Debate topic Should prisoners be allowed to access the internet .docx

Debate topic: Should prisoners be allowed to access the
internet?
Position of debate: Yes, they should.
Write 5 points that could support the position. List those 5
points and expand them in detail. Around one and half page in
total.
Private label brands in an
emerging economy: an
exploratory study in India
Siddhartha Sarkar, Dinesh Sharma and Arti D. Kalro
Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management,
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present different
naming, packaging, and pricing strategies
adopted by private label (PL) retailers in India. This study also
aims to identify preferred private label
brand (PLB) categories, factors influencing their selection, and
the importance of cues in evaluation of
PLBs. The overall purpose is to identify important areas for
future research of PLBs in the wake of
organized retail growth in an emerging economy (India is the
context here).
Design/methodology/approach – This study is based on in-store
observations of major Indian
retail chains, longitudinal analyses of customers’ shopping
bills, qualitative analyses of consumer

interviews, and focus group discussions.
Findings – The results indicate that retailers primarily adopt
“Sub-branding” (using the store name
along with a separate brand name) and “House of Brands”
(using a separate brand name only)
strategies to sell PLBs in the Indian market. Groceries, food and
beverages, and apparel are the
preferred categories in PLB. Price, quality, and convenience are
the major factors influencing PLB.
Taste, ingredients, packaging, price, brand name, and store
name are the main factors that are used to
evaluate PLBs.
Research limitations/implications – Due to the qualitative
analyses and interpretation, there are
limitations to this study which need to be empirically validated.
Practical implications – This research has implications for
organized retailers in understanding the
various strategies used for PLBs in India.
Originality/value – This study is a novel study for documenting
the PLB strategies adopted by
organized retailers in India. It also uses a longitudinal
exploratory approach to further understanding
the consumption of PLBs in India.
Keywords Private label brands, Longitudinal study, Extrinsic
cues, Brand naming strategies,
Intrinsic cues, Packaging strategies
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Private label brands (PLBs), also referred to as “store brands”,
are brands owned by a
retailer or wholesaler (Hyman et al., 2010). With margins as
high as 20 per cent in the
fast moving consumer goods category and 40 per cent in
apparel, PLBs play a
dominant role in several European markets as well as Canada

(Nielson’s Report, 2014).
Over the last decade, the growth of PLBs in India has coincided
with the growth of
modern retail stores. Organized retail in India is undergoing a
remarkable
transformation from traditional methods to modern stores.
Currently, organized
retail in India represents 10 per cent of the total retail market,
which is projected to
reach US$ 180 billion by 2020 (BCG Retail Report, 2015).
Private label’s (PL) share of
modern retail in India accounts for about 7 per cent of the total
retail market and is International Journal of Retail
&Distribution Management
Vol. 44 No. 2, 2016
pp. 203-222
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-0552
DOI 10.1108/IJRDM-07-2015-0102
Received 22 July 2015
Revised 6 September 2015
29 October 2015
30 October 2015
Accepted 8 December 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm
The authors would like to thank Professor Gajendra K. Adil,

Professor Puja Padhi, Professor
Shishir K. Jha, and Professor Ashish Singh for their inputs on
the initial drafts of this manuscript.
203
PLBs in an
emerging
economy
growing annually. It is expected that India’s e-commerce market
will also grow rapidly,
and PLB retailers see potential in the online space (Anand,
2015).
PLBs have been widely discussed and documented in both
practitioner and
academic-oriented studies (Richardson et al., 1996; Batra and
Sinha, 2000; Sprott and
Shimp, 2004; Sethuraman and Gielens, 2014). Existing PLB
literature can be broadly
classified as consumer, retailer, market, and manufacturer
focused (Hyman et al., 2010).
An extensive review of the literature highlights a gap in the
research between PLB
naming/architecture, packaging, pricing, and brand imitation
strategies being pursued
by retailers (Hyman et al., 2010). While PLB as a concept has
been studied in developed
economies (particularly in the UK, major parts of Europe, and
the USA), this is not the
case in emerging economies such as India (Saraswat et al.,
2010; Diallo, 2012). Previous
studies in the Indian PLB context have primarily examined

consumer-related factors,
such as demographics and psychographics, that influence
consumers’ intent to
purchase PLBs (Abhishek, 2014; Mishra, 2014). Only one study
(Saraswat et al., 2010)
has considered retailer-related factors, such as store image.
None of the previous
studies consider brand architecture strategies that have been
adopted by the Indian
retailers that sell PLBs. Therefore, we aim to adopt a more
comprehensive approach in
understanding Indian consumer perceptions related to the
consumption of PLBs.
Hence, the specific objectives of this study are as follows:
(1) to explore various naming, packaging, and pricing strategies
adopted by major
PL retailers in the emerging economy of India;
(2) to identify preferred PLB categories through the use of
longitudinal
observational data; and
(3) to understand factors that influence the purchase of PLBs
and determine the
importance of cues in evaluating PLBs.
The overall purpose is to identify important areas for future
research of PLBs in light of
the growth in organized retail in the emerging economy of
India. This paper is
organized in line with these objectives. First, this paper
discusses the background of
this research, and derives research questions regarding the
identification of PLB
categories and the factors that influence the purchase of PLBs.

The following
observational studies, interviews, and focus group discussions
answer the
aforementioned questions. This study concludes with a summary
of findings,
discussion of theoretical and managerial implications, and a
direction for future studies.
Background
Using the concept of strategic orientation, Zielke and
Dobbelstein (2007) have identified
different types of PLBs. First, the classic PLBs are 10-30 per
cent cheaper than leading
national brands (NBs) and as such, are positioned in line with or
slightly below these
NBs (Nenycz-Thiel, 2011). Second, the generic PLBs, which
come with necessary
packaging, are positioned in the lowest price segment. Finally,
the premium PLBs are
positioned in the same way as successful NBs (Steenkamp et al.,
2010). The literature
has examined market share (Steenkamp and Geyskens, 2014),
individual purchase
behaviour (Batra and Sinha, 2000), perceptions, attitudes, and
willingness to pay
(Steenkamp et al., 2010) in determining the success of PLBs
(Calvo-Porral and
Lévy-Mangin, 2014).
The success of PLBs depends on addressing the expectations of
consumers and
manufacturers, who are also targeted by the NBs (Hyman et al.,
2010). For instance,
204

IJRDM
44,2
given the negligible advertising costs, the margins for
manufacturers of PLBs may be
higher than those for manufacturers of NBs (Richardson et al.,
1996). As the propensity
of customer preferences to buy less expensive products
increases, the market share of
PLBs is also expected to increase over time. High-quality PLBs
help retailers build a
strong store image (Saraswat et al., 2010; Kremer and Viot,
2012), strengthen
relationships with consumers, and enhance store loyalty
(Koschate-Fischer et al., 2014).
The Indian retail industry, currently valued at US$600 billion
(BCG Retail Report,
2015), is expected to reach US$ 1 trillion by 2020. The industry
can be broadly classified
into organized/modern trade (10-11 per cent) and
unorganized/traditional retail
(89-90 per cent). Overall, the Indian retail sector is anticipated
to grow at 10 per cent per
year; modern retail is expected to grow twice as fast at 20 per
cent (BCG Retail Report,
2015). Due to the growing youth segment, rising incomes, and
urbanization, the
purchasing patterns, preferences, and brand consciousness of
the Indian consumer has
changed (KPMG Report, 2014). This has created a great
opportunity for modern
retailers in India to invest in PLBs.

As mentioned in Kotler et al. (2005), an effective marketing
strategy combines the
four Ps of the marketing mix, which is a set of controllable,
tactical marketing tools that
a company uses to produce a desired response from its target
market. Furthermore, the
literature shows that packaging, naming, and pricing are critical
aspects of branding
(Beneke et al., 2013). To take advantage of the positive
association that consumers have
with NBs, PLB retailers generally imitate the design
characteristics, brand names,
logos, label designs, product attributes, and packaging of
leading NBs in their
particular category (Aribarg et al., 2014). Over time, in the
process of reducing the gap
between PLBs and NBs in terms of price and quality, PLB
retailers have repositioned
their products and attempted to create positive effects on
consumer perceptions
towards PLBs (Zielke and Dobbelstein, 2007; Delgado-Ballester
et al., 2014). Brand
naming is an important part of the brand architecture strategy
(Aaker and
Joachimsthaler, 2000). The literature broadly classifies naming
strategies as naming
a PLB with the umbrella store brand (Branded House), using
both the store name and
a separate brand name for the product (Sub-brands), or selling
different PLBs as
separate stand-alone brands (House of Brands) (Muzellec and
Lambkin, 2009). While
there is considerable literature regarding the branding strategies
of NBs, there are few
studies dedicated to the branding strategies of PLBs,
particularly in emerging

economies. Based on this gap, we formulate our first research
question:
RQ1. What are the various strategies (naming, packaging, and
pricing) adopted by
PL retailers for PLBs in India?
The propensity of consumers to purchase PLBs depends on
demographic factors such as
gender, age, and income (Mishra, 2014), psychographic factors
such as perceived risk,
perceived value for money, perceived quality variations,
purchasing experience
(Abhishek, 2014), cues, perceptions, and knowledge of the
category (Richardson et al.,
1996). Sayman and Raju (2004) argue that there is a significant
impact on the sales of
PLBs and NBs in a particular product category (González-
Benito and Martos-Partal,
2012), when a greater number of PLBs are available in retail
stores. Previous authors
frequently refer to the share-of-category spending as a measure
of customer loyalty for
low-involvement shopping (e.g. groceries and food and
beverages), where customers may
select multiple brands within a category (Koschate-Fischer et
al., 2014). When consumers
are more familiar with a particular product category, there is
greater purchase frequency,
which may be observed in PLB grocery category (Richardson et
al., 1994).
205
PLBs in an
emerging

economy
Products contain an array of cues that serve as quality
indicators (Collins-Dodd and
Lindley, 2003), which may be classified into intrinsic and
extrinsic cues. Extrinsic cues
are related to the product, such as brand name, store name,
packaging, and price.
Richardson et al. (1994) found that extrinsic cues play a more
significant role in making
judgments and perceptions of product quality vis-à-vis intrinsic
cues. Brand imitation is a
successful marketing strategy based on the utilization of similar
cues (package, design,
and brand name) to enhance the acceptance of a brand by
consumers. Imitation strategy,
commonly used by PLBs, may make the consumers perceive a
PLB as a NB, or as a PLB
of similar quality as that of a NB. To target potential customers’
needs, an imitation
strategy may incorporate innovative packaging techniques and
product attributes to
make it look like a NB (Fitzell, 1992). In grocery shopping, the
lower the involvement, the
more likely consumers will identify PLBs as NBs (Loken et al.,
1986). PLB retailers follow
the leading NB’s packaging (Aribarg et al., 2014) to imitate a
NB’s quality, which has a
significant impact on brand attitude and purchase intention
(Zaichkowsky, 1995).
While we aim to understand the various branding strategies of
PLB retailers,
we also want to understand how Indian PLB consumers perceive

these strategies. More
specifically, we want to discover how these perceptions
influence PLB category
preferences, PLB purchase intentions, and cues that consumers
evaluate before
purchasing PLBs. The following three research questions (RQ2,
RQ3, and RQ4) focus
on these aspects of Indian PLB consumer behaviour:
RQ2. Which are the preferred PLB categories among Indian
consumers?
Literature on PLB indicates that attributes of low price,
packaging similarity, and
perceived quality similarity affect consumer preferences
(Beneke et al., 2013).
Packaging similarity is considered an important cue for PLB
quality judgments
(Aribarg et al., 2014), as consumers rely on symbols, shapes,
colour, and Gestalt
(Tversky, 2004). Packaging imitation can evoke feelings of
familiarity, which can
improve PLB quality assessments. Brand imitation enhances the
resemblance in
physical appearance of the imitated and imitating brands
(Sinapuelas and Robinson,
2012). This increased similarity factors into how consumers
observe and categorize
brands in a product category, and can change consideration and
preference for
different brands. Consumers may apply schema based on
similarities and in
low-involvement purchase situations, a PLB that looks like a
NB may be perceived
as a NB. The results of empirical testing show that packaging is
associated with

perceived quality (Sprott and Shimp, 2004). While some PLBs,
commonly imitate the
packaging of leading brands, others adopt different packaging
designs from NBs.
A range of acceptable similarity stimulates recognition and
evaluation of perceived
quality. Beyond this range, a consumer views PLBs as copycat
brands.
Price, as an inference of quality, has been widely studied (Rao
and Monroe, 1989;
Steenkamp et al., 2010), and price-perceived quality schema
constructs has been
directly tested. Price similarity of PLBs with NBs indicates high
quality, and high-price
dissimilarity indicates poor quality (Collins-Dodd and Lindley,
2003). A wider price gap
between a PLB and a NB (Gielens, 2012) can adversely affect
the perception of the PLB.
Additionally, the low-price approach is not a way to achieve
consumer loyalty. Rao and
Monroe (1989) observe that brand name information dominates
price information in the
perception of quality. Brand name is a critical cue of a
consumer’s perception of product
quality (Perloff et al., 2012), while store name has a very small
impact (Richardson et al.,
1994) in signalling product quality. Brand name carries a very
specific signal as it is
shared among few products within a competitive product line.
206
IJRDM
44,2

Perceived quality is an essential aspect in the selection and
consumption of PLBs
(Beneke et al., 2013). Consumption of PLBs is often higher
when all brands in a specific
category are seen as being of similar quality (Sprott and Shimp,
2004; Olson, 2012).
Higher risk perception is associated with PLBs compared to
NBs, and has a significant
negative effect on purchase intention; this observation varies by
product category
(Zielke and Dobbelstein, 2007; Beneke et al., 2013). For PLB
groceries, consumers are
less motivated to purchase when the level of perceived risk in
that category is high
(González-Benito and Martos-Partal, 2012). PLB’s performance
in the marketplace
depends on different variables, and there is no dearth of PLB
literature on
understanding consumer preferences. Batra and Sinha (2000)
examine various factors
that explain differences in the selection of NBs vs PLBs across
different categories
(Glynn and Chen, 2009). Along with consumer factors
(personality, perception, and
socioeconomic) (Hyman et al., 2010), store image perceptions
(Diallo et al., 2013) and
PLB price-image significantly influence PLB purchase intention
in emerging economies
(Diallo, 2012). Because Indian PLBs are less familiar in the
marketplace, it is rational to
expect that there will be factors that influence the PLB purchase
decision other than
retail store image (Saraswat et al., 2010).

The above discussion on packaging, price, brand name, and
perceived quality helps
us formulate the third research question:
RQ3. What are the main factors that influence the selection of
PLBs by Indian
consumers?
Consumers use a lot of information and respond to many types
of cues when forming
impressions and judgments about brands. For academicians and
marketers, it is very
important to identify the procedures involved in the formation
of quality impressions,
and the relative importance of factors or cues that influence
consumers’ judgments of
quality (Olsen et al., 2011). Richardson et al. (1994) examines
the relative importance of
extrinsic and intrinsic cues in determining perceptions of PLB
quality (Gielens, 2012)
and finds that those shoppers who judge products by brand,
price, or packaging are
less likely to purchase PLBs. Initial research on PLBs attempts
to identify and
categorize the demographic variables of PLB consumers. Larger
families are inclined to
purchase more PLBs; however, the research is not significant in
predicting the
consumption of PLBs (Richardson et al., 1996). Given the large
number of choices on the
shelf, consumers are becoming more selective when making
purchasing decisions. All
of the above-mentioned studies have been conducted in
developed economies (Sprott
and Shimp, 2004; Sethuraman and Gielens, 2014); however, the
context is not the same

as that in emerging economies. This discussion of cue
utilization results in the final
research question:
RQ4. What are the important cues that consumers consider when
evaluating PLBs?
These questions are answered by conducting an observational
study through in-store
visits in major retail chains, a longitudinal study of customers’
shopping bills, in-depth
interviews, and three focus group discussions with consumers.
Research methodology
Exploratory studies
This research is an exploratory study, and the initial part of the
study is based on in-store
observations and store managers’ interviews regarding the PLB
strategies of nine major
modern retail chains in India. In the second part, using
purposive sampling, longitudinal
207
PLBs in an
emerging
economy
data concerning consumers’ shopping details is collected from
households. While a
longitudinal study is a powerful methodology (Pepe, 2012), not
many studies have
used this technique to examine PLBs. Within this study, the
authors conduct semi-

structured in-depth interviews in an attempt to understand the
factors that influence
Indian consumers’ decisions to purchase PLBs. Three focus
group discussions are
conducted to identify the critical intrinsic and extrinsic cues
that influence the choice
to purchase PLBs.
Data collection: observations, interviews, and focus group
discussions
To understand the overall scenario of PLB strategies adopted by
major retail chains in
India, in-store observations (following the procedure of
Nenycz-Thiel, 2011; Hultman
et al., 2008) are conducted at nine major retail chains in a
metropolitan city during the
last quarter of 2013 and the first quarter of 2014. These nine
retail chains (refer Table I)
represent the organized retail industry in India and offer a
number of PLBs across
categories. In Study 1, we collect the information about the
range of PLB offerings in
different categories from each retail store.
Study 2 is conducted in three phases. In the initial phase, a
longitudinal study is
used (following the procedure of Pepe, 2012 and Herstein et al.,
2012) to examine the
preferred PLB categories and approximate percentage spend on
PLBs by households in
an Indian metropolitan city. Initially 110 households (across
different parts of the city)
are asked to participate in this study. Of these, 87 households
agree to participate.
Instructions to retain shopping bills for future reference are
given to the households.

This study monitors every household for a period of six months
and the shopping bills
from these households are collected on a regular basis. A
similar procedure is followed
for each of the 87 households.
Following this phase, semi-structured interviews (Sloot and
Verhoef, 2008) are
conducted to understand the different factors that influence the
selection of PLBs.
A purposive sampling technique is used to select 22 families for
in-depth interviews.
Following the procedure of Shannon and Mandhachitara (2005),
the family member
involved in the actual shopping of household goods participates
in a detailed interview.
These individuals participate actively in general household
shopping on a regular
basis. With prior permission from the respondents, a series of
interviews are conducted,
recorded in an audio format, and transcribed for additional
analysis. On average, each
Retailer Revenue Store format No. of outlets Geographical
coverage
Retailer A INR 110 billion Hypermarket, supermarket W250
Metro, urban, semi-urban
Retailer B INR 160 billion Hypermarket, supermarket,
convenience, wholesale cash
and carry
W1,600 Metro, urban, semi-urban
Retailer C INR 7.16 billion Hypermarket 18 Metro, urban

Retailer D INR 10.3 billion Hypermarket, supermarket 483
Retailer E INR 35 billion Hypermarket, supermarket 90 Metro,
urban
Retailer F INR 1 (–) billion Hypermarket 17 Metro, urban
Retailer G INR 3.2 (–) billion Hypermarket, supermarket 215
Retailer H INR 39.4 billion Department store 67 Metro, urban
Retailer I INR 1.7 billion Premium gourmet store 32 Metro,
urban
Note: All of the information in Table I has been compiled from
respective retail websites by the
authors. Retailers’ names have been changed to pseudonyms
Table I.
Characteristics of the
nine major retail
chains in India
208
IJRDM
44,2
interview is 20-25 minutes long. Further questions are asked to
understand individual
and household shopping behaviour in addition to the important
factors that the
subjects consider when selecting PLBs and NBs.
Subsequently, the third phase of the observation study (Hultman
et al., 2008) is
conducted to understand and validate the preferred PLB
categories emerging from the

first phase of Study 2. Following a procedure similar to the one
in the first phase,
shopping bills are collected from the interviewees. In total, 18
out of 22 households are
selected for an additional interview. The authors requested that
the selected
households to retain their shopping bills. The observation
method is used to monitor
every household for a period of one month. Figure 1
summarizes the methodology used
in Study 2.
In Study 3, focus group discussions with different groups (both
men and women) are
conducted. Based on the themes from the existing literature,
focus group discussions
(following the procedures in Pavia and Costa, 1993) are held to
identify the product and
non-product related attributes of PLBs. The focus group
discussions are initiated by
showing three product categories to the participants. PLBs from
a popular retail chain
in three product categories – wafer biscuits, corn flakes, and
savoury snacks – are
presented to the participants of the focus group. Two criteria are
used to guide product
selection: first, the product represents the dominant and popular
brand in the sample
market and second, the product is such that it requires no
cooking and is ready for
direct consumption. The choice of selection of this category that
emerges from Study 2
has been discussed in detail in the subsequent section titled
“Findings”. At the
beginning of each focus group discussion, participants are asked
to observe and

evaluate the PLBs carefully (following the procedures of Dick
et al., 1996). Later, they
taste the different brands, which leads to further discussion.
Consumers taste the
leading NB and the same type of variant of all of the available
PLBs (e.g. “Choco Chips”
cookies) in the taste test. The intention is to provide the
participants a common point
of discussion, wherein they can share their opinions about the
different PLBs in
that category.
Sample characteristics
For the longitudinal study, the sample (age bracket of 24-62
years) consists of middle-
income modern retail active shoppers in an Indian city with a
population of over eight
million. All of the respondents are graduates, 76 per cent are
post graduates, and
31 per cent of the respondents are female. Age and income
distribution of the respondents
is reasonably consistent throughout the sample, though slightly
skewed in favour of
those respondents who are older (average 37 years) and have
higher incomes (average
income of INR 51,000 per month).
For the focus group discussions, the participants are divided
into three groups
consisting of 9-10 members. Each group is comprised of both
men and women, which
Phase I: Observation
To study the purchase pattern
87 families were selected
Purposive sample

Six months data of actual bills
Every shopping detail was
monitored, captured and then
analyzed
Phase II: Interview
To study factors influencing
purchase of PLBs
22 families were selected
Purposive sample
20-25 minutes average
interviews
Recorded in audio format and
transcribed for further analysis
Phase III: Observation
To validate Phase I findings
18 families were shortlisted
Purposive sample
One month bills data
Every detail was monitored and
captured for further analysis
Figure 1.
Methodology
for study 2
209
PLBs in an
emerging
economy
provides gender-based heterogeneity, stimulates discussion, and

represents divergent
perspectives within this critical dimension. These participants
are active shoppers
ranging in age from 27-43 years (mean ¼ 29.6 years).
Findings
The details of naming, packaging, pricing, and promotion
strategies of nine major
Indian retail chains are outlined in Table II.
Naming strategies
Based on in-store observations of the nine major retail chains,
we observe that PLB
retailers use three types of naming/brand architecture strategies
for their brands:
“Branded House” (only retailer name used), “House of Brands”
(only separate brand
name used), and “Sub-branding” (combined name). Of the nine
major retail chains, five
follow predominantly “Sub-branding” strategies (Retailer B,
Retailer C, Retailer D,
Retailer F, and Retailer G), and four retailers follow the “House
of Brands” strategy
(Retailer A, Retailer E, Retailer H, and Retailer I). Few retailers
use a separate identity
(e.g. Tasty Treat) by creating a brand name using packaging
akin to those of NBs in
various categories, and by pricing some products similar to NBs
and some lower than
NBs. Interestingly, not a single retailer follows the Branded
House strategy of using
only the retailer’s name. Retailers such as Retailer C and
Retailer B prefer to leverage
store equity and use a “combined naming strategy”, wherein
they combine generic
words such as “Choice”, “Select”, “Premium”, “Value”, and
others with their store

names (e.g. Retailer B Select, Retailer C Saver) across different
categories.
Pricing strategies
Some retailers have adopted “price similarity with NBs”
strategies (e.g. Retailer D and
Retailer H) to market their PLBs vis-à-vis “price dissimilarity
with NBs” (e.g. Retailer A
and Retailer E) across categories. Retailers often use
promotions involving price
discounts to enhance store footfall and increase sales. Between
the first and second tier
of PLBs and NBs, there is a price difference of 10-35 per cent.
Some PLBs in the
premium tier are not essentially cheaper substitutes when
compared to average NB
prices. Retailer H’s premium range is priced equal to or higher
than the NBs in both the
apparel and accessories segments. In the grocery category,
Retailer A, Retailer C,
and Retailer G’s premiums are, on average, 10 per cent below
NB prices.
Packaging strategies
This study indicates that few PLBs are packaged similarly to
NBs to maintain the same
positioning as NBs (e.g. Tasty Treat and Feasters) and most of
the other PLBs maintain
dissimilar packaging compared to NBs (e.g. GoodLife and
Premia). Commonly used by
PLBs, this packaging imitation strategy may serve to minimize
R&D and advertising
expenses. However, Indian PLBs predominantly utilize a non-
imitation strategy
(in packaging) to develop and sell their own brands across
categories.

Promotion strategies
Advertising by Indian PLBs is a reasonably new phenomenon.
Retailer A invests in
print media and TV commercials to endorse its brands in the
apparel segment, while
other retailers use print media to promote their PLB products
across categories.
In other words, Retailer A focuses on brand-centric promotional
tactics (using mass
media ads), while other retailers use store-centric promotions.
210
IJRDM
44,2
P
ri
va
te
la
be
ls
’
br
an
d
na
m
in
g

st
ra
te
gi
es
P
ri
va
te
la
be
ls
’
ra
ng
es
an
d
th
ei
r
pr
ic
in
g
st
ra
te
gi
es
P
ri

va
te
la
be
ls
’
pa
ck
ag
in
g
st
ra
te
gi
es
R
et
ai
le
r
O
nl
y
re
ta
ile
r
na
m

e
us
ed
O
nl
y
se
pa
ra
te
br
an
d
na
m
e
C
om
bi
ne
d
na
m
e
C
or
e

P
L
B
s
(f
ir
st
an
d
se
co
nd
ti
er
)
T
ot
al
no
.o
f
P
L
B
s
in
th
e
st
or

e
P
ri
ce
di
ff
.
co
m
pa
re
d
to
N
B
av
er
ag
e
(p
er
ce
nt
)
P
re
m
iu

m
P
L
B
s
(t
hi
rd
ti
er
)
P
ri
ce
di
ff
.
co
m
pa
re
d
to
N
B
av
er
ag

e
(p
er
ce
nt
)
O
th
er
P
L
B
s
Si
m
ila
r
to
N
B
D
is
si
m
ila
r
to
N

B
A
dv
er
ti
si
ng
R
et
ai
le
r
A
N
o
Y
es
N
o
T
as
ty
T
re
at
,F
re

sh
&
P
ur
e,
G
ol
de
n
H
ar
ve
st
,
P
un
ya
,S
ac
h,
Su
nk
is
t,
C
le
an
M
at

e,
K
or
yo
,
B
ar
e,
D
J&
C
,U
M
M
,
B
uf
fo
lo
,D
re
am
lin
e
(1
3
P
L
B

s)
20
-3
5
P
re
m
iu
m
H
ar
ve
st
,E
kt
aa
,
Jo
hn
M
ill
er
(3
P
L
B
s)
U

p
to
10
T
ot
al
20
P
L
B
s
in
di
ff
er
en
t
ca
te
go
ri
es
T
as
ty
T
re
at
,

F
re
sh
&
P
ur
e,
C
le
an
M
at
e
(3
P
L
B
s)
G
ol
de
n
H
ar
ve
st
,S
ac
h,

Su
nk
is
t,
P
re
m
iu
m
H
ar
ve
st
,E
kt
aa
(6
P
L
B
s)
T
V
:a
pp
ar
el
,

el
ec
tr
on
ic
s,
ho
m
e
fu
rn
is
hi
ng
,
F
M
C
G
;p
ri
nt
:
gr
oc
er
y,
la
un

dr
y
an
d
cl
ea
ni
ng
R
et
ai
le
r
B
Y
es
N
o
Y
es
R
et
ai
le
r
B
Se
le
ct
,

V
al
ue
,R
et
ai
le
r
B
F
re
sh
,M
op
z,
P
ur
ic
,
R
C
on
ne
ct
,H
ea
lth
L
lif

e,
M
as
ti
O
ye
,G
oo
dL
if
e,
Sc
ru
bz
,E
xp
el
ze
,
Su
dz
M
at
ic
,S
hi
nz
,

F
re
sh
om
z,
P
ur
e
D
ai
ry
,C
al
ci
de
nt
,
A
m
ar
a,
E
xt
er
na
,
P
av
ic
,R

el
G
lo
w
C
F
L
(2
2
P
L
B
s)
15
-2
5
R
et
ai
le
r
B
P
re
m
iu
m
(1
P
L

B
)
U
p
to
5
T
ot
al
70
P
L
B
s
in
di
ff
er
en
t
ca
te
go
ri
es
M
op
z,
P
ur

ic
,
Sc
ru
bz
,
E
xp
el
ze
,
Su
dz
M
at
ic
,
Sh
in
z,
F
re
sh
om
z,
R
et
ai
le

r
B
P
re
m
iu
m
(8
P
L
B
s)
R
et
ai
le
r
B
P
re
m
iu
m
,
R
et
ai
le
r
B

Se
le
ct
,V
al
ue
,
R
et
ai
le
r
B
F
re
sh
,P
ur
e
D
ai
ry
,
H
ea
lt
hL
lif
e,

M
as
ti
O
ye
,
G
oo
dL
if
e
(8
P
L
B
s)
P
ri
nt
:g
ro
ce
ry
,
F
M
C
G
,a

pp
ar
el
an
d
ac
ce
ss
or
ie
s,
pe
rs
on
al
ca
re
,
el
ec
tr
on
ic
s,
ho
m
e
fu
rn

is
hi
ng
,
la
un
dr
y
an
d
cl
ea
ni
ng
R
et
ai
le
r
C
Y
es
N
o
Y
es
R
et

ai
le
r
C
,R
et
ai
le
r
C
Sa
ve
r,
D
el
ig
ht
,
R
et
ai
le
r
C
,K
it
ch
en
C
ul
tu

re
(5
P
L
B
s)
20
-3
0
R
et
ai
le
r
C
P
re
m
iu
m
,
R
et
ai
le
r
C
i-s
ha
kt

i
(2
P
L
B
s)
U
p
to
10
T
ot
al
19
P
L
B
s
in
di
ff
er
en
t
ca
te
go
ri
es

D
el
ig
ht
,
R
et
ai
le
r
C
P
re
m
iu
m
(2
P
L
B
s)
R
et
ai
le
r
C
,
R
et
ai

le
r
C
,
R
et
ai
le
r
C
,
K
it
ch
en
C
ul
tu
re
,
R
et
ai
le
r
C
i-s
ha
kt
i

(5
P
L
B
s)
P
ri
nt
:g
ro
ce
ry
,
F
M
C
G
,a
pp
ar
el
an
d
ac
ce
ss
or
ie
s,
ho

m
e
fu
rn
is
hi
ng
,
la
un
dr
y
an
d
cl
ea
ni
ng
(c
o
n
ti
n
u
ed
)
Table II.
Indian retailers’

strategies adopted
for private label
brands
211
PLBs in an
emerging
economy
P
ri
va
te
la
be
ls
’
br
an
d
na
m
in
g
st
ra
te
gi
es

P
ri
va
te
la
be
ls
’
ra
ng
es
an
d
th
ei
r
pr
ic
in
g
st
ra
te
gi
es
P
ri
va
te
la
be
ls

’
pa
ck
ag
in
g
st
ra
te
gi
es
R
et
ai
le
r
O
nl
y
re
ta
ile
r
na
m
e
us
ed
O

nl
y
se
pa
ra
te
br
an
d
na
m
e
C
om
bi
ne
d
na
m
e
C
or
e
P
L
B
s
(f
ir

st
an
d
se
co
nd
ti
er
)
T
ot
al
no
.o
f
P
L
B
s
in
th
e
st
or
e
P
ri
ce

di
ff
.
co
m
pa
re
d
to
N
B
av
er
ag
e
(p
er
ce
nt
)
P
re
m
iu
m
P
L
B
s

(t
hi
rd
ti
er
)
P
ri
ce
di
ff
.
co
m
pa
re
d
to
N
B
av
er
ag
e
(p
er
ce

nt
)
O
th
er
P
L
B
s
Si
m
ila
r
to
N
B
D
is
si
m
ila
r
to
N
B
A
dv
er

ti
si
ng
R
et
ai
le
r
D
Y
es
N
o
Y
es
R
et
ai
le
r
D
C
ho
ic
e,
R
et
ai
le
r

D
V
al
ue
,
R
et
ai
le
r
D
Su
pe
ri
or
,
F
ea
st
er
s,
R
et
ai
le
r
D
Se
le
ct
a
(5

P
L
B
s)
10
-2
0
K
it
ch
en
’s
P
ro
m
is
e,
B
es
t
of
In
di
a
(2
P
L
B
s)

U
p
to
5
T
ot
al
16
P
L
B
s
in
di
ff
er
en
t
ca
te
go
ri
es
F
ea
st
er
s,
R
et

ai
le
r
D
C
ho
ic
e
(2
P
L
B
s)
R
et
ai
le
r
D
V
al
ue
,R
et
ai
le
r
D
Su

pe
ri
or
,
R
et
ai
le
r
D
Se
le
ct
(3
P
L
B
s)
P
ri
nt
:g
ro
ce
ry
,
F
M
C
G

,p
er
so
na
l
ca
re
,l
au
nd
ry
an
d
cl
ea
ni
ng
R
et
ai
le
r
E
N
o
Y
es
N
o

P
re
m
ia
,T
-T
im
e,
L
e
C
af
é,
D
H
om
es
(4
P
L
B
s)
20
-3
0
–
–
T

ot
al
8
P
L
B
s
in
di
ff
er
en
t
ca
te
go
ri
es
T
-T
im
e,
L
e
C
af
é,
M
ild

&
C
ar
e
(3
P
L
B
s)
P
re
m
ia
,
D
H
om
es
(2
P
L
B
s)
P
ri
nt
:g
ro
ce
ry

,
F
M
C
G
,h
om
e
fu
rn
is
hi
ng
,
pe
rs
on
al
ca
re
R
et
ai
le
r
F
Y
es

N
o
Y
es
E
ve
ry
D
ay
,R
et
ai
le
r
F
(2
P
L
B
s)
15
-2
5
F
re
sh
B
as

ke
t,
E
ve
ry
D
ay
(2
P
L
B
s)
U
p
to
5
–
E
ve
ry
D
ay
(1
P
L
B
)

R
et
ai
le
r
F
,
F
re
sh
B
as
ke
t
(2
P
L
B
s)
P
ri
nt
:g
ro
ce
ry
,
F
M
C

G
R
et
ai
le
r
G
Y
es
N
o
Y
es
G
re
at
V
al
ue
,R
et
ai
le
r
G
C
ho
ic

e,
R
et
ai
le
r
G
M
ax
x,
E
qu
at
e,
fl
ex
i
fo
od
s
(5
P
L
B
s)
20
-3
0
G

re
at
V
al
ue
(1
P
L
B
)
U
p
to
10
T
ot
al
10
P
L
B
s
in
di
ff
er
en
t
ca

te
go
ri
es
G
re
at
V
al
ue
,
R
et
ai
le
r
G
M
ax
x
(2
P
L
B
s)
R
et
ai
le
r

G
C
ho
ic
e,
E
qu
at
e,
fl
ex
i
fo
od
s
(3
P
L
B
s)
P
ri
nt
:g
ro
ce
ry
,

F
M
C
G
,a
pp
ar
el
an
d
ac
ce
ss
or
ie
s,
pe
rs
on
al
ca
re
R
et
ai
le
r
H
Y
es

Y
es
N
o
SS
,S
T
O
P
,L
if
e
(3
P
L
B
s)
5-
10
V
et
to
ri
oF
ra
ti
ni

,
E
lli
za
D
on
at
ei
n,
M
ar
io
Z
eg
no
ti
(3
P
L
B
s)
H
ig
he
r
th
an
N
B

K
as
hi
sh
,
iJ
E
A
N
SW
E
A
R
,
in
se
ns
e’
(3
P
L
B
s)
SS
,S
T
O
P

(2
P
L
B
s)
L
if
e
(1
P
L
B
)
P
ri
nt
:a
pp
ar
el
an
d
ac
ce
ss
or
ie
s,
ho
m

e
fu
rn
is
hi
ng
R
et
ai
le
r
I
N
o
Y
es
N
o
–
–
H
ea
lt
hy
A
lt
er
na

ti
ve
s,
L
’e
xc
lu
si
f
(3
P
L
B
s)
25
-4
0
hi
gh
er
th
an
N
B
–
H
ea
lt
hy

A
lt
er
na
ti
ve
s,
L
’e
xc
lu
si
f
(3
P
L
B
s)
–
P
ri
nt
:g
ro
ce
ry
,
F
M
C

G
Table II.
212
IJRDM
44,2
To answer the second research question, shopping bills are
classified into
seven different categories. Percentages and total expenses are
computed for both
the PLBs and other brands in each category. The basic purpose
is to discover the
preferred PLB categories vis-à-vis other brands (NBs, regional
brands, and staple
items). Hence, an individual analysis of different types of
brands is not part of this
study. From the summary of the category-wise analysis (refer to
Figure 2[1]), we
observe that PLBs are most widely purchased in the grocery,
food and beverage,
and apparel categories.
The longitudinal shopping data are analysed using standard
ANOVA procedures.
Table III presents the results of the overall ANOVA for spend
on PLBs and other
brands. Significant main and interaction effects are found for
brands in each
product category. The main effect of brands indicates that
households spend different
amounts on PLBs when compared to other brands (F1,3612 ¼

288.803, po0.05, mean
PLBs ¼ 17.18, mean other brands ¼ 109.67). As expected, the
main effect of category is
significant (F6,3612 ¼ 34.434, po0.05), suggesting that
respondents spend differently
across the seven categories. The interaction effect of brand and
category is found to be
highly significant and suggests that consumers spend differently
for PLBs and other
brands across the seven categories (F6,3612 ¼ 13.145, po0.05).
Only longitudinal data across categories of PLB shopping is
analysed, and the
results indicate that the household expenditure differs among
the seven categories
(F6,1820 ¼ 27.223, po0.05). In other words, the spending
tendency on PLBs in the
grocery segment is different from that in either the food and
beverage or other
segments. The PLB grocery category is significantly different
from all of the other PLB
categories (F1,1826 ¼ 98.578, po0.05, mean grocery ¼ 59.73).
460.87
30%
283.53
18% 356.07
23%
97.63
6% 166.10
11%

131.37
8%
51.28
50.95
57%
5.97
7%
30.09
34%
1.24
1%
0.19
0.13
Less than 1%
0.63
0
100
200
300
400
500

600
G F&B A&A L&C V&D C&PC CD
A
m
o
u
n
t
in
t
h
o
u
sa
n
d
s
(I
N
R
)
Categories
Less than 1%

Others PLB
(1%)
(3%)
Figure 2.
Amount and
percentage of
spending across
categories by sample
households
Source Sum of Sq. df Mean Sq. F Sig.
Brands 7,814,025.517 1 7,814,025.517 288.803 0.000
Category 5,590,015.246 6 931,669.208 34.434 0.000
Brands category* 2,133,930.694 6 355,655.116 13.145 0.000
Error 97,728,391.623 3,612 27,056.587
Total 128,619,349.490 3,654
Note: *po0.05
Table III.
ANOVA results
213
PLBs in an
emerging
economy

A series of semi-structured interviews is conducted with the
objective of exploring
different factors that influence the selection of PLBs.
“Contrasted with survey
interviewing, the qualitative interview is based on a set of
topics to be discussed
in-depth rather than based on the use of standardized questions”
(Babbie, 2014, p. 318).
Hence, the authors do not measure any one dimension, instead,
they discuss various
dimensions emerging from the FGDs. The data from the
interviews is arranged and
categorized into different themes (refer Table IV). Price is the
most important
parameter for a majority of the interviewees, which corroborates
with previous studies.
Respondents consider quality judgment as the second essential
factor for PLB product
evaluation. Convenience (perceived degree of avoidance of time
and effort) is
considered to be the third essential criterion. Interestingly, store
location emerges as yet
another important factor in the selection of retail stores and
their brands. As stated in
the previous literature, different promotional schemes, offers,
and loyalty programmes
are also important to Indian consumers ( Joseph and
Sivakumaran, 2011). Previous
studies have not focused on the convenience factor and
interestingly, Indian consumers
consider this an important factor in the purchase of PLBs.
Product availability and
product packaging also seem to play a meaningful role for some
households. In the case
of PL groceries, the level of involvement is generally low and
for apparel, it is relatively

high. Selection of PLBs in the apparel category is driven
primarily by design, store
name, store image, and consumer income. Some other relevant
factors are consistency,
freshness, store ambience, and store reputation.
Consumers tend to use a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic cues
concurrently to
evaluate product quality. Intrinsic cues are derived directly
from the physical
composition of a product and extrinsic cues are peripherally
related to product.
Family
No. of stores visited
in a month Key factors
1 3 Quality, available, price, convenience, location
2 4 Quality, price
3 1 Price, offer, discount
4 3 Price, quality
5 2 Quality, price
6 2 Price, convenience, low involvement, quality
7 3 Price, substitutes, quality
8 3 Quality, consistency, price
9 3 Value for money, quality, availability, discounts, loyalty
points
10 3 Quality, price
11 2 Offer, discounts
12 4 Quality, convenience
13 3 Quality, availability, price, location, bulk purchase
14 1 Price, offers
15 3 Packaging, quality, low involvement
16 4 Schemes, get one free, special offers

17 3 Price, attractive product, gift
18 4 Price, quality, convenience
19 3 Quality, price, try a new product
20 4 Price, quality, location, convenience
21 4 Convenience, location, price
22 2 Location, price, freshness
Table IV.
Summary of key
influencing factors
214
IJRDM
44,2
To understand the use of these multiple variables, we use the
food and beverage PLB
category, a preferred category, for further study.
With regard to the final objective of this research, participants
are asked to examine
and evaluate the extrinsic and intrinsic cues of three PLBs
across three categories:
Tasty Treat wafers (choco flavour), Tasty Treat snacks, and
Tasty Treat corn flakes
(choco flavour). Some of the words frequently used by the focus
group participants to
evaluate and describe PLBs are: flavour, taste, ingredients,
variants, colour, texture,
shape, crunchiness, freshness, weight, size, thickness, company
name, store name, store
image, packaging, character, information, logo, brand name,
brand experience, price,

promotion, discounts, offers, advertisement, and reputation.
While there are
contradictions in this list, we notice several common themes.
All of the above-mentioned cues can be further classified into
intrinsic cues, or
product-related attributes, and extrinsic cues, or non-product
related attributes. Many
participants assert that the primary intrinsic cue is taste. Though
many participants
did not like the taste of the three PLBs, they mention the
importance of product taste for
repeat purchases. Thus, the consumer has the ability to identify
products and specific
brands on the basis of taste and aroma (Breneiser and Allen,
2011). Indian PLBs are
judged inferior to NBs on a variety of product characteristics
including the taste of the
product. Independently, in each focus group, participants agree
that taste may be
compromised for trial purchase or by a first time buyer.
However, for repeat purchases,
favourable/standard taste was critical in the selection of PLBs:
(FG No. 1) F[2]: Being a loyal customer of another brand, the
taste is not good. It tastes very
bad. When you have it and you feel that it’s not chocolaty. It
does not taste like chocolate at all
and more of cocoa that way.
In addition to taste, another important characteristic of PLBs is
product ingredients. In
the focus group taste test, the actual product ingredients are
deemed to be of lower
quality than those of the NBs. Unfavourable evaluations of PLB
ingredients are made

not only on the basis of extrinsic cues, but to some extent on
participants’ direct
responses to PLB ingredients (Richardson et al., 1994). Though
there are fewer
differences in the ingredients between different brands, NB
ingredients are perceived to
be superior to PLB ingredients. The level of creaminess,
crunchiness, texture,
freshness, and shape of the product are also considered by the
participants:
(FG No. 1) M: So as I said, normally I do not look at the entire
list of ingredients. However, if I
have the chance to look at it, there are a big number of artificial
things that have been added.
There is an endless list of artificial ingredients and this is a
kind of a concern.
There is often information available on packaging and
consumers use these cues to
infer quality attributes of PLBs. Participants discuss visible
cues as well as the
information from the PLB packaging, which manages to evoke
preferred quality
perceptions among consumers. In fact, unfavourable perceptions
may be fostered by
the use of inexpensive-looking packaging. Participants are less
inclined to believe that
PLBs with better packaging or labelling are of higher quality.
The product information,
characters used on the packaging, logo, colour, plastic quality,
and paper used are also
carefully observed. Because participants are familiar with
known brands, they consider
PLBs to be less attractive and poorly packaged.

Participants insist that they rely heavily upon price as an
indicator of PLB quality.
Promotions for NBs focus on shopping enjoyment and
innovativeness, while
promotions for PLBs emphasize the economic benefits for price
conscious consumers.
215
PLBs in an
emerging
economy
Price similarity with NBs indicates a high level of quality,
while too large a price gap
may adversely affect the perceived quality of PLBs. The
discussion highlights the
participants’ beliefs that if retailers concentrate on product
quality as opposed to price,
they can create more favourable perceptions and increase
loyalty. Interestingly, a small
price gap between PLBs and NBs stimulates participants to
consider the known/
familiar brands for final purchase.
The focus group discussions indicate that an extrinsic cue, such
as brand name, is
more easily recognized, integrated, and interpreted than any
other cue. Participants are
generally influenced by brand names and products with which
they were familiar. The
brand name helps control the quality perception of PLBs when
products are available
at a discounted price. A large number of participants believe

that brand name has a
greater effect than store name on quality evaluation. When
PLBs include the store
name or logo of the brand on the package, this is viewed as an
extension of the brand
name of the store itself. Retail reputation and store name cues
are used by the
participants interchangeably to describe product quality and
store image. Participants
suggest that individual retailers need to invest more to promote
their store name and
develop a strong store image. Finally, brand experience and
prior knowledge of the
product category are important factors for both quality
evaluation and purchase intent.
A negative store experience invariably leads to a bad reputation,
which affects overall
store image and eventually, individual product evaluation.
The focus group discussions validate the findings that extrinsic
cues (like
packaging, price, and name) influence purchase intention and
trial. However, for repeat
purchases, taste and ingredients play an important role. The
preceding discussion of
the assertions emerging in all three independent focus groups
provides several broad
generalizations of intrinsic and extrinsic cues, which form the
basis for further
research. These findings and relative ranks of PLB cues are
summarized in Table V.
Discussion and conclusion
Retailers across countries use varied naming strategies for their
PLBs. Several retailers
prefer their own “store name” for their products (for instance,

TESCO beer), while
others believe in using a separate “brand name” (Wal-Mart’s
Equate) to market their
PLBs. A few adopt sub-branding or a combination strategy
across different product
categories (e.g. Carrefour Cola Classic). However, research
shows that Wal-Mart, the
world’s largest retailer, primarily follows the “House of
Brands” strategy (Store Brands
Decisions, 2010). Indian retailers are also headed in this
direction. This study indicates
Focus group discussion 1 Focus group discussion 2 Focus group
discussion 3
Product
category Wafer biscuits Savoury snacks Corn flakes
Rank
Intrinsic
cues
Extrinsic
cues
Intrinsic
cues Extrinsic cues
Intrinsic
cues Extrinsic cues
1 Taste Packaging Taste Packaging Taste Packaging
2 Ingredients Price Ingredients Store image Ingredients Brand
name
3 Flavour Store image Freshness Price Texture Price
4 Texture Brand name Flavour Brand name Flavour Store image
5 Shape Store name Freshness Product

knowledge
Crunchiness Brand
experience
Table V.
Rank of intrinsic and
extrinsic cues
216
IJRDM
44,2
that retailers mainly adopt sub-branding (using the store name
along with a separate
brand name) and “House of Brands” (using a separate brand
name only) strategies to
sell their PLBs in the Indian market.
This study shows that popular PLBs have adopted a packaging
strategy similar to
that of NBs in specific categories (such as cookies, chips, and
toilet cleaners) with
majority of the PLBs being priced lower than the NBs. Previous
literature indicates that
PLBs with higher packaging similarity to the leading NBs are
found to elicit
significantly higher quality judgments than PLBs with lower
packaging similarity
(Olson, 2012). Some PLBs imitate the packaging of leading
brands in low-involvement
categories such as Tasty Treat and Feasters, while a few PLBs

adopt different
packaging designs vis-à-vis NBs. Extant literature indicates that
higher similarity
enhances consumer consideration and relative preference for
these PLBs (Aribarg et al.,
2014). The perception of PLBs depends not only on the
imitation strategies but also on
the levels of brand familiarity and brand knowledge. In
emerging economies where
PLB is a growing concept, store reputation (store image) plays a
significant role in the
purchase of PLBs; discussions with various store managers
confirm this observation.
Grocery, apparel, and food are the most preferred PLB
categories, which are
relatively the same as those mentioned in Nielson’s Report
(2014). The KPMG
Report (2014) states that food continues to dominate the PLB
market with 76 per cent of
total sales; within this category, packaged groceries dominate
with 53 per cent of total
sales. This can be attributed to factors such as low-sourcing
costs, technology and
packaging, high margins, fast moving nature of the products,
and low involvement
(Koschate-Fischer et al., 2014).
Some key factors that drive shopping behaviour towards PLBs
are product quality,
competitive price, offers or discounts, convenience, and store
location. Competitive
price primarily affects the brand choice, as many substitutes are
available in the same
category. Because of the limited availability of NBs and their
higher prices relative to

PLBs, there are a greater number of offerings in the grocery and
apparel segments.
Convenience is an important aspect of retail services, and
customers frequently cite this
as an important variable in the purchase of PLBs. One
explanation is that customers
sometimes prefer to complete the monthly grocery shopping in
one store. Even if their
favourite brand is not available in one category, they may not
mind buying a PLB in
the same category (if it is a low-involvement purchase).
Consumers refer to convenience
as access to stores, in-store facilities, search, transaction costs,
billing processes, and
exchange services. The result from focus group discussions
supports the observation
that while shopping convenience is an important parameter, it
has not been empirically
tested in any market.
Notably, the extrinsic cues of packaging, brand name, price
discount, and store
name exert a positive influence on the purchase intention of
PLBs (Diallo et al., 2013).
Price discounts are the most important variable for predicting
purchase intent, followed
by brand name, packaging, and store name (also found in
Richardson et al., 1994).
Participants have confirmed that extrinsic cues, in particular,
PLB price and brand
name, often have more variance in the evaluation of product
quality than intrinsic cues
such as taste and ingredients. Intrinsic cues are the
characteristics of the core product
itself; taste is one of the essential properties that serves as a
PLB quality indicator.

Previously, authors have worked mostly on single-cues
(particularly extrinsic cues)
which are somewhat artifactual (Rao and Monroe, 1989); very
few studies have
considered taste in determining the perceived quality of PLBs.
This may be an
interesting area of research, particularly because extrinsic cues
(such as packaging)
217
PLBs in an
emerging
economy
may make the consumer buy the product once but intrinsic cues
(such as taste) will
result in repeat purchases of that PLB product.
The results of this study provide useful insights to PLB retailers
in an emerging
economy such as India. In line with the previous research
findings, our results also
show that Indian consumers perceive the quality of NBs as
better than PLBs. Retailers
need to realize that there is a large variation in the perceived
quality of PLBs vis-à-vis
NBs across all categories. Hence, Indian PLB retailers should
focus on improving the
intrinsic quality of their PLBs, which should be at least
comparable to the intrinsic
quality of the leading NB in that category. Moreover, PLB
retailers need to emphasize
promotional activities that focus on intrinsic product quality

and benefits (such as
in-store sampling, tasting, and demonstrations).
In addition to being price sensitive, Indian consumers are also
quality sensitive
(Mukharjee et al., 2012). Therefore, PLB retailers need to work
towards reducing the
perceived quality gaps with NBs and at the same time, offer
these PLBs at reasonable
prices. Along with price, PLB retailers also need to concentrate
on non-price factors,
such as shopping convenience and store image. Hence, these
retailers need to focus on
pricing and brand naming strategies, while improving packaging
and store image.
As mentioned above, Indian retailers commonly follow the
“Sub-branding” or
“House of brand” strategies. Hence, they need to carefully craft
their brand architecture
strategies with the thought that brand extensions need to be
based on category-fit and
brand associations, which develop over time. For example, a
brand like Tasty Treat
(a brand of Retailer A) that fits well for ready-to-eat products
(e.g. biscuits and chips)
may not be a good fit for ready-to-cook products (e.g. noodles
and pasta). For premium
PLBs, retailers need to work on distinctive packaging that
differentiates them from
NBs rather than adopting an imitation strategy.
Many findings of our exploratory study confirm findings of
existing PLB literature
(e.g. perceived quality, price, promotion, and packaging).
Beyond these, our study has

also explored new issues such as brand architecture strategies in
PLB, retail
convenience guiding the sales of PLBs in a store, and evaluation
of intrinsic attributes
of PLBs vs NBs by customers before making product
choice/buying decision. More
conclusive studies are required to establish/confirm these
findings. Studies in emerging
economies of other BRIC countries (Diallo, 2012; Diallo et al.,
2013) show that common
issues, such as modern retail formats and PLBs, are a relatively
new phenomenon.
Similarly, Mukharjee et al. (2012) highlights that consumers in
emerging economies are
price sensitive and look for value for money products. However,
one needs to be
cautious before attaching these generalized insights to other
emerging economies.
Limitations and direction for future research
The limitations of this study arise from its exploratory nature
and the fact that it
examines one emerging economy (India); generalizations may
be drawn with another
large-scale future quantitative study. This study has not
considered the role of
seasonality on shopping behaviour or cultural factors of the
preferred PLB categories.
Given the limits of this study’s purposive sample of
respondents, this was an initial
attempt at identifying the preferred PLB categories among
Indian consumers.
The results of this study open several avenues for future
research. It will be
interesting to see if these factors and cues are relevant to price

conscious consumers in
other emerging economies. Future studies may look into the
branding strategies of
PLBs and explore customers’ reactions on convenience, price,
product quality,
promotional offers, and store image in addition to different
packaging and brand
218
IJRDM
44,2
naming strategies adopted by various retailers. This study
anticipates that the findings
will be useful to retail managers and other researchers,
particularly those in emerging
economies where PLBs are still in the initial growth stage. We
believe that it is time to
expand upon the discussion of branding strategies related to
Indian PLBs.
Notes
1. G stands for grocery, F&B stands for food and beverages,
A&A stands for apparel and
accessory, L&C stands for laundry and cleaning, V&D stands
for vegetables and dairy,
C&PC stands for cosmetic and personal care and CD stands for
consumer durables.
2. The exact source of a quote is given using the following
notation: FG No. 1 means that the
discussion took place during the first of the three focus groups.

“M” means that the
participant is a male and “F” indicates that the participant is a
female.
References
Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), “The brand
relationship spectrum”, California
Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 8-23.
Abhishek, S. (2014), “Private label brand choice dynamics:
logit model involving demographic and
psychographic variables”, South Asian Journal of Management,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 49-64.
Anand, S. (2015), “Private labels do the trick for e-grocers”,
The Economic Times, 17 June, p. 5.
Aribarg, A., Arora, N., Henderson, T. and Kim, Y. (2014),
“Private label imitation of a national
brand: implications for consumer choice and law”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 51
No. 6, pp. 657-675.
Babbie, E. (2014), The Practice of Social Research, Cengage
Learning, Boston, MA.
Batra, R. and Sinha, I. (2000), “Consumer-level factors
moderating the success of private label
brands”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 175-191.
BCG Retail Report (2015), “Retail 2020: retrospect, reinvent,
rewrite – BCG in India”, available at:
www.bcgindia.com/documents/file181823.pdf (accessed 9 June
2015).

Beneke, J., Flynn, R., Greig, T. and Mukaiwa, M. (2013), “The
influence of perceived product
quality, relative price and risk on customer value and
willingness to buy: a study of private
label merchandise”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 218-228.
Breneiser, J.E. and Allen, S.N. (2011), “Taste preference for
brand name versus store brand
sodas”, North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 281-290.
Calvo-Porral, C. and Lévy-Mangin, J.-P. (2014), “Determinants
of store brands’ success: a cross-
store format comparative analysis”, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 595-612.
Collins-Dodd, C. and 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, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 345-352.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Hernandez-Espallardo, M. and
Rodriguez-Orejuela, A. (2014), “Store image
influences in consumers’ perceptions of store brands: the
moderating role of value
consciousness”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Nos
9/10, pp. 1850-1869.
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,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 360-367.

Diallo, M.F., Chandon, J.L., Cliquet, G. and Philippe, J. (2013),
“Factors influencing consumer
behaviour towards store brands: evidence from the French
market”, International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 422-
441.
219
PLBs in an
emerging
economy
www.bcgindia.com/documents/file181823.pdf
Dick, A., Jain, A. and Richardson, P. (1996), “How consumers
evaluate store brands”, The Journal
of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 19-28.
Fitzell, P.B. (1992), Private Label Marketing in the 1990s: The
Evolution of Price Labels into Global
Brands, Global Book Productions, New York, NY.
Gielens, K. (2012), “New products: the antidote to private label
growth?”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 408-423.
Glynn, M.S. and Chen, S. (2009), “Consumer-factors
moderating private label brand success:
further empirical results”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management,
Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 896-914.
González-Benito, Ó. and Martos-Partal, M. (2012), “Role of

retailer positioning and product
category on the relationship between store brand consumption
and store loyalty”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 236-249.
Herstein, R., Tifferet, S., Luís Abrantes, J., Lymperopoulos, C.,
Albayrak, T. and Caber, M. (2012),
“The effect of personality traits on private brand consumer
tendencies: a cross-cultural
study of Mediterranean countries”, Cross Cultural Management:
An International Journal,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 196-214.
Hultman, M., Opoku, R.A., Salehi-Sangari, E., Oghazi, P. and
Bui, Q.T. (2008), “Private label
competition: the perspective of Swedish branded goods
manufacturers”, Management
Research News, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 125-141.
Hyman, M.R., Kopf, D.A. and Lee, D. (2010), “Review of
literature – future research suggestions:
private label brands: benefits, success factors and future
research”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 368-389.
Joseph, J. and Sivakumaran, B. (2011), “Consumer promotions
in the Indian market”, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 151-165.
Koschate-Fischer, N., Cramer, J. and Hoyer, W.D. (2014),
“Moderating effects of the relationship
between private label share and store loyalty”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G. and Cunningham, P.H. (2005),
Principles of Marketing, Pearson Education,

Toronto, ON.
KPMG Report (2014), “Indian retail: the next growth story”,
available at: www.kpmg.com/IN/en/
IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Pages/IndianRetail.aspx
(accessed 22 June 2015).
Kremer, F. and Viot, C. (2012), “How store brands build retailer
brand image”, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 40 No. 7,
pp. 528-543.
Loken, B., Ross, I. and Hinkle, R.L. (1986), “Consumer
‘confusion’ of origin and brand similarity
perceptions”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 5 No.
1, pp. 195-211.
Mishra, A.A. (2014), “Shopping value, satisfaction, and
behavioral intentions: a sociodemographic
and interproduct category study on private label brands”,
Journal of Global Marketing,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 226-246.
Mukharjee, A., Satija, D., Goyal, T.M., Mantrala, M.K. and
Zou, S. (2012), “Are Indian consumers
brand conscious? insights for global retailers”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 482-499.
Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M.C. (2009), “Corporate branding
and brand architecture: a conceptual
framework”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 39-54.
Nenycz-Thiel, M. (2011), “Private labels in Australia: a case
where retailer concentration does not
predicate private labels share”, Journal of Brand Management,

Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 624-633.
Nielson’s Report (2014), “The state of private label around the
world”, available at: www.nielsen.
com/us/en/insights/reports/2014/the-state-of-private-label-
around-the-world.html
(accessed 7 June 2015).
220
IJRDM
44,2
www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/P
ages/IndianRetail.aspx
www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/P
ages/IndianRetail.aspx
www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2014/the-state-of-
private-label-around-the-world.html
www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2014/the-state-of-
private-label-around-the-world.html
Olsen, N.V., Menichelli, E., Meyer, C. and Naes, T. (2011),
“Consumers liking of private labels.
An evaluation of intrinsic and extrinsic orange juice cues”,
Appetite, Vol. 56 No. 3,
pp. 770-777.
Olson, E.L. (2012), “Supplier inferences to enhance private
label perceptions”, Journal of Business
Pavia, T.M. and Costa, J.A. (1993), “The winning number:
consumer perceptions of alpha-numeric
brand names”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 85-98.

Pepe, M. (2012), “The impact of private label sales penetration
on category profitability”,
Journal of Business & Economics Research, Vol. 10 No. 9, pp.
513-519.
Perloff, J.M., LaFrance, J.T. and Chouinard, H.H. (2012),
“Brand name and private label price
setting by a monopoly store”, Economics Letters, Vol. 116 No.
3, pp. 508-511.
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1989), “The effect of price, brand
name, and store name on buyers’
perceptions of product quality: an integrative review”, Journal
of Marketing Research,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 351-357.
Richardson, P.S., Dick, A.S. and Jain, A.K. (1994), “Extrinsic
and intrinsic cue effects on
perceptions of store brand quality”, The Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 28-36.
Richardson, P.S., Jain, A.K. and Dick, A. (1996), “Household
store brand proneness: a framework”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 159-185.
Saraswat, A., Mammen, T., Aagja, J.P. and Tewari, R. (2010),
“Building store brands using store
image differentiation”, Journal of Indian Business Research,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 166-180.
Sayman, S. and Raju, J.S. (2004), “Investigating the cross-
category effects of store brands”,
Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 129-141.
Sethuraman, R. and Gielens, K. (2014), “Determinants of store

brand share”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 141-153.
Shannon, R. and Mandhachitara, R. (2005), “Private-label
grocery shopping attitudes
and behaviour: a cross-cultural study”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 461-474.
Sinapuelas, I.C.S. and Robinson, W.T. (2012), “Do me-too
brands price lower than the feature
pioneer?”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 350-358.
Sloot, L.M. and Verhoef, P.C. (2008), “The impact of brand
delisting on store switching and brand
switching intentions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp.
281-296.
Sprott, D.E. and Shimp, T.A. (2004), “Using product sampling
to augment the perceived quality of
store brands”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 305-315.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Geyskens, I. (2014), “Manufacturer
and retailer strategies to impact
store brand share: global integration, local adaptation, and
worldwide learning”, Marketing
Science, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 6-26.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Van Heerde, H.J. and Geyskens, I.
(2010), “What makes consumers willing
to pay a price premium for national brands over private
labels?”, Journal of Marketing
Store Brands Decisions (2010), “Walmart shifts private label

strategy”, available at: www.store
brandsdecisions.com/news/2010/09/21/walmart-shifts-private-
label-strategy (accessed 17
June 2015).
Tversky, A. (2004), Preference, Belief, and Similarity: Selected
Writings, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1995), Defending Your Brand Against
Imitation, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Zielke, S. and Dobbelstein, T. (2007), “Customers’ willingness
to purchase new store brands”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp.
112-121.
221
PLBs in an
emerging
economy
www.storebrandsdecisions.com/news/2010/09/21/walmart-
shifts-private-label-strategy
www.storebrandsdecisions.com/news/2010/09/21/walmart-
shifts-private-label-strategy
Further reading
Dawes, J. and Nenycz-Thiel, M. (2013), “Analyzing the
intensity of private label competition
across retailers”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1,
pp. 60-66.
Herstein, R., Gilboa, S. and Gamliel, E. (2014), “Private and

national brand consumers’ images of
fashion stores”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.
22 Nos 5/6, pp. 331-341.
About the authors
Siddhartha Sarkar is a Doctoral Candidate of Marketing at the
Shailesh J. Mehta School of
Management, IIT Bombay, India. His research interests include
brand management, private
labels, and retail strategy. Siddhartha Sarkar is the
corresponding author and can be contacted
at: [email protected]
Dinesh Sharma is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the
Management, IIT Bombay, India. His areas of interest in
teaching are marketing strategy,
marketing research, brand management, sales and distribution
management. He has published
papers in many peer-reviewed international journals and also
has written case studies.
Arti D. Kalro is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the
Management, IIT Bombay, India. Her research interests include
marketing communications,
specifically, advertising; social media and online marketing;
green marketing. She has published
papers in international journals like Journal of Consumer
Behavior, Journal of Brand
Management and presented numerous papers in various
international conferences.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please
visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm

Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
222
IJRDM
44,2
mailto:[email protected]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Debate topic Should prisoners be allowed to access the internet .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Debate topic Should prisoners be allowed to access the internet .docx

Similar to Debate topic Should prisoners be allowed to access the internet .docx (20)

More from simonithomas47935

More from simonithomas47935 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Debate topic Should prisoners be allowed to access the internet .docx