Brand loyalty and consumer behavior in the 18-20 age groups

FAISAL SHAKOOR, M.ABDULLAH

ABSTRACT:

Marketing starts from identifying the needs and wants of the consumers. Today
companies are working alot to know about consumer behavior before purchasing, during
purchasing and after purchasing .we choose consumer behavior for our research work
because very least work has been done on consumer behavior in Pakistan. The aim of this
paper is to explore the links between brand loyalty and consumer behavior in age group
of 18 to 25 considering shoe brand. In our research we took 415 sample including 295
males and 120 females having age mentioned earlier. We used questionnaire method for
data collection of our research work. We applied multiple regression tests on the data
collected for our research work. Brand loyalty and consumer behavior is most affected by
the predictor “quality” having value of t = 3.954 with the significance level of .000

Key words: brand loyalty, brand equity and consumer behavior

Introduction:

Our results indicate that coupons do produce a short-term in-crease in the brand's
purchase share that is due mostly to redemption purchases. (Kapil Bawa and Robert
W. Shoemaker, 1987) The research has implications for those interested in relationships
outside the consumer-brand domain, both within the marketing discipline and beyond.
(Susan Fournier, 1998) Customer switching behavior damages market share and
profitability of service firms yet has remained virtually unexplored in the marketing
literature. The research identifies more than 800 critical behaviors of service firms
that caused customers to switch services. (Susan, 1995) Matching theory
predicts choices on concurrent variable ratio s chedules on which
consumers’ brand selection occurs will show maximization via exclusive
choice of the richest schedule.(Foxel and James 2003) Brand equity has
generally been denned as the incremental utility with which a brand endows a product,
compared to its non-branded counterpart. (Tulin, Joffre, Susan, Dipankar, Kapferer,
Michael, Roberts, steenkamp and Florian 1999) Purchase incidence heterogeneity – a
problem in most loyalty studies – is addressed by measuring loyalty at different rates of
category purchase (rather than over time).
We find that, as the number of purchases rises, loyalty initially falls steeply, but
after around 15 purchases it starts to stabilize, and from 60 to 200 purchases there is very
little change in observed measures of customer loyalty. (Philip and Hammond 2004) The
authors develop and test a probabilistic model of purchase incidence and brand choice
for frequently purchased consumer products. The two-state model is calibrated on IRI
scanner purchase records for saltine crackers.(Randolph, Bucklin and Lattin 1991) Our
explanation is based on learning processes not previously investigated in consumer
research. Stated simply, brand cues may "block" the learning of quality-determining
attribute cues. At one level, we show that in order to understand the value consumers
place on product cues it is helpful to understand how consumers learn. (Stijn, Osselaer and
Alba 2000) Partner brands to the newly created joint brand. consumer evaluations of an
alliance brand; how the brand equity of one partner brand affects the other; how
customer-based brand equity of the partner brands affects consumers’ evaluations of the
brand equity, and high-equity partners enhance pretrial( Washburn, Brian, Priluck 2004
) A greater market shares today, the brand loyalty characteristic. With negative skew ness
two effects are identified: On one hand marginal forward-looking consumers are less
price sensitive than myopic consumers, and this a force towards higher prices. The paper
characterizes also the effects on the market outcome of the importance of consumer
learning. (Miguel 2003) This article explores the development of an e-business
marketing model that capitalizes on customer participation and the likely consequences
of such efforts, principally site brand loyalty.(Jonna and Stacey 2001)
While comparing the effect of the three types of package coupons, we assumed that the
e's are the same across coupons. Our analysis of one-shot coupon drops in §4 provide
a preliminary understanding of the dynamics of the effects of package coupons on
brand choice (Jag Mohan, Sanjay, Donald and Morrison 1994)
The relationship between holding an attitude about a particular brand and the
regency of using it must be distinguished from two quite different relationships,
namely the way attitudes and usage level vary together for different brands and the
relation between attitude change and behavioral change within the same people
(Bird,Channon and Ehrenberg 1970). Does impulse purchasing truly represent an
impulsive choice by the shopper, or is the purchase merely unplanned. At kinds of
customers are most susceptible to unplanned purchasing? Product and brand-Before
entering the store the shopper knows both the product and brand of product to be
purchased. (David, Kollat and Ronald 1967).Positive results a definite link should be
established between personal characteristics, the shopping process, and brand
loyalty (James.Carman 1970)
 Theoretical Framework

Brand loyalty and consumer

behavior

Quality Age Image Friends Price Parents Design

.221 .182 .224 .101 .216 .144 .128

Model explaination:
We took Consumer behavior and brand loyalty as dependent variable. Today’s
competitions age, every organization giving importance to consumer behavior so I choose
consumer behavior as my independent variable and will try to know which factor
influence consumer behavior significantly and how their relationship is been developed?
Friends:
Friends can also put reasonable impact behavior of any person while purchasing any
brand. In our research we will know how consumer behavior is affected by the advice of
friends.
Age:
Choice of any shoe brand can be influenced by age .our research will show how behavior
of consumers developed through age.
Design:
Design of any brand may also mould the behavior of consumer. Many consumers prefer
shoe brands due to its variety of designs. Our study will depict the relationship between
shoe design of brand and consumer behavior.
Quality:
Quality of any product plays a vital role in consumer behavior. Quality holding products
are main focusing point of any consumer .Our research will try to portrait the relationship
between quality of any show brand and behavior of consumers.
Parents:
Suggestions and followings of parents also influenced behavior of any consumer .Our
study will represent relationship between parents and consumer behavior.
Price:
Price is one of the main elements, which affect the consumer behavior tremendously.
price is a factor, which built the basics of consumer behavior. Our research work will
illustrate the relation between consumer behavior and price of any shoe brand.
Reliability:
Reliability of any shoe brand also has magnificent impact on consumer behavior. Our
research work will indicate the relationship between consumer behavior and reliability of
any shoe brand.
Sample:

Male 295
Female 120

We have taken 415 samples including 295 male and 120 females having age between 18
to 25 years in our research work.

Method:
Descriptive:

N Mean Std. Deviation

Brandloyaltyandcon
sumerbehavior 415 2.15 .730
Price 415 2.50 .748
Quality 415 2.54 .872
Friends 415 2.80 .828
Image 415 2.64 .777
Parents 414 3.32 .992
Design 415 2.25 .917
Age 414 2.09 1.171
Valid N (list wise) 413

Descriptive table shows people are agree that brand purchasing behavior can be predicted
from predictors take in research work if deviates from standard .730 and lies in the range
of 1.45 to 3.248. Results depicts that consumers are silent to tell the impact of price on
brand purchasing behavior. It deviates from standard .748 and it fall in the range of 1.75
to 3.248. Table illustrates that consumer were unable to tell the relationship between
Quality and brand purchasing behavior. It deviates from standard .872 and fall in the rage
of 1.668 to 3.412. Results show that consumer didn’t tell that friend’s can built the
behavior for purchasing any shoe brand. It deviate from standard .828 and lies in the
range 1.972 to 3.628. Descriptive results represents that consumer are neutral about the
relationship between image and brand purchasing behavior. It deviate the standard .777
and lies in the range of 1.863 to 3.417. Table shows that consumer have no idea that
parents can be cause of brand purchasing behavior. It deviates from standard .992 and
lies in the range of 2.328 to 4.312. Desccriptive analysis results indicate that consumer
are agree that design can mould the consumer behavior. It deviate from standard .917 and
lies in the range 1.333 to 3.167. Descriptive results show that consumers are agrees that
brand purchasing behavior is affected by age. It deviate from the standard 1.171 and lies
in the range 0.919 to 3.261.

Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients T Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant
.756 .201 3.754 .000
)
Price .109 .049 .112 2.232 .026
Quality .159 .040 .189 3.959 .000
Friends .009 .044 .010 .197 .844
Image .143 .047 .153 3.059 .002
Parents .055 .037 .074 1.473 .141
Design -.002 .041 -.003 -.059 .953
Age .066 .032 .105 2.070 .039

Value of adj R2 tells the relationship between dependent variable and independent
variables. And coefficients table describe the relation between dependent and
independent variable separately and tells which variable influence more efficiently and
which very less, Coefficient table shows that quality is the most efficient indicator which
influence brand loyalty and consumer behavior significantly with the t = 3.959 along with
significance level of .000. We ask the consumer about the quality level and quality
products having companies in Pakistan. Image also shows strong impact on brand loyalty
and consumer behavior efficiently with t= 3.059 with the significant level of 0.002. We
ask consumers to tell how image built there purchasing pattern. Price also put the
tremendous influence on the brand purchasing behavior with the t=2.232 along with
significance of .026. Age also put a great impact on brand purchasing behavior with the
t=2.070 along with the significance level of .039. Parents have less efficient influence on
the brand purchasing behavior with the t=1.473 along with the significance level of .141.
Friends put very weak impact on the brand purchasing behavior with the t= .197 along
with the significance level of .844. Design have negative impact on the brand purchasing
behavior with the t= (.059) along with the significance level of .953
ANOVA

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regressio
28.832 7 4.119 8.695 .000(a)
n
Residual 191.860 405 .474
Total 220.692 412

ANOVA table shows that value of F =8.695 is significant at the .000 level.
Means there is strong relationship between dependent (brand loyalty and consumer
behavior) and independent variables price, quality, parents, image, friends, age, and
design)
we test this model in the Pakistani scenario .it is the best fitted model due to its
significance level of .000.If you test this model out side the Pakistan it will provide the
same result as it provided it in Pakistan.

Model summary:

Adjusted R Std. Error of

R R Square Square the Estimate
.361(a) .131 .116 .688

Table is derived from multiple correlations showing the correlation coefficient .361 using
the predictors concurrently R2 = .131 and adj. R2 = .116 which illustrate that brand loyalty
and consumer behavior is been affected by 11.6% due to all predictors (price, quality,
parents, design, image age & friends)
 Correlation:

Brandloyaltyandc
onsumerbehavior
Brandloyaltyandconsume Pearson Correlation
1
rbehavior
Sig. (2-tailed) .
N 415
Price Pearson Correlation .216(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 415
Quality Pearson Correlation .221(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 415
Friends Pearson Correlation .101(*)
Sig. (2-tailed) .040
N 415
Image Pearson Correlation .224(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 415
Parents Pearson Correlation .144(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .003
N 414
Design Pearson Correlation .128(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .009
N 415
Age Pearson Correlation .182(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 414

Correlation table shows that 22.1 % change in quality can influence one time change in
brand loyalty and consumer behavior.
Tables indicate that 22.4 % variation is image of any brand can be resulted in to 1 time
change in brand loyalty and consumer behavior.
Result shows that 14.4 % change in parents influence can bring one time change in brand
purchasing behavior of consumers.
12% change in design of any shoe brand can cause of one time change in consumer
behavior.
18.2% variation in age can put one time impact on consumer behavior and brand loyalty.
Friends can be cause of change in consumer behavior table shows the 10.1% variation in
friends can brings 1 time change in consumer behavior.
12.5% change in design can 1 time change in consumer behavior.
21.6% variation in price can bring one time change in consumer behavior while
purchasing any brand.
Conclusion:

Our research study demonstrates that how brand loyalty of any shoe brand among
consumers is influenced by different predictors. We find that most of the consumers are
neutral about the opinion .the study shows that different indicators unleashing the
association of consumers regarding brand loyalty has bearing on consumers exposures
related to different external agents encountered.
Vast majority of respondents agreed that the external factors lying with in environment
influence there purchasing patterns his study also implicates important findings for brand
managers and marketers which is in line with the previous findings which, came into
light after different studies whether or not subsequent findings remain in line with this
one. Various factors picked up suggest strong recommendations for the firms to
demonstrate their marketing efforts in such a way, which could guarantee the persuasion
for consumer through determinants mentioned in our study.
Value of adj.R2=.116 in model summary table indicates the relationship between
dependent variable (brand loyalty and consumer behavior) and independent variables
(price, quality, image, design, friend, parents & age).
ANOVA table shows that this model is best fitted with the significance level of .000 and
can produce the same results conducting test inside or outside of Pakistan.
 References

James M. Carman, 1970, “Correlates of Brand Loyalty: Some Positive Results” Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 7, pp. 67-76

Susan Fournier, 1998, “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research “the Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343-373

Gordon R. Foxall and Victoria K. James, 2003 “The Behavioral Ecology of

Brand Choice: How and What Do Consumers Maximize?” Psychology & Marketing,
Vol. 20(9): pp 811–836

Tulin erden, Joffre swait, Susan broniarczk, Dipankar chakrawarti, jean-noel kapferer,
Michael keane, john Roberts, Jan-benedict e M. Steen amp, Florian zetelmeyer, 1999
“Brand Equity, Consumer Learning and Choice” Marketing Letters 10: 301±318

Philip stern, Kathy Hammond 2004 “The Relationship between Customer royalties And
Purchase Incidence” Marketing Letters 15:1, 5–19,

Randolph E. Bucklin and James M. Latin, 1991, “A Two-State Model of Purchase

Incidence and Brand Choice “Marketing Science, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 24-39

Judith H. Washburn, Brian D. Till, Randi Priluck, 2004. “Brand Alliance and
Customer-Based Brand-Equity Effects” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21(7): 487–508

M. Bird, C. Channon, A. S. C. Ehrenberg, 1970, “Brand image and Brand usage” Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 7, No. 3 pp. 307-314

Jacob jacoby and David, B.Kyner, “brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior “ 1973,
journal of marketing research Vol.10 No. 1 pp 1-9

Meryl Paula gardener, 1985 “mood state and consumer behavior “the journal of
consumer research “Vol. 12, No.3 pp 281-300

Kapil Bawa and Robert W. Shoemaker, 1987, “The Effects of a Direct Mail Coupon on
Brand Choice Behavior “Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, No. 4 pp. 370-376
Susan Fournier, 1998,” Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research”, the Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343-373

Susan M, keaveney, “Customer switching behavior in service industries” journal of

marketing , Vol. 59, No. 2, pp 71-82

Stijn M. J. van Osselaer and Joseph W. Alba, 2000, “Consumer Learning and Brand
Equity “, The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, No. 1 pp. 1-16

J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2003” Consumer Learning, Brand Loyalty, and Competition”

Jonna Holland, Stacey Menzel Baker, 2001, “Customer participation in creating brand
site loyalty” Journal of Interactive Marketing Vol.15.No 4, PP 34-45

Jagmohan S. Raju, Sanjay K. Dhar, Donald G. Morrison, 1994, “The Effect of Package
Coupons on Brand Choice” Marketing Science, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 145-164

David T. Kollat and Ronald P. Willett, 1967|, “Customer Impulse Purchasing Behavior”
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 21-31