This document provides a summary of a study analyzing consumer loyalty and commitment to grocery stores. A survey of 790 consumers across nine states was conducted. Factor analysis identified 12 key variables related to consumer attitudes. Specialty supermarkets and independent regional chains had the highest levels of consumer commitment and preference, while national chains had the lowest. Analysis of individual store performance found specialty stores like Trader Joe's and Publix had strongly committed customers, while national chains like Albertson's and Wal-Mart had less committed customers. The study provides insights into what drives consumer loyalty to different types of grocery stores.

1. An in depth analysis of consumer
attitudes toward the supermarkets that
they shop at most frequently.
Consumer
Grocery
Loyalty and
Commitment
Bryant Loy

2. [1]
I. Introduction
We were commissioned to perform a study on consumer attitudes and commitment to the
grocery store they shop at most frequently. The study was performed across nine states, and
included a total of 22 grocery store chains. The data was collected using a lengthy seven section
survey, of which we used six sections. We identified and analyzed several key factors that help
provide insight into consumers’ attitudes toward their primary grocery store. We will present our
analysis and findings in this report.
II. Demographics of Respondents
There were a total of 790 respondents, although not every respondent answered every question in
the survey. The overall demographics paint a nice picture so that we can analyze in further detail
some of the characteristics of respondents. The population was nearly 90% Caucasian, as can be
seen in Exhibit 2.2. Over 60% of respondents were female (Exhibit 2.2), and most respondents
were highly educated, with nearly 75% of respondents completing at least a Bachelor’s degree,
and nearly half holding a Master’s or Professional degree (Exhibit 2.3). The breakdown by state
for respondents can be found in Exhibit 2.4. Nine states were represented in the survey, and over
63% of respondents lived in the states of California, Texas, or Illinois. The breakdown of
consumers by age can be found in Exhibit 2.5, and is mostly middle aged, with over 60% coming
from ages 35 through 64, and only 10% of respondents aged 34 or younger. The income
distribution (Exhibit 2.6) indicates that over 55% of the respondents had a household income of
$65,000 or more.
Exhibit 2.1
Ethnicity Male Female
African American 1.37% 3.48%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.34% 0.41%
Asian 4.11% 2.25%
Caucasian 90.75% 89.16%
Hispanic/Indian 1.03% 3.07%
Other 2.40% 1.64%
Grand Total 100% 100%
Exhibit 2.2
Gender % of Respondents
Male 37.40%
Female 62.60%
Grand Total 100%

3. [2]
Exhibit 2.3
Education Total
Graduate or professional degree 44.36%
Bachelor's degree 29.91%
Some college - no degree 15.72%
High school grad/GED 4.56%
Associate degree 4.56%
Some high school 0.89%
Grand Total 100%
Exhibit 2.4
State Total
California 33.42%
Texas 17.85%
Illinois 13.04%
Florida 8.73%
North Carolina 8.35%
Michigan 7.09%
New Jersey 5.57%
Georgia 3.04%
Massachusetts 2.91%
Grand Total 100%
Exhibit 2.5
Age Range % of Respondents
18-24 1.14%
25-34 8.86%
35-44 15.70%
45-54 20.25%
55-64 25.19%
65-74 16.46%
75 and Above 12.41%
Grand Total 100%

4. [3]
Exhibit 2.6
Income % of Respondents
$10,000-$24,999 4.58%
$25,000-$34,999 9.73%
$35,000-$49,999 14.02%
$50,000-$64,999 16.60%
$65,000-$79,999 11.87%
$80,000 and above 43.20%
Grand Total 100.0%
III. Behavioral Tendencies of Respondents
Respondents were asked a series of questions in the survey to determine some of their basic
tendencies, and to indicate what store they shop at most frequently. The pie chart in Exhibit 3.1
shows graphically how many consumers preferred to shop at their most frequent grocery store,
and in the case of nearly 88% of respondents, they do prefer to shop at the grocery store that they
shop at the most. The respondents who answered “no” may have a variety of reasons; the prices
could potentially be lower at the store they shop at the most, the store they frequent the most may
be much closer or more convenient to shop at for them than the store they would prefer to shop
at, or they may have an entirely different reason. Over 62% of the consumers surveyed (see
Exhibit 3.2 for a graphical representation) have been shopping at their primary grocery store for
over five years. Over 88% of respondents spend $100 or less on their average grocery store trip
(Exhibit 3.3), and over 55% visiting their grocery store at least once per week (Exhibit 3.4). Over
94% of consumers indicated that they spend less than an hour in the grocery during their average
trip.
Exhibit 3.1
No, 12.41%
Yes, 87.59%
I Prefer to Shop at this Store for Food Products

5. [4]
Exhibit 3.2
Exhibit 3.3
Exhibit 3.4
Less than 6 months,
1.90%
6 months to 1 year,
3.30%
1-2 years, 13.81%
3-4 years, 18.25%5+ years, 62.74%
How Long Customers Have Shopped at Store
Less than $50,
43.78%
$51-$100, 44.29%
$101-$175, 10.41%
$176-$200, 1.02% $251 or more,
0.51%
Average $ Spent per Shopping Trip
Twice a week,
28.35%
Once a week,
38.48%
Once in 2 weeks,
18.23%
Once a month,
9.87%
Less than Once a
month, 5.06%
Shopping Frequency at Selected Store

6. [5]
Exhibit 3.5
IV. Methods of Data Analysis
We performed factor analysis to reduce the number of variables to a more manageable number in
order to better analyze the responses in the survey. Exhibit 4.1 identifies the 12 variables that
were created by the factor analysis, as well as the new name that we gave each variable after
reviewing the questions associated with them. The new variables were created after we analyzed
which of the survey questions comprised of each variable. The exhibit also shows the percentage
of variances that could be explained by each of the 12 new variables, and the cumulative
percentage explained by the 12 variables. We were able to capture over 67% of the data by
combining responses into the 12 new variables.
Exhibit 4.1
Total Variance Explained – Factor Analysis
Variable New Variable Name % of Variance Cumulative %
1 Commitment 11.18 11.18
2 Product 10.30 21.49
3 Cust Svc 8.57 30.06
4 Fanaticism 7.54 37.61
5 Pricing 5.65 43.26
6 Consumer Reward 5.27 48.52
7 Store Effort 5.15 53.67
8 Store Design 4.30 57.97
9 Defection 2.96 60.93
10 Store Location 2.76 63.69
11 Community 1.91 65.59
12 Competitor Sway 1.54 67.13
After naming the new variables, we used summated scaling to help us create an average for each
of the 12 new variables for each respondent.
Less than 30 min,
41.24%
30 min - 1 hr,
54.31%
More than 1 hr,
4.44%
Average Time of Shopping Trip

7. [6]
In addition to factor analysis and summated scales, we performed cluster analysis on a sample of
the newly created variables. We created clusters for the Pricing, Product, Store Effort,
Commitment, Fanaticism, and Consumer Reward variables. We used clusters of 5, with the
clusters ranked from least to most significant for each of the clusters. As a result, higher
numbered clusters indicated higher average scores for the variables measured. We created a new
variable based on these rankings that took the sum of all of the clusters for a new variable that
gave us a consumer “Score”. The values ranged from a lowest score of 7, which would indicate
that the consumer had less commitment and loyalty to their primary supermarket, through a
highest score of 30, for consumers who had the most loyalty and commitment to their
supermarket.
This processes detailed above allowed us to analyze many elements of the data in much greater
detail, which we will use throughout the remainder of this report.
V. Analysis of Types of Grocery Stores
Grocery stores were broken into four “types” of stores in the survey: National Chains, Regional
Chains owned by a National Chain, Independent Regional Chains, and Specialty Supermarkets.
Exhibit 5.1 shows what the breakdown of the types of stores included in the survey was, and
whether consumers indicated that they preferred to shop at the store or not. Exhibit 2 shows what
type of store each of the 22 supermarkets included in the survey was categorized as. Over 40% of
those surveyed shop mostly at specialty supermarkets, and roughly a quarter of people indicated
that they shop primarily at independent regional chains. The respondents from these two
categories were much more likely to say that they preferred to shop at their primary grocer than
those who shopped at national chains or regional chains owned by national chains. There did not
appear to be any significant trend in income level of respondents by store type, as can be seen in
the crosstab in Exhibit 5.3.
Using the summated scale averages discussed in Section IV, we analyzed the rankings of each of
the first eight variables to determine how consumers felt about each store type. The rankings
mirror the ranking by percentage of consumers who preferred to shop at their primary grocery
store from Exhibit 5.1, with Specialty Supermarkets having the best ranking and National Chains
the lowest ranking.
Exhibit 5.1
Store Type % of Measured Preferred Store
National Chain 15.1% 75.63%
Regional Chain Owned by Nat. Chain 18.1% 78.32%
Regional Chain - Independent 25.4% 90.05%
Specialty Supermarket 41.4% 94.50%
Grand Total 100% 100%

8. [7]
Exhibit 5.2
Store Name Store Type
Wal-Mart National Chain
Safeway National Chain
Kroger National Chain
Albertson's National Chain
Pavilions Regional Chain Owned by Nat. Chain
Dominick's Regional Chain Owned by Nat. Chain
Vons Regional Chain Owned by Nat. Chain
Tom Thumb Regional Chain Owned by Nat. Chain
Ralph's Regional Chain Owned by Nat. Chain
Randall's Regional Chain Owned by Nat. Chain
Harris-Teeter Regional Chain - Independent
Publix Regional Chain - Independent
Meijer Regional Chain - Independent
Jewel-Osco Regional Chain - Independent
HEB Regional Chain - Independent
Stop & Shop Regional Chain - Independent
Shop-Rite Regional Chain - Independent
Trader Joe's Specialty Supermarket
Fresh Market Specialty Supermarket
Central market Specialty Supermarket
Whole Foods Specialty Supermarket
Farmer Jack Specialty Supermarket
Exhibit 5.3
Store Type
$10,000-
$24,999
$25,000-
$34,999
$35,000-
$49,999
$50,000-
$64,999
$65,000-
$79,999
$80,000 and
above
National Chain 4.76% 11.43% 18.10% 8.57% 14.29% 42.86%
Regional Chain Owned by Nat. Chain 8.06% 12.10% 12.90% 15.32% 11.29% 40.32%
Regional Chain - Independent 4.02% 8.62% 12.64% 24.71% 9.20% 40.80%
Specialty Supermarket 3.38% 8.78% 13.85% 15.20% 12.84% 45.95%
Store Type Commitment
Customer
Service Pricing
Store
Effort Fanaticism Product
Cust
Appreciation
Store
Design
Overall
Rank
Specialty Supermarket 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1
Regional Chain - Independent 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2
Regional Chain Owned by Nat. Chain 3 3 3 3 3 1 4 3 3
National Chain 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 4

9. [8]
VI. Analysis by Grocery Store Chain
The data that was collected from the 790 participants allows us to determine how consumers feel
about the grocery store that they shop at most frequently. Exhibit 6.1 outlines the percentage of
total respondents who primarily shop at each store in the survey, as well as what percentage of
respondents noted that they prefer to shop at their primary supermarket.
Exhibit 6.1
Store Name % of Stores Preferred Store
Trader Joe's 10.76% 95.29%
Meijer 2.03% 100.00%
Publix 6.71% 94.34%
Central market 2.15% 100.00%
Harris-Teeter 3.29% 80.77%
Wal-Mart 1.14% 100.00%
Fresh Market 1.39% 100.00%
HEB 3.92% 96.77%
Shop-Rite 2.15% 100.00%
Vons 3.42% 81.48%
Jewel-Osco 5.57% 81.82%
Dominick's 2.15% 82.35%
Whole Foods 25.70% 94.09%
Farmer Jack 1.39% 81.82%
Pavilions 0.89% 100.00%
Kroger 5.95% 78.72%
Randall's 1.14% 77.78%
Safeway 3.80% 66.67%
Tom Thumb 2.15% 88.24%
Albertson's 4.18% 72.73%
Ralph's 8.35% 71.21%
Stop & Shop 1.77% 78.57%
Grand Total 100% 87.59%
In performing our factor analysis, each new variable that we created was had a z score for each
participant to denote whether that participant’s response was above or below the mean for the
variable in question. Z scores can be either positive or negative. A z score of “0” means that the
respondent’s opinion is exactly the same as the mean. The further a z score gets away from “0”,
the further that consumer’s response is from the average in that group. In order to get an idea of
consumer views regarding each individual store, we calculated the z score across three of the
most important variables: commitment, pricing, and product for each store. The histograms in
Exhibits 6.2 through 6.4 allow us to quickly see how each store’s respondents responded to these
variables. We can see from the graphs that the regional independent and specialty supermarkets

10. [9]
such as Meijer, Trader Joe’s, and Publix scored highly in the commitment variables and pricing
variables, and while scoring relatively close to the mean in the product variable, while national
chains such as Albertson’s and Wal-Mart scored lowly in commitment and product variables, but
a bit higher in the pricing variable.
Exhibit 6.2
Exhibit 6.3
Exhibit 6.4
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Commitment
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Product
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
Pricing

11. [10]
Using Exhibit 6.5, we analyzed the percentage of respondents from each chain by annual
household income to determine if there were any trends that we could identify by income level.
The number that stands out in the survey is that 60% of respondents who shopped at Wal-Mart
were in the $35,000-$45,999 annual household income bracket, and 80% of Wal-Mart shoppers
had a household income of less than $50,000 per year. Another trend worth noting is the high
percentage of shoppers in the $80,000 and above range overall. We did know that over 43% of
all respondents fell into this category from Exhibit 2.6, but as we can see in the graph, they were
relatively spread across the grocery stores in the survey.
Exhibit 6.5
Store Name
$10,000-
$24,999
$25,000-
$34,999
$35,000-
$49,999
$50,000-
$64,999
$65,000-
$79,999
$80,000 and
above
Albertson's 3.45% 13.79% 17.24% 10.34% 13.79% 41.38%
Central market 0.00% 6.67% 26.67% 13.33% 13.33% 40.00%
Dominick's 0.00% 6.25% 18.75% 25.00% 12.50% 37.50%
Farmer Jack 12.50% 12.50% 25.00% 12.50% 25.00% 12.50%
Fresh Market 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 12.50% 12.50% 50.00%
Harris-Teeter 4.76% 9.52% 9.52% 23.81% 14.29% 38.10%
HEB 7.41% 7.41% 7.41% 29.63% 3.70% 44.44%
Jewel-Osco 2.44% 7.32% 26.83% 26.83% 9.76% 26.83%
Kroger 2.33% 13.95% 23.26% 6.98% 13.95% 39.53%
Meijer 7.69% 15.38% 7.69% 7.69% 7.69% 53.85%
Pavilions 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 50.00%
Publix 4.55% 6.82% 6.82% 22.73% 11.36% 47.73%
Ralph's 12.07% 13.79% 8.62% 13.79% 12.07% 39.66%
Randall's 14.29% 28.57% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 28.57%
Safeway 7.14% 7.14% 3.57% 10.71% 14.29% 57.14%
Shop-Rite 0.00% 7.14% 7.14% 28.57% 14.29% 42.86%
Stop & Shop 0.00% 14.29% 14.29% 28.57% 0.00% 42.86%
Tom Thumb 0.00% 6.67% 20.00% 6.67% 13.33% 53.33%
Trader Joe's 6.17% 14.81% 8.64% 17.28% 16.05% 37.04%
Vons 9.09% 9.09% 13.64% 22.73% 9.09% 36.36%
Wal-Mart 20.00% 0.00% 60.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00%
Whole Foods 2.17% 6.52% 14.13% 14.67% 10.87% 51.63%
Grand Total 4.58% 9.73% 14.02% 16.60% 11.87% 43.20%
Using the z scores discussed above, we created perceptual maps using scatter plots across two
variables at a time. The further away from “0” the z-score was, the further from the mean –
positive or negative – the store scored on that particular variable.
In Exhibit 6.6 we can see how stores were mapped across the price and product variables
compared to other stores. Price was measured across the X-Axis, and product on the Y-Axis in
the map. Stores in Quadrant I had higher average product and price scores than average, scores in
Quadrant II stores scored higher than average on the product variable, but below average in the
pricing variable, Quadrant III stores were below average in both the pricing and product
variables, and Quadrant IV stores scored above average in the pricing variable, but below
average in the product variable. Stores in Quadrant I would have be considered the highest rated
stores for these categories, as their customers rated them higher than average for both variables,

12. [11]
while stores in Quadrant IV would be considered lower rated, as their customers rated them
below average in each of the variables.
Exhibit 6.6
The perceptual map in Exhibit 6.7 rates the stores across the Commitment variable on the X-
Axis, and customer service on the Y-Axis. The setup is the same as in Exhibit 6.6, but with
different variables. Quadrant I stores rated higher than average in both variables, Quadrant IV
stores rated below average in both variables. Quadrant II stores scored above average in
customer service, but below average in commitment, and Quadrant III stores scored above
average in commitment, but below average in customer service.
Exhibit 6.7

13. [12]
Using the summated scale method described in Section IV, we were able to get the average score
and rank for each store across the same eight variables that we ranked by store type in Section 5.
We used the mean for the questions answered in each of the eight variables measured, ranked
them in each variable, and took the average of the rankings to determine what stores scored
highest overall across the survey.
We have listed the results of our rankings in Exhibit 6.8. As we can see, Trader Joe’s was the
best ranked supermarket overall when measured across these eight variables. The top seven
stores are either specialty or independent regional supermarkets, and only one national chain,
Wal-Mart made the top 10, coming in at number 10. Interestingly, Farmer Jack’s was the only
specialty supermarket that did not rank highly, with the other four specialty stores ranking in the
top seven. We can see from the overall rankings that specialty supermarkets and independent
regional supermarkets dominate the top of the list again, showing higher levels of commitment
and loyalty than national chains or regional chains owned by national chains.
Exhibit 6.8
Store Name Commit Product Cust Svc Fan Pricing Rewards Store Effort StoreDesign Overall Rank
Trader Joe's 1 2 1 6 1 19 3 3 1
Central market 2 1 2 4 2 16 8 2 2
Harris-Teeter 5 6 3 9 5 4 10 6 3
Publix 4 7 5 2 4 17 5 4 3
Fresh Market 6 5 7 1 6 21 7 1 5
Meijer 3 4 6 20 3 14 1 9 6
Whole Foods 7 3 4 3 7 20 21 5 7
Pavilions 10 9 8 22 10 1 14 7 8
HEB 9 8 11 11 9 18 4 11 8
Wal-Mart 13 11 19 5 13 22 2 8 10
Dominick's 12 18 12 15 12 2 11 12 11
Jewel-Osco 15 10 15 7 15 11 9 13 12
Vons 14 12 9 17 14 8 12 15 13
Tom Thumb 11 20 14 8 11 13 19 10 14
Safeway 17 16 10 12 17 7 16 14 15
Shop-Rite 18 13 13 21 18 5 6 17 16
Randall's 8 21 18 14 8 6 22 21 17
Kroger 16 15 16 19 16 10 13 16 18
Stop & Shop 20 17 21 16 20 3 17 13 19
Ralph's 19 14 17 10 19 9 20 19 19
Farmer Jack 22 19 22 13 22 15 15 18 21
Albertson's 21 22 20 18 21 12 18 20 22

14. [13]
VII. Trends and Analysis of Demographic and Behavioral Variables
After creating cluster variables, we compared the clusters across different demographic variables
and behavioral variables to determine if we could identify anything that could further help us
explain what may be impacting consumers’ loyalty and commitment within the supermarket
industry. Exhibit 7.1 shows the average cluster score by state for each of the six variables we
performed cluster analysis on, along with the significance level. If the significance level is below
.05, we can be confident enough that the relationship is not based on chance alone to use that
variable for analysis. In this case, price was the only variable with a significance score low
enough to consider using the mean. The overall score was calculated as its own variable, and is
the sum of the six clusters’ scores. Florida and North Carolina consumers led the way with
consumers who were happiest and most concerned with the pricing of their store.
Exhibit 7.1
State Price Product Store Effort Commitment Fanaticism Reward Combined
California 3.23 3.68 3.66 3.39 3.22 3.66 20.77
Florida 3.64 4.06 3.96 3.72 2.87 3.70 21.92
Georgia 3.00 3.50 3.63 3.83 3.09 3.96 21.00
Illinois 3.19 3.61 3.58 3.39 3.32 3.63 20.34
Massachusetts 3.43 4.09 3.26 2.83 3.22 3.56 20.22
Michigan 3.11 3.86 3.82 3.72 2.85 3.91 21.30
New Jersey 3.00 3.55 3.48 3.35 2.97 3.70 20.30
North Carolina 3.58 3.98 3.74 3.45 2.96 3.87 21.75
Texas 3.47 3.74 3.62 3.23 3.12 3.63 20.62
Significance .016 .069 .317 .071 .166 .839 .303
Grand Total 3.31 3.75 3.66 3.42 3.11 3.70 20.89
The cluster analysis for education level, which can be found in Exhibit 7.2, shows the breakdown
of scores by education level. The variables that had significance scores in the range that we can
trust that the relationship was more than just chance are price and store effort. In taking a look at
those two variables, we can see a trend emerge in which lower educated individuals scored
higher than those with more education.
Exhibit 7.2
Education Level Price Product
Store
Effort Commitment Fanaticism Reward Combined
Some high school 4.14 4.29 4.43 4.67 2.67 4.67 26.00
High school grad/GED 3.72 4.06 4.03 3.64 2.93 3.96 20.73
Some college - no degree 3.59 3.88 3.82 3.48 3.16 3.60 20.40
Associate degree 3.25 3.53 3.56 3.37 3.00 3.70 20.90
Bachelor's degree 3.30 3.67 3.50 3.31 3.13 3.56 22.29
Graduate or professional degree 3.16 3.73 3.67 3.45 3.12 3.79 21.36
Significance .002 .185 .030 .459 .842 .201 .094
Grand Total 3.31 3.75 3.66 3.42 3.11 3.70 20.89

15. [14]
Cluster scores varied across ethnicities by the six variables we looked at as well. Exhibit 7.3
shows the average score across the variables measured by ethnicity. Since over 90% of the
consumers who responded were Caucasian, the sample size for many of these ethnicities was
quite small. Based on our significance scores, the only variables that we can use across ethnicity
are store effort and the overall rating across all six variables combined. The tells us that African
Americans rated a bit higher than average across the each of these two variables, while
Caucasians rated slightly above average across the categories, while other (ethnicities not listed
on the survey) had a much lower average score in store effort, as well as overall score across the
six variables than any of the other five ethnicities that were measured.
Exhibit 7.3
Ethnicity Price Product
Store
Effort Commitment Fanaticism Reward Combined
African American 3.38 4.14 4.24 3.59 2.65 4.00 23.20
American Indian/Alaskan Native 2.67 3.67 3.67 3.33 3.33 4.67 21.71
Asian 3.04 3.35 3.52 3.17 3.06 3.72 21.33
Caucasian 3.32 3.75 3.68 3.45 3.12 3.70 19.83
Hispanic/Indian 3.39 3.67 3.50 3.00 3.54 3.92 20.96
Other 3.27 3.60 2.53 2.38 2.77 2.77 20.77
Significance .905 .333 .006 .078 .365 .072 .020
Grand Total 3.31 3.75 3.66 3.42 3.11 3.70 20.89
Looking at the clusters across age ranges, we can see from Exhibit 7.4 that there was a
significant relationship in the price, product, store effort, and commitment variables, as well as in
the variable that we created using the sum of these individual variables. Consumer loyalty and
commitment by age tells us that the 75 and above age segment is very committed to their store,
cares about the effort the store puts forth, and cares about the pricing of products in the store.
Overall, the oldest customers in the study are also the most loyal and committed customers,
followed by 18-24 year olds, while 45-54 year olds seemed to have the lowest scores across the
four variables analyzed by age range, as well as in the combined score variable..
Exhibit 7.4
Age Range Price Product Store Effort Commitment Fanaticism Reward Combined
18-24 3.33 4.00 3.89 3.67 3.11 3.56 21.56
25-34 3.01 3.83 3.67 3.32 3.00 3.76 20.67
35-44 3.28 3.85 3.74 3.55 3.12 3.82 21.27
45-54 3.21 3.61 3.35 3.06 3.18 3.58 19.92
55-64 3.24 3.58 3.63 3.50 3.11 3.62 20.84
65-74 3.47 3.91 3.78 3.48 3.23 3.65 21.13
75 and Above 3.66 3.93 3.96 3.73 2.92 4.03 22.29
Significance .013 .047 .005 .009 .690 .272 .013
Grand Total 3.31 3.75 3.66 3.42 3.11 3.70 20.89

16. [15]
The cluster variable averages for each of the six variables by frequency of shopping trip can be
found in Exhibit 7.5. Price, product, commitment, and reward variables had significant
relationships that we could analyze, as did the overall combined score of the variables. Not
surprisingly, individuals who shopped twice a week were most concerned about the price of the
products they were buying, most highly committed to their supermarket, and valued effort put
forth by the store very highly. These shoppers scored the lowest of any category in the product
variable, indicating that they do not care, or do not enjoy the quality of the products at their
preferred store. Cluster scores for the product variable indicate that less frequent shoppers care
most and like the products of their grocery store the most, while more frequent shoppers are just
the opposite, which is interesting in that it is the only variable where less frequent shoppers had
higher average scores than more frequent shoppers. The numbers tell us that overall, consumers
who shop the least are the least committed and loyal, while consumers who shop the most are the
most committed and loyal. Overall, the shoppers who shop at their supermarket most often were
the most loyal and committed to their grocery store.
Exhibit 7.5
Frequency of Shopper Price Product
Store
Effort Commitment Fanaticism Reward Combined
Less than Once a month 3.03 4.10 3.33 2.88 2.97 3.03 19.03
Once a month 3.18 4.06 3.51 3.00 3.16 3.55 20.15
Once a week 3.25 3.61 3.73 3.48 3.12 3.81 21.01
Once in 2 weeks 3.27 3.77 3.58 3.45 3.13 3.66 21.09
Twice a week 3.52 3.76 3.75 3.55 3.10 3.76 21.17
Significance .036 .008 .148 .005 .947 .014 .047
Grand Total 3.31 3.75 3.66 3.42 3.11 3.70 10.23
Exhibit 7.6 shows the average cluster score across the variables cross tabulated with the length
consumers had been customers of their grocery store. The variables that had significant
relationships were price and commitment. Customers who have been shopping at their
supermarket the longest had higher price and commitment scores than the average customer,
while brand new customers scored very highly commitment, but very lowly in the price variable.
Exhibit 7.6
Time as Customer Price Product
Store
Effort Commitment Fanaticism Reward Reward
Less than 6 months 2.40 3.40 3.67 3.69 3.31 4.08 20.31
6 months to 1 year 2.65 3.42 3.85 3.45 2.82 3.55 20.00
1-2 years 3.30 3.82 3.59 3.30 3.30 3.66 20.92
3-4 years 3.31 3.88 3.42 3.10 3.07 3.59 20.17
5+ years 3.37 3.72 3.74 3.53 3.09 3.74 21.15
Significance .002 .233 .090 .024 .305 .584 .190
Grand Total 3.31 3.75 3.66 3.42 3.11 .047 20.89

17. [16]
Exhibit 7.7 uses a cross tab to determine the average score in each cluster category vs. whether
the store is the consumer’s preferred store. Of the variables measured, only fanaticism and
reward did not appear to have meaningful relationships based on their significance ratings.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who indicated that this store was their store of choice had higher
averages across the board, with the combined mean across all variables 24% higher for
customers who most frequently shopped at the store that they preferred to shop at than for those
that indicated that the store they frequented the most was not their preferred store.
Exhibit 7.7
Preferred Store Price Product
Store
Effort Commitment Fanaticism Reward Combined
Y 3.47 3.89 3.79 3.49 3.11 3.72 21.43
N 2.21 2.73 2.76 2.96 3.11 3.58 17.27
Significance .000 .000 .000 .001 .950 .326 .000
Grand Total 3.31 3.75 3.66 3.42 3.11 3.70 3.70
Exhibit 7.8 shows the averages of each variable cross tabulated against how strongly each
consumer agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “When I need to go food shopping, I
only buy at this selected store.” All variables except for fanaticism had a significant relationship
that allowed us to analyze across respondents’ level of agreement with the statement. The
averages of the scores across the categories shows us that those who agree that they only shop at
their primary supermarket score much more highly across the board than those who disagreed
with that statement.
Exhibit 7.8
Only Shop at Store Price Product
Store
Effort Commitment Fanaticism Reward Combined
Strongly Disagree 2.64 3.22 3.16 3.07 3.09 3.43 18.54
Moderately Disagree 2.96 3.41 3.49 3.38 3.17 3.68 19.95
Neutral 3.34 3.76 3.67 3.46 3.14 3.67 20.95
Moderately Agree 3.71 4.12 3.95 3.55 3.06 3.82 22.24
Strongly Agree 4.09 4.42 4.18 3.76 3.12 4.08 23.70
Significance .000 .000 .000 .007 .957 .021 .000
Grand Total 3.31 3.75 3.66 3.42 3.11 3.70 20.89
After analyzing the seven variables (six plus the combined variable), we were able to determine
what variables were deemed significant most often across the eight demographic and behavioral
categories. In Exhibit 7.9, we can see the breakdown across the eight categories. The pricing
variable was significant more than any other variable across the eight categories we broke down.
Store effort, commitment, product, and the combined variable also showed up in at least half of

18. [17]
the categories measured. These categories tell us the most about our population’s loyalty and
commitment to their grocery store.
Exhibit 7.9
Measure Price Product
Store
Effort Commitment Fanaticism Reward Combined
State x
Education x x
Ethnicity x x
Age x x x x x
Frequency x x x x x
Time as Customer x x
Preferred Store x x x x x
Only Shop at Store x x x x x x
Overall 7 4 5 5 0 2 5
VIII. Limitations and Caveats
The survey and analysis we provided certainly do help us understand how consumers felt about
their primary supermarket, but the results do have some caveats. The population that this study
was comprised of was not necessarily indicative of the United States as a whole. The survey was
performed across a sample of nine states across the United States, but nearly two thirds of the
respondents were from three states. The respondents in the survey were nearly 90% Caucasian,
and over half of those who were included in the survey were age 55 or older. These limitations
do not mean that we cannot take anything from the analysis, but we do need to understand that
the trends from the population in our study may not be indicative of the entire supermarket
industry in the United States.
IX. Conclusion
Based on the analysis that we conducted in this study, we were able to determine 12 factors that
do a very good job of helping to determine consumer commitment and loyalty within the
supermarket industry. After performing a great deal of analysis of those variables, we can
determine that specialty supermarkets and regional independent chains have a higher overall
level of commitment and loyalty than national chains or nationally owned regional chains. We
also see that consumers who shop only at their primary supermarket are more committed to their
supermarket than consumers who do not.