Positioning of Spanish

Retailers.

Perception of high frequency

versus low frequency consumers.

El posicionamiento de los

distribuidores españoles.

Percepciones de los consumidores

de alta frecuencia versus

consumidores de baja frecuencia.

Carmen Abril

PhD, Associate Professor, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.

cabril@ccee.ucm.es

Diana Gavilan

PhD, Associate Professor, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.

diana@soleste.es

Maria Avello

PhD, Associate Professor, Computense University, Madrid, Spain.

mavello@emp.ucm.es

Dada la alta competitividad existente en la actualidad en los mercados de gran

consumo, la decisión de posicionamiento es una de las más importantes a las que

los detallistas se enfrentan a la hora de determinar su estrategia competitiva en

el mercado. Esta decisión es importante no sólo para los detallistas sino también

para los fabricantes, porque aunque la literatura del comportamiento del consu-

midor suele enfocar su análisis en la elección de marca, existe en la actualidad una

clara evidencia de que los consumidores deciden antes “dónde comprar” que “qué

marca” comprar.

El objetivo de esta investigación es profundizar en el posicionamiento de los deta-

llistas en España, analizando las distintas percepciones existentes en el consumi-

dor, distinguiendo entre consumidores de “alta frecuencia” o “habituales” y consu-

midores de “repertorio” o de ”baja frecuencia”.

Nuestros resultados muestran las dicultades que los hipermercados tienen para

transmitir un posicionamiento diferenciado y relevante al consumidor, y las dife-

rentes percepciones de los discounters según los distintos tipos de consumidores,

sugiriendo la necesidad de un reposicionamiento mas allá del puro precio. Por

otra parte, se observa el abrumador dominio de Mercadona que ha sido capaz de

posicionarse no sólo en precio sino en una oferta relevante de marca de distribui-

dor que la sitúa en altos niveles de satisfacción y percepción de servicio por parte

de los consumidores.

ABSTRACT

RESUMEN

JEL Classication:

M31

Key words:

store brands,

positioning,

retailer strategy,

consumer satisfaction,

price.

Clasicación JEL:

M31

Palabras clave:

marcas de distribuidor,

posicionamiento,

detallistas,

satisfacción,

precio.

In today’s highly competitive marketing environment, the positioning decision of

retailers is one of the most important element of marketing management. Re-

tailing positioning is an integrated management activity that takes in elements

of the retail mix and is of critical importance for retailers and for manufacturers.

Whereas consumer theory has traditionally place brand choice as the focus of the

analysis, there is evidence that consumers are turning to shopping strategies ra-

ther than brand decisions. The objective of this research is to better understand

the positioning of Spanish retailers analyzing the dierent perceptions between

high frequency and low frequency consumers. Our results show the diculties

hypermarkets are facing to deliver a distinctive consumer proposition and the di-

erent perceptions on discounters accordingly to dierent types of consumers

reecting the need to deliver further benets to consumers beyond pricing. On

the other hand the overwhelming superiority of Mercadona is shown through

their relevant price and store brands proposition leading consumer to perceive

high level of service and consumer satisfaction.

aDResearchESIC

Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2010

Introduction

In today’s highly competitive marketing environ-

ment, the positioning decision is one of the most

important element of marketing management

(Blankson et al., 2008) because of its impact on

the long-term success of companies in the mar-

ketplace. Scholars have investigated positioning

methods to guide the company’s choice of posi-

tioning strategies (Gursoy et al., 2005).

Thus, a key strategic decision of modern retail

management is to deﬁne the positioning strategy

of the retailer –ie. to deﬁne their consumer value

proposition. Positioning is the act of designing

an organization’s image to occupy a distinctive

place in the target market’s mind and it is based

on consumers’ perceptions (Brooksbank, 1994).

Its importance is given by the fact that without a

well-deﬁned positioning paradigm, it is hard for

a product or a company to serve its intended

purpose and survive in the competitive market-

place of today (Gursoy et al., 2005).

Retailing positioning is an integrated manage-

ment activity that takes in elements of the retail

mix such as merchandising, store format, as-

sortment, price strategy, promotional efforts

(Walters and Laffy, 1996) and others like service,

advertising or the innovation factor developed by

the retailer. These factors create a point of diffe-

rentiation from the competition, and help to en-

hance the retail store brand. Intensifying retail

competition and growing market saturation are

continuously forcing retailers to develop a better

understanding of positioning to generate diffe-

rentiation tools (Amirani and Gates, 1993; Choi

and Coughlan, 2006).

A retailer’s positioning is frequently inﬂuen-

ced by consumer trends, market performance

and competitor’s seeking opportunity for proﬁt

and growth (Corstjens and Doyle, 1989).

Whereas consumer theory has traditionally

place brand choice as the focus of the analysis,

there is evidence that consumers are turning to

shopping strategies rather than brand decisions.

Some studies indicate that decision about where

to shop precede brand choice (Millan and

Howard, 2007). There are several key factors

that can inﬂuence consumer choice and retailer

perception. Purchase experience, assortment,

price, promotion, advertising, store brand quali-

ty, service and innovation are key variables that

determine the image of retailers on consumers.

Concerning store brands, over the last few

years, private labels have steadily eroded the

market share traditionally held by national

brands (Nielsen, 2007; Juhl, 2006). In fact, in

2008, private labels increased their market share

to 25% and 50% in most European markets and

to 20% in the US (PLMA, 2009). One factor that

explains this situation is the improvement on the

consumer perception of store brands (Ipsos

Mori, 2006) leading to a change on consumer

behavior towards traditional manufacturer

brands (Burt, 2000).

Spain with 34% store brand share has one

of the highest shares worldwide (PLMA, 2009).

Growth of store brands in Spain is estimated at

115% between 2000 and 2007 (Euromoni-

tor 2008) which makes the subject even more

relevant.

As it is true for any brand, positioning a store

brand can exert an important inﬂuence on its

performance and affect retailers’ image and posi-

tioning (Sayman et al., 2002; Tarnowsky, 2007).

Then, we consider that improving our unders-

tanding on factors inﬂuencing retailers choice,

especially in the context of store brands, will be

of great relevance for the academic community

and for the industry.

Positioning of Spanish Retailers: Perception of high frequency versus low frequency consumers

We intend to examine through several statis-

tical procedures whether consumers perceive

differences in the positioning of different retai-

lers in Spain and whether this perception stems

from different consumer purchase behavior on

the stores. We are interested in answering the

following research questions:

1. Which is the consumer perception of retailer’s

positioning in Spain?

2. What are the critical factors that deﬁne retai-

lers competitive advantage in the perceptual

map?

3. Are there signiﬁcant differences on percep-

tion depending on the frequency of purchase

in the stores?

4. What are the implications for retailers strate-

gies?

Theoretical background

Positioning is based on consumer perceptions

(Brooksbank, 1994) and its importance is due to

the fact that is a driver of consumer choice (Knus-

ton, 2000) based in a value proposition different

from competitors (Herman and Huber, 2000).

As perception is based on image it is impor-

tant to identify which are the variables consu-

mers focus their interest on. Different authors

have deﬁned different perceptual typologies

concerning product and service attributes rele-

vant for consumers (Abril et al., 2009). Blankson

and Kalafatis (2001) propose eight generic di-

mensions suitable for both. Lovelock and Wright

(2001) specify some attributes for services. Under

retailer context Jim Yoo and Chang, (2005) iden-

tify two set of attributes: functionals –assortment,

place, value for pricing, promotion- and psycho-

logicals– represented by sensorial cues and ex-

perience.

In order to perform our study we will analyze

some key factors consumers consider when

choosing a retailer.

Turley and Chebat (2002) established theo-

retical links between retail management strategy

and the image evoked by a wide range of tangible

and intangible factors. Therefore measuring re-

tailer image components serves to evaluate the

success of the retail strategy and the retailer's bid

to satisfy the target market.

Marketers only have partial control of their

companies and products positioning in the mar-

ketplace (Dibb et al., 1997). Retailers have even

less control in the positioning of their companies

because of the nature of the service and the de-

pendence on the assortment of brand and pro-

ducts positioning. What retailers sell are not

only physical objects, but performances and ex-

periences. Experiences differ substantially from

service provider to service provider and from

customer to customer (Brakus et al., 2009).

Thus, related to the retailer decision on their

positioning strategy it is also the management

decision to adapt retailer business to a changing

retail environment, thus repositioning their retai-

ler brand accordingly.

Retail store image is considered one of the

most important determinants of success and

there have been numerous studies attempting to

deﬁne store image (Newman and Patel, 2004).

There is a multifaceted explanation(s) of image

made up of components or attributes, both phy-

sical and psychological, all of which depict the

store in the mind of customer. It is therefore im-

portant to understand how store image shapes

customer choice criteria.

Store image attributes can vary across the re-

tail sector (Birtwistle and Shearer, 2001). In the

context of this research, it is possible to assign

aDResearchESIC

Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2010

attributes that relate to stores in general, like pri-

ces, advertising and promotion, service, assort-

ment, or innovation (Yoo et al., 2000), all of them

highly indicative of retail management strategy.

For example, Newman and Pattel (1983) stres-

ses that the range of merchandise – assortment-,

promotions and the atmosphere of the stores are

the most important factors inﬂuencing consu-

mer choice. In fact, retailers deliver their offe-

rings through customer experience, thus inclu-

ding several different aspects that could

inﬂuence it. As said, the most common factors

studied in the literature are the quality of service,

product assortment, pricing policy, promotional

and advertising activity as well as store brand

quality. We will consider all of them through

validated items and scales that will reﬂect consu-

mer perceptions on key Spanish retailers.

Understanding how a retailer should be posi-

tioned in terms of brand assortment is of critical

importance as it is related to its image (Ailawadi

and Keller, 2004). Consumer’s perception of the

depth of a retailer’s assortment is an important

dimension of store image as well as key driver

of store choice. As the perceived assortment of

brands, ﬂavors and sizes increases, variety-see-

king consumers will perceive greater utility.

Related to the assortment is the retailer store

brand strategy. Store brands have been consi-

dered of special importance in recent years for

retailer´s strategy (Baltas, 1999). Reason for this

is that store brands are more proﬁtable for retai-

lers, enhance their negotiation power towards

manufacturers, and they contribute to differen-

tiate their offerings and build consumer store

loyalty. (Ailawadi et al., 2008; Alan et al., 1995).

The presence of store brands improve channel

efﬁciency (Chen et al., 2009) and the fact that

retailers control store brands positioning is one

of the key reasons that makes store brands so va-

luable to them (Morton and Zettelmeyer, 2004).

Since store brands inﬂuence the retailer’s

positioning and image, understanding how a re-

tailer should position itself in terms of brand

assortment is of critical importance (Ailawadi

and Keller, 2004).

Price levels and depth and frequency of pro-

motions are also of capital importance to retai-

ler perceived positioning as retailers image can

be inﬂuenced by attributes like average level

of prices and how much variation there is in

prices over time (Lattin and Bucklin, 1989).

Also other authors ﬁnd signiﬁcant impact of

promotions in retailer’s choice (Kumar and

Steenkamp, 2007).

Finally, purchase experience is becoming

a critical attribute which is also an important

marketing trend. We understand marketing expe-

rience as company sponsored activities and pro-

grams designed to create a special brand related

interactions (Brakus et al., 2009). Schmitt (1999),

developed the concept of Customer Experience

Management, which he deﬁnes as the process of

strategically managing a customer ‘s entire expe-

rience with a product or company.

Customer experience is thus critical for retai-

lers who are in an ideal position to create expe-

riences for their customers, as they are respon-

sible for the total purchase experience: from

location, store image, assortment, offerings, ad-

vertising, delivery, customer service and post

purchase experience.

Method

In order to accomplish our research objectives

we performed an empirical study based on a sur-

vey of 422 interviews. Household purchase res-

ponsibles were contacted face-to-face at the exit

Positioning of Spanish Retailers: Perception of high frequency versus low frequency consumers

of different supermarkets and hypermarkets. We

included enough sample size in order to be able

to measure perception and retailers image by

lead retailers, including international ones like

Carrefour, Dia, Auchan (Alcampo), Lidl, as well

as local ones like Mercadona and Eroski.

Personal interviews were selected as method

of survey in order to better handle the informa-

tion on brands to show consumers and explain

the rating method used with the likert scales.

Respondents were approached randomly at

the selected retailers. We divided consumers

accordingly to their purchase behavior by retai-

ler. We named one group high frequency consu-

mers of eac h speciﬁc retailer and the other group

low frequency consumers . In the high frequency

consumers we basically included consumers that

consider that store as their ﬁrst choice and their

most frequently retailer visited. In the second

group we included consumers that consider that

retailer as one in their repertoire and those that

declare to shop from time to time on it.

The six retailers we analyzed account for

more than 50% of Consumer Packaged Goods

market in Spain. Carrefour captured 13.9% of

all food retailers sales in 2007 and Mercadona

was a whisker behind on 13.8%. The top ﬁve

players together accounted for around 50% of

the sector, making Spain still one of the more

fragmented markets in Western Europe.

Local retailer – Grupo Eroski– along with

French operator, Auchan, represent the second

tier, well ahead in sales terms of German hard

discounter Lidl. But while Auchan has lost mar-

ket share, Lidl and Eroski (thanks largely to the

Caprabo acquisition) are making good inroads

(Euromonitor, 2008).

We gathered consumer information by retailer

related to perceptions of key factors as previously

deﬁned- price, store brand quality, service, assor-

tment, promotion, advertising and innovation

ratings; we also asked for consumers overall

satisfaction level.

Perceptions were measured through a 7-point

likert scale. Items are shown in Table 1.

Table 1- Items rated by household purchase

responsible

Items Scale

Satisfaction-Level of satisfaction 1-7

Price- Prices in this retailer are cheap 1-7

Assortment-In this retailer I always nd

the brands I look for

1-7

Store brands- This retailer has store brands with

good quality

1-7

Service-Overall this retailer has a good service 1-7

Promotion- This retailer has good promotions 1-7

Advertising-I like the advertising of this retailer 1-7

Innovation- It is an innovative retailer 1-7

We performed a Principal Component analy-

sis with varimax rotation for the total sample in

order to get the perceptual map (Hair et al.,

2006). After, in order to compare differences in

perception due to the frequency of purchases in

the stores, we built the perceptual map for high

frequency and low frequency consumers.

Results

First, we map retailers positioning according to

consumers ratings on key attributes as deﬁned in

Table 1. As consumers typically shop in more

than one retailer we have included all retailers

where consumers declare to shop. Results for

components are shown in table 2. We ﬁnd two

aDResearchESIC

Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2010

factors that explain 83% of the variance in the

sample.

We map the retailers perception accordingly

to these two factors as shown in table 3. First

factor is related to assortment, service innova-

tion and store brand quality. Second factor is

loaded by high prices, promotion and adverti-

sing. We interpret the factor 2 as high price, pro-

mo and advertising perception and the second

as representing store brands and service propo-

sition to consumers.

The second factor however clearly differen-

tiates Mercadona from Dia and Lidl showing

strong consumer perception related to satisfac-

tion and store brands. We can interpret that the

retailers, speciﬁcally, hypermarkets retailers like

Carrefour, Alcampo and Eroski appear not to

have a clear differential perception among them.

Carrefour stands out through promotion and

advertising, closer to assortement and services.

We can observe a non-clear proﬁle of Eroski and

Alcampo which show an undifferentiated posi-

tion. Thus, we can observe four types of retailer

offerings according to consumer perceptions:

Price (Lidl, Dia), Price and quality store brands,

satisfaction (Mercadona), Promotion (Carre-

four), non clear perception (Alcampo, Eroski).

(Graph 1)

We now analyze consumer perception split-

ting consumers according to their frequency of

purchasing on the stores ( Lf: low frequency, Hf:

High frequency). We analyze through ANOVA

the existence of signiﬁcant differences by items

shown in Table 4 .

We ﬁnd that the differences of perception

between these types of consumers are larger

among discounters than among hypermarkets.

These results suggest that the experience in dis-

counters signiﬁcantly contribute to positively

inﬂuence retailer image and perception, whereas

on hypermarkets consumer perceptions of the

retailer are closer to the one achieved through a

more frequent experience.

Table 2- Total Variance Explained by Components

Com. Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Total % of Variance Total % of Variance

1 5,645 70,573 70,573 3,856 48,207 48,207

2 1,059 13,236 83,809 2,848 35,602 83,809

Table 3- Rotated Component Matrix

Components

1 2

Satisfaction 0,964 0,104

Price -0,042 -0,961

Assortment 0,786 0,296

Store Brand 0,973 0,098

Service 0,828 0,213

Promotion 0,208 0,904

Advertising 0,215 0,926

Innovation 0,765 0,31

Extraction method: Principal Components.

Rotation: Varimax with Kaiser.

We plot retailers brand and attributes in the

perceptual map with the results shown in Gra-

ph1. Basically we can identify the price as one of

the key differentiator in perception dividing

retailers in two groups: Lidl, Dia and Mercadona

(considered the cheapest) and the rest of retailers

Carrefour, Alcampo, Eroski and Dia.

Positioning of Spanish Retailers: Perception of high frequency versus low frequency consumers

Graph 1- Positioning map according to purchase responsible ratings

Table 4- ANOVA of the dierences between low and high frequency consumers

ALCAMPO CARREFOUR DIA EROSKI LIDL MERCADONA

Lf Hf  Lf Hf  Lf Hf  Lf Hf  Lf Hf  Lf Hf 

Satisfaction

4,54 5,20 ** 4,68 5,16 * 3,75 4,99 ** 4,19 5,43 ** 3,67 5,53 ** 5,24 6,15 **

Price 4,36 4,95 ** n.s. 5,50 6,05 ** n.s. 5,46 6,12 ** 5,25 5,77 **

Assortment 4,90 5,48 ** 5,28 5,73 * 3,11 4,13 ** 4,29 4,80 * 2,83 4,15 ** 4,73 5,25 **

Store Brand 4,46 5,07 ** n.s. 3,75 4,83 ** 4,46 5,47 ** 3,68 4,88 ** 5,36 6,07 **

Service 4,22 4,90 ** n.s. 2,84 3,43 ** 4,28 4,86 * 2,96 4,33 ** 4,53 5,32 **

Promotion 4,51 4,91 * 4,83 5,27 * 3,69 4,45 ** 4,22 5,00 ** 4,02 5,44 ** n.s.

Advertising n.s. n.s. 2,54 3,40 ** n.s. 3,14 4,55 ** n.s.

Innovation n.s. n.s. 2,36 3,09 ** n.s. 2,96 3,95 ** n.s.

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 Lf: low frequency. HF: high frequency

aDResearchESIC

Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2010

It is important to mention that in discoun-

ters, eventhough almost all the scores of the

items are quite low (except for price), the fact

of being a frequent buyer helps strengthen the

image of the retailer brand, increasing the sco-

res of all the items at a signiﬁcant level.

On the other hand we can see that, as ex-

pected, advertising does not change as a con-

sequence of the experience of buying, but in

the case of discounters, it does as the percep-

tion of frequent vs. not frequent buyers is sig-

niﬁcant.

It stands out the perception of Mercadona

as taking the “best out of both worlds” dis-

counters and hypermarkets and also showing

signiﬁcant differences on the items (while both

high) between frequent and non frequent con-

sumers.

When going deeply on analyzing the per-

ceptions of frequent consumers we ﬁnd a bet-

ter explanatory perceptual map with a third

factor emerging as shown in Table 5.

With the same method and criteria we have

mapped the attributes rated and plot the retai-

lers under these factors. The results are showed

below in Table 6 and Graph 3. Due to the difﬁ-

culty to visualize the three dimensions we have

plot and extended the map on graphs 4, 5 and

6 mapping factors 1 and 2, factors 2 and 3 and

factors 1 and 3 in three different maps.

The experience with the shop reﬂects a split

up of factor 2 within high frequency shoppers.

In this case, the customer seems to realize the

need to choose among price and assortment.

Discounters who offer best prices do not offer

wide assortments and it emerge the role of store

brands and satisfaction as a key factor for con-

sumer perception and retail image.

(Graph 4)

Table 5 - Total Variance Explained by Components

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Total % of Variance Total % acumulado

1 3,937 49,216 49,216 2,931 36,640 36,640

2 2,538 31,731 80,947 2,444 30,547 67,187

3 1,224 15,304 96,252 2,325 29,065 96,252

Extraction method: Principal components

Table 6- Rotated Component Matrix

Components

1 2 3

Satisfaction_Hf

,984

-,141 -,108

Price_Hf ,042 -,944 -,161

Assortment_Hf

,308

,877 ,008

Store Brand_Hf ,856 ,308 -,379

Service_Hf ,761 ,620 ,119

Promotion_Hf -,074 ,155 ,983

Advertising_Hf -,049 ,048 ,990

Innovation_Hf ,740 ,508 ,428

Extraction method: Principal components

Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser

Positioning of Spanish Retailers: Perception of high frequency versus low frequency consumers

Factor 1_Hf

2,01,00,0-1,0-2,0

Factor 2_H

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

-0,5

-1,0

-1,5

Service_Hf

Store Brand_Hf

Assortment_Hf

Price_Hf

MERCADONA

LIDL

EROSKI

DIA

CARREFOUR

ALCAMPO

Graph 4- Positioning map according to high frequency customers. Factors 1 and 2

Factor 3_Hf

1,51,00,50,0-0,5-1,0-1,5

Factor 2_Hf

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

-0,5

-1,0

-1,5

Service_Hf

Store Brand_Hf

Assortment_Hf

Price_Hf

MERCADONA

LIDL

EROSKI

DIA

CARREFOUR

ALCAMPO

Graph 5- Positioning map according to high frequency customers. Factors 2 and 3

aDResearchESIC

Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2010

Conclusions and Discussion

The objective of this research was to better un-

derstand the positioning of Spanish retailers

from a consumer point of view. In particular, we

wanted to understand which are the critical fac-

tors that deﬁne retailer’s competitive advantage

and whether those factors vary accordingly to

the frequency of consumer purchases.

We ﬁnd pricing as one of the key attributes

for retailer’s perception along with assortment

and promotion as a second factor. According to

the perceptual map we ﬁnd discounters like Dia

and Lidl perceived as cheap prices, Carrefour as

related to assortment and promotion, and Eroski

and Alcampo as being undifferentiated from the

rest of retailers. It is interesting to highlight

Mercadona’s perception on good prices along

with the good service and good store brand di-

mensions. Mercadona scores are among the hig-

hest on consumer ratings being able to enrich

the tradional “price value” positioning with

added beneﬁts, especially regarding store brands

and service. It seems that this dual positioning is

difﬁcult to match by the other competitors that

are perceived either as pricing or assortment po-

sitioned. Consumer’s image on Mercadona re-

presents a competitive advantage in the market

place as could be infered from its sustainable

growth in the last years.

Interestingly, we identify signiﬁcant differen-

ces on perception between high frequency and

low frequency consumers by store but only in

the discounters segment. Differences between

the groups on the researched variables are stron-

ger (p<0,05) on discounters (Dia and Lidl) and

not as strong on hypermarkets . These results

suggest that the purchase experience affects

Factor 1_Hf

2,01,00,0-1,0-2,0

Factor 3_Hf

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

-0,5

-1,0

-1,5

Service_Hf

Store Brand_Hf

Assortment_Hf

Price_Hf

MERCADONA

LIDL

EROSKI

DIA

CARREFOUR

ALCAMPO

Graph 6- Positioning map according to high frequency customers. Factors 1 and 3

Positioning of Spanish Retailers: Perception of high frequency versus low frequency consumers

more heavily discounters than the rest of the re-

tailers. Reason why could be related to the poor

image consumers have in general on discounters

in comparison with the rest of retailers, and

thus, there are more opportunities to improve it

through point of sale experience. Discounters

are rated the lowest in all scores (except for pri-

ce), however frequent buyers have highers sco-

res for all the items at a signiﬁcant level, proba-

bly due to purchase experience.

Another reason for the low scores of discoun-

ters could be the polarizing effect of offering

“just price” as the only consumer proposition.

Price is very well valued by consumers interes-

ted on pricing but is not enough relevant “stand

alone” for the rest of the consumers. It is interes-

ting to mention that as expected, advertising

does not change as a consequence of the expe-

rience of shopping but in the case of discoun-

ters, it does, as the advertising perception of fre-

quent vs. not frequent buyers is signiﬁcant. This

difference is possibly due to the fact that most of

the advertising on discounters is related to price

and thus will be more relevant and noticeable

for consumers that actually shop on them than

for those not interested on price.

On the contrary we ﬁnd that the perception

of hypermarkets is more balanced and similar

between frequent and non frequent consumers.

The implications of these results for discoun-

ters are several. First, it seems that discounters

should enhance their value proposition to con-

sumers beyond price to attract new consumers.

By doing so, the experience in the shop will im-

prove in turn their retail image. Recent changes

on discounters strategies seem to endorse this

recommendation. It is the case of Lidl and its

recent initiative to launch a gourmet private la-

bel line “Deluxe” endorsed by famous chef Sergi

Arola. This initiative aims to enhance Lidl value

proposition beyond price.

Dia has also tried to enrich their consumer

proposition redecorating their stores and laun-

ching Dia- Market stores to broaden their consu-

mer offer.

For hypermarkets our results show the low

effect that their strategies to communicate “best

price “ have had on their image, and thus, the

necessity to create and reinvent a differentiated

space beyond Mercadona offer.

We doubt on the effectiveness of recent poli-

ces to imitate “Mercadona” proposition. On the

contrary, we believe hypermarkets should be

able to build an enhanced and distinctive consu-

mer proposition based on a broader meaning of

“value” to consumers.

In this sense it seems that retailers positioning

in Spain is heavily inﬂuenced by Mercadona po-

sitioning which has been able to combine a cre-

dible positioning delivering pricing as well as

service and innovation through their store

brands.

Different assortment, including private label

tier strategy, will be from our perspective the

only gap that Mercadona could leave as a com-

petitive advantage to their current competitors,

especially to hypermarkets as they will be able to

combine their assortment perception with a va-

lue proposition.

Limitations and further research

This study is not exempt of limitations. First, we

are measuring only the top six retailers in Spain

that despite representing a signiﬁcant share of

the market, beyond 50%, are not representing

regional chains. Secondly we are measuring de-

clared consumer behavior and this measure-

ment could differ from real purchase behavior;

aDResearchESIC

Segundo semestre, julio-diciembre 2010

and third, we are not considering perceptions of

other types of purchase inﬂuencers apart from

the purchase responsible.

Opportunities for further research could take

into consideration the above limitations and en-

hance the scope of the study to include regional

chains. We believe that tracking the retailers po-

sitioning in a consumer panel can also shed light

on the effectiveness of retailers recent actions to

reposition their brand and how different marke-

ting activities inﬂuence consumers perception of

the retailers.

References

Abril, C., Avello, M. y Gavilan, D. (2009). Positioning

Analysis and Consumer Typologies of Spanish Store Brand

Consumers International Academy of Management and

Business, Istanbul, Oct, 2009.

Abril, C., Gavilan, D. y Avello, M. (2009). Inﬂuence of the

perception of different types of store brands on consumer

typologies and satisfaction levels. Innovative Marketing, 5(4),

75-82.

Ailawadi, K. L. and Keller, K. L. (2004). Understanding

retail branding: Conceptual insights and research priorities.

Journal of Retailing, 80(4), 331-342.

Ailawadi, K. L., Pauwels, K., Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2008).

Private-label use and store loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 72

(3), 19-30.

Alan, D., Jain, A. and Richardson, P. (1995). Correlates

of store brand proneness: Some empirical observations.

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 4(4), 15-27.

Amirani, S. and Gates, R. (1993). An attribute-anchored

conjoint approach to measuring store image. International

Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 21(5), 30-39.

Baltas, G. (1999). Understanding and managing store

brands. Journal of Brand Management, 16(3), 175-187.

Birtwistle, G. and Shearer, L. (2001). Consumer perception

of ﬁve UK fashion retailers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and

Management, 5(1), 9-18.

Blankson, Ch., Kalafatis, S. P, Cheng, J. M. and

Hadjicharalambous, C. (2008). Impact of positioning

strategies on corporate performance. Journal of Advertising

Research, 48(1), 106-122.

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., and Zarantonello, L. (2009).

Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it

affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52-68.

Brooksbank, R. (1994). The anatomy of marketing posi-

tioning strategy. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 12(4),

10-15.

Burt, S. (2000). The strategic Role of Retail Brands in British

Grocery Retailing. European Journal of Marketing, 34(8) 875-

890.

Chen, C.M., Shan-Yu Chou and Lu Hsiao (2009). Private

labels and new product development. Marketing Letters

(20), 227-243.

Choi, S. C. and Coughlan, A. T. (2006). Private label

positioning: Quality versus feature differentiation from the

national brand, Journal of Retailing, 82(2), 79-93.

Corstjen, M. and Doyle, P. (1989). Evaluating alternative

retail repositining strategies. Marketing Science, 8(2), 170-180.

Dibb, S., Simkin, L., Pride, W., Ferrell, O.C. (1997).

Marketing: Concepts and Strategies, Houghton Mifﬂin,

Boston, MA.

Gursoy, D., Chen, M. and Kim, H.M. (2005). The US

airlines relative positioning based on attributes of service

quality. Tourism Management, 26, 57-67.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham,

R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., Prentice-

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Herman, A. and Huber, F. ( 2000 ). Value-oriented brand

positioning. International Revenue of Retail, Distribution and

Consumer Research, 10(1), 95-112.

Ipsos Mori. (2006). Star power: The growing inﬂuence of

store brands in the US.

Jin Yoo, S. and Jae Chang, Y. (2005). An Exploratory

Research on the Store Image Attributes Affecting Its Store

Loyalty. Seoul Journal of Business, 11(1), 19-41.

Positioning of Spanish Retailers: Perception of high frequency versus low frequency consumers

Juhl, H. J., Esbjerg, L., Grunert, K. G., Bech-Larsen, T. and

Brunso, K. (2006). The ﬁght between store brands and

national brands. What’s the score? Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services, 13(5), 331-33.

Knuston, B.J. (2000). College students and fast food: How

students perceive restaurant brands. The Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 68-74.

Kumar, N. and Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2007). Private label

strategy: How to meet the store brand challenge (hardcover).

Lattin, J. M., and Bucklin, R. E. (1989). Reference effects of

price and promotion on brand choice behavior. Journal of

Marketing Research, 26(3), 299-310.

Lovelock, C., & Wright, L. (2001). Principles of service

marketing and management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mendez J.l., Oubiña, J. Rubio, N. (2008). Expert quality

evaluation and price of store vs. manufacturer Brands: An

analysis of the Spanish mass market. Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services, 15, 144-155.

Millan, E. S., Howard, E. (2007). Shopping for pleasure?

Shopping experiences of Hungarian consumers. International

Journal of Retail y Distribution Management, 36(6), 474-487.

Morton, F., Zettelmeyer, F. (2004). The strategic positioning

of store brands in retailer-manufacture negotiations. Review

of Industrial Organization, 24, 161-194.

Newman, A.J. and Patel, D. (2004). The marketing

directions of two fashion retailers. European Journal of

Marketing, 38(7), 770-789.

Nielsen AC (2007). The power of private label 2005 — A

review of growth trends around the world ’, www.acnielsen.

se/site/documents/The Power of Private Label 2005_A4.pdf

(accessed 30th nov 2009).

PLMA (2009). Private label manufacturing association.

http://www.plmainternational.com/en/private_label_en3.

htm latest retrieved 30th nov 2009.

Sayman, S., Hoch, S., and Raju, J. (2002). Positioning of

Store Brands. Marketing Science, 21(4), 378-397.

Schmitt, B.H. (1999). Experiential Marketing. New York,

Free Press.

Tarnowsky, J. (2007). Thinking like a brand. Progressive

Grocer, 86(15), 16-22.

Turley, L.W. and Chebat, J.C. (2002). Linking retail setrategy,

atmospheric design and shopping behaviour. Journal of

Markteing Management, 18, 125-44.

Walters, D. and Laffy, D. (1996). Managing retailing

Productivity and Proﬁtability. Macmillan, London.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000). An examination of

selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195-211.