Influence of consumer perceptions of private label brands on store loyalty – evidence from Indian retailing

Gangwani, Sanjeevni; Mathur, Meenu; Shahab, Sana Article Influence of consumer perceptions of private label brands on store loyalty – evidence from Indian retailing Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Gangwani, Sanjeevni; Mathur, Meenu; Shahab, Sana (2020) : Influence of consumer perceptions of private label brands on store loyalty – evidence from Indian retailing, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/244837 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oabm20 Influence of consumer perceptions of private label brands on store loyalty – evidence from Indian retailing Sanjeevni Gangwani, Meenu Mathur & Sana Shahab | To cite this article: Sanjeevni Gangwani, Meenu Mathur & Sana Shahab | (2020) Influence of consumer perceptions of private label brands on store loyalty – evidence from Indian retailing, Cogent Business & Management, 7:1, 1751905, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 © 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 18 Apr 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3022 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 5 View citing articles MARKETING | RESEARCH ARTICLE Influence of consumer perceptions of private label brands on store loyalty –evidence from Indian retailing Sanjeevni Gangwani 1 *, Meenu Mathur 2 and Sana Shahab 3 Abstract: In India growth of private label brands corresponds with the increasing share of organized retailing. The consumer perceptions of private label apparel brands of retail department stores have been examined by means of structural equation modelling approach. The model illustrates the influence of consumer perceptions towards private label familiarity, affective perception, perceived quality, perceived value, and perceived risk perceptions including functional risk, financial risk, and social risk perceptions on store loyalty. The study found that favourable consumer perceptions of apparel private label brands of retail department stores significantly influence the consumer to be loyal to the store. It implies that retailers wishing to boost loyalty to their store should formulate appropriate private label brand strategies so as to solicit favourable perceptions towards their store’s private label offerings. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr Sanjeevni Gangwani is Professor and Researcher at Department of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, Princess Nora Bint Abdulrehman University, Riyadh. She has 17 years of teaching experience and has published more than 25 research papers in reputed journals and books. She has authored a book on “Organization Development”. Dr Meenu Mathur is Assistant Professor, Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Indore, India and is in team of Research Consultancy and Training Wing of the institute. She has rich blend of 14 years of industrial and 9 years of teaching experience. She has co-edited two books and published number of research papers in reputed journals. Currently, her research areas are Consumer Behaviour, Retail Management, Marketing and Retail Analytics. Dr Sana Shahab is currently an Assistant Professor in the College of Business Administration, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Her current research focuses on interdisciplinary applications of management, statistics and operations research to serve the broad area of problem solving and decisionmaking. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT In retail business environment, it is challenging for retailers to retain their customer base and seek their loyalty. Private label brands (PLBs), are exclusive offerings of the retailers, consequently, they are given special emphasis by retailers while formulating strategies to seek store loyalty. PLBs are a global phenomenon and in India too they assertively compete with other brands in store. The study presents a conceptual model that depicts the influence of private label brands on store loyalty. Consumer perceptions of private label familiarity, affective perceptions, perceived quality, perceived value, and perceived risk perceptions are observed, and their effect on store loyalty is analysed. In this study, we indicate that retailers can create store loyalty through seeking favourable consumer perceptions of their PLBs. Retailers should capitalize and leverage their private labels such that the consumer’s familiarity and affective perceptions towards PLBs can be enhanced. The quality reputation of their PLB offerings also needs to be established so as to offer better value. Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 © 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Received: 05 January 2020 Accepted: 23 March 2020 *Corresponding author: Sanjeevni Gangwani, Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, Princess Nora Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia E-mail: sanjeevnigangwani@gmail. com Reviewing editor: Len Tiu Wright, De Montfort University Faculty of Business and Law, UNITED KINGDOM Additional information is available at the end of the article Page 1 of 19 Subjects: Social Psychology; Work & Organizational Psychology; Consumer Psychology Keywords: familiarity; affective perception; perceived quality; perceived value; perceived risk dimensions 1. Introduction In this era of highly competitive retail business environment, private label brands (PLBs) are a rising phenomenon in the growing Indian organised retail market. In India growth of private label brands corresponds with the increasing share of organized retailing. According to Nielsen’s Report (Nov. 2014), PLBs are prevailing mostly in European countries (40%), however in India, the private labels grew 27% between 2012 and September 2014. The report mentions that this growth is mainly driven by generation next buyers who seem to be less brand-loyal and are ready to try new brands. Though IBEF, 2018 reports that “the organised retail in India has begin to experience an improved level of activity in the PLB space but its share in India is just 6 per cent and stores like Shopper Stop, Lifestyle generates 15 to 25 per cent revenues from private label brands. Growth of online retail is also augmenting the growth of private label brand in India”. A particular retail chain exclusively creates controls and markets PLBs (Levy & Weitz, 2007). Most department stores in India offer combination of national brands and PLBs. In an extensive literature review of PLB, it was observed that, more than 70% of the empirical studies are being conducted in the context of the US-based region (Hyman et al., 2010). Despite the world over recognition of PLB’s significance in the current retail scenario, increasing strategic positioning, considerable financial impact in retailing, there are very few studies being conducted in Asia on private label brands (Lin et al., 2009). Moreover, PLBs have their presence in more or less all product categories (Geyskens et al., 2010; Nielsen, 2014). But in an extensive literature review conducted by Muruganantham and Priyadharshini (2017) found that most studies were in the context of food/grocery PLBs. Batra and Sinha (2000) had suggested that few consumer behaviour aspects of clothes differ as compared to grocery, thus the knowledge base of these cannot be relevant to the apparel. In addition, regardless of all the previous researches focusing on PLBs have been to understand the purchase intention of PLBs while very few have dwelled on to understand the impact of various consumer perceptions of PLBs on the customer’s loyalty towards the retail store as the association between PLBs and retail store loyalty can be relatively intricate (Koschate-Fischer et al., 2014) and is still rather vague. Above-discussed gaps in retailing and marketing literature are addressed in the current study. This study aims to examine the consumer’s perceptions of apparel private labels of Indian retail department stores where PLB refers to the brands sold exclusively by retailer. A structural equation model approach is adopted such that responses of consumers are measured in terms of the consumer’s PLB perceptions and their influence on store loyalty is analysed. PLB perceptions include PLB familiarity, affective quality, value, and perceived risk perceptions, including functional risk, financial risk and social risk perceptions. The study will empirically test the proposed conceptual framework as given in Figure 1. In this manuscript, first, we build the conceptual model, develop the hypotheses and later present, our data collection methodology, data analysis and testing of hypotheses is described. Lastly, we discuss our findings and their implications to practice and sketch possible avenues of further research. 2. Literature review and hypothesis development This study reviews the empirical literature and the theoretical framework so as to develop improved understanding of store loyalty and private label perceptions. Specifically the focus is Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 2 of 19 on the linkages of these PLB perceptions with store loyalty. As PLB’s market share raises universally, the significance of associated research increases. In practice and academic studies, PLBs have been extensively discussed deliberated, and documented (Sethuraman & Gielens, 2014). PLB growth is now a global phenomenon (Cuneo et al., 2015). According to Cuneo et al. (2012) researchers have performed various studies to comprehend this growth phenomenon (Erdem et al., 2004). 2.1. Private label brands PLBs hold special significance to retailers’business owing to the value it brings. PLBs retailers leverage PLBs such that it augments consumer preference to respective retail outlets (N. Kumar & Steenkamp, 2007); store differentiation (Koschate-Fischer et al., 2014); store/customer loyalty (Seenivasan et al., 2016). In addition, PLBs adds to increase customer walk-ins and facilitate in high market share (Corstjens & Lal, 2000). Consumer attitudes towards PLBs have altered immensely in past years. (Ailawadi et al., 2008), including study mainly focus on PLB’s price and value consciousness (Ailawadi et al., 2001; Delgado-Ballester et al., 2014), perceived risk (Bhukya & Singh, 2015; Dursun et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2011; Ural, 2008), perceived value (Diallo et al., 2015; Kara et al. 2009), perceived quality (Corstjens & Lal, 2000; Sarkar et al., 2016 ; Semeijn et al., 2004), affective perceptions (Vahie & Paswan, 2006); familiarity (Porral Cristina & Lang Mark, 2015). 2.2. Store loyalty Consumers believe in visiting those retail stores where they have been before, are more familiar and over a period of time they happen to like the store and have developed winning associations with retailer and their sales personnel. Shopping from such retail outlets reduces their uncertainties, as they depend on the store’s services, exchange privileges, assurance as well as other modifications required because of any discontent. Thus, to gain loyalty of customers is significantly important for retailers as loyal customers are valuable, they spend aconsiderableamountoftheirspendingattheoutletandatthesametime,thepossibilityof switching the store decreases because they are not much sensitive to market offerings (Bustos- Reyes and González- Benito, 2008). According to Kumar and Shah (2004), there is no common agreement on the stated definitions. Store loyalty is defined by Mineo (2011)as“a customer’s loyalty to a specific store which secures repeated business and develops the store in a long term”. Bloemer and de Ruyter (1998) defined it as “the biased (i.e. non-random) behavioural response (i.e. revisit), expressed over time, by some decision making unit with respect to one store out of a set of stores, which is a function of psychological (decision making and Figure 1. Proposed conceptual framework. Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 3 of 19 evaluative) processes resulting in brand commitment”.Oliver(1997) defines it is “adeeplyheld commitment to re-buy or patronize a preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts having the potential to cause switching behaviour”.Asper Baltas and Argouslidis (2007), store loyalty can be a manifestation of a store’s popularity, that is satisfied consumers, turn out to be repeat customers. Loyal customers of store articulate keenness to seek out PLBs that are solely endorsed by the retail outlet, thus enhancing their loyalty to retail store (Manzur et al., 2011). 2.3. PLBs and store loyalty The major rationale that retail and marketing literature cites for retailer’s desire to stock PLBs is enhanced consumer store loyalty (Hoch & Banerji, 1993). Labeaga et al. (2007) argued that PLBs aids in building loyalty by bringing in differentiation. It was later emphasised by Beneke and Zimmerman (2014) too in a theoretical article stating the role of PLBs in enhancing store image differentiation which further reinforces retailer’s market positioning. As compared to a national or manufacturer’s brand, PLB’s availability is made exclusively at a particular retailer. When regular customers switch retailers for shopping, they go through various cognitive processes by appraising all brands, which includes unfamiliar PLBs as their familiar PLBs of their favourite store is no longer available. Thus, research shows that customers who buy PLBs frequently not only happen to show loyalty to that specific brand but also to the retailer of that brand (Collins-Dodd & Lindley, 2003). Hyman et al. (2010) reviewed the existing PLB literature and highlighted that they “boost store loyalty as PLB customers are more store-loyal, PLBs boost sales and build good will (especially if price subsidized and high quality). In addition, PLBs can sell higher margin PLBs to loyal customers”. Select studies are reviewed and tabulated (refer Table 1). 2.4. PLB familiarity and store loyalty Previous research highlights that increased knowledge and familiarity with a brand builds trust with the brand, thus increasing its chances of having a higher perception and being patronized (Collins-Dodd & Lindley, 2003; Romaniuk & Sharp, 2003). The empirical evidence revealed that brand familiarity has vital effects on private label brand loyalty by creating a positive assessment of the brand (Gonzalez Mieres et al., 2006). So, once a consumer tries a private label brand product, the likelihood of subsequent purchases is high (Labeaga et al., 2007). Porral Cristina and Lang Mark (2015), in an empirically tested conceptual model found that private label brand familiarity greatly influences loyalty. Given the empirical evidences above, following hypothesis is framed: H1: PLB Familiarity has positive impact on Store Loyalty 2.5. PLB affective perception and store loyalty Brand loyalty may be drawn from greater trust in the dependability of a brand or from the favourable affect (feelings) experienced by consumers who utilize the brand. In turn, brand loyalty may be established by feelings (affective) experienced by the brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). A positive and favourable feeling towards a certain brand enhances consumers’satisfaction towards a brand (Stauss & Neuhaus, 1997). A positive emotion towards a brand creates not only brand satisfaction, but a negative brand emotion leads to brand dissatisfaction. The emotional value of the brand relates to positive feelings ahead of using the brand, which boosts consumer loyalty to the brand (Stauss & Neuhaus, 1997; Yu & Dean, 2001). When consumers emotionally identify with a brand, then they become loyal and are less likely to switch to alternative brands (Lam et al., 2010; Oliver, 1999). Dick and Basu (1994) suggested that brand loyalty can be better under the state of more positive emotional mood or affect therefore brands that make consumers “happy”or “joyful”or “affectionate”ought to be more purchased and bring in attitudinal loyalty (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Matthews et al. (2014) too, confirmed a positive relationship was between brand emotional value and brand loyalty for apparel brands. Consequently, if a consumer Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 4 of 19 establishes emotional connection with the PLBs, they are more liable to show loyalty to the brand and thus to the store. Given these empirical evidences, following hypothesis is framed: Table 1. Overview of literature review: Private label brand and store loyalty Author Name/ Date Research Setting Study Sample Findings Coelho Do Vale and Verga Matos (2017) Portugal Grocery “Store price positioning and store service quality are of great importance in the attitudinal loyalty stages” Coelho Do Vale et al. (2016)) Portugal Grocery “Depending on retailers’market positioning, different store loyalty drivers (in-store and economic factors) contribute to loyalty and that the impact of PLs is mostly significant for medium-cost and premium supermarkets”. Ipek et al. (2016) Turkey Supermarket products “A negative relationship was observed between private label usage and store loyalty”. Koschate-Fischer et al. (2014) Germany FMCG “The relationship between PLB share and store loyalty is stronger for customers with high price oriented behaviour”. Gonzalez-Benito et al. (2012) Spain Food/ Household/Personal Care “A stronger effect of private label loyalty on store loyalty when private label positioning is more quality oriented”. Ngobo Paul-Valentin (2011) France Grocery “Effects of PLB share on store loyalty depend upon (i) the household’s private label usage, (ii) the store private label branding strategy, and (iii) how private label share is measured” Hyman et al. (2010) Literature Review Food & Non-Food “PLBs boost store loyalty as PLB customers are more store-loyal, PLBs boost sales and build good will. In addition, PLBs can sell higher margin PLBs to loyal customers” Defeng and Xinxin (2010) Shanghai (China) (RT-Mart supermarket products) “Results showed that both low-priced and medium-priced store brands are able to build individual store brand loyalty and store loyalty among customers” K.L. Ailawadi et al. (2008) Dutch Grocery “PLB share considerably affects three measures of behavioural loyalty namely share of wallet, share of items purchased, and share of shopping trips” A.-S. Binninger (2008) France Grocery “Increase in PLB satisfaction and loyalty influences store loyalty, and that attitude toward PLB products has a moderating effect on the relationships between PLB satisfaction and loyalty” Chavadi and Kokatnur (2008) India (Bangalore) Apparel/Grocery/ Consumer Durables/ Lifestyle “Quality, innovativeness, price gap, promotion has strong association with store loyalty” Corstjens and Lal (2000) United Kingdom, France & USA Grocery “PLBs will mark the establishment if consumers consider them to be quality brands, which leads to an increase in the costs of changing to other retailers and causes loyalty to the establishment” Source: Compiled by Researchers Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 5 of 19 H2: PLB Affective perception has positive impact on Store Loyalty 2.6. PLB quality and store loyalty High-quality PLBs help retailers enhance store loyalty (Koschate-Fischer et al., 2014). When the PLB positioning is more oriented towards quality, PLB’s effect on store loyalty was found much stronger by Gonzalez-Benito et al. (2012). According to Yang (2012), retailers should dynamically reinforce PLB perceived quality at strategic level. Yang and Wang (2007) measured variable brand perceived quality from a PLB perspective. Specifically, they posit that a perceived quality of PLB has a favourable positive effect on store loyalty. Given the empirical evidences above, following hypothesis is framed: H3: PLB Perceived Quality has positive impact on Store Loyalty 2.7. PLB value and store loyalty In literature perceived value is frequently linked with store loyalty intentions (Diallo et al., 2015; Sirohi et al., 1998; Yang & Wang, 2007), and intention to recommend (Cronin et al., 2000; Sirohi et al., 1998). According to Nenycz-Thiel and Romaniuk (2012), value-for-money is a quality that defines the schema of private labels in consumer memory, making value-for-money a key attribute in facilitating the retrieval of private label brands from a consumer’s memory. Given the empirical evidences above, following hypothesis is framed: H4: PLB Perceived Value has positive impact on Store Loyalty 2.8. PLB perceived risks and store loyalty Perceived risk is “consumers subjective expectation of a loss”(Sweeney et al., 1999), meaning that any action of a consumer will generate consequences which one cannot predict with anything similar to certainty, and some of them may be unpleasant (Liljander et al., 2009). Perceived risk associated with PLBs is receiving much attention in a considerable number of research studies (Lin et al., 2009; Mieres et al., 2006a; Richardson et al., 1996; Semeijin et al., 2004; Sheau-Fen, Sun-May, & Yu-Ghee, 2012; Wu et al., 2011). There were several previous studies to support a relationship between perceived risk and customer loyalty (Lai-Ming Tam, 2012; Marakanon & Panjakajornsak, 2017; Tuu et al., 2011). It was in 1997 that Chaudhuri established linkages between perceived risk and loyalty by considering perceived risk as an emotional rather rational component. Mitchell (1998) had argued that perceived risk is a “multidimensional phenomena”which can be segmented into various different risk components. The dimensions that have been measured most often are overall risk, and financial risk (represents the price which consumer pays while shopping the product) and functional/performance risk (Agarwal & Teas, 2001; Grewal et al., 1998; Shimp & Bearden, 1982; Sweeney et al., 1999), since they appear to be less products specific than other dimensions. For example, social risk or psychological risk (represents the symbolic aspect of the product including faith/social status) (Campbell & Goodstein, 2001; Stone & Gronhaug, 1993), or self-image risk (Dowling & Staelin, 1994) are particularly more relevant for products that are visible to others and communicate the consumer’s self-image, such as clothes and other fashion items. Clothing is associated with consumers’social identity and worn to express their identity to others (Feinberg et al., 1992). Three dimensions of perceived risk were chosen for inclusion in this study, namely, functional, social and financial risk, due to the focus on these attributes in similar studies (Beneke & Zimmerman, 2014; Diallo, 2012; Liljander et al., 2009; Gonzalez Mieres et al., 2006; Semeijin et. al, 2004; Sheau-Fen et al. 2012) examining PLB purchase behaviour. Functional risk is related to the probable loss ensuing from poor product quality. Earlier studies explain functional risk as the doubt that the outcome of a product/brand purchase will not meet expectations of the consumer (Beneke et al., 2012; . Since it is about the consumer’s fear that Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 6 of 19 a product will not perform to its assured ability, it is also expressed as a performance risk. Dick et al. (1995) defines functional risk as manifestation of fear that a product/brand may not hold deliverable attributes and there is an uncertainty regarding the performance of product/brand. The risk is dependent on how much information about PLBs is available with the consumer. Gonzalez Mieres et al. (2006) also reported that due to uncertain functional performance PLBs are perceived to be significantly more risky as compared to national brands. This is because there seems to be more doubt with its intrinsic attributes and, therefore, more uncertainty of the quality and the functionality of the product (Erdem et al., 2004). Financial risk is defined as the possibility of a monetary loss from a poor purchase choice/ decision by Zielke and Dobbelstein (2007). It relates to the cost relative to an individual’s financial resources (Mitchell & Harris, 2005) and is also referred to the likelihood that the product/brand is not worth the price paid) or the risk that the product’s quality does not match its price1998). The price-quality association that consumers derive plays a vital role in perceived financial risk (Gonzalez Mieres et al., 2006; Liljander et al., 2009; Sweeney et al., 1999;). It has been suggested that regardless of the fact that most national brands are priced at a premium compared with private labels, their financial risk is in fact, lower, than that of private labels. Social risk depicts the consumer’s perception of the uncertainty that is concerned with the adverse consequences associated with unfavourable opinions of significant other people on account of poor product choice (Tsiros & Heilman, 2005) or purchase and use of product or judgement on the basis of the brand used . Specially, while shopping apparel products, many consumers may experience social risk as it involves selecting the right brand name as defined by the reference group to which the consumer belongs. Furthermore, consumers may also be selfconscious about their look affected by the kind of clothes they wear as it may lead to positive social perceptions or otherwise may result in social embarrassment. Thus, social risk appears particularly important in the context of apparel because product/brand is visible to others and communicates consumers’social identity or self-image (Liljander et al., 2009). Based on above discussions, following null hypothesis is framed: H5: PLB Perceived Functional Risk has negative impact on Store Loyalty H6: PLB Perceived Financial Risk has negative impact on Store Loyalty H7: PLB Perceived Social Risk has negative impact on Store Loyalty 3. Methodology 3.1. Measurement scale The survey instrument was prepared following a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Besides questions on demographic variables, survey questionnaire consisted of questions about constructs “store loyalty”and questions on “private label brand perceptions”including the consumer’s private label familiarity, quality, value, risks and affective consumer perceptions, in the form of item statements. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with particular items using five-point Likert-type scale, anchored with strongly disagree and strongly agree. All items were adapted from previously published work; (refer Table 2)as a source of scale of measurement of constructs. 3.2. Data Collection and Sampling Primary data were collected from regular shoppers at different modern organized retail department stores. A non-probability convenience sampling technique was used to administer a customer survey. Only those who were aware of apparel private label brands were considered as the sample for this study. As a reference, to respondents, many examples of private label brands were listed in the questionnaire. After initial screening, 503 valid questionnaires were finally used for data analysis Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 7 of 19 The study offers some practical implications for store retailers who wish to increase their apparel private labels’value proposition. It implies that, consumers are loyal to a certain store is dependent on whether the PLB can offer higher value to consumers. It is because retailers’private label brands not only have to compete with national or manufacturer brands, but also with PLB offerings of other retailers. Retailers need to strike a balance between price and quality of PLBs offered by the store to deliver value. This implies retailers have to pay additional attention on the quality of the PLBs, devise suitable price policies and at the same time offer apt merchandise to their target segment. It could alter their value proposition accordingly and can create successful private labels in competitive retail market space. Though most of the PLB-related studies are in the context of food-related products and consider perceived risk as an overall risk, this study has considered three types of risks, namely functional, financial and social risk. Since this study is in the context of the apparel product category, the study has identified the impact of these relevant risks on store loyalty and found that each of them has a significant negative influence on store loyalty. These results corresponded with Marakanon and Panjakajornsak (2014), who studied the observed variables of functional risk, performance risk, and financial risk, found that risk, performance risk, and financial risk influenced customer loyalty. The findings are also in line with Tuu et al. (2011), who studied the effect of the mediation variables of perceived risk, knowledge, and uncertainty on satisfaction and loyalty. Retailers wishing to boost loyalty for their store should consider ways to reduce customers’risk perceptions towards their PLBs while improving value for money and social value perceptions for valueconscious Indian consumers. Financial risk, in terms of potential opportunities for financial losses or the possibility that the product will not offer the expected value in relation to the price paid, is a significant determinant of overall perceived risk. The empirical results concluded that consumers’perceived risk towards apparel PLBs of the store negatively influence store loyalty. Consumers perceive financial risk as a significant dimension of the overall risk when making purchase decisions about PLBs (Mieres et al., 2006a; Tsiros & Heilman, 2005), while the other studies (e.g., Sheau-Fen et al., 2012) suggest that financial risk do not manifest itself as an important aspect in overall perceived risk. But this study makes it visibly imperative that retailers need to pay close attention and make efforts to reduce the functional risk as consumers are concerned that PLB can provide a satisfactory level of product experience in terms of functionality. Functional risk can be reduced by enhancing not only the quality of product but also the quality of ingredients used in its manufacturing. Additionally, retailer can use promotion to increase consumer awareness about the same and at the same time understand the expectations of consumers by increasing consumer awareness and gaining their confidence. A perceived social risk can be reduced by improving and enhancing store image and reputation of retailers among the target customers, which can be minimized by creating an appealing store atmosphere, better service quality, and effective promotion and customer relationship management initiatives. Perceived financial risk can be reduced by positioning PLBs at par with national brands of the store according to price-quality associations and secondly retailers can consider employing appropriate store policies so that consumer’s fear of loss of money can be minimized for example, by ensuring smooth return/exchange policies, money back guarantee (in case they are not satisfied with a product and wish to return the product). Since perceived risk is associated with PLB purchases, it can hold back the consumers’purchase intention of PLB products of retail stores. Hence it is recommended that department store retailers and marketers should make constant efforts to minimize these risks so as to enhance store loyalty. There are social risks attached to clothes, according to a study on apparel PLBs by Vahie and Paswan (2006), clothes are normally a high involvement product as compared to grocery items as they are not purchased in a routine manner whereas grocery items, typically needs low involvement and their buying is more mundane in nature. Further, apparel is considered to have more Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 14 of 19 “experience”characteristics and in contrast grocery items are considered to have more “search” characteristics (Erdem & Swait, 1998). For apparel, consumers ensure how the clothes fit, feel, when worn, how it looks on them and does it meet the expectation of how it would survive the wear and tear of use. Thus, the decision making process for apparel purchase is more experiential. In addition, the pleasure dimension, and symbolic and social meaning plays an important role in clothes buying. Batra and Sinha (2000) also suggested that some of the dimensions of purchase behaviour of clothes are different from that of purchase behaviour of groceries. Consequently, patronage behaviour would also differ. Given the empirical evidence that the consumer’s perceptions of private label brands enhances store loyalty and that the particular retailer and management should capitalize and leverage their private labels such that the consumer’s familiarity and affective perceptions can be enhanced and its quality reputation on its PLB offerings along with national brands so as to offer better value. This would help the retailer to differentiate itself in today’s crowded marketplace, but also strengthen its store’s image and identity. The study has categorically focused on consumers of department store retail format. In India, this study can be of special significance as PLBs have been introduced by modern retailers at a very early stage of retail revolution. 6. Limitations and scope for further research In this research, the impact of consumer perceptions of private label brands on store loyalty was investigated. Although the results provided new insights about the relationship between PLB consumer perceptions and store loyalty, this study has certain limitations. First, as the sample of study is confined to Indore, India, it confines the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, the research was conducted in India and the results may vary, when the study is replicated in another country due to the fact that consumers may have different perceptions toward private label brands. Furthermore, the current study has considered apparel private label brands of only department store retail format. In the light of the findings of the study, the recommendations for possibilities of further research are drawn wherein future research may set better understanding of this phenomenon. First of all, we propose that further research could be conducted in diverse regions, countries and other retail formats, since retailers involve different strategies for their private label brands in various countries. Secondly, future researchers can attempt to include a longitudinal study which reduces to make interim inferences from the findings. Moreover, investigating the interrelationships between the consumer’s perceptions of affect, familiarity, perceived quality, perceived risks and perceived value and their direct and indirect influence on PLB purchase intention and store loyalty may reveal interesting results. In addition, it would be a valuable contribution for the literature to investigate who are loyal consumers to private label brands in terms of segmentation based on personal and psychological traits. Acknowledgements This research was funded by the deanship of scientific research at princess nourahbint abdulrehman university through the fast track research funding program.. Funding The authors received no direct funding for this research. Author details Sanjeevni Gangwani 1 E-mail: [email protected] Meenu Mathur 2 E-mail: [email protected] Sana Shahab 3 E-mail: [email protected] 1 Princess Nora Bint Abdulrehman University, Riyadh Saudi Arabia. 2 Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Indore, India. 3 College of Business Administration, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh Saudi Arabia. correction This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article. Citation information Cite this article as: Influence of consumer perceptions of private label brands on store loyalty –evidence from Indian retailing, Sanjeevni Gangwani, Meenu Mathur & Sana Shahab, Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905. References Ailawadi, K. L., Gedenk, K., & Neslin, S. A. (2001). Pursuing the value-conscious consumer: Store brands versus national brand promotions. Journal of Marketing,65 Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 15 of 19 (1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.1.71. 18132 Agarwal, S, & Teas, R.K. (2001). Perceived value: mediating role of perceived risk. Journal Of Marketing Theory and Practice,9(4), 1-14. Ailawadi, K. L., Pauwels, K., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (2008). Private-label use and store loyalty. Journal of Marketing,72(6), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1509/ jmkg.72.6.019 Baltas, G., & Argouslidis, P. C. (2007). Consumer characteristics and demand for store brands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,35(5), 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09590550710743708 Batra, R., & Sinha, I. (2000). Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private label brands. Journal of Retailing,76(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00027-0 Beneke, J., Greene, A., Lok, I., & Mallett, K. (2012). The influence of perceived risk on purchase intent –The case of premium grocery private label brands in South Africa. Journal of Product & Brand Management,21(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 10610421211203060 Beneke, J., & Zimmerman, N. (2014). Beyond private label panache: The effect of store image and perceived price on brand prestige. Journal of Consumer Marketing,31(4), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JCM-12-2013-0801 Bhukya, R., & Singh, S. (2015). The effect of perceived risk dimensions on purchase intention: An empirical evidence from Indian private labels market. American Journal of Business,30(4), 218–230. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/AJB-10-2014-0055 Binninger, A.-S. (2008). Exploring the relationships between retail brands and consumer store loyalty. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,36(2), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09590550810853057 Bloemer, J., & de Ruyter, K. (1998). On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing,32(5/6), 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 03090569810216118 Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley. Bowen, J. T., & Chen, S.-L. (2001). The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,13(5), 213–217. https://doi.org/10. 1108/09596110110395893 Bryne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with amos, eqs, and lisrel: comparative approached to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal Of Testing,1(1), 55- 86. doi: doi.https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327574IJT0101_4 Bustos-Reyes, C. A, & Gonzalez-Benito, O. (2008). Store and store format measures based on budget allocation. Journal Of Business Research,61(), 1015-1025. doi: doi.https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbusres_2007.03.008 Casalo, L. V., Flavian, C., & Guinaliu, M. (2008). Promoting consumers’participation in virtual communities: A new paradigm in branding strategy. Journal of Marketing Communications,14(1), 19–36. https://doi. org/10.1080/13527260701535236 Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing,65(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1509/ jmkg.65.2.81.18255 Chavadi, C., & Kokatnur, S. (2008). Do private brands result in store loyalty? An empirical study in Bangalore. Journal of Marketing Management,VII(3), 7–30. Chen, S, & Quester, P.G. (2006). Modeling store loyalty: perceived value in market orientation practice. Journal Of Services Marketing,20(3), 188-198. doi: doi.https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040610665643 Coelho Do Vale, R., & Verga Matos, P. (2017). Private labels importance across different store loyalty stages: A multilevel approach. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,45(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-04-2016-0053 Coelho Do Vale, R., Verga Matos, P., & Caiado, J. (2016). The impact of private labels on consumer store loyalty: An integrative perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,28(2016), 179–188. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.10.003 Collins-Dodd, C., & Lindley, T. (2003). Store brands and retail differentiation: The influence of store image and store brand attitude on store own brand perceptions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,10(6), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0969-6989(02)00054-1 Corstjens, M., & Lal, R. (2000). Building store loyalty through store brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.3. 281.18781 Cronin Jr, C., Joseph, J., Brady, M. K., Tomas, G., & Hult, M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing,76(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-4359(00)00028-2 Cuneo, A., Lopez, P., & Yague, M. J. (2012). Private label brands: Measuring equity across consumer segments. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(6), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 10610421211264919 Cuneo, A., Milberg, S., Benavente, J., & Palacios-Fenech, J. (2015). The growthof privatelabel brands: A worldwide phenomenon? Journal of International Marketing,23 (1), 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.14.0036 Defeng, Y., & Xinxin, W. (2010). The effects of 2-tier store brands’perceived quality, perceived value, brand knowledge, and attitude on store loyalty. Journal of Marketing Science,4(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11782-010-0001-7 Delgado-Ballester, E., Hernandez-Espallardo, M., & Rodriguez-Orejuela, A. (2014). Store image influences in consumers’perceptions of store brands: The moderating role of value consciousness. European Journal of Marketing,48(9/10), 1850–1869. https:// doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2012-0087 Diallo, M. F. (2012). Effects of store image and store brand price-image on store brand purchase intention: Application to an emerging market. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,19(3), 360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.03.010 Diallo, M. F., Coutelle-Brillet, P., A., R., & Zielke, S. (2015). How do price perceptions of different brand types affect shopping value and store loyalty? Psychology & Marketing,32(12), 1133–1147. https://doi.org/10. 1002/mar.20851 Dick, A., Jain, A., & Richardson, P. (1995). Correlates of store brand proneness: Some empirical observations. Journal of Product and Brand Management,4(4), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429510097663 Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 16 of 19 Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,22(2), 99–113. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0092070394222001 Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Dhruv, G. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research,28 (3), 307–319.doi:10.2307/3172866 Dowling, G. R., & Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk handling activities. Journal of Consumer Research,21(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/209386 Dursun, I., Kabadayi, E. T., Koc-ak, A. A., & Sezen, B. (2011). Store brand purchase intention: Effects of risk, quality, familiarity and store brand shelf space. Journal of Global Strategic Management,10(2011), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.20460/JGSM.2011515802 Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signalling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology,7(2), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327663jcp0702_02 Erdem, T., Zhao, Y., & Valenzuela, A. (2004). Performance of store brands: A cross-country analysis of consumer store-brand preferences, perceptions, and risk. Journal of Marketing Research,41(1), 86–100. https:// doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.1.86.25087 Flavian, C., Guinalıu, M., & Gurrea, R. (2006). The influence of familiarity and usability on loyalty to online journalistic services: The role of user experience. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,13(5), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2005.11.003 Geyskens, I., Gielens, K., & Gijsbrechts, E. (2010). Proliferating private-label portfolios: How introducing economy and premium private labels influences brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research,47(5), 791–807. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.791 Gobe, M. (2001). Emotional Branding: The New Paradigm for Connecting Brands to People. Allworth Press; 2001. Gonzalez-Benito,, Martos-Partal,, González-Benito, Ó., & Martos-Partal, M. (2012). Role of retailer positioning and product category on the relationship between store brand consumption and store loyalty. Journal of Retailing,88(2), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jretai.2011.05.003 Grewal, D, Krishnan, R, Baker, J, & Borin, N. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal Of Retailing,74(3), 331-352. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2013). Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson New International Edition. Pearson Higher Ed. Hair,J.F.,Sarstedt,M.,Ringle,C.M.,&Mena,J.A.(2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,40(3), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11747-011-0261-6 Hansen, K., & Singh, V. (2008). Are store-brand buyers store loyal? An Empirical Investigation. Management Science,54(10), 1828–1834. doi 10.1287/ mnsc.1080.0861 Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: first and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin,97(3), 562-582. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562 Hoch, S. J., & Banerji, S. (1993). When do private labels succeed? Sloan Management Review,34(4), 57–67. https://slonreview.mit.edu/article/when-do-private- labels-succeed/ Hyman, M., Kopf, R., Dennis, A., & Lee, D. (2010). Review of literature –future research suggestions: Private label brands: Benefits, success factors and future research. Journal of Brand Management,17(5), 368–389. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2009.33 Ipek, I., Aşkın, N., & Ilter, B. (2016). Private label usage and store loyalty: The moderating impact of shopping value. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services31(2016), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jretconser.2016.03.011 Jacoby, J., & Kaplan, L. B. (1972). The components of perceived risk, in proceedings of the third annual conference of the association for consumer research. Association for Consumer Research, 382–393.https:// www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1216/volumes/sv02/ SV02 Kara, A., Rojas-Mendez, J. I., Kucukemiroglu, O., & Harcar, T. (2009). Consumer preferences of store brands: Role of prior experiences and value consciousness. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing,17(2), 127–137. https:// doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.6 Kent, R. J., & Allen, C. T. (1994). Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: The role of brand familiarity. Journal of Marketing,58(3), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002224299405800307 Kim, H.-S. (2000). Examination of brand personality and brand attitude within the apparel product category. Journal of Fashion Marketing Management,4(3), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022593 Koschate-Fischer, N., Cramer, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2014). Moderating effects of the relationship between private label share and store loyalty. Journal of Marketing,78 (2), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0075 Kumar, N., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2007). Private label strategy: How to Meet the Store Brand Challenge. Harvard Business School Press. Cambridge. Kumar, V., & Shah, D. (2004). Building and sustaining profitable customer loyalty for the 21st century. Journal of Retailing,80(4), 317–329. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jretai.2004.10.007 Labeaga, J. M., Lado, N., & Martos, M. (2007). Behavioural loyalty towards store brands. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,14(1), 347–356. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jretconser.2007.01.001 Lai-Ming Tam, J. (2012). The moderating role of perceived risk in loyalty intentions: An investigation in a service context. Marketing Intelligence and Planning,30(1), 33e52. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501211193903 Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand is introduced: A social identity theory perspective. Journal of Marketing,74(6), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.6.128 Levy, M. L., & Weitz, B. A. (2007). Retailing Management (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Liljander, V., Polsa, P., & Van, R. A. (2009). Modelling consumer responses to an apparel store brand: Store image as a risk reducer. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,16(4), 281–290. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.02.005 Lin, C. Y., Marshall, D., & Dawson, J. (2009). Consumer attitudes towards a European retailer’s private brand food products: An integrated model of Taiwanese consumers. Journal of Marketing Management,25(9–10), 875–891. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725709X479273 Manzur, E., Olavarrieta, S., Hidalgo, P., Farı´as, P., & Uribe, R. (2011). Store brand and national brand promotion attitudes antecedents. Journal of Business Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 17 of 19 Research,64(3), 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2009.11.014 Marakanon, L., & Panjakajornsak, V. (2014). The influence of perceived risks on customer loyalty of environment-friendly electronics products in thailand. Conference of the International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 7(1),209-218. Marakanon, L., & Panjakajornsak, V. (2017). Perceived quality, perceived risk and customer trust affecting customer loyalty of environmentally friendly electronics products. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2016.08. 012 Martos-Partal, M., & González-Benito, Ó. (2011). Store brand and store loyalty: The moderating role of store brand positioning. Marketing Letters,22(2011), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-010-9126-x Martos-Partal, M., & González-Benito, O. (2011). Studying motivations of store-loyal buyers across alternative measures of behavioural loyalty. European Management Journal,31(4), 348–358. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.emj.2013.01.010 Matthews, D. R., Son, J., & Watchravesringkan, K. (2014). An exploration of brand equity antecedents concerning brand loyalty: Acognitive, affective, and conative perspective. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research,9(1), 26–39. https://www. jbrmr.com/cdn/article_file/i-20_c-180.pdf Mieres, C. G., Diaz Martin, A. M., & Trespalacios Gutierrez, T. (2006). Influence of perceived risk on store brand proneness. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,34(10), 761–772. https:// doi.org/10.1108/09590550610691347 Mieres, C. G., Martı´n, A. M. D., & Gutie´ Rrez, J. A. T. (2006a). Antecedents of the difference in perceived risk between store brands and national brands. European Journal of Marketing,40(2), 61–82. https:// doi.org/10.1108/03090560610637310 Mineo, M. (2011). The significance of store choice in the research on store-type choice behaviour. Keieironshu, 78(November), 135-48. Mitchell, V. W., & Harris, G. (2005). The importance of consumers’perceived risk in retail strategy. European Journal of Marketing,39(7/8), 821–837. https://doi. org/10.1108/03090560510601789 Mitchell, V.-W. (1998). Defining and measuring perceived risk. Annual conference proceedings of the UK academy of marketing (pp. 380–385). England, UK: Sheffield. Muruganantham, G., & Priyadharshini, K. (2017). Antecedents and consequences of private brand purchase: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,45(6), 660–682. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJRDM-02-2016-0025 Natalia, R., Nieves, V., & Oubina, J. (2014). Value and store brand identification in food products. British Food Journal,116(6), 965–983. https://doi.org/10.1108/ BFJ-01-2013-0028 Nenycz-Thiel, M., & Romaniuk, J. (2012). Value-for-money perceptions of supermarket and private labels. Australia Marketing Journal,20(2), 171–177. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.12.002 Ngobo, Paul-Valentin. (2011). Private label share, branding strategy and store loyalty. Journal Of Retailing and Consumer Services,18(4), 259-270. doi: 10.1016/ j.jretconser.2010.11.007 Nielsen (2014). The state of private label around the world –Where it’s growing, where it’s not and what the future holds. Retrieved December 10, 2014 from www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/kr/ docs/global-report/2014/Nielsen%20Global% 20Private%20Label%20Report%20November% 202014.pdf Nies, S., & Martin, N. (2012). Does private label quality influence consumers’decision on where to shop? Psychology & Marketing,29(4), 279–292. https://doi. org/10.1002/mar.20521 Oliver, R. L. (1997). Behavioral perspective on the consumer. McGraw-Hill. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Behavioral perspective on the consumer. McGraw-Hill. Porral Cristina, C., & Lang Mark, F. (2015). Private labels: The role of manufacturer identification, brand loyalty and image on purchase intention. British Food Journal,117(2), 506–522. https://doi.org/10.1108/ BFJ-06-2014-0216 Ray, I., & Chiagouris, L. (2009, February). Customer retention: Examining the roles of store affect and store loyalty as mediators in the management of retail strategies. Journal of Strategic Marketing,17 (1), 1–20. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09652540802619160 Richardson, P., Jain, A. K., & Dick, A. S. (1996). Household store brand proneness: A framework. Journal of Retailing,72(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-4359(96)90012-3 Richardson, P. S., Dick, A.S., & Jain, A. K. (1994). Extrinsic and inrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Jornal of Marketing, 58 (4), 28-36. https://doi. org/10.1177/002224299405800403 Romaniuk, J., & Sharp, B. (2003). Measuring brand perceptions: Testing quantity and quality. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 11(3), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt. 5740079 Royo-Vela, M., & Casamassima, P. (2011). The influence of belonging to virtual brand communities on consumers’affective commitment, satisfaction and word- of-mouth advertising: The ZARA case. Online Information Review,35(4), 517–542. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14684521111161918 Sarkar, S., Sharma, D., & Kalro, D. A. (2016). Private label brands in an emerging economy: An exploratory study in India. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,44(2), 203–222. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJRDM-07-2015-0102 Seenivasan, S., Sudhir, K., & Talukdar, D. (2016). Do store brands aid store loyalty? Management Science,62(3), 802–816. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2133 Semeijin, J., Van Riel, A. C. R., & Ambrosini, A. B. (2004). Consumer evaluations of store brands: Effects of store image and product attributes. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,11(4), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(03) 00051-1 Sethuraman, R., & Gielens, K. (2014). Determinants of store brand share. Journal of Retailing,90(2,), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.04.002 Sirohi, N., Mc Laughlin, E. W., & Wittink, D. R. (1998). A model of consumer perceptions and store loyalty intentions for a supermarket retailer. Journal of Retailing,74(2), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-4359(99)80094-3 Stauss, B., & Neuhaus, P. (1997). The qualitative satisfaction model. International Journal of Service Industry Management,8(3), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09564239710185424 Stone, R. N., & Gronhaug, K. (1993). Perceived risk: Further considerations for the marketing discipline. European Journal of Marketing,27(3), 39–50. https://doi.org/10. 1108/03090569310026637 Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 18 of 19 Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing,77(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0 Sweeney,J.C.,Soutar,G.N.,&Johnson,L.W.(1999). The role of perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: A study in a retail environment. Journal of Retailing,75(1), 77–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80005-0 Thomas, S. (2013). Linking customer loyalty to customer satisfaction and store image: A structural model for retail stores. Decision,40(1–2), 15–25. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s40622-013-0007-z Tuu, H. H., Olsen, S. O., & Linh, P. T. T. (2011). The moderator effects of perceived risk, objective knowledge and certainty in the satisfaction loyalty relationship. Journal of Consumer Marketing,28(5), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761111150017 Ural, T. (2008). Factors affecting the success of store brands in Turkish retailing market. Innovative Marketing,4(2), 33–41. Vahie, A., & Paswan, A. (2006). Private label brand image: Its relationship with store image and national brand. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,34(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09590550610642828 Wu, P. C. S., Yeh, G. Y. Y., & Hsiao, C. R. (2011). The effect of store image and service quality on brand image and purchase intention for private label brands. Australian Marketing,Journal,19(1),30-39. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.11.001 Yang, D., & Wang, W. (2007). The effect of 2-tier store brands‟perceived quality, perceived value, brand knowledge and attitude on store loyalty. Frontiers of Business Research in China,4(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11782-010-0001-7 Yu, Y.-T., & Dean, A. (2001). The contribution of emotional satisfaction to consumer loyalty. International Journal of Service Industry Management,12(3), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09564230110393239 © 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share —copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt —remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution —You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: •Immediate, universal access to your article on publication •High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online •Download and citation statistics for your article •Rapid online publication •Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards •Retention of full copyright of your article •Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article •Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Gangwani et al., Cogent Business & Management (2020), 7: 1751905 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1751905 Page 19 of 19