Journal of Retailing 80 (2004) ixxii

Editorial

Loy

Why devBranding aembarked oScience Instopics thatand serviceto come toretailer as aloyalty.

The riseimportant toped stronpartment SCanadian gretailers, supublic andthe averagestore and bbrand or hoare importawho relydise. The pon this toinclude:

Impact o Global r Impact o Private

strategie Joint effe

(e.g., prbehavior

Determibrands c

Retailer loyalty (e.g., loyalty programs, service recoveryissues, drivers of store loyalty, and consumer service andits impact on loyalty and profitability)

Integrati

e belieal issuframeonsidn influived vns andof thessue ossed i

R

esearcd infar &zaki,roe 19us comeed tole of prandymaners she rela

ioningsting

l andationahethe

n a cabrands, and those brands are distinctively stronger than oth-ers, but similar to each other, such as the case of Pepsi andCoke, then we can expect to see two store brands in the

0022-4359/$doi:10.1016/jng on-line and in-store activities category.

see front matter 2004 New York University. Published by Elsevier. All rights reserved..jretai.2004.10.001Retail Branding and Customer

ote a special issue of Journal of Retailing to Retailnd Customer Loyalty? The fundamental reason wen this special issue co-sponsored by the Marketingtitute was to stimulate research on two interrelatedare currently prominent in the minds of retailers

providers. Specifically, retailers are strugglinggrips with issues associated with the role of abrand and how to effectively enhance customer

of the retailer as a brand is one of the mostrends in retailing. Some large retailers have devel-g private-label merchandise, e.g., Federated De-tores INC, Wal-Marts Old Roy Dog Food, orrocery giant Loblaws President Choice. Otherch as The Gap and its sister stores Banana Re-Old Navy have such a strong brand name thatconsumer does not make a distinction between

rand. Understanding the image of a retailer as aw brands impact its image and customer loyaltynt issues both for retailers and the manufacturerson them to sell their own branded merchan-urpose of this special issue is to stimulate work

pic. Some topics that deserve closer attention

f store versus national brandsetail branding strategiesf retail brand extension strategieslabel options: copycat, premium, and parallelscts of store reputation and other information cues

ice, brand) on perceptions of quality, value andal intentionsnants of store reputation (e.g., flagship stores,arried)

WspeciThethat cin turpercevatioeachcial idiscu

Rrelate(DawMiyaMonvariothat nthe roas a b

Saretailing thpositinteretionathe ning wwithialty: an overview

Overall organizing framework

ve the articles and commentaries that make up thise shed some light on the above-mentioned issues.

work in Fig. 1 provides an organizing structureers how store image impacts perceived value, andences customer loyalty. Moderating variables foralue and customer loyalty are technological inno-multi-channel retailing. The sub-components of

se constructs, and how the research in this spe-f Journal of Retailing relates to them, are brieflyn the following sections.

ole of store image and retail brands

h has provided evidence that brand and brand-ormation cues influence customer evaluationsParker 1994; Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal 1991;Grewal, & Goodstein, forthcoming; Rao &

89). We believe that research should focus on theponents of retail branding. Three critical facetsbe examined include, the role of national brands,rivate labels and the role that the store itself plays

(Fig. 1).and Raju (2004) examine the question of whetherould have more than one store brand by examin-tive size of the national brands and their specific, both analytically and empirically. They provideinsights into the complex interplay between na-

store brands. Specifically, the relative strength ofl brands seems to be the key factor in determin-r a store should have one or two store brandstegory. When there are similar strength national

Windows7Highlight

Windows7Highlight

Windows7Highlight

x Editorial / Journal of Retailing 80 (2004) ixxii

loyalty.

Sprott astore sampstore brandcan be a cstore brandquality.

Customprovided bycognitivelyvalue perce& Krishnanside of thequality as wof the valuepurchase a

Gomez,of quality, sstore perfo250 storeson satisfacinstance, thstantially idecreases,enues decland loss avceived valuwhile a decon satisfacthigh levelsmuch imprin custometomer satis

tion inues droulde takiissue

e nexnal van creaustomto achs & St perc

will ceview

mprovFig. 1. Store image-value-

nd Shimp (2004) shed light into the use of in-ling as a tactic to gain greater acceptance ofs. Their results suggest that in-store samplingost effective tactic for improving the sales ofs contingent on these products having acceptable

Perceived value

ers use various types and sources of informationretailers to form their assessments of value. Theytradeoff benefits against costs to determine theirptions (e.g., Dodds et al. 1991; Grewal, Monroe,1998). Some of the components of the benefits

value equation include merchandise selection andell as store and service quality. On the cost sideequation is the time and effort it takes to make a

nd, of course, the price (Fig. 1).

isfacreven

ers shbeforthese

Thpersorole iing cway(Jonedo notheytentlyand iMcLaughlin, and Wittink (2004) focus on the roleervice and value on satisfaction and ultimately onrmance in a supermarket chain. Using data fromthey found that the impact that these factors havetion and retail performance are asymmetric. Forey found that increases in quality may not sub-

mprove customer satisfaction; whereas if qualitycustomer satisfaction and subsequently store rev-ine significantly suggesting both a ceiling effectersion. On the other hand, if stores increase per-e, it will have a significant increase on satisfaction;rease in value has only a modest negative effection. They also found that stores that already haveof customer satisfaction will not experience as

ovement in sales revenues with further increasesr satisfaction as stores with lower levels of cus-faction. However, if there is any reduction in sat-

Lehmann 1performancloyalty and& Larckercustomers(Zeithaml,

While fitionship wisatisfied culationshipstative reseavalue equadecisions nthey are satcustomersis takes toceived benthe higher level customer satisfaction stores, thenop significantly. This research suggests that retail-assess their current quality and satisfaction levelsng action that could alter customer perceptions ofs.

Loyalty

t phase of the framework in Fig. 1 links perceivedlue to customer loyalty. Value plays an importantting customer satisfaction and loyalty: . . . provid-ers with outstanding value may be the only reliableieve sustained customer satisfaction and loyaltyasser 1995, p. 90). On the other side, if customerseive retailers to be providing a good value, thenrtainly shop elsewhere. Past research has consis-

ed customer satisfaction as being central to loyaltyed financial performance (Anderson, Fornell, &

994; Ittner & Larcker 1998). The better financiale may be a function of both the direct effects ofease in being able to cross-sell and upgrade (Ittner1998), and indirect effects associated with newbeing generated through positive word-of-mouthRust, & Lemon 2001).rms may want customers to have a strong rela-th them, Noble and Phillips (2004) focus on whystomers may not want to develop or maintain re-with retailers and service providers. Their quali-rch suggests that the negative components of thetion in Fig. 1 play a significant role in customerot to foster relationships with retailers, even whenisfied. They find, for instance, that some satisfieddont want to maintain a relationship because ito much time and effort. Others believe the per-efits of the relationship are either disingenuous,

Editorial / Journal of Retailing 80 (2004) ixxii xi

unenticing, or just difficult to determine. Still others dontwant a personal relationship because they believe it is an in-vasion of their privacy.

Kumarprovide agrams. Thebeyond jusing future-value.

R

The finathe growinis playingTechnologicess througating and dcustomersInternet weder status,the store. Wavail themscheckout.

Wallacemulti-chanusing multmore combactually de

Future r

While wunderstandas always,support sev

Saymanpact of storto take a stquestions aour knowleissues, tranbrand concstrategy or

From atravel? Whful than othit a merchabrand succ

Anotherare impacteis there anif a retailerare similar

but is less expensive? How do premium private labels reallystack up to national brands?

Another high priority area involves customer manage-. Custot neweratedloyal

es, whent?ore bre devea fruple c

ariabis anof courhly likcouldirectisearch

adi, K.,l insighson, F.,tion, ml of Mar, N., &brandnals of, W. B

and, anMarketz, M. Itisfactiournal ol, D., Mmparisod transaC. D.,icatorsn. JourT. O.,rvard B

r, V., &er loy

aki, Ane effecconsist

, S. M.nsumer

.

. R., &re namiew. Jon, S. S

numbpirical

, D. E.,perceiand Shah (2004) in their invited commentaryprovocative two-tiered system of loyalty pro-y focus on the need for loyalty programs to got rewarding usage to rewarding customers us-oriented measures such as estimated life-time

ole of technology and multi-channels

l feature of the framework in Fig. 1 representsg role that technology and multi-channel retailingin shaping perceived value and customer loyalty.cal innovations are continually changing the pro-h which retailers and service providers are cre-elivering value to their customers. For instance,

can use in-store kiosks connected to the retailersbsite to get product information, check on or-or purchase merchandise that isnt available in

hen they are finished shopping, they can alsoelves of the convenience and extra speed of self-

, Gies, and Johnson (2004) focus on the role ofnels in enhancing loyalty. They find that customersiple channels typically expect better quality andinations of services. This raised expectation cancrease satisfaction.

esearch on retail branding and store loyalty

e believe this issue significantly contributes to ouring of retail branding and store loyalty, there is,much more to learn. Ailawadi and Keller (2004)eral useful directions for research.and Raju (2004) examined one aspect of the im-

e brands on national brands. It would be interestingep back from their study and examine more basicbout retail branding such as, to what extend doesdge on branding in general, such as brand equityslate to retail private brands and the store as aept? How should retailers decide which brandingcombination of branding strategies to use?global perspective, how well do retail brands

at makes some global retail brands more success-ers? Is it just the business model (Wal-Mart), isndising issue (IKEA), or is there some intrinsic

ess factor?key issue is how perceived value and store imaged by different branding strategies? For instance,

adverse affect on perceived value and store imagecarriers several copycat brands, i.e., brands thatto national brands in appearance and packaging,

mentare n

accellatedvenu

ronm

Mas thvidesto simmix vtime

Ois highereeral dfor re

Ailawtua

Anderfacna

Dawaofsig

Doddsbrof

Gomesa

JoGrewa

co

an

Ittner,indtio

Jones,Ha

Kumatom

MiyazThof

Nobleco

80Rao, A

storev

Saymatheem

Sprotttheomer relationship management programs (CRM)in retailing, but their level of sophistication has

in recent years. Although these programs and re-ty issues have been extensively studied in otherat, if anything, is different about the retail envi-

oadly, examining how store image evolves as welllopment of store brands and brand equity pro-

itful area of research, although one not amenableross-sectional databases. The relative impact of

les on this evolution and how that may shift over-ther high priority topic area.se, this list could be very long. Put differently, itely that research outside the directions suggested

make a major contribution. Nonetheless, the gen-ons suggested here provide a nice starting point

in this area.

References

& Keller, K. (2004). Understanding retail branding: Concep-ts and research priorities. Journal of Retailing, 80(Winter).Fornell, W. G., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satis-arket share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Jour-rketing Research, (July), 5366.

Parker, P. (1994). Marketing universals: Consumers usename, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation asproduct quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, 8195.

., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price,d store information on buyers product evaluations. Journaling Research, 28, 307319.., McLaughlin, E. W., & Wittink, D. R. (2004). Customern and retail sales performance: An empirical investigation.f Retailing, 80.

onroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of pricen advertising on buyers perceptions of acquisition valuection value. Journal of Marketing, 62, 4659.& Larcker, D. F. (1998). Are nonfinancial measures leadingof financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfac-nal of Accounting Research, 35(Supplement), 135.& Sasser, E. E., Jr. (1995). Why satisfied customers defect.usiness Review, (November/December), 8899.Shah, D. (2004). Building and sustaining profitable cus-

alty for the 21st century. Journal of Retailing, 80.thony, Grewal, Dhruv, Goodstein, Ronnie. (forthcoming).

ts of multiple extrinsic cues on quality perceptions: A matterency. Journal of Consumer Research., & Phillips, J. (2004). Relationship hindrance: Why woulds not want a relationship with a retailer? Journal of Retailing,

Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, ande on buyers perceptions of product quality: An integrativeurnal of Marketing Research, 26, 351357.., & Raju, J. S. (2004). How category characteristics affecter of store brands offered by the retailer: A model andanalysis. Journal of Retailing, 80.& Shimp, T. A. (2004). Using product sampling to augmentved quality of store brands. Journal of Retailing, 80.

xii Editorial / Journal of Retailing 80 (2004) ixxii

Wallace, D., Giese, J. I., & Johnson, J. (2004). Customer retailer loyaltyin the context of multiple channel strategies. Journal of Retailing, 80.

Zeithaml, V., Rust, R. T., & Lemon, K. N. (2001). The customer pyramid:Creating and serving profitable customers. California ManagementReview, 43(4), 118142.

Dhruv GrewalCommerce and Electronic Business

Michael LevyBabson College, Babson Park, MA 02457, USA

Donald R. LehmannColumbia University, 507 Uris, Columbia, USA

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 212 854 3465E-mail address: drl2@columbia.edu (D.R. Lehmann)