.637 0.081 0.731 0.538
Private-label Brands 0.188 0.279 0.731 0.105 0.081 0.188 0.144
Table 5: Pair wise comparisons of Criteria for Accessibility
Accessibility
Criteria Availability Awareness Perceived Use Priority vector
Availability 1 2 5 0.582
Awareness ½ 1 3 0.309
Perceived Use 1/5 1/3 1 0.109
ƛmax=3.004, CI=0.002, CR=0.003 for RI=.58
Table 5.1: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Availability
Availability
Criteria National
Brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 5 3 0.618
Generic Brands 1/5 1 1/5 0.086
Private-label Brands 1/3 5 1 0.297
ƛmax=3.136, CI=0.068, CR=0.075
Table 5.2: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Awareness
Awareness
Criteria National
brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 3 2 0.508
Generic Brands 1/3 1 1/5 0.113
Private-label Brands ½ 5 1 0.379
ƛmax=3.163, CI=0.082, CR=0.91
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org167
Table 5.3: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Perceived Use
Perceived
Use
Criteria National
Brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 3 5 0.637
Generic Brands 1/3 1 3 0.258
Private-label Brands 1/5 1/3 1 0.105
ƛmax=3.039, CI=0.019, CR=0.021
Table 5.4: Calculation of weights for various alternatives for ACCESSIBILITY
ACCESSIBILITY
National Brands 0.582 0.618 0.309 0.508 0.109 0.637 0.586
Generic Brands 0.582 0.086 0.309 0.113 0.109 0.258 0.113
Private-label Brands 0.582 0.297 0.309 0.379 0.109 0.105 0.301
Table 6: Comparisons of Criteria for Price
PRICE
Criteria Demographics Salary Fashion Priority vector
Demographics 1 5 3 0.637
Salary 1/5 1 1/3 0.105
Fashion 1/3 3 1 0.258
ƛmax=3.039, CI=0.019, CR=0.033 for RI=.58
Table 6.1: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Demographics
Demographics
Criteria National
Brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 1/3 1/3 0.135
Generic Brands 3 1 1/3 0.281
Private-label Brands 3 3 1 0.584
ƛmax=3.136, CI=0.068, CR=0.075
Table 6.2: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Salary
Salary
Criteria National
Brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 3 5 0.618
Generic Brands 1/3 1 5 0.297
Private-label Brands 1/5 1/5 1 0.086
ƛmax=3.136, CI=0.068, CR=0.075
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org168
Table 6.3: Comparison of Brand Alternatives with reference to Fashion
Fashion
Criteria National
Brands
Generic
Brands
Private-label
Brands PRIORITY
National Brands 1 1/7 1/3 0.081
Generic Brands 7 1 5 0.731
Private-label Brands 3 1/5 1 0.188
ƛmax=3.065, CI=0.032, CR=0.036
Table 6.4: Calculation of weights for various alternatives for PRICE
PRICE
National Brands 0.637 0.135 0.105 0.618 0.258 0.081 0.172
Generic Brands 0.637 0.281 0.105 0.297 0.258 0.731 0.399
Private-label Brands 0.637 0.584 0.105 0.086 0.258 0.188 0.430
Table 7:Pair-wise Comparisons of all the criteria
QUALITY PROMOTIONAL
OFFERS
ACCESSIBILITY PRICE
QUALITY 1 1/3 5 1/7
PROMOTIONAL OFFERS 3 1 1/3 1/5
ACCESSIBILITY 1/5 3 1 1/3
PRICE 7 5 3 1
11.20 9.33 9.33 1.68
ROW AVG
0.09 0.04 0.54 0.09 0.19
0.27 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.13
0.02 0.32 0.11 0.20 0.16
0.63 0.54 0.32 0.60 0.52
Table 8: Brands Overall priority (weights) related to individual Criteria
QUALITY PROMOTIONAL
OFFERS
ACCESSIBILITY PRICE OVERALL
PRIORITY
0.19 0.13 0.16 1.34
National Brands 0.666 0.318 0.586 0.172 0.351
Generic Brands 0.153 0.538 0.113 0.399 0.324
Private-label Brands 0.180 0.144 0.301 0.430 0.325
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org169
Results & Discussions
From table 3, it can be seen that Product Quality has higher priority than the service quality and trust,
due to the brand’s perceived value by the consumer in terms of their usage. While service quality and
trust was not of much importance as consumer seek variety and switch to other brand easily. As National
brands provide more utility to consumers’ hence they have higher priority with reference to product
quality and service quality and trust.
In table 4, of all the sub criteria for promotional offers, Reward discount has the highest priority
followed by bulk discount and festive offers. As Reward discount provides flexibility to consumer to shop
within a stipulated time period and can be used for the next time purchase which is not possible with bulk
discount and festive offers. National brands have the highest priority with reference to bulk discount
because these when available on discount, consumers preferably purchase them. While with reference to
festive offers and reward discount, generic brands emerge on highest priority because the consumers buy
such brands seasonally and occasionally when available on discount, while the private label is still the
least preferred one.
In table 5, pair-wise comparisons of criteria for accessibility are ascertained of all the sub criteria,
availability has the highest priority followed by awareness and perceived use. This is because the
consumers will buy only those products which are available to them easily and to their close proximity.
National brands has highest priority with reference to all three criteria i.e. availability, awareness and
perceived use as they are easily available, consumers have full knowledge about it and can relate to them
in their daily usage pattern and life style.
In table 6, of all the sub criteria for price demographics has the highest priority because it is the age
gender and profile which is responsible for selecting the particular brand than the salary and fashion.
Private label brands emerged with the highest priority with reference to demographic while National
brands is most important with reference to salary because occupation determines the buying behavior of
consumers that has the urge for national brands. With reference to fashion, Generic brands are on the
highest priority because trend changes at fast pace and generic brand provide them with the right kind of
styling statement.
Through the pair-wise comparisons of all the four criteria in table 7, it is clearly depicted that quality is
the most important factor that affects the quality of brands followed by additional offer and accessibility
on the same scale while price is the least important criteria.
Furthermore, table 8 depicts comparisons between all the brands in National brands emerged as the
most preferred for all the four criteria. While comparing the generic brands and private label brands,
promotional offers have significant impact as all the three criteria supports private labels except
promotional offers. Private labels are more important than generic brands. So it can be said that generic
brands and private label brands needs attention on various factors so as to cover a large share of market
and will be useful for retailers for strategy formulation for sector enhancement and improvement.
CONCLUSION
This paper is focused on the comparison of private label with other available brands i.e. generic brands
and national brands on the basis of parameters like Quality, Promotional offers, Price and Accessibility.
From the findings it can easily be concluded that national brands are most preferable while the private
labels are the least preferred and the reasons compensable for them. By our results, we can easily craft out
the detailed reasons as why private labels still not lie in the comfort zone of consumers and can help
retailers in crafting out the strategy for sector’s enhancement and improvement.
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org170
REFERENCES
Works Cited Ailawadi, K. a. (2001). Pursuing the value-conscious consumer:store brands versusNational brand
promotions. Journal of Marketing , 65(1):71-89.
Amemiya. (1985). Advanced Econometrics. Cambridge: MA:Harvard University Press.
Arun, R. P. (1996). Household store brand Proneness:A framework. Journalof retailing,summer , 72(2)
159-186.
Catherine, S. R. (1999). Factors influencing the price premiums that consumers pay for national brands
over store brand. Journal of Product and Brand Management , vol 8(4),340-351.
Cotterill, R. W. (2000). Market Share and Price Setting Behavior for private-labels and National Brands.
Review of Industrial Organization , 17(1):17-39.
Georges, B. (1997). Determinants of store brand choice: a behavioral analysis. Journal of Product and
Brand Management , 6(5),315-324.
Indrajit, B. R. (2000). Consumer level factors Moderating the success of Private-label Brands across
Product categories. Journal of Retailing , 76(2),175-191.
J, D. S. (1997). why store brand penetration varies by retailer. Marketing Science , 16(3),208-227.
M, B. C. (2001). Assessing consumer response to protected Designation of origin-labelling:a mixed logit
approach. European Review of Agricultural Economics , Vol.28(4),433-449.
R.Lal, C. a. (2000). Bulilding store loyalty through store brands. Journal of Marketing Research ,
37(3):281-91.
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Satty, T. (1998). Multi-Criteria Decision-Making:The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburgh,Pensylvania:
RWS Publications.
Steiner, R. (2004). The nature and benefits of national brand/private label competition. Review of
Industrial Organization , 24(2):105-27.
Tellis, G. a. (1995). Tackling the retailer decision maze:which brands to discount,how much,when and
why? Marketing Science , 14(3): 271-99.
Volpe, R. (2011). The relationship between National brand and Private-label Food products. US: ERR-129
Economic Research service/USDA.
Journal of Information and Computational Science
Volume 9 Issue 11 - 2019
ISSN: 1548-7741
www.joics.org171
top related