Grete Birtwistle Research Paper
RESEARCH PAPERS in Retailing
Not for quotation or citation without the express permission of the author.
ISSN 0265 9778
Grete Birtwistle is a Lecturer and Ian Clarke is a Professor at Glasgow Caledonian University, Paul Freathy is a Senior Lecturer, Institute for Retail Studies, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA.
Working Paper 9602 CONSUMER VERSUS RETAILER PERCEPTIONS OF STORE POSITIONING IN THE UK FASHION SECTOR Grete Birtwistle, Ian Clarke and Paul Freathy
Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this working paper are the responsibility of the author alone.
1
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
2 'O wad some Pow 'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us!’*
Introduction
It has been highlighted …show more content…
that market positioning - based on a combination of price and product differentiation - can provide an important competitive advantage for commercial organisations (e.g. Day and Wensley, 1988). This is especially so within retailing, where effective positioning can lead to a variety of trading benefits (see Ellis and Kelly, 1992). It is not surprising, therefore, that researchers have striven consistently to provide an improved understanding of store image (Martineau, 1958; Kunkel and Berry, 1968; Lindquist, 1974; Hansen and Deutscher, 1977; Rosenbloom, 1981; Golden et al. 1987). However, such work has tended to concentrate on customer perceptions in isolation, despite the fact that consumers do not necessarily perceive a retail store’s marketing communications in the way the strategy of the organisation had intended (Schiffman and Kanuk, 1994). This suggests that retailer perceptions of their own market position can be ‘out of step’ with those of existing (and potential) customers. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to explore, within the context of menswear fashion retailing: (a) the dimensions of store image important to the customer; and (b) the degree of congruence between retailer and customer perceptions of store image. In so doing, the paper raises important conceptual, strategic and management implications. The main elements of store image and positioning within the literature are considered in the first section of the paper. The second section then describes recent research undertaken on menswear fashion retailing within Glasgow, in which a sample of 340 respondents were interviewed to elicit the components of store image which they felt influenced where they chose to shop. In the third section of the paper, an exploratory attempt is made to evaluate these dimensions using Fishbein and Ajzen’s ‘Theory of Reasoned Action’ as a framework for analysis, to assess consumer perceptions of individual retailer store images. In the final section, these findings are compared with those of retailers perceptions of themselves, derived through comparable interviews with store management and staff.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
3 Store Image and Positioning
In Martineau’s (1958) paper, it was suggested that retail outlets had, so far as customers were concerned, a ‘personality’ composed of functional and psychological attributes. Martineau argued that retail organisations projecting an image close to the targeted customer’s self image would, as a consequence, increase loyalty towards the store. This assertion was later extended by Arons (1961), who proposed that there is a connection between a store which is ‘agreeable’ from the customer point of view, and the number of times they will visit the store within a given period. Early work on the images of department stores in Arizona, USA, defined retail store image as ‘the total conceptualised or expected reinforcement that a person associates with shopping at a particular store’ (Kunkel and Berry, 1968, p.22); the authors also attempted to separate the overall image into twelve image components. A review of similar studies by Lindquist (1974) served to reduce these to nine key attribute groups (see Table 1). He concluded, that store image is a complex concept which is difficult to explore and manage, given that it is created by a combination of both tangible (functional) and intangible (psychological) factors.
Table 1: Attributes of store image derived from early research work (pre-1974)
Most Frequently Cited Attribute
Other Attributes
Merchandise: • • • • Selection Quality Price Styling
Service Clientele Physical Facilities Convenience Promotion Store Atmosphere Institutional Post-transaction
Source: Summarised from Lindquist (1974).
Hansen and Deutscher (1977) later compared customer store choice in two contrasting retail sectors, grocery and department stores. Whilst similar dimensions were identified for both of
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
4 these retail sectors, the precise weighting and mix of variables was found to be different. In both cases, the most important attribute identified was the dependability of the product. However, store cleanliness, easy accessibility to the product, and speed at the checkout - all features which stress utility and time-pressure - proved the next most significant factors involved in grocery shopping. This was in complete contrast to department store shopping, where value for money, product quality and ‘fair adjustments’ were perceived as being the most important factors. A second study on department stores by Schiffman et al. (1977) also reached the significant conclusion that attributes influencing department store choice were different from those involved in choosing speciality stores. Such variation in attributes involved in store image between retail sectors has served to focus more recent research within specific areas. For example, when Greenberg et al (1983) explored the fashion sector in the USA, they found that, in this particular case, product choice, promotions and the atmosphere of the outlets were the most important factors involved in consumer decision making.
Two significant pointers emerge from the previous work on store image. First, whilst there may be some commonality of attributes between retail sectors, the precise importance and mix is, arguably, determined more by the motivation of the customer behind each specific shopping excursion. Thus, in grocery buying, factors which make the pressure of the ‘chore’ more bearable, or factors such as cleanliness of the store, are of natural concern to the customer. These elements are likely to be very different in other retail sectors such as department stores and fashion clothing shopping where, in the case of the latter, comparison between outlets through components which are socially influenced, such as brand image and style of product offering are, arguably, more influential. It can be concluded from this early work on store image that findings from one sector are not, necessarily, broadly applicable. It is not surprising, therefore, that Davies (1992) concluded that store image is likely to be situation specific, varying according to the purpose of each consumer purchase. A second pointer underlying much of this previous work is that there is not always a natural congruence between the image the retailers have of themselves, and the image which consumers have of their outlets (Kotler, 1973; Greenberg et al., 1983; Rosenbloom, 1981, 1983). However, whilst the degree of congruence between retailer and consumer perceptions of image has been stressed as important by a number of authors (e.g. Samli and Lincoln, 1989; Osman, 1993), this area is considerably under-researched.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
5 The most common technique employed in the methodologies of the majority of research work involved in store image measurement has been by asking consumers to rate particular outlets on pre-defined scales. Thus, the semantic differential scaling used by Osgood et al. (1957) has subsequently been widely employed. Five or seven point bi-polar scales have been the most common (e.g. McDougall and Fry, 1974; Golden et al., 1987; and Cassill et al., 1993), but Hansen and Deutscher (1977) used staple scales ranging from zero to ten. Others, such as James et al. (1976) have utilised attitudinal scaling techniques when evaluating attributes for a particular store (e.g. ‘very good’ or ‘very bad’), with total scores indicating how well a store filled consumer expectations overall. Cassill et al. (1993) made some attempt to summarise these ratings of individual attributes by using factor analysis. They found that consumers choose to patronise individual department stores for clothing purchases when a combination of factors were present: the stocking of particular brands; the presence of national and own branded products; and where garments offered functional value rather than fashion appeal.
Two problems characterise the majority of previous studies of store image. First, the dimensions on which consumers are asked to rate particular outlets have largely been predetermined by the researcher, and have not emanated from the respondents themselves. Second, many studies have treated attributes of store image as if they are all equally important, which need not necessarily be the case.
Research on store image has undoubtedly acted to inform retailers in the positioning strategies for their outlets, enabling them to actively differentiate their stores in terms of either their products, their prices, or the services they offer (Worzel, 1987). Whilst Buzzell and Gale (1987) in PIMS (Profit Impact of Market Strategy) work on the factors influencing long-term profitability of organisations demonstrated a general link between product quality and market share, no such relationship has been clearly established relating store image and customer loyalty. Osman (1993) has attempted to relate these two factors, by proposing that consumer attitudes to store choice are affected by the store rating on each of the contributing attributes. The argument is, that if retailers meet customer expectations, this will lead to a positive experience and, therefore, repeat purchases and increased loyalty. Conversely, a low degree of congruence between the consumer image and that of the retailer will, potentially,
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
6 lead to declining loyalty to that store. This is therefore, a critical area for further research work, as often managers have been shown to perceive their own retail image differently from that of their customers (McLure and Ryans, 1968). Attributes of Store Choice in Menswear Fashion Retailing In a bid to address some of the shortcomings identified above - the need for sector-specific image work; the determination of attributes of store image by the customer rather than using pre-defined categories; and the need to evaluate the relative strength and importance of attributes of store image - survey research was undertaken of fashion clothing purchasing in Glasgow during late 1995. Glasgow, with a population of over 800,000, is the largest city in Scotland, and acts as the key destination for clothing purchasing. The city has a national reputation for fashion retailing, with the presence of a wide variety of locally owned stores as well as national and international chain stores.
Survey research was conducted in the city in two stages. In the first questionnaire, the objectives were to highlight the key stores used in menswear clothing purchasing; to identify the principal attributes of store image from the perspective of the customers; and to evaluate the perceived relative importance of these same image dimensions. Face to face interviews were conducted using semi-structured, open-ended questioning techniques to identify store image attributes and consumers were asked to rank each of the components they mentioned. The second half of the questionnaire elicited data about respondents preferred shopping habits and demographic profile. In all 340 usable responses were obtained, collected as a random quota sample. In the second survey, the objective was to evaluate the perceived image of each of the most frequently used retail outlets, using the eight most cited attributes from the first survey. The Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) was then used as a tool to provide a holistic measure of store image.
Theory of Reasoned Action
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) proposed that customer behaviour could be predicted and understood by eliciting respondent intentions and the determinants of these intentions. They suggested that there is a propensity for individuals to undertake a voluntary action if there is an intention to behave in a certain way. The so-called ‘Theory of Reasoned Action’ is based
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
7 on measurements of salient attributes by two basic determinants, one which is a personal evaluation of performing the behaviour and another which is affected by social influences. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) proposed their model could be used for measuring attitudes within any field of consumer behaviour. In this paper, the Theory of Reasoned Action is used simply as a framework for investigating these attributes, and for examining the degree of congruence between customer and retailer perceptions of store image. We do not propose, at this stage, that there is, necessarily, a direct link with customer behaviour. The model is used in an adapted form, by substituting store image attributes for ‘salient attributes’; replacing ‘beliefs’ with personal beliefs of attribute importance; and ‘evaluative criteria’ with evaluation of store image attributes for a specific retailer. The adapted equation is set out in detail in Figure 1 below and schematically represented in Figure 2.
Figure 1: Theory of Reasoned Action n k
B ≈ BI = (Σ Bi Ai )w1 + (Σ NBj x MCj)w2 i=1 j=1
where B BI Bi is overt behaviour, i.e. the behaviour of purchasing is behavioural intention is the belief that an object possess some attribute i, i.e. the personal belief of the importance of each store image attribute Ai is the evaluation of attribute i, i.e. evaluation of the image attribute for the retailer n is the number of attributes NBj is normative belief of referent group j, i.e. the belief of people important to respondents MCj is motivation to comply with the normative belief of referent group j, i.e. how likely the respondent is to take the advise of people important to them k is the number of groups of people who’s opinions are important to the respondent w1 w2 are weights reflecting the relative importance of the two main components
Source: Adapted from Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and Horton (1984)
The model assumes that the researcher knows the relevant attributes which are to be tested which, in this study, came from the initial survey. Importance ratings and attribute evaluations are made on a seven-point semantic differential scale. When attitude to store image have been evaluated - in this case using the attributes the respondents from the first survey felt were the
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
8 most important - social influences were measured by using three referent groups: family, friends and colleagues.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
9 Figure 2: Factors determining store choice
Importance Rating of Attributes [Bi] Attitude towards Buying [Bi Ai] Evaluation of Attributes
[Ai] Intention to Buy [BI] Behaviour [B] (Store Choice)
Social Influences [NBj] Subjective Norms [NBj x MCj] Motivation to Comply [MCj]
Source: Adapted from Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)
Methodology
Within the initial survey respondents purchased a high proportion of menswear clothing from five specialists chains competing directly with each other.
For reasons of confidentiality, these are represented using the following synonyms: ‘The Tailor’, ‘The Gallant Weaver’, ‘Tam o’Shanter’, ‘Wandering Willie’ and ‘Dainty Davie’. Individual questionnaires were designed for each of the retail companies surveyed, based on Schiffman and Kanuk’s (1994) interpretation of the model. Eight attributes of store image, elicited by the initial survey (outlined in Birtwistle and Siddiqui, 1995) as the most significant factors to respondents when they chose where to shop, were used for the first section of the equation (see Table 2). These attributes were also used for measuring respondent evaluation of store image. For the subjective norm, three groups of people who might influence where the individual chooses to shop were deemed to be family, friends and colleagues. The questions used to evaluate attributes on particular stores and questions relating to social influences utilised bipolar scales (from +3 to -3). The remaining questions used a uni-polar scale (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Questions were included to define the demographic profile of respondents as well as indicating which stores - of the five selected - had been patronised in the last six …show more content…
months.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
10
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
11 Table 2: Store Image Attributes derived from the initial Study
• Fashion and Style • Store Layout • Price • Quality
• Refund and Exchange Policy • Reputation • Selection • Friendly and Knowledgeable Staff
The questionnaire was constructed using Schiffman and Kanuk’s (1994) interpretation of the model. Some minor adjustments were made after piloting the questionnaire. At this second stage, 750 questionnaires were administered to a quota sample of intercept interviews, conducted when customers were exiting outlets operated by the five retailers (i.e. 150 at each). To be eligible for inclusion, each respondent had to have purchased menswear clothing in the last six months from one of the five companies. A significant proportion of the respondents (88%) interviewed were deemed usable. Whilst respondent distribution (see Table 3) did not reflect the total population of the Glasgow area, it did broadly mirror the distribution of the company customer profiles. Table 4 indicates the number of respondents for each retail company and divides the numbers into ‘regular customers’ - that is, customers who had purchased menswear from that particular retailer within the last six months - and ‘browsers’, or potential customers who had visited the store but not made a recent purchase.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
12 Table 3: Respondent distribution by age and occupation
AGE Group 16-25 26-35 36-45 over 45 % 46 29 16 9
OCCUPATIONAL CLASS Group A B C1 C2 D E % 14 18 18 14 7 29 100
GENDER Group Male Female % 77 23
Total
100
Total
Total
100
Table 4: Respondent distribution by retailer
The Tailor
The Gallant Weaver
Tam o’Shanter
Wandering Willie
Dainty Davie
‘Regular Customers’
80 (69%)
69 (55%)
105 (75%)
88 (65%)
107 (76%)
‘Browsers’
36
57
35
47
34
Total
116
126
140
135
141
Analysis of the data was carried out by calculating the mean for each attribute measurement, both for salience (attribute importance) and valence (attribute evaluation). A comparison of means and an analysis of variance was made between different retailers and means were ranked in order of significance for each store. To attain an overall attitude for each attribute, image scores for salience and valence were multiplied, and totalled to provide a summation of
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
13 attitude to a store. Again, an analysis of variance was calculated for the five group means and a comparison made across attributes. These were ranked in order of significance as well as comparing the total attitude scores for the retailers in the survey.
In the second part of the adapted equation, the subjective norm was calculated in a similar fashion. Future intention to buy was calculated by adding the two weighted parts of the equation. The weightings, w1 and w2 were calculated by stepwise multiple regression (R = .65; R Square = .42) using the regression coefficients. For the purpose of comparing the five companies on store image, Z-scores were used to provide standardised measures of Attitude and Subjective Norm, so that Intention could be calculated. This process calculates the number of standard deviations units above or below the mean for each particular value (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1983; Owen and Jones, 1994).
Results
The first part of the adapted equation examines how important store image factors are to customers and allows a specific customer store image profile to be created. Table 5 indicates the ranking of attribute salience for each retailer. It is interesting to contrast differences between loyal customer groups for each retailer (i.e. ‘regular customers’ in this survey). For example, customer perception of store layout was consistently the least important factor in deciding where to shop, whereas price, which reflected value for money, was the most important attribute for all the retailers in the survey. However, significant differences occurred in customer perception of the importance attached to the need for staff to be knowledgeable and friendly. This factor was ranked second for one company but was rated fifth out of eight for another. The ranked evaluations of retailers by regular customers are presented in Table 6. The specific information available should particularly interest retail marketers as this is how their regular customers perceive their ‘product’ offering in a holistic sense, compared with the competition. When the two rankings are compared, that is customer belief of how important each attribute is with their evaluation of the store on the same attributes (i.e. between Table 5 and 6), it should be indicative of how successful the retailer is in satisfying the customer. Analysis reveals that most of the stores should look to price and improve the message to the
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
14 customer of value for money. Several of the companies stated in their Annual Reports that staff are an asset to the company, but customer feedback from this survey would appear to suggest that retail sales staff are not regarded as particularly friendly or knowledgeable, although it seems to be more important to regular customers of some retailers than others. Attitude towards a retailers image is calculated using the first part of Theory of Reasoned Action (Table 7). An analysis of variance between the five groups proved differences to be highly significant (df = 4; F = 8.99; Sig. = .0000). Summarising all attribute scores Dainty Davie achieved the highest mean value and, therefore, the best evaluation by customers compared to The Tailor, which had the least favourable image.
Table 5: Ranking of attributes to regular customers, by retailer
The Tailor
The Gallant Weaver 4
Tam o’Shanter
Wandering Willie
Dainty Davie
Reputation
7
7
6
5
Fashion/Style
6
6
4
7
7
Layout
8
8
8
8
8
Price
1
1
1
1
1
Quality
3
2
5
4
3
Refund/Exchange
5
7
6
5
4
Selection
2
3
2
2
6
Staff
4
5
3
3
2
1 = most important, 8 = least important
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
15 Table 6: Ranked evaluation of retailers by regular customers
The Tailor
The Gallant Weaver 4
Tam o’Shanter
Wandering Willie
Dainty Davie
Reputation
3
2
1
1
Fashion/Style
4=
2
1
2
3
Layout
8
5
7
4
6
Price
7
6 1
4
7
8
Quality Refund/Exchange
1 2 7
5 8
3 6
2 4
Selection
4=
3
3
5
7
Staff
4=
8
6
8
5
1 = highest mean, 8 = lowest mean
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
16 Table 7: Regular customer attitudes towards store image
The Tailor
The Gallant Weaver R 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 M 7.52 8.30 6.10 6.75 9.62 5.82 8.25 5.74 58.1 2
Tam O’Shanter
Wandering Willie
Dainty Davie
R Reputation Fashion/ Style Layout Price Quality Refund/ Exchange Selection Staff Total 5 5 4 5 4 3 5 2
M 6.35 6.25 4.98 6.68 7.78 7.45 7.14 6.26 52.9 0
R 4 2 5 1 5 5 3 3
M 7.47 8.79 4.95 7.96 7.08 4.87 7.75 5.90 54.7 8
R 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 5
M 9.65 8.72 7.47 6.81 9.34 7.58 8.74 5.47 63.7 8
R 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1
M 9.71 8..75 7.42 7.54 9.59 8.69 7.22 8.27 67.2 0
R = Rank* M = Mean . Stores are ranked horizontally against the competition with 1 achieving the highest mean value and 5 the lowest.
Store Choice An outcome of the exit interviews was a measure of the proportion of regular shoppers compared with the number of browsers. For instance, it is interesting to note that from Table 4 that The Gallant Weaver had the lowest ratio and Tam o’Shanter and Dainty Davie the highest. There may be a number of different reasons for this, and it is useful to examine this ratio against the intention to purchase from the retailer again within the next six months, which is calculated using The Theory of Reasoned Action (see Table 8). The Z-score for intention
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
17 indicates that regular customers in Dainty Davie displayed more positive responses than attained by any of the other retailers. Both the results of the Attitude and Intention analyses indicate a strong preference for shopping again at Dainty Davie, with The Tailor having the least acceptable store image to their regular customers and lowest intention to repeat purchase in the store. These intentions are of real interest to the retailer since, in their fight for market share, repurchasing by regular customers is critical.
Table 8: Regular customers intention to patronise stores in the next six months
The Tailor
The Gallant Weaver .2858
Tam o’Shanter .1813
Wandering Willie .4184
Dainty Davie .5343
Z Intention
.0827
Variable Z Attitude Z Subjective Norm
B .995 .300
Beta .55 .16
T 16.16 4.80
Sig. T .0000 .0000
Congruence of store image perception
Store image congruence between employees and customer perceptions are important to retailers as it serves as critical feedback mechanism for management on its trading strategy. Osman (1993) proposed that retail marketers, by measuring store image congruity, could assess how well a company has anticipated the perceived salience of store image attributes to their customers. Competition in fashion retailing is intense, and is often based on image, so it is important that retailer resources are invested carefully so as to maximise customer satisfaction and, thereby, increase customer loyalty. In a bid to evaluate the degree of congruence between customer and retailer perception of store image, a questionnaire similar to that administered to customers was distributed to employees at the five retail stores in Glasgow. In addition, retail staff and management were asked specific questions about their customers, products and store environment. All were structured open ended questions since it
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
18 was assumed that from this format of interviewing more qualitative information could be made available to supplement the quantitative data. However, instead of asking for a demographic profile, questions were included regarding length of employment with the company, and position held by the respondent.
The initial analysis of retailer’s perception of their stores appears to confirm previous studies, showing that employees see the store in a less critical light than regular customers.
Table 9 illustrates this point with results from two of the companies, Wandering Willie and Dainty Davie. Overall, managers had an image perception which was more remote from the customer perceptions of store image, as well as that of their staff. But when employees were asked how likely it would be that they would purchase menswear clothing from the store (assuming that they did not work there), answers were virtually the same as for regular customers. This measure could potentially represent a surrogate indicator for senior management of customer image of their own store. In fact, some retailers already use the propensity of staff to order from new season ranges as a method of indicating likely best
sellers.
Table 9: Illustrations of congruence in store image perception, by attitude
Wandering Willie
Dainty Davie
n
score
% gap
n
score
% gap
Management
3
99.33
55%
11
99.18
48%
Staff
13
67.69
6%
44
83.16
24%
Regular Customer
63.78
67.20
Conclusion
Store image is important to retailers, as it represents their most significant communication with
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
19 their target customers. This paper reviewed the extant literature on store image, highlighting the potential variability in the mix of attributes customers feel are important. The precise ‘mix’ of attributes appears to be dependent on the retail sector and motivation of the consumer, with the combination of image attributes being more important than each factor taken individually. The case study of menswear fashion retailing isolated the attributes important in this one retail sector by asking customers themselves, rather than through a priori determination. Moreover, the study evaluated the importance of these attributes - not only relative to each other, but also between retailers. In so doing, the paper demonstrated that - in this sector at least - there appears to be significant differences in the composition and importance of attributes of store image between different retailers. Whilst not the principal focus for the study, the results do appear to indicate an approximate correlation between the overall customer store image of the organisation and its overall performance. This is suggestive of a link between image, store loyalty and performance which clearly deserves further attention. In the next phase of this research project, this relationship will be explored further, by examining the factors which influence the regularity of shopping (as a measure of loyalty). It will also explore how customers of these same fashion retailers ‘trade off’ store choice attributes between individual retailers. By doing this, it is anticipated that deeper insights will be provided into the relationship between store positioning, store image and customer behaviour, helping to shed light on important issues pertinent to the management of store image by retail organisations. One practical upshot of this paper is that is has underlined the need for retail management to ensure congruence between their own perceptions of themselves, and the views of their customers. By confronting this issue, it is hoped that retailers could maintain and enhance their differentiation from their competitors more effectively over the longer term.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
20 References Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Arons, L. (1961) ‘Does Television Viewing Influence Store Image and Shopping Frequency?’ Journal of Retailing, Vol. 37, Fall, p. 1-13. Birtwistle, G. and Siddiqui, N. (1995) ‘Store Image - characteristics for menswear fashion retailers’, The Home Economist, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 20-22. Buzzell, R.D. and Gale, B.T. (1987) The PIMS Principle, Free Press, New York. Cassill, N.L..; Williamson, N.C.; McEnally, M. and Thomas, J. (1993) ‘Intratype competition among department stores’, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 65-78. Davies, G. (1992) 'Positioning, image and the marketing of multiple retailers ', The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 13-34. Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988) 'Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive superiority ', Journal of Marketing, Vol., 52, pp. 1-20. Ellis, B. and Kelly, S.W. (1992) 'Competitive advantage in retailing’, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 381-96. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading. Golden, L.L.; Albaum, G. and Simmer, M. (1987) ‘The Numerical comparative Scale: An Economical Format for Retail Image Measurement’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 63, No. 4, p.393-410. Greenberg, C.J.; Sherman, E. and Schiffman, L.G. (1983) ‘The Measurement of Fashion Image as a Determinant of Store Patronage’, In: Patronage Behavior and Retail Management, Ed. Darden, W.R. & Lusch, R.F., New York, Elsevier Science Publishing, p. 151-164. Hansen, R. and Deutscher, T. (1977) ‘An empirical investigation of attribute importance in retail store selection’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53, No. 4, p. 59-73. Horton, R.L. (1984) Buyer Behavior: A Decision-Making Approach, Bell and Howell, Columbus. James, D.L., Durand, R.M. and Dreves, R.A. (1976) 'The use of a multi-attribute attitude model in a store image study ', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 23-32. Kotler, P. (1973) ‘Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 49, No. 4, p. 48-64. Kunkel, J. and Berry, L. (1968) ‘A Behavioral Conception of Retail Image’, Journal of
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
21 Marketing, Vol. 32, Oct., p. 21-27. Lindquist, J.D. (1974-75) ‘Meaning of Image’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50, No. 4, p. 29-38. McDougall, G.H.G. and Fry, J.N. (1974-75) ‘Combining Two Methods of Image Measurements’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50, No. 4, p.53 - 61. McLure, P.J. and Ryans, J.K (1968) 'Differences between Retailers ' and Consumers ' Perceptions ', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. V, pp. 35-40. Martineau, P. (1958) ‘The Personality of the Retail Store’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36, Jan-Feb, p. 47-55. Osgood, C.E.; Suci, G.J. and Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957) The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana, Illinois, University of Illinois Press. Osman, M.Z. (1993) ‘A conceptual model of retail image influences on loyalty patronage behaviour’, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 133-148. Owen, F. and Jones, R. (1994) Statistics, Fourth Edition, Pitman, London. Rosenbloom, B. (1981) Retail Marketing, Random House, New York. Rosenbloom, B. (1983) ‘Store Image Development and the Question of Congruency’,. In: Patronage Behavior and Retail Management, Ed. Darden, William R. & Lusch, Robert F., New York, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., p. 141-149. Samli, A.C. and Lincoln, D. (1989) ‘Management versus customer perception of image’, in A.C. Samli (ed.) Retail Marketing Strategy: Planning, Implementation, and Control, Quorum, New York, pp. 193-205. Schiffman, L.G., Dash, J. and Dillon, W. (1977) 'The contribution of store image characteristics to store type choice ', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53, pp. 3-14. Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (1994) Consumer Behavior, Fifth Edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1983) Using multivariate statistics, Harper & Row, New York. Worzel, L.H. (1987) ‘Retailing strategies for today 's mature marketplace’, Journal of Business Strategy, Spring, pp. 45-56.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
Not for quotation or citation without the express permission of the author.
ISSN 0265 9778
Grete Birtwistle is a Lecturer and Ian Clarke is a Professor at Glasgow Caledonian University, Paul Freathy is a Senior Lecturer, Institute for Retail Studies, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA.
Working Paper 9602 CONSUMER VERSUS RETAILER PERCEPTIONS OF STORE POSITIONING IN THE UK FASHION SECTOR Grete Birtwistle, Ian Clarke and Paul Freathy
Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this working paper are the responsibility of the author alone.
1
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
2 'O wad some Pow 'r the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us!’*
Introduction
It has been highlighted …show more content…
that market positioning - based on a combination of price and product differentiation - can provide an important competitive advantage for commercial organisations (e.g. Day and Wensley, 1988). This is especially so within retailing, where effective positioning can lead to a variety of trading benefits (see Ellis and Kelly, 1992). It is not surprising, therefore, that researchers have striven consistently to provide an improved understanding of store image (Martineau, 1958; Kunkel and Berry, 1968; Lindquist, 1974; Hansen and Deutscher, 1977; Rosenbloom, 1981; Golden et al. 1987). However, such work has tended to concentrate on customer perceptions in isolation, despite the fact that consumers do not necessarily perceive a retail store’s marketing communications in the way the strategy of the organisation had intended (Schiffman and Kanuk, 1994). This suggests that retailer perceptions of their own market position can be ‘out of step’ with those of existing (and potential) customers. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to explore, within the context of menswear fashion retailing: (a) the dimensions of store image important to the customer; and (b) the degree of congruence between retailer and customer perceptions of store image. In so doing, the paper raises important conceptual, strategic and management implications. The main elements of store image and positioning within the literature are considered in the first section of the paper. The second section then describes recent research undertaken on menswear fashion retailing within Glasgow, in which a sample of 340 respondents were interviewed to elicit the components of store image which they felt influenced where they chose to shop. In the third section of the paper, an exploratory attempt is made to evaluate these dimensions using Fishbein and Ajzen’s ‘Theory of Reasoned Action’ as a framework for analysis, to assess consumer perceptions of individual retailer store images. In the final section, these findings are compared with those of retailers perceptions of themselves, derived through comparable interviews with store management and staff.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
3 Store Image and Positioning
In Martineau’s (1958) paper, it was suggested that retail outlets had, so far as customers were concerned, a ‘personality’ composed of functional and psychological attributes. Martineau argued that retail organisations projecting an image close to the targeted customer’s self image would, as a consequence, increase loyalty towards the store. This assertion was later extended by Arons (1961), who proposed that there is a connection between a store which is ‘agreeable’ from the customer point of view, and the number of times they will visit the store within a given period. Early work on the images of department stores in Arizona, USA, defined retail store image as ‘the total conceptualised or expected reinforcement that a person associates with shopping at a particular store’ (Kunkel and Berry, 1968, p.22); the authors also attempted to separate the overall image into twelve image components. A review of similar studies by Lindquist (1974) served to reduce these to nine key attribute groups (see Table 1). He concluded, that store image is a complex concept which is difficult to explore and manage, given that it is created by a combination of both tangible (functional) and intangible (psychological) factors.
Table 1: Attributes of store image derived from early research work (pre-1974)
Most Frequently Cited Attribute
Other Attributes
Merchandise: • • • • Selection Quality Price Styling
Service Clientele Physical Facilities Convenience Promotion Store Atmosphere Institutional Post-transaction
Source: Summarised from Lindquist (1974).
Hansen and Deutscher (1977) later compared customer store choice in two contrasting retail sectors, grocery and department stores. Whilst similar dimensions were identified for both of
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
4 these retail sectors, the precise weighting and mix of variables was found to be different. In both cases, the most important attribute identified was the dependability of the product. However, store cleanliness, easy accessibility to the product, and speed at the checkout - all features which stress utility and time-pressure - proved the next most significant factors involved in grocery shopping. This was in complete contrast to department store shopping, where value for money, product quality and ‘fair adjustments’ were perceived as being the most important factors. A second study on department stores by Schiffman et al. (1977) also reached the significant conclusion that attributes influencing department store choice were different from those involved in choosing speciality stores. Such variation in attributes involved in store image between retail sectors has served to focus more recent research within specific areas. For example, when Greenberg et al (1983) explored the fashion sector in the USA, they found that, in this particular case, product choice, promotions and the atmosphere of the outlets were the most important factors involved in consumer decision making.
Two significant pointers emerge from the previous work on store image. First, whilst there may be some commonality of attributes between retail sectors, the precise importance and mix is, arguably, determined more by the motivation of the customer behind each specific shopping excursion. Thus, in grocery buying, factors which make the pressure of the ‘chore’ more bearable, or factors such as cleanliness of the store, are of natural concern to the customer. These elements are likely to be very different in other retail sectors such as department stores and fashion clothing shopping where, in the case of the latter, comparison between outlets through components which are socially influenced, such as brand image and style of product offering are, arguably, more influential. It can be concluded from this early work on store image that findings from one sector are not, necessarily, broadly applicable. It is not surprising, therefore, that Davies (1992) concluded that store image is likely to be situation specific, varying according to the purpose of each consumer purchase. A second pointer underlying much of this previous work is that there is not always a natural congruence between the image the retailers have of themselves, and the image which consumers have of their outlets (Kotler, 1973; Greenberg et al., 1983; Rosenbloom, 1981, 1983). However, whilst the degree of congruence between retailer and consumer perceptions of image has been stressed as important by a number of authors (e.g. Samli and Lincoln, 1989; Osman, 1993), this area is considerably under-researched.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
5 The most common technique employed in the methodologies of the majority of research work involved in store image measurement has been by asking consumers to rate particular outlets on pre-defined scales. Thus, the semantic differential scaling used by Osgood et al. (1957) has subsequently been widely employed. Five or seven point bi-polar scales have been the most common (e.g. McDougall and Fry, 1974; Golden et al., 1987; and Cassill et al., 1993), but Hansen and Deutscher (1977) used staple scales ranging from zero to ten. Others, such as James et al. (1976) have utilised attitudinal scaling techniques when evaluating attributes for a particular store (e.g. ‘very good’ or ‘very bad’), with total scores indicating how well a store filled consumer expectations overall. Cassill et al. (1993) made some attempt to summarise these ratings of individual attributes by using factor analysis. They found that consumers choose to patronise individual department stores for clothing purchases when a combination of factors were present: the stocking of particular brands; the presence of national and own branded products; and where garments offered functional value rather than fashion appeal.
Two problems characterise the majority of previous studies of store image. First, the dimensions on which consumers are asked to rate particular outlets have largely been predetermined by the researcher, and have not emanated from the respondents themselves. Second, many studies have treated attributes of store image as if they are all equally important, which need not necessarily be the case.
Research on store image has undoubtedly acted to inform retailers in the positioning strategies for their outlets, enabling them to actively differentiate their stores in terms of either their products, their prices, or the services they offer (Worzel, 1987). Whilst Buzzell and Gale (1987) in PIMS (Profit Impact of Market Strategy) work on the factors influencing long-term profitability of organisations demonstrated a general link between product quality and market share, no such relationship has been clearly established relating store image and customer loyalty. Osman (1993) has attempted to relate these two factors, by proposing that consumer attitudes to store choice are affected by the store rating on each of the contributing attributes. The argument is, that if retailers meet customer expectations, this will lead to a positive experience and, therefore, repeat purchases and increased loyalty. Conversely, a low degree of congruence between the consumer image and that of the retailer will, potentially,
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
6 lead to declining loyalty to that store. This is therefore, a critical area for further research work, as often managers have been shown to perceive their own retail image differently from that of their customers (McLure and Ryans, 1968). Attributes of Store Choice in Menswear Fashion Retailing In a bid to address some of the shortcomings identified above - the need for sector-specific image work; the determination of attributes of store image by the customer rather than using pre-defined categories; and the need to evaluate the relative strength and importance of attributes of store image - survey research was undertaken of fashion clothing purchasing in Glasgow during late 1995. Glasgow, with a population of over 800,000, is the largest city in Scotland, and acts as the key destination for clothing purchasing. The city has a national reputation for fashion retailing, with the presence of a wide variety of locally owned stores as well as national and international chain stores.
Survey research was conducted in the city in two stages. In the first questionnaire, the objectives were to highlight the key stores used in menswear clothing purchasing; to identify the principal attributes of store image from the perspective of the customers; and to evaluate the perceived relative importance of these same image dimensions. Face to face interviews were conducted using semi-structured, open-ended questioning techniques to identify store image attributes and consumers were asked to rank each of the components they mentioned. The second half of the questionnaire elicited data about respondents preferred shopping habits and demographic profile. In all 340 usable responses were obtained, collected as a random quota sample. In the second survey, the objective was to evaluate the perceived image of each of the most frequently used retail outlets, using the eight most cited attributes from the first survey. The Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) was then used as a tool to provide a holistic measure of store image.
Theory of Reasoned Action
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) proposed that customer behaviour could be predicted and understood by eliciting respondent intentions and the determinants of these intentions. They suggested that there is a propensity for individuals to undertake a voluntary action if there is an intention to behave in a certain way. The so-called ‘Theory of Reasoned Action’ is based
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
7 on measurements of salient attributes by two basic determinants, one which is a personal evaluation of performing the behaviour and another which is affected by social influences. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) proposed their model could be used for measuring attitudes within any field of consumer behaviour. In this paper, the Theory of Reasoned Action is used simply as a framework for investigating these attributes, and for examining the degree of congruence between customer and retailer perceptions of store image. We do not propose, at this stage, that there is, necessarily, a direct link with customer behaviour. The model is used in an adapted form, by substituting store image attributes for ‘salient attributes’; replacing ‘beliefs’ with personal beliefs of attribute importance; and ‘evaluative criteria’ with evaluation of store image attributes for a specific retailer. The adapted equation is set out in detail in Figure 1 below and schematically represented in Figure 2.
Figure 1: Theory of Reasoned Action n k
B ≈ BI = (Σ Bi Ai )w1 + (Σ NBj x MCj)w2 i=1 j=1
where B BI Bi is overt behaviour, i.e. the behaviour of purchasing is behavioural intention is the belief that an object possess some attribute i, i.e. the personal belief of the importance of each store image attribute Ai is the evaluation of attribute i, i.e. evaluation of the image attribute for the retailer n is the number of attributes NBj is normative belief of referent group j, i.e. the belief of people important to respondents MCj is motivation to comply with the normative belief of referent group j, i.e. how likely the respondent is to take the advise of people important to them k is the number of groups of people who’s opinions are important to the respondent w1 w2 are weights reflecting the relative importance of the two main components
Source: Adapted from Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and Horton (1984)
The model assumes that the researcher knows the relevant attributes which are to be tested which, in this study, came from the initial survey. Importance ratings and attribute evaluations are made on a seven-point semantic differential scale. When attitude to store image have been evaluated - in this case using the attributes the respondents from the first survey felt were the
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
8 most important - social influences were measured by using three referent groups: family, friends and colleagues.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
9 Figure 2: Factors determining store choice
Importance Rating of Attributes [Bi] Attitude towards Buying [Bi Ai] Evaluation of Attributes
[Ai] Intention to Buy [BI] Behaviour [B] (Store Choice)
Social Influences [NBj] Subjective Norms [NBj x MCj] Motivation to Comply [MCj]
Source: Adapted from Ajzen and Fishbein (1980)
Methodology
Within the initial survey respondents purchased a high proportion of menswear clothing from five specialists chains competing directly with each other.
For reasons of confidentiality, these are represented using the following synonyms: ‘The Tailor’, ‘The Gallant Weaver’, ‘Tam o’Shanter’, ‘Wandering Willie’ and ‘Dainty Davie’. Individual questionnaires were designed for each of the retail companies surveyed, based on Schiffman and Kanuk’s (1994) interpretation of the model. Eight attributes of store image, elicited by the initial survey (outlined in Birtwistle and Siddiqui, 1995) as the most significant factors to respondents when they chose where to shop, were used for the first section of the equation (see Table 2). These attributes were also used for measuring respondent evaluation of store image. For the subjective norm, three groups of people who might influence where the individual chooses to shop were deemed to be family, friends and colleagues. The questions used to evaluate attributes on particular stores and questions relating to social influences utilised bipolar scales (from +3 to -3). The remaining questions used a uni-polar scale (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Questions were included to define the demographic profile of respondents as well as indicating which stores - of the five selected - had been patronised in the last six …show more content…
months.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
10
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
11 Table 2: Store Image Attributes derived from the initial Study
• Fashion and Style • Store Layout • Price • Quality
• Refund and Exchange Policy • Reputation • Selection • Friendly and Knowledgeable Staff
The questionnaire was constructed using Schiffman and Kanuk’s (1994) interpretation of the model. Some minor adjustments were made after piloting the questionnaire. At this second stage, 750 questionnaires were administered to a quota sample of intercept interviews, conducted when customers were exiting outlets operated by the five retailers (i.e. 150 at each). To be eligible for inclusion, each respondent had to have purchased menswear clothing in the last six months from one of the five companies. A significant proportion of the respondents (88%) interviewed were deemed usable. Whilst respondent distribution (see Table 3) did not reflect the total population of the Glasgow area, it did broadly mirror the distribution of the company customer profiles. Table 4 indicates the number of respondents for each retail company and divides the numbers into ‘regular customers’ - that is, customers who had purchased menswear from that particular retailer within the last six months - and ‘browsers’, or potential customers who had visited the store but not made a recent purchase.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
12 Table 3: Respondent distribution by age and occupation
AGE Group 16-25 26-35 36-45 over 45 % 46 29 16 9
OCCUPATIONAL CLASS Group A B C1 C2 D E % 14 18 18 14 7 29 100
GENDER Group Male Female % 77 23
Total
100
Total
Total
100
Table 4: Respondent distribution by retailer
The Tailor
The Gallant Weaver
Tam o’Shanter
Wandering Willie
Dainty Davie
‘Regular Customers’
80 (69%)
69 (55%)
105 (75%)
88 (65%)
107 (76%)
‘Browsers’
36
57
35
47
34
Total
116
126
140
135
141
Analysis of the data was carried out by calculating the mean for each attribute measurement, both for salience (attribute importance) and valence (attribute evaluation). A comparison of means and an analysis of variance was made between different retailers and means were ranked in order of significance for each store. To attain an overall attitude for each attribute, image scores for salience and valence were multiplied, and totalled to provide a summation of
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
13 attitude to a store. Again, an analysis of variance was calculated for the five group means and a comparison made across attributes. These were ranked in order of significance as well as comparing the total attitude scores for the retailers in the survey.
In the second part of the adapted equation, the subjective norm was calculated in a similar fashion. Future intention to buy was calculated by adding the two weighted parts of the equation. The weightings, w1 and w2 were calculated by stepwise multiple regression (R = .65; R Square = .42) using the regression coefficients. For the purpose of comparing the five companies on store image, Z-scores were used to provide standardised measures of Attitude and Subjective Norm, so that Intention could be calculated. This process calculates the number of standard deviations units above or below the mean for each particular value (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1983; Owen and Jones, 1994).
Results
The first part of the adapted equation examines how important store image factors are to customers and allows a specific customer store image profile to be created. Table 5 indicates the ranking of attribute salience for each retailer. It is interesting to contrast differences between loyal customer groups for each retailer (i.e. ‘regular customers’ in this survey). For example, customer perception of store layout was consistently the least important factor in deciding where to shop, whereas price, which reflected value for money, was the most important attribute for all the retailers in the survey. However, significant differences occurred in customer perception of the importance attached to the need for staff to be knowledgeable and friendly. This factor was ranked second for one company but was rated fifth out of eight for another. The ranked evaluations of retailers by regular customers are presented in Table 6. The specific information available should particularly interest retail marketers as this is how their regular customers perceive their ‘product’ offering in a holistic sense, compared with the competition. When the two rankings are compared, that is customer belief of how important each attribute is with their evaluation of the store on the same attributes (i.e. between Table 5 and 6), it should be indicative of how successful the retailer is in satisfying the customer. Analysis reveals that most of the stores should look to price and improve the message to the
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
14 customer of value for money. Several of the companies stated in their Annual Reports that staff are an asset to the company, but customer feedback from this survey would appear to suggest that retail sales staff are not regarded as particularly friendly or knowledgeable, although it seems to be more important to regular customers of some retailers than others. Attitude towards a retailers image is calculated using the first part of Theory of Reasoned Action (Table 7). An analysis of variance between the five groups proved differences to be highly significant (df = 4; F = 8.99; Sig. = .0000). Summarising all attribute scores Dainty Davie achieved the highest mean value and, therefore, the best evaluation by customers compared to The Tailor, which had the least favourable image.
Table 5: Ranking of attributes to regular customers, by retailer
The Tailor
The Gallant Weaver 4
Tam o’Shanter
Wandering Willie
Dainty Davie
Reputation
7
7
6
5
Fashion/Style
6
6
4
7
7
Layout
8
8
8
8
8
Price
1
1
1
1
1
Quality
3
2
5
4
3
Refund/Exchange
5
7
6
5
4
Selection
2
3
2
2
6
Staff
4
5
3
3
2
1 = most important, 8 = least important
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
15 Table 6: Ranked evaluation of retailers by regular customers
The Tailor
The Gallant Weaver 4
Tam o’Shanter
Wandering Willie
Dainty Davie
Reputation
3
2
1
1
Fashion/Style
4=
2
1
2
3
Layout
8
5
7
4
6
Price
7
6 1
4
7
8
Quality Refund/Exchange
1 2 7
5 8
3 6
2 4
Selection
4=
3
3
5
7
Staff
4=
8
6
8
5
1 = highest mean, 8 = lowest mean
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
16 Table 7: Regular customer attitudes towards store image
The Tailor
The Gallant Weaver R 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 M 7.52 8.30 6.10 6.75 9.62 5.82 8.25 5.74 58.1 2
Tam O’Shanter
Wandering Willie
Dainty Davie
R Reputation Fashion/ Style Layout Price Quality Refund/ Exchange Selection Staff Total 5 5 4 5 4 3 5 2
M 6.35 6.25 4.98 6.68 7.78 7.45 7.14 6.26 52.9 0
R 4 2 5 1 5 5 3 3
M 7.47 8.79 4.95 7.96 7.08 4.87 7.75 5.90 54.7 8
R 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 5
M 9.65 8.72 7.47 6.81 9.34 7.58 8.74 5.47 63.7 8
R 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1
M 9.71 8..75 7.42 7.54 9.59 8.69 7.22 8.27 67.2 0
R = Rank* M = Mean . Stores are ranked horizontally against the competition with 1 achieving the highest mean value and 5 the lowest.
Store Choice An outcome of the exit interviews was a measure of the proportion of regular shoppers compared with the number of browsers. For instance, it is interesting to note that from Table 4 that The Gallant Weaver had the lowest ratio and Tam o’Shanter and Dainty Davie the highest. There may be a number of different reasons for this, and it is useful to examine this ratio against the intention to purchase from the retailer again within the next six months, which is calculated using The Theory of Reasoned Action (see Table 8). The Z-score for intention
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
17 indicates that regular customers in Dainty Davie displayed more positive responses than attained by any of the other retailers. Both the results of the Attitude and Intention analyses indicate a strong preference for shopping again at Dainty Davie, with The Tailor having the least acceptable store image to their regular customers and lowest intention to repeat purchase in the store. These intentions are of real interest to the retailer since, in their fight for market share, repurchasing by regular customers is critical.
Table 8: Regular customers intention to patronise stores in the next six months
The Tailor
The Gallant Weaver .2858
Tam o’Shanter .1813
Wandering Willie .4184
Dainty Davie .5343
Z Intention
.0827
Variable Z Attitude Z Subjective Norm
B .995 .300
Beta .55 .16
T 16.16 4.80
Sig. T .0000 .0000
Congruence of store image perception
Store image congruence between employees and customer perceptions are important to retailers as it serves as critical feedback mechanism for management on its trading strategy. Osman (1993) proposed that retail marketers, by measuring store image congruity, could assess how well a company has anticipated the perceived salience of store image attributes to their customers. Competition in fashion retailing is intense, and is often based on image, so it is important that retailer resources are invested carefully so as to maximise customer satisfaction and, thereby, increase customer loyalty. In a bid to evaluate the degree of congruence between customer and retailer perception of store image, a questionnaire similar to that administered to customers was distributed to employees at the five retail stores in Glasgow. In addition, retail staff and management were asked specific questions about their customers, products and store environment. All were structured open ended questions since it
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
18 was assumed that from this format of interviewing more qualitative information could be made available to supplement the quantitative data. However, instead of asking for a demographic profile, questions were included regarding length of employment with the company, and position held by the respondent.
The initial analysis of retailer’s perception of their stores appears to confirm previous studies, showing that employees see the store in a less critical light than regular customers.
Table 9 illustrates this point with results from two of the companies, Wandering Willie and Dainty Davie. Overall, managers had an image perception which was more remote from the customer perceptions of store image, as well as that of their staff. But when employees were asked how likely it would be that they would purchase menswear clothing from the store (assuming that they did not work there), answers were virtually the same as for regular customers. This measure could potentially represent a surrogate indicator for senior management of customer image of their own store. In fact, some retailers already use the propensity of staff to order from new season ranges as a method of indicating likely best
sellers.
Table 9: Illustrations of congruence in store image perception, by attitude
Wandering Willie
Dainty Davie
n
score
% gap
n
score
% gap
Management
3
99.33
55%
11
99.18
48%
Staff
13
67.69
6%
44
83.16
24%
Regular Customer
63.78
67.20
Conclusion
Store image is important to retailers, as it represents their most significant communication with
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
19 their target customers. This paper reviewed the extant literature on store image, highlighting the potential variability in the mix of attributes customers feel are important. The precise ‘mix’ of attributes appears to be dependent on the retail sector and motivation of the consumer, with the combination of image attributes being more important than each factor taken individually. The case study of menswear fashion retailing isolated the attributes important in this one retail sector by asking customers themselves, rather than through a priori determination. Moreover, the study evaluated the importance of these attributes - not only relative to each other, but also between retailers. In so doing, the paper demonstrated that - in this sector at least - there appears to be significant differences in the composition and importance of attributes of store image between different retailers. Whilst not the principal focus for the study, the results do appear to indicate an approximate correlation between the overall customer store image of the organisation and its overall performance. This is suggestive of a link between image, store loyalty and performance which clearly deserves further attention. In the next phase of this research project, this relationship will be explored further, by examining the factors which influence the regularity of shopping (as a measure of loyalty). It will also explore how customers of these same fashion retailers ‘trade off’ store choice attributes between individual retailers. By doing this, it is anticipated that deeper insights will be provided into the relationship between store positioning, store image and customer behaviour, helping to shed light on important issues pertinent to the management of store image by retail organisations. One practical upshot of this paper is that is has underlined the need for retail management to ensure congruence between their own perceptions of themselves, and the views of their customers. By confronting this issue, it is hoped that retailers could maintain and enhance their differentiation from their competitors more effectively over the longer term.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
20 References Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Arons, L. (1961) ‘Does Television Viewing Influence Store Image and Shopping Frequency?’ Journal of Retailing, Vol. 37, Fall, p. 1-13. Birtwistle, G. and Siddiqui, N. (1995) ‘Store Image - characteristics for menswear fashion retailers’, The Home Economist, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 20-22. Buzzell, R.D. and Gale, B.T. (1987) The PIMS Principle, Free Press, New York. Cassill, N.L..; Williamson, N.C.; McEnally, M. and Thomas, J. (1993) ‘Intratype competition among department stores’, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 65-78. Davies, G. (1992) 'Positioning, image and the marketing of multiple retailers ', The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 13-34. Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988) 'Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive superiority ', Journal of Marketing, Vol., 52, pp. 1-20. Ellis, B. and Kelly, S.W. (1992) 'Competitive advantage in retailing’, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 381-96. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading. Golden, L.L.; Albaum, G. and Simmer, M. (1987) ‘The Numerical comparative Scale: An Economical Format for Retail Image Measurement’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 63, No. 4, p.393-410. Greenberg, C.J.; Sherman, E. and Schiffman, L.G. (1983) ‘The Measurement of Fashion Image as a Determinant of Store Patronage’, In: Patronage Behavior and Retail Management, Ed. Darden, W.R. & Lusch, R.F., New York, Elsevier Science Publishing, p. 151-164. Hansen, R. and Deutscher, T. (1977) ‘An empirical investigation of attribute importance in retail store selection’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53, No. 4, p. 59-73. Horton, R.L. (1984) Buyer Behavior: A Decision-Making Approach, Bell and Howell, Columbus. James, D.L., Durand, R.M. and Dreves, R.A. (1976) 'The use of a multi-attribute attitude model in a store image study ', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 23-32. Kotler, P. (1973) ‘Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 49, No. 4, p. 48-64. Kunkel, J. and Berry, L. (1968) ‘A Behavioral Conception of Retail Image’, Journal of
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.
21 Marketing, Vol. 32, Oct., p. 21-27. Lindquist, J.D. (1974-75) ‘Meaning of Image’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50, No. 4, p. 29-38. McDougall, G.H.G. and Fry, J.N. (1974-75) ‘Combining Two Methods of Image Measurements’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50, No. 4, p.53 - 61. McLure, P.J. and Ryans, J.K (1968) 'Differences between Retailers ' and Consumers ' Perceptions ', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. V, pp. 35-40. Martineau, P. (1958) ‘The Personality of the Retail Store’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36, Jan-Feb, p. 47-55. Osgood, C.E.; Suci, G.J. and Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957) The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana, Illinois, University of Illinois Press. Osman, M.Z. (1993) ‘A conceptual model of retail image influences on loyalty patronage behaviour’, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 133-148. Owen, F. and Jones, R. (1994) Statistics, Fourth Edition, Pitman, London. Rosenbloom, B. (1981) Retail Marketing, Random House, New York. Rosenbloom, B. (1983) ‘Store Image Development and the Question of Congruency’,. In: Patronage Behavior and Retail Management, Ed. Darden, William R. & Lusch, Robert F., New York, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., p. 141-149. Samli, A.C. and Lincoln, D. (1989) ‘Management versus customer perception of image’, in A.C. Samli (ed.) Retail Marketing Strategy: Planning, Implementation, and Control, Quorum, New York, pp. 193-205. Schiffman, L.G., Dash, J. and Dillon, W. (1977) 'The contribution of store image characteristics to store type choice ', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53, pp. 3-14. Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (1994) Consumer Behavior, Fifth Edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1983) Using multivariate statistics, Harper & Row, New York. Worzel, L.H. (1987) ‘Retailing strategies for today 's mature marketplace’, Journal of Business Strategy, Spring, pp. 45-56.
© Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.