Impact of Brand On Consumer Decision Making: Case Study of Beer Brands in Nepal
Impact of Brand On Consumer Decision Making: Case Study of Beer Brands in Nepal
Impact of Brand On Consumer Decision Making: Case Study of Beer Brands in Nepal
net/publication/326200600
CITATIONS READS
2 3,291
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ousanee Sawagvudcharee on 05 July 2018.
his mind that shows that company or from memory and cued by the brand name
brand has more loyalty. Higher brand (Hansen and Christensen, 2003).
awareness tend to have more loyalty and A brand has a value; this depends
market image (Chi, 2009). Companies on the quality of its products in the market
use different factor to make an image in and the satisfaction or content of the
the mind of consumer that can be a name, customer in its products and services. This
symbol design or mixture of these three provides the trust of the customers in the
so that customer can identify specific brand. If customers trust a brand quality it
brand or product. To be in competition makes a positive connection to the brand
brand equity is an important tool to get and customers will have a reason to
attention of people that may lead buying become a loyal to the brand. Loyalty and
decision (Bansah, 2015). trust of the customers is very important for
Brands also have a symbolic value a company because it reduces the chance
which helps the people to choose the best of attack from competitors (Aaker, 1996).
product according to their need and The fast changing business
satisfaction. Usually people do not buy environment has provided many inputs (in
certain brands just for design and
terms of both the beer packaging and
requirement, but also in an attempt to emotional images built into them) that
enhance their self-esteem in the society influences buyers' behavior and keeps
(Leslie and Malcolm, 1992). Brand names consumer preferences in a constant state of
present many things about a product and flux. The information revolution and
give number of information about it to the intensifying competition places a large
customers and also tell the customer or amount of solicited information at the
potential buyer what the product means to consumer's disposal before buying a
them. Furthermore it represents the product. The informational inputs,
customers’ convenient summary like their advocating the merits of each branded
feelings, knowledge and experiences with goods influence the buyer’s decision to a
the brand. More over customer do not great extent. There are various other
spend much time to do find out about the factors that influence the consumer
product. When customer considers about behavior may also be the topics of interest
the purchase they evaluate the product from the marketer point of view.
immediately by reconstructed product
studies of Macdonald and Sharp, it has awareness; perceived brand quality; brand
been seen that consumers generally prefer associations in addition to perceived
brands with high recognition levels despite quality; and other proprietary brand assets
the price and quality differences. - e.g., patents, trademarks, and channel
relationship. Also, if they are managed
Aaker (1992) provided the most
well, these assets will add value to the
comprehensive brand equity model which
product and services and will create
consists of five different assets that are the
additional customer satisfaction, which in
source of the value creation. These assets
turn provides a number of benefits to the
include brand loyalty; brand name
firms (Aaker, 1991).
Conceptual Framework
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
Brand Awareness
Brand Loyalty
Consumer Purchase Decision
Perceived Quality
Brand Association
Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework for consumer purchase decision on beer brands.
Correlations
Perceived Brand Brand Brand Purchase
Quality Loyalty Awareness Associations decision
1
Perceived Quality
0.828** 1
Brand Loyalty
0.803** 0.753** 1
Brand Awareness
In the above table, we can see the summary of the model used. Here we can see the Adjusted
R Square being 0.380 which mean the independent variables just explain 38 percent of the Purchase
decision. Also, the standard Error of the estimate is 0.69766.
From the above table we can infer that the overall regression model was statistically
significant at F = 62.079. Since, the value of significance is less than 0.05, the four
independent variables or predictors when taken together can significantly predict the
Purchase decision or the dependent variable.
In the above table we can see the standard means higher the Brand Associations
error, beta coefficient, t value and lower will be the Purchase decision.
significance of all the independent
6. Summary and Conclusion
variables Perceived Quality, Brand
As mentioned in earlier sections
Loyalty, Brand Awareness and Brand
this research is conducted on the
Associations with respect to dependent
consumers decision making for beer
variable which is Purchase decision. The
brands in Nepal which took consumer
table indicates that higher the Perceived
purchase decision as a dependent variable
Quality higher will be the Purchase
with the sample size of 400 respondents
decision. It further shows that higher the
for the quantitative analysis. Thus, this
Brand Associations higher will be the
research is based on only quantitative data
Purchase decision. It further shows that
analysis.
higher the Brand Awareness higher will be
For the quantitative analysis, the
the Purchase decision. But Brand Loyalty
research has used descriptive statistics,
and Purchase decision has negative
ANOVA, regression and correlation
relationship and not significant which
analysis as the major analysis tool.
Similarly, for the qualitative analysis, the accompanied for relaxation whereas, the
research has used thematic analysis minority of the respondents were
method. The unit of analysis used was the accompanied for friends circle enjoyment.
gender of respondents, age, employment, In the study, it was found that most
income level, and education level. of the respondents were from 26yrs to 30
The main conclusion of this yrs. Old. This age group is young and
research are; brand awareness, perceived mature who wants to have fun in their
quality and brand association have a personal and professional Life. From total
positive impact on consumer decision respondents, 213 numbers of respondents
making whereas brand loyalty is not belongs to 26 yrs. to 30 yrs. old. And less
significantly related to consumer decision number of respondents from an age group
making. In the present research, in the from 41 yrs. to 45 yrs. i.e. only 3
context of beer brands in Nepal, brand respondents.
awareness, brand association, perceived In the study, it was found that most
quality is significantly contributing to the of the respondents were Bachelors i.e. 278
consumer decision making. Whereas, one number of respondents. And less number
variable namely brand loyalty is of respondents i.e. 16 respondents were
contributing insignificantly. This doing Higher Diploma. And 35
dimension i.e. brand loyalty towards respondents are doing Intermediate and 53
consumer decision making needs to be respondents were doing Masters. From this
given more attention by the beer figure we can say that bachelors do more
companies in Nepal to make positive and prefer and do interacts more in the beer
to contribute to the dimensions of available stores, clubs and restaurants.
consumer purchase decision. The The study also shows that the
insignificant contribution of the brand employment status of the beer consumers.
loyalty to the consumer purchase decision Most of the respondents i.e. 273
of beer brands in Nepal implies that beer respondents were employed. Out of 400
consumers are unable to become loyal and respondents, 23 were the least respondents
don’t purchase the same beer brands every who were self-employed. 74 respondents
time. were students and 30 were unemployed.
In the study, it was found that the So it represents that mostly the bachelors
majority of the respondents were
[3]. The Free Press. [12]. Perkins, H.W (2000) Social norms
[4]. Ahmad, Z., & Hashim, R. (2010). and the prevention of alcoholic misuse in
Customers Based Brand Equity and college context, Journal of studies in
Customer Loyalty: A Study on Hotel's
Conference Market (Vol. 12). alcohol. 14 (4) 6-12.
[13]. Quester, P.G. and Smart. J. (1998).
[5]. American Marketing Association.
(1999). Definition of Brand (AMA The influence of consumption situation
Dictionary). Available at:
and product involvement over consumers
https://heidicohen.com/30-branding-
definitions use of product attribute. Journal of
[6]. Assael, H. (1991). Consumer consumer marketing 15(30), 220-238.
Behavior and Marketing Action. [14]. Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of
[7]. Mitchell, I. S. and Tomo, A. (2005) innovation New – Jersey: Prentice Hall.
brand preference factors in patronage and [15]. Royo-vela, M(2005). Emotional
consumption of Nigeria beer. Columbia and informational content of commercials:
journal of world business 20(1), 55-62 Visual and Auditory circumplex spaces,
[8]. Modelson, A.L & Bolls, product information and their effects on
P.D.(2002). Emotional effects of adverting audience evaluation. Journal of cultural
on young adults of lower social economics issues and research in advertising 27(9),
status. Retrieved on 13-38.
www.allacademic.com [16]. Stanton, W. J (1981) fundamentals
[9]. Mordern, A.R. (1991). Elements of of marketing London: McGraw-Hill inc
marketing. London: D.P publication [17]. Schmalensee, R (1982). Product
limited differentiation advantages of pioneering
[10]. Orth, U.R., McDaniel, M.R., brands. American Economic Review 72(3),
Shellmmer, T., and Lopetcharat, K (2004). 349-365.
Promoting brand benefits: The role of [18]. Schmalensee, R. (1983).
consumers preferences, Journal of product Advertising and entering deterrence: An
and brand management 14(4) 4777-489. exploratory model Journal of political
[11]. Penchayat, D. (2001), Advertising economy 91(4), 636-653.
exposure, loyalty and brand purchase. A [19]. Schiffman, L.G and Kanuk, L.L
two stage model for choice Journal of (2009). Consumer behaviour. New Delhi:
marketing research 5(8), 134-144. Prentice hall of India.