Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)

Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

[Link]

HOW CUSTOMERS ARE WILLING TO PAY PRICE PREMIUM ON THE

BASES OF BRAND IMAGE FOR FOOD BRANDS?
(An Epical Study)

Najam ul Zia
Research Associate - Superior University Lahore, Pakistan.
Maryam Sohail
Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

Abstract
Purpose: Basic purpose of conducting this research is to get to know about the willingness or
unwillingness of customers to pay premium price for packaged food brands and helping out the
companies to use more convincing marketing tools to charge premium price.
Methodology: This article is based on quantitative survey of packaged food brands people are
using and quite familiar with and its influence on loyalty as well as customers’ willingness to pay
a price premium for packaged food brand.
Findings: The survey shows that quality is a significant determinant of price premium, but there
is another determinant “origin” that also plays an important role to allow the packaged brand
companies to charge premium price.
Practical implications: The results help brand managers to recognize the importance of
incorporating price premium and to develop a better understanding of what drives price premium
in addition to more traditional dimensions as quality and loyalty.
Keywords Brand equity, Price premium, Brand image, Brand loyalty, Food product, Private
labels
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Basic purpose of this research is to find out what are other determinants to determine the price
premium for packaged food brand other than the quality of food. This research is conducted at
Hailey College of commerce (Punjab University) and students of graduation and masters
participated and gave their opinions by filling the questionnaire.

Literature Review
This literature on the competitive scenario among private and manufacturer label in the retail
sector has particularly concentrated on the quality of the product as the solution for consumer
packaged food brands that want to ignore the price factor (Bronnenberg and Wathieu, 1996;
Hoch, 1996;Ghose and Lowengart, 2001; Steenkamp et al., 2010). It is believed that after
increasing the quality of certain product, a brand can make unique position in customer’s mind to
boost him to pay more. Brand managers always try their best to increase the brand image among
their customers (Anselmsson and Bondesson, 2013; Davcˇik and Rundquist, 2012). Well now a

28
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

day's product quality is not that much convincing tool to get competitive advantage (Gerzema
and Lebar,2008). Copying is one of the way most companies are using now a days. So literally
difference between a private and manufacturer’s brand is fade now and now even popular brands
distinguish each other through label brand only (Verhoef et al., 2002).
Typical manufacturer brands are encountering very strong price competition in most the product
markets today. One of that market is consumer packaged food and one of the strongest factor
behind such price competition is that those dealing in private label brands have made their own
store label brands that is giving a direct and strong competition to the manufacturer brands
(Verhoef et al., 2002). In the beginning these brands were cheap and comparatively less costly
and were of the consumers who were price conscious, but over the span of time they have
improved their quality and service as well (Laaksonen and Reynolds, 1994).
This ongoing war among the private and manufacturer brands regarding price is very intense at
the moment well private label brands can encounter negative situation if they reach point of
saturation (Pepe et al., 2011).
Some authors claim that quality in the products being provided by the popular brands has been
reduced in order to meet the competition level with the low price competitors (Silverstein, 2006;
Ettlinger, 2008). So considering these situations it will be very complicated for the popular
brands to survive in the market with their so called competitive advantage of “quality” products.
Another empirical study explains that only product quality contributes a very small share in
determining the price of the products being offered to the consumers and one needs to consider
other factors as well (Sethuraman, 2000, 2003).
Basic purpose of conducting this study is to get an idea that what are the factors behind the
decision of a customer to show willingness to pay premium price for buying packaged food. This
study is aiming to understand that which non-product quality is persuading the consumer psyche
to pay more or less to decide which packaged food brand to prefer. In this research we shall
argue that by implementing consumer based equity that has direct connection with the
consumer’s willingness to pay more we can achieve our results (Farquhar, 1989; Keller, 1993).
By considering the customers’ packaged food products as brands we shall try to get better and
precise information regarding ‘price factor’ as the core reason of competition among private
label and manufacturer brand. To increase the distance between private and manufacturer from
managerial perspective we can have better understanding of substitute methods that will have
positive influence on competition, variety and innovation (Hoch, 1996; Verhoef et al., 2002).
Previous researches have concentrated on customers’ willingness to pay have only considered
product related perceptions (see Kalogeras et al., 2009) or mere one sort of determinant
(Unahanandh and Assarut, 2013). There is one exception that states qualitative, explorative and
conceptual study by Anselmsson et al. (2007), which suggests that customers’ willingness to pay
for food brands is determined by five dimensions: awareness, perceived quality, loyalty,
uniqueness and non-product-related brand associations including associations to corporate social
responsibility (CSR), social image and origin. This research can be described as endeavor to find
out that which particular factor actually plays vital role in the consumers’ mind to show
willingness to pay premium price for packaged food brand.

29
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

Brand mindfulness is reflected in the clients' capacity to recognize the brand under diverse
circumstances (Keller, 1993), including brand acknowledgment and brand conclusion (Aaker,
1996). As indicated by Aaker (1996), mindfulness is seen as a standout amongst the most
imperative columns for building brand value. It is thought to be of specific significance in low
inclusion item classifications (Keller, 1993; Ritson, 2003, for example, foodstuffs when all is
said in done, regardless of the possibility that that may not be ascribed to every purchaser bunch.
In a few studies, brand mindfulness has been found to impact clients' reaction to brands
absolutely (Anselmsson et al., 2007; Cobb-Wahlgren et al., 1995; Yoo and Donthu, 2001;
Washburn and Plank, 2002).

H1a: Perceived awareness will have a positive impact on customers’ willingness to pay a price
premium.
H1b: Perceived awareness will have a positive impact on brand loyalty.

In most brand value models, saw quality is a center component (Lassar et al., 1995; Aaker,
1996). Besides, in the nourishment promoting writing, saw quality is a remarkable idea
(Richardson et al., 1994; Oude Ophuis and Van Trijp, 1995; Acebro'n and Dopico, 2000) and
both Anselmsson et al.(2007) and Kalogeras et al. (2009) propose it to be a determinant of value

30
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

premium. Likewise with customer based brand value, and as opposed to target quality saw
quality is a subjective mental idea that exists in clients' psyches and contrasts from target quality
by having a higher level of reflection (Zeithaml, 1988; Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1996). Observational
studies have affirmed the positive relationship between saw quality and cost premiums
(Netemeyer et al., 2004 Sethuraman(2000), buy conduct (Netemeyer et al., 2004), inclination and
buy expectations (Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Washburn and Plank, 2002).

H2a: Perceived quality will have a positive impact on customers’ willingness to pay a price
premium.
H2b: Perceived quality will have a positive impact on brand loyalty.

Anselmsson et al. (2007) suggests that when purchasers see that a nourishment brand
organization tends to the general public, the earth and/or its representatives, the eagerness to pay
a value premium for that brand is uplifted (additionally Anselmsson and Johansson, 2007). Such
a recommendation is upheld by exact perceptions of value premiums for most brands with CSR
duties.

H3a: Perceived CSR will have a positive impact on customers’ willingness to pay a price
premium.
H3b: Perceived CSR will have a positive impact on brand loyalty.

There is a lot of exploration on buyers' view of the nation of origin inception of brands and
items. For the most part, the basic supposition of this field is that customers will react to an item
or a brand all the more positively in the event that it has a positive nation of-source picture
(Maheswaran, 1994), which research has indicated can likewise apply to sustenance brands
(Ahmed et al., 2004; Arnoult et al., 2010).

H4a: Perceived home country origin will have a positive impact on customers’ willingness to pay
a price premium.
H4b: Perceived home country origin will have a positive impact on brand loyalty.

In the general marking writing, social picture, or the social part and typical significance of
brands, is regularly stressed (Martin and Brown, 1990; Biel, 1992). In the brand value writing,
the more particular client picture develop (i.e. discernments about the ordinary purchaser or
client of a certain brand) identifies with the extremely same thought and is seen as an imperative
part when building brand value and client dependability (Keller, 2001).

H5a: Perceived social image will have a positive impact on customers’ willingness to pay a price
premium.
H5b: Perceived social image will have a positive impact on brand loyalty.

Uniqueness, signifying "to what degree clients feel that the brand contrasts from contending
brands" (Netemeyer et al.,2004, p. 211), is a standout amongst the most focal foundations in the
advertising writing, and is firmly identified with ideas, for example, separation and one of a kind
offering recommendations. Additionally, in brand value hypothesis, uniqueness is major, as the

31
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

level of uniqueness in a brand's affiliations, together with the idealness and quality of those
affiliations, decides its value (Keller, 1993).

H6a: Perceived uniqueness will have a positive impact on customers’ willingness to pay a price
premium.
H6b: Perceived uniqueness will have a positive impact on brand loyalty.

Informative force can be picked up from including non-quality measurements of brand picture to
the comprehension of how brands can accomplish a higher value premium. The piece-quality
connection is frequently the first to be specified in scholarly models, from rudimentary financial
matters to marking and situating (Kotler and Keller, 2010). Quality and quality enhancements are
frequently utilized as the essential, and once in a while single, measurement in discourses in
regards to producer versus private mark brands

H7: Adding non-quality dimensions to customers’ perceptions of quality will have additional
positive impact on customers’ willingness to pay a price premium.

Methodology
Data Analysis
All variables “Brand image, Loyalty, Awareness, Quality, Origin and uniqueness” were asked
through a questionnaire from the respondents. Respondents were asked to fill the questionnaire
by keeping in mind whatever the packaged food brand they have used at least once in a year.
Respondents were students (Graduation or masters) of Hailey College of Commerce University
of the Punjab chosen randomly. Approximately 152 people responded filling the questionnaire.
56.6 percent (86) out of 152 respondents were males and 48.4 (62) percent were females. 2
respondents did not disclose their gender. Respondents were requested to ignore the brands that
they are not familiar with properly or they use not so often(rarely) while filling the questionnaire.

Measurement
This questionnaire was based on five-point Likert-scale Structure and respondents were asked to
answer the questions on preference basis. Awareness was measured with three items from Yoo
and Donthu’s (2001) consumer-based brand equity scale. Perceived quality was measured with
three items, based on Netemeyer et al. (2004), and social image with three items based on
Sweeney and Soutar (2001). The country, or region, of origin for grocery products has been
identified as important in several studies (Acebro´n and Dopico, 2000; Thakor and Lavack,
2003; Hong and Wyer, 1990; Samiee et al., 2005). Four items used in Netemeyer et al. (2004)
were used here in order to empirically capture the uniqueness a grocery brand.

Reliability Test
Table 1: Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.856 30

32
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

The Reliability Statistics table provides the Cronbach’s Alpha (.856) which is positive and alpha
based on standardizing the items (.70). The results of this data are acceptable because it is more
than (.70). Therefore we can say that internal consistency reliability of the items provides good
support for research literature.

Table 2: Gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid M 86 56.6 58.1 58.1
F 62 40.8 41.9 100.0
Total 148 97.4 100.0
Missing System 4 2.6
Total 152 100.0

Table 3: Level of Education

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Metric 2 1.3 1.4 1.4
Bachelors 94 61.8 65.3 66.7
Master 38 25.0 26.4 93.1
Mphil 10 6.6 6.9 100.0
Total 144 94.7 100.0
Missing System 8 5.3
Total 152 100.0

It is interesting to note from the table that 94 students belonged to the group of students having
bachelors. Further the combined response of students in bachelors which is 61.8 %. This
interesting fact strengthens the importance that students realize the significance of research

33
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

Analysis and Results

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics
Minim Maxim Std.
N um um Mean Deviation
a1 150 1 5 2.06 .829
a2 150 1 5 2.29 .854
a3 150 1 5 2.36 .950
a4 150 1 5 2.42 .950
a5 150 1 5 2.40 1.068
q1 149 1 5 2.21 1.002
q2 150 1 5 2.50 1.085
q3 150 1 5 2.39 1.035
csr1 150 1 5 2.49 1.054
csr2 150 1 5 2.42 .971
csr3 150 1 5 2.58 1.032
csr4 150 1 5 2.69 1.055
O1 150 1 5 2.63 1.213
O2 150 1 5 2.75 1.129
O3 148 1 5 2.71 1.156
S1 149 1 5 2.27 .956
S2 150 1 5 2.52 1.008
S3 145 1 5 2.50 1.048
U1 150 1 5 2.36 .971
U2 150 1 4 2.33 .886
U3 150 1 5 2.44 .993
U4 150 1 5 2.35 1.069
P1 149 1 5 2.48 1.119
P2 150 1 5 2.77 1.108
P3 146 1 5 2.52 1.058
L1 150 1 5 2.21 1.066
L2 150 1 5 2.25 .934
L3 150 1 5 2.31 1.004
L4 150 1 5 2.30 1.008
L5 150 1 5 2.40 1.036
Valid N
137
(listwise)
Above table provides the mean and standard deviation scores of independent variables and
dependent variables adopted in this study. To answer the questions, the respondents were asked

34
 Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

to rate each of the four dimensions on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5). Overall, the mean scores for the six scales which consist of total twenty four
items shows the positive high mean values which ranged from 1.0 to 5.00.

Table 5: Correlations
Price
Aware Qualit Social Unique Premi
ness y CSR Origin Image ness um Loyalty
Awarness Pearson Correlation 1 .413** .383** .069 .239** .360** .196* .242**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .403 .004 .000 .018 .003
N 150 149 150 148 144 150 145 150
Quality Pearson Correlation .413** 1 .371** .152 .391** .286** .275** .276**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .065 .000 .000 .001 .001
N 149 149 149 147 143 149 144 149
CSR Pearson Correlation .383** .371** 1 .169* .339** .302** .267** .352**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .040 .000 .000 .001 .000

N 150 149 150 148 144 150 145 150
Origin Pearson Correlation .069 .152 .169* 1 .144 .186* .307** .117
Sig. (2-tailed) .403 .065 .040 .088 .023 .000 .158
N 148 147 148 148 142 148 143 148
Social Image Pearson Correlation .239** .391** .339** .144 1 .287** .231** .206*
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .000 .000 .088 .000 .006 .013
N 144 143 144 142 144 144 140 144
Uniqueness Pearson Correlation .360** .286** .302** .186* .287** 1 .308** .259**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .023 .000 .000 .001
N 150 149 150 148 144 150 145 150
Price Premium Pearson Correlation .196* .275** .267** .307** .231** .308** 1 .184*
Sig. (2-tailed) .018 .001 .001 .000 .006 .000 .026
N 145 144 145 143 140 145 145 145
Loyalty Pearson Correlation .242** .276** .352** .117 .206* .259** .184* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .001 .000 .158 .013 .001 .026
N 150 149 150 148 144 150 145 150

*. Coerrelation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The correlation between (Price Premium and Awareness) is statistically significant because the
“sig” is less than .05. Thus, we can reject the null hypothesis of no relationship and state that

35
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

there is an association between ((Price Premium and Awareness). The Pearson Correlation
coefficient is .196 so the relationship is very weak. The significance level (sig) or p is .018 and
the number of participants of both variables ((Price Premium and Awareness) is 152.
The correlation between (Price Premium and Quality) is statistically significant because the “sig”
is less than .05. Thus, we can reject the null hypothesis of no association and state that there is an
association between (Price Premium and Quality). The Pearson Correlation coefficient is .275; so
there is a weak positive relationship. The significance level (sig) or p is .001 and the number of
participants of both variables (Awareness and Origin) is 152.
The correlation between (Price Premium and CSR) is statistically significant because the “sig” is
less than .05. Thus, we can reject the null hypothesis of no association and state that there is an
association between (Awareness and CSR). The Pearson Correlation coefficient is .267 so there
is a weak positive relationship. The significance level (sig) or p is .001.
The correlation between (Price Premium and Origin) is statistically significant because the “sig”
is less than .05. Thus, we can reject the null hypothesis of no association and state that there is an
association between (Price Premium and Origin). The Pearson Correlation coefficient is .307 so
there is a moderate positive relationship. The significance level (sig) or p is .000 so it is highly
significant.
The correlation between (Price Premium and Social Image) is statistically significant because the
“sig” is less than .05. Thus, we can reject the null hypothesis of no association and state that
there is an association between (Price Premium and Social Image). The Pearson Correlation
coefficient is .231 so there is a weak positive relationship. The significance level (sig) or p is
.006 and the number of participants of both variables (Social image and Price Premium) is 152.
The correlation between (Price Premium and Uniqueness) is statistically significant because the
“sig” is less than .05. Thus, we can reject the null hypothesis of no association and state that
there is an association between ((Price Premium and Uniqueness). The Pearson Correlation
coefficient is .308 so there is a moderate positive relationship. The significance level (sig) or p is
.000 and the number of participants of both variables ((Price Premium and Uniqueness) is 152.
The correlation between (Price Premium and Loyalty) is statistically significant because the
“sig” is less than .05. Thus, we can reject the null hypothesis of no association and state that
there is an association between (Price Premium and Loyalty). The Pearson Correlation
coefficient is .184 so there is no or negligible relationship. the significance level (sig) or p is
.026.

Multiple Regressions
We have used multiple linear regressions which is a generalization of simple linear regression
where several predictor variables are allowed on a right hand side. Price Premium intention is
taken as response, outcome or dependent variable, whereas Uniqueness, Social Image, CSR,
Loyalty, Origin, Awareness and Quality are used as explanatory, predictor or independent
variables. The systematic part of our model consists of (Price Premium) as constant term and rest
are other predictor variables mentioned above are regarded as fixed (non-random or exogenous).
Table 6: Model Summary
Adjusted R
Model R R Square Square Std. Error of the Estimate
a
1 .439 .192 .149 .910292901

36
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

Table 6: Model Summary

Adjusted R
Model R R Square Square Std. Error of the Estimate
a
1 .439 .192 .149 .910292901
a. Predictors: (Constant), Loyalty, Origin, Social Image, Awareness,
Uniqueness, Quality , CSR

In Table 6 The Model Summary able shows that the multiple correlation
coefficient (R), Social Image, CSR, Loyalty, Origin, Awareness and Quality
predictors simultaneously, is .439 and Adjusted R2 is .149, meaning that 15% of
the variance in Premium Price can be predicted from the combination of Social
Image, CSR, Loyalty, Origin, Awareness and Quality. Note that adjusted R2 is
lower than unadjusted R2 (.192). This is in part related to the number of variables
in the equation.

Table 7: ANOVAb
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 25.476 7 3.639 4.392 .000a
Residual 106.894 129 .829
Total 132.370 136
a. Predictors: (Constant), Loyalty, Origin, Social Image, Awareness,
Uniqueness, Quality , CSR
b. Dependent Variable: Price Premium

In Table 7 of ANOVA table shows that F=4.392 and is statistically significant.

This indicates that the predictors combine together to predict Price Premium. Also
model is considered to be good fit if significance value falls between0% to 5%. In
Table 7 shows the sig
Value of .000 which means that relationship between Independent and dependent
variable is highly significant hence the model is good fit.

37
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

Table 8: Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .002 .078 .024 .981
Awareness .048 .091 .049 .523 .602
Quality .128 .091 .132 1.409 .161
CSR .088 .093 .091 .948 .345
Origin .209 .080 .212 2.606 .010
Social Image .063 .087 .065 .726 .469
Uniqueness .118 .091 .118 1.293 .198
Loyalty .047 .086 .048 .549 .584
a. Dependent Variable: Price Premium

Table 8 signifies Regression coefficients i.e. Beta (β) of Awareness with price premium is .048
with significant value .602 which shows no relationship between Awareness and price premium.
Regression coefficients i.e. Beta (β) of Quality with price premiumis .128 with significant value
.161 which shows no relationship between Quality and price premium. Regression coefficients
i.e. Beta (β) of CSRwith price premium is .088 with significant value .345 which shows no
relationship between CSR and price premium. Regression coefficients i.e. Beta (β) of Origin
with price premium is .209 with significant value .010 which shows a positive and significant
relationship betweenOrigin and price premium. Regression coefficients i.e. Beta (β) of Social
Image with price premium is .063 with significant value .469 which shows no relationship
between Social image and price premium. Beta (β) of Uniqueness with price premium is .118
with significant value .198 which shows no relationship between Uniqueness and price premium.
Beta (β) of Loyalty with price premium is .047 with significant value .584 which shows no
relationship between Loyalty and price premium.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

This research is conducted in University of Punjab and the respondents are students. Most of the
students here belong to middle class or below middle class families. They do not use packaged
food brands often and are quite less familiar with the companies making packaged food brands.
So their exposure of packaged food brands is less. There is very less diversification amongst the
respondents because majority of respondents belong to almost same sort of family status and
backgrounds. If in future, research conducted on people with different backgrounds, status and
priorities and different eating habits, results tend to differ on larger scale and other determinants
like Social image, CSR, Uniqueness and Aware will play a vital role in price premium. A second
limitation and possibility for future research is to delve further into the asymmetry of brand
image elements, or what satisfaction researchers refer to as basic, performance and excitement
elements.

38
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

References

Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products and markets”, California
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-120.
Acebro´n, L.B. and Dopico, D.C. (2000), “The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to
expected and experienced quality: an empirical application for beef”, Food Quality and
Preference, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 229-238. Agarwal, M.K. and Rao, V.R. (1996), “An empirical
comparison of consumer-based measures of brand equity”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7 No.
3, pp. 237-247.
Ahmed, Z.U., Johnson, J.P., Yang, X., Fatt, C.K., Teng, H.S. and Boon, L.C. (2004), “Does
country of origin matter for low-involvement products?”, International Marketing
Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 102-120.
Ailawadi, K.L., Lehmann, D.R. and Neslin, S.A. (2003), “Revenue premium as an outcome
measure of brand equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 1-17.
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-143 Anselmsson, J.
and Bondesson, N. (2013), “What successful
branding looks like – a managerial perspective”, British Food Journal, Vol. 115 No. 11, pp.
1612-1627.
Anselmsson, J. and Johansson, U. (2007), “Corporate social responsibility and the positioning of
grocery brands: an exploratory study of retailer and manufacturer brands at point of
purchase”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 10,
pp. 835-856.
Anselmsson, J., Johansson, U. and Persson, N. (2007), “Understanding price premium for
grocery products: a conceptual model of customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 401-414.
Arnoult, M., Lobb, A. and Tiffin, R. (2010), “Willingness to pay for imported and seasonal
foods: a UK survey”, Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 22
Nos 3-4, pp. 234-251.
Ball, A.D. and Tasaki, L.H. (1992), “The role and measurement of attachment in consumer
behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 155-172.
Bech-Larsen, T., Grunert, K.G. and Poulsen, J.B. (2001), “The acceptance of functional foods in
Denmark, Finland and the United States”, MAPP working paper 73, Aarhus School of
Business, Aarhus.
Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 139-168. Biel, A.L. (1992), “How brand image drives brand equity”, Journal
of Advertising Research, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 6-12.
Blackston, M. (1995), “The qualitative dimension of brand equity”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 1-6.
Bronnenberg, B.J. and Wathieu, L. (1996), “Asymmetric promotion effects and brand
positioning”, Marketing Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 379-394.
Brunsø, K., Fjord, T.A. and Grunert, K.G. (2002), “Consumers’ food choice and quality
perception”, Working paper 77 (June), Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus.

39
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

Chen, C. and Chang, Y. (2008), “Airline brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intentions
– the moderating effects of switching costs”, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol.
14 No. 1, pp. 40-42.
de Chernatony, L. and MacDonald, M. (2003), “saknas referens, a¨r detta”, in de Chernatony, L.
and McDonald, M. (Eds), Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer Service and Industrial
Markets, Elsevier, Oxford.
Christodoulides, G. and de Chernatony, L. (2010), “Consumer-based brand equity
conceptualization and measurement: a literature review”, International Journal of Market
Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, p. 43.
Cobb-Wahlgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference and
purchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-41.
Davcˇik, N.S. and Rundquist, J. (2012), “An exploratory study of brand success: evidence from
the food industry”, Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol. 24 No.
1, pp. 91-109.
Dodd, D. and Favaro, K. (2006), “Managing the right tension”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.
84 No. 12, pp. 62-74.
Doyle, P. (2001), “Shareholder-value-based brand strategies”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 20-30.
Ettlinger, S. (2008), Twinkie, Deconstructed: My Journey to Discover How the Ingredients
Found in Processed Foods Are Grown, Mined (Yes, Mined), and Manipulated into What
America Eats, Hudson Street Press, New York, NY.
Farquhar, P.H. (1989), “Managing brand equity”, Marketing Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 24-33.
Feldwick, P. (1996), “What is brand equity anyway, and how do you measure it?”, Journal of
Market Research Society, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 85-104.
Ferjani, M., Jedidi, K. and Jagpal, S. (2009), “A conjoint approach for consumer- and firm-level
brand valuation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46, December, pp. 846-862.
Gerzema, J. and Lebar, E. (2008), The Brand Bubble: The Looming Crisis in Brand Value and
How to Avoid It, Jossey-Bass Wiley, San Francisco, CA.
Ger, G., Askegaard, S. and Christensen, A. (1999), “Experiential nature of product-place images:
image as a narrative”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 165-169.
Ghose, S. and Lowengart, O. (2001), “Perceptual positioning of international, national and
private brands in a growing international market: an empirical study”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Grunert, K.G., Baadsgaard, A., Larsen, H.H. and Madsen, T.K. (1996), Market Orientation in
Food and Agriculture, Kluwer, Norwell.
Gu¨rhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (2000), “Cultural variations in country of origin effects”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 309-317.
Hair, J.R., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hall, M.C. (2008), “The marketing of organic products: an instrumental/symbolic perspective”,
Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Hoch, S.J. (1996), “How should national brands think about private labels?”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 89-103.

40
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

Hong, S.-T. and Wyer, R.S. (1990), “Country of origin, attributes, and product evaluations: the
effects of time delay between information and judgments”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 277-288.
Kalogeras, N., Valchovska, S., Baourakis, G. and Kalaitzis, P. (2009), “Dutch consumers’
willingness to pay for organic olive oil”, Journal of International Food & Agribusiness
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 286-311.
Kalra, A. and Goodstein, R.C. (1998), “The impact of advertising positioning strategies on
consumer price sensitivity”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 210-225.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Keller, K.L. (2001), “Building customer-based brand equity”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 14-19.
Khan, M.A. and Mahmood, Z. (2012), “Impact of brand loyalty factors on brand equity”,
International Journal of Academic Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 33.
Kim, H.-B. and Kim, W.G. (2005), “The relationship between brand equity and firms’
performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No.
4, pp. 549-560.
Kim, W.G. and Kim, H.-B. (2004), “Measuring customer based restaurant brand equity”, Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Knowles, J. (2008), “Varying perspectives on brand equity”, Marketing Management, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 20-26.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2010), Marketing Management, 13th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Laaksonen, H. and Reynolds, J. (1994), “Own brands in food retailing across Europe”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 37-46.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), “Measuring customer-based brand equity”, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-20.
Maheswaran, D. (1994), “Country of origin as a stereotype: effects of consumer expertise and
attribute strength on product evaluations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 354-365.
Martin, G.S. and Brown, T.J. (1990), “In search of brand equity: the conceptualization and
measurement of the brand impression construct”, in Childers, T.L. (Ed.), Marketing
Theory and Applications, Vol. 2, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 431-
438.
Me´ndez, J.L., Oubin˜ a, J. and Rubio, N. (2011), “The relative importance of brand-packaging,
price and taste in affecting brand preferences”, British Food Journal, Vol. 113 No. 10, pp.
1229-1251.
Mittal, V., Ross, W.T. and Baldasare, P.M. (1998), “The asymmetric impact of negative and
positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 1, p. 33.
Netemeyer, R.G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth,
F. (2004), “Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand
equity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 209-224.

41
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Oman Chapter)
Vol. 5, No.12, July 2016

Nielsen, N.A., Bech-Larsen, T. and Grunert, K.G. (1998), “Consumer purchase motives and
product perceptions: a laddering study on vegetable oil in three countries”, Food Quality
and Preference, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 455-466.
Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. and Van Trijp, H.C.M. (1995), “Perceived quality: a market driven and
consumer oriented approach”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 177-183.
Pepe, M.S., Abratt, R. and Dion, P. (2011), “The impact of private label brands on customer
loyalty and product category profitability”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 27-36.
Persson, N. (2010), “An exploratory investigation of the elements of B2B brand image and its
relationship to price premium”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp.
1269-1277.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rajh, E., Vranesevic, T. and Tolic, D. (2003), “Croatian food industry – brand equity in selected
product categories”, British Food Journal, Vol. 105 Nos 4-5, pp. 263-273.
Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W.E. Jr (1990), “Zero defections: quality comes to services”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 105-112.
Richardson, P.S., Dick, A.S. and Jain, A.K. (1994), “Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on
perceptions of store brand quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 28-37.
Ritson, M. (2003), “Heinz passes memory test, but to know a brand isn’t to love it”, Marketing, 4
September, p. 16.
Samiee, S., Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (2005), “Brand origin recognition accuracy: its
antecedents and consumers’ cognitive limitations”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 379-397.
Sanzo, M.J., del Rı´o, A.B., Iglesias, V. and Va´zquez, R. (2003), “Attitude and satisfaction in a
traditional food product”, British Food Journal, Vol. 105 Nos 10-11, pp. 771-790.
Semeijn, J., Van Riel, A.C.R. and Ambrosini, B. (2004), “Consumer evaluations of store brands:
effects of store image and product attributes”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 247-258.
Sethuraman, R. (2000), “What makes consumers pay more for national brands than for private
labels – image or quality?”, Marketing Science Institute Paper Series, Cox School of
Business, Southern Methodist University.
Sethuraman, R. (2003), “Measuring national brands’ equity over store brands”, Review of
Marketing Science, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Shepherd, R., Magnusson, M. and Sjo¨den, P.-O. (2005), “Determinants of consumer behavior
related to organic foods”, Ambio, Vol. 34 Nos 4-5, pp. 352-359.
Price premium for food brands Johan Anselmsson, Niklas Vestman Bondesson, Ulf Johansson
Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 23 · Number 2 · 2014 · 90–102 99

42