Brand Relationships and Switching Behaviour for ... - SAGE Journals

RESEARCH includes research articles that focus on the analysis and resolution of managerial and academic issues based on analytical and empirical or case research

Brand Relationships and Switching Behaviour for Highly Used Products in Young Consumers Arvind Sahay and Nivedita Sharma

Executive Summary

Consumer-brand relationships is an evolving area of study. The purpose of this study is to: • establish that brand relationships postulated in the literature exist along all dimensions for young consumers in the emerging market context • investigate the influence of peers, family, and brand relationships on switching intentions amongst young consumers • examine the impact of price changes on switching intentions in the context of brand relationships. This is an empirical study focusing on the brand relationships amongst young consumers in the age range of 13 to 25 years in an emerging economy. Data were collected from 214 respondents from the SEC A and B categories in a city in Western India through a questionnaire administered in the presence of the researchers. The results indicate that: • young consumers do form relationships with brand(s) on all the six dimensions of consumer brand relationship that have been postulated in the literature • love and passion dimension of brand relationship is stronger amongst teenagers as compared to young adults.

KEY WORDS

The second part of the paper looks at the influence of the social groups like

Brand Relationships

family and peers on the switching behaviour in presence of brand relationship

Brand Consumption

dimensions where, we found that family has a relatively stronger influence than

Switching Intentions

peers. Finally, it looks at the effect of price comparison on brand relationship. It

Peer Influence Family Influence Price Comparison

is found that consumers do compare price irrespective of how strong the brand relationship is. This may be an artifact of the higher price consciousness in the Indian environment that is found amongst consumers across income groups. The future directions and limitations are discussed at the end.

VIKALPA • VOLUME 35 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2010

15

T

hat customers evaluate brands, develop images of brands, and have varying degrees of loyalty to brands is well established (e.g., Park, Jun and Shocker, 1996; Keller, 1993). Scholars are now examining the emotional dimensions of brand evaluation and consumption and its impact on loyalty (e.g., Westbrook and Oliver 1991; Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999; Albert, Merunka and Valette-Florence, 2008). Along these lines, in a seminal paper, Fournier (1998) proposed that customers not only have relationships with highly used brands but that there are different dimensions to this relationship. While studies validate the existence of some dimensions of brand relationships (e.g., Thomson, MacInnis and Park, 2005), there is no work that substantiates the existence of all these relationship dimensions amongst young consumers and the influence that these relationships have on brand repurchase or switching intentions. The world is witnessing a rise in the number of young consumers that, anecdotal evidence suggests, are increasingly brand conscious. ‘When I start earning, like when I become an airhostess, then I will go for brands. I won’t for a single day compromise on my brand for sure,” said a teenager (Rana, 2007). A study conducted by The Keller Fay Group reveals that members of generation Y have 145 conversations a week about brands, which is twice the rate of adults. In addition, 57 per cent of the teenagers cite marketing and media in their conversations as compared to 48 per cent adults (Hein, 2007). Teenagers’ share of expenditure in the Indian market is worth $2.8 billion (Rana, 2007); young consumers tend to be more involved with material possessions (Belk, 1988).

India alone is home to 1.136 billion people1 out of which an estimated 350 million are in the age bracket of 10-24 years. Their purchasing power has significantly increased, both, in terms of salary and pocket money. Salaries in India rose by 14.4 per cent in 2006 and by 15.1 per cent in 2007 as surveyed by Hewitt Associates. An ASSOCHAM survey revealed that the average monthly allowance of urban children in the age group of 10-17 years has gone up from Rs 300 in 1998 to Rs 1,300 in 2008. This segment is very attractive due to its size, increasing spending power, and large exposure to media. 1

Estimate for September 1, 2007 based on interpolating on estimates by the Census Bureau of India for March 1 of 2007 and 2008.

16

Among the existing studies, there is none in our knowledge that documents brand relationships of young consumers in an emerging economy. Finally, young consumers the world over are influenced by peers and family in their brand-related decisions (Singh, Kwon and Pereira, 2003). For marketers, it is important to understand the impact of these factors on brand relationships and brand switching intentions. The purpose of this study is to (a) establish that brand relationships exist along all dimensions for young consumers; (b) investigate the influence of peers, family, and brand relationships on switching intentions amongst young consumers; and (c) examine the impact of price changes on switching intentions in the context of brand relationships. In particular, we look at the relative influence of peer and family (Moschis, 1985) and of price changes on brand relationships and switching intentions. While brands play an important role in purchase behaviour (Park, Jun and Shocker, 1996) and brand switching has been a subject of investigation (Mazursky, LaBarbera and Aiello, 1987, Jones, Mothersbaugh and Beatty, 2000), a study in the context of young consumers, that looks at the nature of brand relationships, compares different segments, and investigates the relative influence of peer and family and the influence of price change, is presently lacking. This is an important lacuna because young consumers tend to behave differently from the older consumers. Older consumers are termed as laggards in adoption; they are negatively associated with the adoption of technology and are low users (Gilly and Zeithaml, 1985). A study conducted by Henley Centre and IMRB International shows that happy and confident Indian consumers enjoy spending on personal needs and entertainment in contrast with the traditional Indian mindset of cautious spending and guilt associated with spending.2

LITERATURE REVIEW Owning material possessions is a phenomenon that an individual gets involved with since childhood; this involvement tends to decrease with age but remains significant throughout one’s life as material possessions are used to express oneself and seek happiness, remember 2

Financial Express, 18 December 2005 [http://www.financialexpress. com/news/have-money-will-spend/155335/0]

BRAND RELATIONSHIPS AND SWITCHING BEHAVIOUR FOR HIGHLY USED PRODUCTS IN YOUNG CONSUMERS

experiences, accomplishments, connect to people, and even to create a sense of immortality after death (Belk, 1988). Fournier (1998) suggests that consumers form relationships with highly used brands and that the relationships remain strong and durable over time through positive feelings such as: affective and socio-emotive attachments (love/passion and self connection), behavioural ties (interdependence and commitment), and supportive cognitive beliefs (intimacy and brand partner quality). These positive feelings towards the brands that the consumers know and use have been defined as: • Love and passion: are the affect-based feelings related to brand indicating warmth, affection and passion, possessiveness towards the brand, feeling of uniqueness, and a biased positive feeling towards the brand. • Self-connection: is the extent to which the brand becomes the focus of the consumer’s life. The past, present, and the future (expected) selves ranging across the time horizon. It also comprises of the encouragement of the tolerance in face of the adverse circumstances. • Interdependence: is the day-to-day routine interaction with the brands and making consumption as an important ceremony to be celebrated. • Commitment: shows the longevity of the brand relationship and stability to be maintained by a consumer. • Intimacy: represents strong beliefs about the superior performance of the product. It includes the brand relationship memory of personal associations and experiences within which the brand plays an important role. • Brand partner quality: brand is taken as a reliable and trustworthy partner, giving one a sense of being respected and looked up to in the presence of the brand. However, operationalization of all these dimensions of brand relationships and how they influence brand switching have not been examined. For example, Albert, Merunka and Valette-Florence (2008) look at eleven dimensions of consumers’ love for a brand, not brand relationships. Bigne, Mattila and Andreu (2008) look at the influence of emotions on satisfaction and loyalty but do not look at brand relationship dimensions. Philips and Baumgartner (2002), on the other hand, look at how consumers’ emotions impact at every stage of satisfaction response when a consumer focuses on emotional outcomes of consumption. Westbrook and Oliver (1991) VIKALPA • VOLUME 35 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2010

examine the positive and negative emotions elicited during product usage or consumption experiences. While Thomson, MacInnis and Park (2005) develop a scale for consumer attachment that includes affection, passion, and connection, they do not examine the other dimensions nor do they examine the impact on brand switching. Many studies find that consumers switch brand either due to the extrinsic motives (price, coupons) or intrinsic motives (desire to try out a new brand) (Mazursky, LaBarbera and Aiello, 1987). Extrinsic motives to switch are more prevalent amongst the experienced consumers as compared to the consumers with limited purchase experience (Mazursky, LaBarbera and Aiello, 1987). Even with the level of satisfaction, the consumers may change their repurchase decision in the presence of the high switching barriers like interpersonal relationships, switching cost, and competitor’s attractiveness (Jones, Mothers-baugh and Beatty, 2000). There is also research that shows that young consumers may change their loyalties towards a particular brand depending on the situation and the role they play. When they are independent, they also like to experiment with new brands whereas more serious and responsible roles may make them switch over to the brand used by their parents (Bravo, Fraj and Martinez, 2007). However, brand relationships and their impact on brand switching intentions have not been examined in this stream of literature. Teenagers tend to get influenced by the reference groups for a large number of product classes as compared to others, say housewives (Park and Lessig, 1977); their role models hold a strong position in influencing the teenagers’ behaviour, but several studies have also shown that the parents still play the dominant role in influencing the teenagers’ lifestyles and consumption patterns (Martin and Bush, 2000). It is observed that youngsters adopt rational consumption skills from their parents; this influence varies across the situations, product categories, and the stages in consumer decision-making process (Moschis, 1985). A study done on the university students revealed that family influence starts decreasing with the amount of time the youngster is out of home, and that influential position is transferred to the peers (Feltham, 1998). One of the findings suggests that peer influence operates most strongly in situations with weak family communication; socially-oriented family communication patterns, and unstable family environment (Roedder,

17

1999). Peers influence the socialization process and contribute to the social pressure to conform to the group expectations relating to brand involvement (Lachance, Beaudoin and Robitaille, 2003). Drawing from this research, we incorporate the influence of peers and family in the context of brand relationship formation and brand switching intentions.

Young Consumer Segments Until 12 years of age, the influence of parents over their children’s consumption is very high; they are in their growing-up phase and can only request parents for the products they want (Isler, Popper and Ward, 1987). Thereafter they go out for assisted purchase with parents. After this age comes a stressful period when a child moves on to the stage of adolescence and experiences rapid changes in terms of growth, relocation, and selfdiscovery (Newcomb, Huba and Bentler, 1981). However, parents continue to exert significant influence on the purchase behaviour of teenagers (Martin and Bush, 2000). Roedder (1981) finds that adolescents who are 12 years and above are strategic processors as they use a variety of strategies for studying and retrieving information such as verbal labeling, rehearsal, and use of retrieval cues to guide memory search. It is at this stage that teenagers develop cognitive and social dimensions like the knowledge about the marketplace, concepts, and brand-related ideas (Roedder, 1999). The influence of parents progressively decreases over the teen years; teenagers start associating themselves more with their peers than with the family; they consume certain objects to affiliate themselves to a particular social group (Auty and Elliot, 2001). They use material possessions as a way of establishing their identity and gaining prestige (Belk, 1988). However, once teenagers cross this age group, they get into the segment of young adults (20-25 years of age) who frame their own lifestyle and concepts to follow. It is at this stage that these consumers start setting up their own household. Young adults are likely to have greater financial independence and are known to gain competence in buying complex consumer products (Gronhoj, 2007). Based on the above, for this study, we identify two age groups for young consumers: (a) 13-19 years (G1) and (b) 20-25 years (G2).

HYPOTHESES Brand Relationships While brands carry a personal meaning to the consumers across age groups, there are different identity issues that are salient across age segments, and in fact different patterns of consumer-brand relationships can be identified across age groups. At every stage, a consumer is playing a different role and brands help her to portray the self-image as she wants. Consumers use brands to describe their self-concept as well as to communicate their identity (Fournier, 1998). Their relationship with a particular brand is also based upon their learning. They purchase products that convey meaning as opposed to just the product utility. This is quite different from the earlier times in India, before the “liberalization” of the economy starting from 1991, when products were bought and consumed from a utilitarian standpoint only; this would be especially applicable to the SEC A and B categories of young consumers who are now in the “market economy.” Anecdotal evidence suggests that young consumers are very brand-conscious. Indians are no longer in the mindset of collectivism, cautious spending, and guilt associated with spending.3 Therefore: H1 (a): G1 and G2 develop relationships with the brand on different brand dimensions. Chaplin and Roedder (2005) find that there is a difference across age groups in terms of level of involvement and attachment with the brands. Though both the groups, G1 and G2, face life change situations, adolescence is a time when a person begins to move away from parental influence; in young adults, this gets further strengthened. Adolescence is the phase in which children go through stressful life events in terms of physical, social, and psychological transitions. Moving out of parental influence may lead to the requirement of emotional anchors and brands could be a route to this, making them more open to new relationships (Ji, 2008; Montgomery, 2005) and, therefore, also to components of brand relationships. Thus, the younger age group is likely to be more emotionally involved with the brand. This does not imply that the older age group does not have any relationship with the brand; however, they are likely to become more rational in their approach towards 3

18

Financial Express, 18 December 2005 [http://www.financialexpress. com/news/have-money-will-spend/155335/0]


the relationship, the functional or utilitarian aspect of the brand thus becoming relatively more important for them. Similarly, Achenreiner and Roedder (2003) observe that the children across diverse age groups relate differently to the meaning of a brand name. The cognitive and social learning for the latter group (G2) evolve over time and they tend to be more practical in their approach as compared to the younger group; they have households to run, purchases to make independently and so on. As adolescents grow older they look for greater number of information sources for making a rational decision (Moschis and Moore, 1979). Overall, the younger group comprising the teenagers is likely to have a higher level of relationship with the brands as compared to the older group. This can be summarized as: H1 (b): As compared to G2, G1 will have stronger brand relationships.

Brand Consumption Materialism has been greatly increasing amongst young consumers as a way of establishing identity and gaining prestige (Belk, 1988). Apart from seeing brands as their own extended selves, consumers also consume certain objects to express their affiliation to a particular social group (Auty and Elliot 2001). For the development of their self-identity, adolescents identify themselves with the group they belong to (Young, 2004). As teenagers become young adults, the need to identify with a group may decline as they move on by breaking any dependence relation that joins them to others (Van de Velde, 2005). Brand relationships are shaped at both the stages of life, as an adolescent and as a young adult, but the degree of relationship involvement may differ from one group to another group. Therefore, we suggest that: H2 (a): As compared to G2, G1 will show a greater importance to brand consumption to express their affiliation to a particular social group. Self-justification of a purchase decision is a long-standing finding amongst consumers (Marking, 1979). In addition, peer group associations have been found to be strong amongst young consumers. Regardless of whether a consumer is in the younger (13-19) or the older (20-25) age group, when consumers purchase a brand, VIKALPA • VOLUME 35 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2010

they associate positive feelings towards the purchase as directly proportional to their affiliation to a particular social group (Auty and Elliot, 2001). More specifically, we have considered peers as the social group with which the positive feelings are associated after purchasing the brand. After purchasing a brand, a consumer may have either positive or negative feeling towards the purchase. Positive feelings will further positively influence the affiliation to the social group. H2 (b) (i): Positive feelings on purchasing a brand will positively influence consumptionrelated affiliation to a particular social group. The amount of time adolescents spend with their peers as compared to their family increases with the greater number of interactions in the school, coaching, play grounds, etc. It is said that if the interactions with the peers regarding brand consumption increase, the influence of peers on brand evaluation will also increase (Moschis and Moore, 1979). This positive affiliation would, therefore, be stronger for G1 as they are more inclined towards group affiliation as compared to G2. So, the intensity would be higher for the younger age group as compared to the older age group. We, therefore, suggest that: H2 (b) (ii): Consumption-related affiliation influence will be stronger for G1 as compared to G2.

Peer Influence and Brand Switching Intention In case the consumer is not sure about the purchase of a particular brand, the probability of peer influence impacting the decision whether to continue with the brand or to change it would increase (Feltham, 1998). Consumer confidence in evaluating and making the right choice about the brand decides whether he or she would be affected by the peer group or not. As children transition into adolescents and young adults, the plethora of physical, physiological, and emotional changes are known to affect their confidence levels (Arnett, 2000). Simultaneously, there is an increase in the desire to move away from parental influence. Young people are known to talk the most with their peer group. If a brand is highly recommended by, or acceptable to, peers, brand switching by the consumers should be lower. Switching might result in losing affiliation from that peer group, which

19

is in general unacceptable in this age group (Gounaris and Stathakopoulos, 2004). Therefore, H3 (a): The greater the desire to belong to a peer group, the lower the brand switching intention. It should be noted that price has always been considered as an important attribute while making a purchase. In a study on the teenager’s purchase intentions and behaviour, Martin and Bush (2000) found that adolescents appear to place greater importance on finding cheaper products than heeding the advice of role models to remain loyal to higher priced brands or stores. Thomson, MacInnis and Park (2005), on the other hand, suggest that consumers’ emotional attachments to a brand might predict their commitment to the brand (e.g., brand loyalty) and their willingness to make financial sacrifices in order to obtain it (e.g., to pay a price premium). Thus, price has a significant role to play while making a decision about a brand. Here, the influence of peers on brand switching intentions would be affected by the magnitude of any price change that takes place. Hence, we suggest that: H3 (b): The magnitude of price change will influence the relationship between peer influence and brand switching intention.

Peer/Family Influence and Brand Switching Intention The literature suggests that two important factors that can lead to brand switching are social networks (Martin and Bush 2000) and financial resources (Bijapurkar, 2008). The social networks that one develops, comprises of family and peers. Research has shown that younger consumers’ attitude towards purchase and their consumption pattern is often influenced by family communication (Moschis, 1985). Whether young consumers are at home or away, the family always provides suggestions regarding brands (Bravo, Fraj and Martinez, 2007). However, this influence may vary by age and the status of the young consumer with regard to his/her independence or dependence on the family. Anecdotal evidence suggests that teenagers are more influenced by the peer group than by family in purchase decisions as they are in touch with them for long hours; teenagers feel insecure about their tran-

20

sition from childhood to adolescence and from there on to adulthood. In such a scenario, they start looking up to their friends and start behaving in the same manner. Park and Lessig (1977) find that students are influenced by their reference groups. Sometimes the influence of family is so high that certain brands become a part of the consumer recall as the only brand existing in the market due to high visibility and exposure to that brand at home (Bravo, Fraj and Martinez, 2007). Family also influences young adults’ perception regarding the quality of the product based upon their experiences, as they learn to evaluate the quality of the products. It is interesting to note that young consumers first start buying the brand that is used at home, but they might later on try other brands also and usage would then depend upon their experience with that brand. It is to be noted that the usage of the parental brand is also affected by the amount of time that the young adults spend outside their homes (Feltham, 1998). The thesis is that parental influence starts declining and the peer influence takes the front stage as a young consumer proceeds from G1 to G2. Such influence, therefore, should extend to the decision relating to brand switching. The preceding arguments suggest that: H4: Peer group has a higher influence on brand switching intention than family.

Brand Relationship and Peer Influence While a relationship is rooted from within the individual (Fournier, 1998), it may also be possible to develop an affinity for a brand and a relationship with a brand due to peer influence. Peers influence the purchase decision but the relationship building with a brand is also dependent upon the user and on the usage of the brand. As young consumers move to establishing independent identities, they depend on peers to obtain ideas, information, and viewpoints. Peers influence the boundaries of information search and acquisition and, on many occasions, the use of a brand (Singh, Kwon and Periera, 2003). Simultaneously, brands also provide inputs and consumers form relationships with brands along different dimensions (Escalas, 2004). To the extent that peer influence results in brand choice, it will influence the relationship with the brand. The role that peers play is nonetheless important but as far as getting involved with a brand is concerned, it is very individual-specific; what


they do with the brands to add meaning to their life cannot be derived from what peers suggest. However, as young consumers move out of the orbit of parental influence, peer influence tends to rise (Feltham, 1998). An increase in peer influence should weaken brand relationships as the opinions of peers would take precedence over any brand relationships that the young consumer may be forming. We, therefore, propose that: H5 (a): The greater the peer influence on brand choice, the lower the depth of brand relationship. Consumer socialization process begins at home; young consumers see brands which are consumed in the family and are likely to give first preference to the use and purchase of those brands. Even though young consumers start consuming and developing relationships with the new brands they get exposed to, the impact of the brand exposure from their families is likely to be strong. In the Indian context, family has traditionally played a strong role in influencing choices of their progeny. Bravo, Fraj and Martinez (2007) argue that family always provides suggestions regarding brands for young consumers. Therefore, it would be reasonable to propose that: H5 (b): The greater the family influence on brand choice, the lower the depth of brand relationship. As mentioned earlier, price is an important criterion in the consumers’ decision-making process for switching brands. Tellis (1988), in a review of 367 price elasticities across 220 brands and markets, has showed that price elasticities are substantial. It is known that price sensitivity tends to be higher among budget-constrained consumers. In general, young consumers have a lower budget (Özgen and Boyoglu, 2005) and are therefore more likely to switch brands under the influence of price change. This could result from the experience that young consumers gain about the marketplace and rationalization of the purchase decision based on the information gathered from different sources apart from the family. Thus, it can be hypothesized that: H5 (c): The magnitude of price change will influence the relationship between family influence and brand switching intention.


Brand Relationships, Price Changes, and Switching Intentions Customers are known to develop varying degrees of brand loyalty (Keller, 1993); such loyalty can be driven by positive experiences. Strong brand relationships give stability over time (Fournier, 1998). The various dimensions of the brand relationship construct defines the longevity of the relationship; for instance, love and passion towards a brand signifies the affect associated with the brand attitude; self-connection captures the strength of the brand in terms of getting a central position in the consumer’s life; commitment towards a brand determines the length of the stability of the relationship with the brand. The greater the strength of each dimension of brand relationship, more likely would be the possibility that brand switching intention is lower. Johnson, Herrman and Huber (2006) find, in the context of the cellular phone market, that over time more affective attitudes toward the brand and the relationship with the company come to mediate the effects of value on purchase intentions. Thus, we suggest that: H6 (a): The greater the depth of brand relationship, the lower the brand switching intention. Customers who are brand loyal are known to be less price-sensitive (Jensen and Drozdenko, 2008; Krishnamurthy and Raj, 1991). By analogy, once a strong relationship develops with the brand, the role that other factors play should start diminishing. Similarly, comparisons on price should also start declining with the increase in the depth of the brand relationship. East et al (1995) show that brand loyal consumers tend to be less concerned about price. It would appear, therefore, that once a consumer involves in a relationship with the brand, it becomes a part of his or her social recognition as the “x-brand person”; under such circumstances, the consumer should stop considering price as an important determinant while purchasing the brand and there should be lower levels of price comparison. Therefore: H6 (b): The greater the depth in a dimension of brand relationship, the lower the levels of price comparison. The magnitude of price change is known to influence consumers’ actions (Tellis, 1988). Despite the strong brand relationship, a consumer may intend to switch

21

brand if the price changes beyond the accepted range that he/she is comfortable with (Monroe, 1971). As young consumers do not have a strong financial backup, they tend to switch over to the less priced brand. It seems reasonable to postulate therefore that the magnitude of price change will influence the relationship between brand relationship and switching intentions.

Figure 1: Hypotheses at a Glance

H6 (C): The magnitude of price change will act as moderator on the influence of brand relationships on brand switching intentions.

Price Change G1 and G2 can be expected to differ considerably on the dimension of financial means. People in G1 may be getting allowance from parents or they can demand what they want from them or they may be even doing a parttime job with little responsibility for running a household. A study done by MTV in India states that 54 per cent of the youngsters are earning money while they are studying (Lakshman, 2004). However, those in G2 are under more economic pressure as they are now on their own and have to purchase products like house, car, household staples, insurance, etc. It is interesting to note that young adults claimed to use a “best-buy” strategy in connection with all product categories (Gronhoj, 2007). This shows that inspite of being brand conscious, they are also likely to be price-conscious because of the economic pressure they have at this stage of life. H7 (a): Other things being equal, compared to G1, G2 will show a greater impact of price change on brand switching intention. Demographics do have an important role to play as far as price sensitivity is concerned — age, income, occupation, and education decide how much a consumer would switch due to price change. Considering the above-mentioned contention, consumers in group G2 are more likely to switch brands if price of their brands increases or decreases at similar price levels. Amongst young consumers, budget constraint may be more of an issue for G1 rather than for G2. A corollary to the above, therefore, is that: H7 (b): Other things being equal, compared to G1, G2 is more likely to switch brands for a similar price change. The hypotheses are summarized in Figure 1.

22

BC – Brand Consumption, BR –Brand Relationship, BSI –Brand Switching Intention, FI –Family Influence, G1 –Group1, G2 –Group2, PC – Price Comparison, PF – Positive Feelings, PI – Peer Influence, DPG – Desire to belong to peer group

METHODOLOGY, DATA, AND ANALYSIS Methodology A structured questionnaire was administered across the two age groups: (a) 13-19 (G1) and (b) 20-25 (G2) in Ahmedabad, a city in Western India. A student sample from SEC A and B was obtained as these groups are more familiar with the brands and also use them more. A field experiment approach was used to compare the reaction to price changes in each of the age groups G1 and G2. We used a control group and a treatment group for each age group. Independent Variables • Age group: Two groups — (a) 13-19 (G1) and (b) 2025 (G2) • Influence of peer group: The role that the peer group has on the purchase and switching decision of the young consumer • Influence of family: The role that family plays on the purchase and switching decision of the young consumer • Price change: The level of price change • Brand relationship strength • Strength of consumption related affiliation to social group.


Dependent Variables • Switching intention • Positive feelings related to brand consumption Product Class The product class chosen for the study is consumer electronics. Young consumers are known as frequent buyers and users of consumer electronic items such as mobile phones, music systems, i-pods, etc. A study conducted on four segments of consumers by KSA Technopak, revealed that the highest expenditure made on the electronics is by the following two segments, namely, the technologies’ babies (8-19 years) and the impatient aspirers (20 -25 years). A survey by Disney reveals that young consumers exercise their influence: 44 per cent in the case of computers, 42 per cent for television sets, 43 per cent for music systems, and 33 per cent and 34 per cent for cars and mobile phones, respectively. In addition, young consumers influence the decision-making of their friends. Friends are likely to be seen as more knowledgeable than family regarding electronics (Gronhoj, 2007). A remarkable growth is seen in India’s electronics market with a CAGR of 25 per cent; sales is expected to reach US$ 70 billion by 2010 and further to US $ 158 billion by 20154 . Brand relationship formation is related to use (Fournier, 1998). Respondents were asked to list a few brands of consumer electronic items that they were familiar with and used and were then asked to choose the most used brand and product. They then answered questions, with respect to the most used brand. It took the respondents an average of 20 minutes to complete the questions. In all instances, the researchers were personally present on site.

Data and Analysis A structured questionnaire comprising questions mostly on a seven-point likert scale (1=strongly agree and 7=strongly disagree), was used. The questionnaire was pre-tested on the above-mentioned age group and the final questionnaire was rolled out after the rectifications based on the pre-test. The data was collected from the middle school, high school, and the under-graduate students for G1 and from the post-graduate students for

4

http://www.ibef.org/artdisplay.aspx?cat_id=468&art_id=19638


G2. There were in all 226 responses out of which 12 questionnaires were removed due to incomplete or contaminated responses. For the purpose of the study, the data comprised of 134 responses from G1 and 80 responses from G2. It was found that mobile phone was the most used consumer electronic product category and that Nokia was the most preferred mobile phone brand amongst the two groups. Amongst digital cameras, both groups mentioned Sony as the most used brand. A high usage of HP and Compaq laptops was seen in G2. Within G1, 52 per cent of the respondents used the specified electronic item for a period of 1 to 3 years; for similar years of ownership, G2 had 54 per cent respondents. The amount of money spent by the two groups ranged between Rs. 3,000 and Rs 12,000 — by 45 per cent respondents in G1 and 41 per cent respondents in G2. To test the hypotheses, t-tests, regressions, and moderated regressions were conducted by employing SPSS 10 package. A reliability test was done for each reflective scale to check consistency and correspondence with what is being measured. Only those items were then considered for the analysis on removing which, Cronbach’s alpha dropped; all scales had an alpha value greater than 0.6 (most greater than 0.7), except one as given in Table 1. Scale reliabilities confirm the robustness of the brand relationship dimensions (see Table 1). Table 1: Scale Reliabilities Item

Cronbach’s Alpha

Brand Relationship Dimension LP

SC

ID

C

INT

BPQ

0.771 0.837 0.662 0.691 0.668 0.818 Family influence

0.710

Peer influence

0.523

Levels of price comparisons

0.730

Brand switching intention

0.630

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION On a 7-item likert scale (1=strongly agree), the average score for the brand relationship items comes out to be significantly less than the middle of the scale for the group as a whole. The average for love and passion is 3.9 followed by commitment (3.3), brand partner quality (2.9), self-connection (2.6), interdependence (2.7), and intimacy (2). These relationship dimensions are meas-

23

Table 2: H1 (a): Relationship of G1 & G2 with Brands Brand Relationship Dimensions

*LP

Average

SC

ID

C

INT

BPQ

3.9

2.6

2.7

3.3

2

2.9

t-value (one tailed)

49.531

58.095

45.542

50.838

52.529

55.723

Significance level

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

ured with respect to their present and the most used brand. The results across the six dimensions are significant (p