Explore the vast range of titles available.

•Contextual stability furthers repurchasing of the same brand on the next category purchase.•A larger number of subsequent trips to the same retailer increase the repurchasing odds for the same brand.•A larger number of subsequent trips on the same day of the week increase the repurchasing odds for the same brand.•Buying on or off promotion on both trips increases the repurchasing odds for the same brand.•A promotion on only one trip of a purchase pair decreases the repurchasing odds for the same brand. The most basic manifestation of brand loyalty is repurchasing – making the same choice on the next category occasion. This study tests to which extent the stability of contextual cues across purchase occasions affects repurchasing. We investigate these effects by analyzing a total of 1.6 million brand choice pairs (i.e., two consecutive choices) of 20,587 German and 23,036 British shoppers in three FMCG categories. We find that stable contextual cues (same retailer, basket size or weekday as on previous occasions) further repurchasing whereas unstable contextual cues (different retailer, basket size or weekday as on previous occasions, a promotion chosen on one of the occasions or a different assortment size) hinder repurchasing. Furthermore, our results stress the importance of inertia and the power of private labels to foster repurchasing. This study provides generalizable insights regarding trip-to-trip stability in shoppers’ choices, proposes a metric to benchmark brand performance across multiple retail outlets, and pinpoints opportunities for manufacturer-retailer cooperation in order to nurture repurchasing. [Display omitted]

This conceptual paper argues that the marketing discipline should move away from its rather restrictive focus on customers toward a view of marketing that acknowledges the interrelatedness of stakeholders. Building on multiplicity theory, this paper presents stakeholder marketing as a revised perspective on marketing that views stakeholder networks as continuous instead of discrete multiplicities. This revised perspective offers a better understanding of stakeholder networks where (1) value exchange has become complex rather than dyadic, (2) tension between stakeholder interests has become explicit rather than implicit, and (3) control over marketing activities has become dispersed rather than centralized. The paper conceptualizes capabilities required by firms for dealing with each of these three transitions: systems thinking, paradoxical thinking, and democratic thinking. The paper discusses implications for firm performance, marketing theory, empirical research, and marketing practice and argues that embracing stakeholder marketing helps to reclaim territory for marketing in academia and business.

PurposeSupporting distant teams is a frequent phenomenon. Through the lens of the social identity theory, this research aims to examine differences between local and distant fans regarding drivers of team identification.Design/methodology/approachA multigroup structural equation model was employed. The data were collected through an online survey with 1,285 sports fans.FindingsTeam distinctiveness constitutes an important aspect fueling identification for all fans, whereas congruence between own and team personality is important for local and displaced fans only. Team prestige does not impact identification for either group.Practical implicationsTo build up a base of highly identified supporters, clubs should emphasize those aspects of team brands that fans consider distinctive. When targeting local fans, clubs should also focus on communicating the brand's unique personality aspects.Originality/valueThis is the first study that assesses the potential differences behind fans' social identification with local and distant teams.

Purpose - This paper aims to study the consequences of listing national brands in discounters. Is the discount channel a promising outlet for manufacturer brands? Is it an effective means to attract new buyers? Which combination of brand and discount destination at which price is best suited for this strategic move?Design methodology approach - Based on a unique dataset (tracking grocery purchase behavior for a representative sample of German households) and employing both descriptive and multivariate statistical techniques, the authors examine the outcome for 134 national brands introduced in six discount chains in Germany between January 2003 and July 2004.Findings - Both the manufacturer and discounter are able to grow their total performance in excess of the market following the introduction for the majority of the brands. Hence, potential cannibalization is more than offset by incremental revenues. It is found that, on average, close to 80 per cent of national brands' sales at a discounter is from new brand buyers. Discounters typically benefit less, as only 29 percent of brand sales are from new category buyers at their store.Practical implications - Including manufacturer brands into a discount assortment will benefit both the manufacturers and the discounters. Examination of the substantial cross-brand differences reveals that manufacturers and discounters attract more new customers with brands for which market penetration is still modest. Also, discounters gain more from adding branded offerings in underperforming categories, and benefit from brands that enjoy higher customer loyalty. Finally, national-brand prices should be set carefully at discounters. It is advised to maintain their price premium even at a discounter.Originality value - Discounters are the fastest growing grocery format in Europe. Lately, many discounters add national brands to their private-label dominated assortment, a move widely discussed in media with substantial implications for grocery channel management. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of that trend.

Traditional literature shows that the more consumers connect strong, positive, and consensual associations with the brand, the stronger the brand image. A brand’s strength, defined in relation to consumer evaluation of the brand, impacts their choices and consequently influences the brand’s performance on the market. This study demonstrates that there is no such thing as a unique recipe for developing a strong brand. Different combinations of brand associations (number, favorability, uniqueness, and perceived consensus) can make a brand strong. These combinations vary between consumers and brands.

Purpose - What customers associate with a brand is the result of what they have felt, learnt, seen and heard about the brand. This knowledge impacts the attitudinal and behavioral brand response of customers (and vice versa). This paper aims to identify how customer segments of one brand characterized by different levels of behavioral and attitudinal response intensity differ in terms of content and structure of brand associations..Design methodology approach - The paper reports findings of two single-brand studies, each comparing brand associations of customer groups with different brand response intensity levels: one in a business-to-customer (B2C) setting where knowledge is determined via brand-to-association retrieval, one in a business-to-business (B2B) setting with benefit-to-brand retrieval.Findings - The findings show that consumer segments with differing behavioral and attitudinal brand response intensity show unique brand knowledge patterns. Consumers with high response intensity elicit more (favorable) brand associations, and elicit the brand more frequently when stimulated with the brand name. In addition, identical brand associations are rated differently favorable depending on the intensity of brand response.Practical implications - To learn about the strength of a brand, organizations may complement frequently used comparisons with competing brands by investigating what distinguishes brand knowledge of various customer segments that differ with respect to their relationship with the focal brand. This allows targeting various segments more specifically.Originality value - This paper adds to our understanding of brand strength by comparing multiple intra-brand segments and by understanding how their brand knowledge differs depending on their attitudinal and behavioral brand response. Such a perspective may provide more useful insights to fostering brand response than studying inter-brand differences.

Purpose What customers associate with a brand is the result of what they have felt, learnt, seen and heard about the brand. This knowledge impacts the attitudinal and behavioral brand response of customers and vice versa. This paper aims to identify how customer segments of one brand characterized by different levels of behavioral and attitudinal response intensity differ in terms of content and structure of brand associations.. Designmethodologyapproach The paper reports findings of two singlebrand studies, each comparing brand associations of customer groups with different brand response intensity levels one in a businesstocustomer B2C setting where knowledge is determined via brandtoassociation retrieval, one in a businesstobusiness B2B setting with benefittobrand retrieval. Findings The findings show that consumer segments with differing behavioral and attitudinal brand response intensity show unique brand knowledge patterns. Consumers with high response intensity elicit more favorable brand associations, and elicit the brand more frequently when stimulated with the brand name. In addition, identical brand associations are rated differently favorable depending on the intensity of brand response. Practical implications To learn about the strength of a brand, organizations may complement frequently used comparisons with competing brands by investigating what distinguishes brand knowledge of various customer segments that differ with respect to their relationship with the focal brand. This allows targeting various segments more specifically. Originalityvalue This paper adds to our understanding of brand strength by comparing multiple intrabrand segments and by understanding how their brand knowledge differs depending on their attitudinal and behavioral brand response. Such a perspective may provide more useful insights to fostering brand response than studying interbrand differences.

La littérature actuelle montre que plus les consommateurs associent à la marque de nombreuses associations fortes, positives et consensuelles plus la marque détient une image forte. La force d’une marque, définie comme la réponse évaluative des consommateurs vis-à-vis de la marque, influence les choix des consommateurs et donc la performance de la marque sur le marché. Utilisant une approche configurationnelle, cette recherche met à jour qu’il n’y a pas de recette unique permettant de développer une marque forte. Différentes combinaisons de caractéristiques d’associations de marque (nombre, favorabilité, unicité et consensus perçu) peuvent rendre une marque forte. Ces combinaisons varient entre les consommateurs et les marques. Traditional literature shows that the more consumers connecte with the brand many strong, positive and consensual associations the more the brand has a strong image. A brand’s strength, defined as consumers’ evaluative answer about the brand, impacts their choices and consequently influences the brand’s performance on the market. This research demonstrates that there is no such thing as a unique recipe for developing a strong brand. Different combinations of brand associations (number, favorability, uniqueness and perceived consensus) can make a brand strong. These combinations vary between consumers and brands.

La littérature actuelle montre que plus les consommateurs associent à la marque de nombreuses associations fortes, positives et consensuelles plus la marque détient une image forte. La force d’une marque, définie comme la réponse évaluative des consommateurs vis-à-vis de la marque, influence les choix des consommateurs et donc la performance de la marque sur le marché. Utilisant une approche configurationnelle, cette recherche met à jour qu’il n’y a pas de recette unique permettant de développer une marque forte. Différentes combinaisons de caractéristiques d’associations de marque (nombre, favorabilité, unicité et consensus perçu) peuvent rendre une marque forte. Ces combinaisons varient entre les consommateurs et les marques. Traditional literature shows that the more consumers connecte with the brand many strong, positive and consensual associations the more the brand has a strong image. A brand’s strength, defined as consumers’ evaluative answer about the brand, impacts their choices and consequently influences the brand’s performance on the market. This research demonstrates that there is no such thing as a unique recipe for developing a strong brand. Different combinations of brand associations (number, favorability, uniqueness and perceived consensus) can make a brand strong. These combinations vary between consumers and brands.