A well-recognized and accepted brand image is one of the most valuableassets a firm possesses. Brand managers and manufacturers are concernedwith managing brand equity and capitalizing on the value of a brand image(Aaker, 1991). A product or retail establishment has many associationswhich combine to form its total impression. Few would argue thatconsumers form impressions of brands, and that these impressions later exerta major influence on store choice decisions and shopping behaviors.Favorable images of brands positively influence patronage decisions andpurchase behaviors, while unfavorable images adversely influence suchdecisions and behaviors. In other words, the images associated with thebrands a store carries influence a store’s image, which in turn, influencesconsumers’ decision-making processes and behaviors. Consequently, brandimage and retail image are inextricably linked to one another.
If buyers do not possess complete information about a store, they makeinferences from available informational cues before forming perceptions ofthe store (Monroe and Krishnan, 1985). Recently it has been suggested thatthe inferences buyers make about the merchandise quality of a store directlyinfluence retail image (Baker et al., 1994). Brand image often serves as aninformational cue used by buyers to form inferences about a store’smerchandise quality (Olshavsky, 1985). Knowing that brand image helpsform merchandise quality inferences that influence buyers’ perceptions ofretail image, we propose that two informational cues help buyers form theseinferences. First, the awareness level of brands carried by a store helpsbuyers form merchandise quality inferences that influence their perceptionsof retail image. Second, the presence of a brand(s) having strong awareness,recognition, and quality perceptions – an “anchor brand” – influencesbuyers’ inference-making and impressions of retail image. This perspectivesuggests that brand and retail managers need to be concerned not only withthe influence that specific anchor brands’ images have on a retail store’simage, but also the effect that the overall image of the brand mix carried by astore has on buyers’ perceptions of a retail store’s image.
The purpose of the current research is to report on a study that examineshow brand image directly influences retail image. Specifically, weinvestigate the influence of the presence of an anchor brand and the numberof recognizable name brands carried by a store on buyers’ perceptions ofretail image. A model is presented that depicts the proposed relationships.Results of an exploratory study to test the propositions of the model arediscussed. Based on the findings, managerial implications andrecommendations for brand managers and retailers are provided.
The influence of brandrecognition on retail store imageStephen S. Porter and Cindy Claycomb
An executive summaryfor managers andexecutives can be foundat the end of this article
Informational cues
ModelFigure 1 identifies the proposed relationships between merchandise qualityinferences formed from brand image and the buyers’ associated perceptionsof retail image.
Retail store imageThe concept of retail store image first came of interest when PierreMartineau (1958) described the “personality of the retail store.” Since thatpronouncement, it has generally been acknowledged that, over time,consumers form thoughts and feelings associated with stores, and that theseoverall impressions strongly influence their shopping and patronagebehaviors. Retail store image is an overall impression of a store as perceivedby consumers (Keaveney and Hunt, 1992). One of the commonly acceptedformal definitions of retail store image is an individual’s cognitions andemotions that are inferred from perceptions or memory inputs that areattached to a particular store and which represent what that store signifies toan individual (Baker et al., 1994; Mazursky and Jacoby, 1986).
In addition to developing definitions of retail store image, researchers havealso identified multiple dimensions of the concept. Retail image is generallydescribed as a combination of a store’s functional qualities and thepsychological attributes consumers link to these. While the exact dimensionshave varied over the years, the well-known categorizations of imageattributes have consisted of some combination of functional andpsychological attributes. For example, some of the more commondimensions identified by researchers have been associated with: fashion,selection, and quality of merchandise; customer services and salespersonnel; and the physical conditions and atmosphere of the store(Lindquist, 1974-1975; Martineau, 1958; Zimmer and Golden, 1988).
Figure 1. Proposed relationships between brand image and store image
Personality of the retailstore
Brand imageA strong brand image offers an organization several important strategicadvantages. A brand distinguishes the goods and services of one seller fromthose of competitors. A powerful brand identity creates a major competitiveadvantage; a well recognized brand encourages repeat purchases. Thus, abrand acts as a signal to consumers regarding the source of the product andprotects customers and manufacturers from “me-too” products that mayappear identical. Brand image consists of consumer knowledge and beliefs,stored in memory as associations, about brand attributes and theconsequences of brand use (Peter and Olson, 1994). These associations areusually organized in some meaningful manner (Aaker, 1991). Thus, Coke isnot just a set of ten strong associations and 20 weaker ones. Rather, theassociations are grouped in such a manner that it has meaning. There may bea lifestyle cluster, a sponsorship cluster, and a variety of products cluster.There might also be one or more mental pictures that come to mind whenCoke is mentioned, such as the Coca-Cola logo, the Olympic Torch Relay, orinevitably, a refreshing drink.
Brand images are important because they create value for manufacturers inat least five ways (Aaker, 1991). First, brand images help consumers retrieveand process information. For example, Pepsi’s development of the “Pepsigeneration” created a brand image that helped consumers process additionalinformation they received about Pepsi. Second, brand images provide a basisfor differentiation and positioning of a product. For example, thecombination of Gatorade and athletics has been a powerful association thatcompetitors initially found hard to attack. Third, brand images involveproduct attributes and customer benefits that give consumers a reason to buyand use the brand. For example, Crest toothpaste became a dominant brandby positioning itself as a cavity fighter. The benefit of cavity prevention,supported by a respected medical group, reinforces a consumer’s choice topurchase Crest. Fourth, brand images create associations that producepositive attitudes and feelings that are transferred to the brands. Forexample, Metropolitan Life Insurance used the Charlie Brown characters tocreate positive feelings toward an otherwise large and impersonal firm.Finally, brand images provide the basis for product extensions, by creating asense of fit between the brand and the new product, or by giving consumersa reason to buy the new product. For example, Sunkist’s association withhealthy outdoor activities has provided a basis for extensions such as fruitbars, soft drinks, and vitamin C tablets.
The value brand images create for manufacturers is also projected on to theimage of retail stores that carry the brands. One way consumers describeretail stores is in terms of their assessments of the brands carried.
Influence of brand image on retail store imageIn a recent study, Baker et al. (1994) discovered that inferences thatconsumers made about merchandise quality were direct determinants ofretail image. In other words, the merchandise inferences influencedconsumers’ thoughts and feelings about a store. Therefore, merchandisequality can be viewed as a key variable that influences retail image;however, consumers do not always possess complete information about themerchandise quality of a store nor are they perfect information processors.Consequently, consumers with incomplete information use various
informational cues to make inferences about merchandise quality (Monroeand Krishnan, 1985).
Consumers most heavily access brand name as a store information cue whenevaluating merchandise quality (Mazursky and Jacoby, 1986). Brand namecommunicates a great deal of information – an image – to the potentialcustomer because it has become associated with a bundle of informationgenerated by advertising, word-of-mouth communication, and previoususage of the brand (Stokes, 1985). The merchandise, whether perceivedfavorably or unfavorably, projects an image not only of the brand itself, butalso of the store as a whole. Empirical findings imply that retail store imagecould be improved by linking it with brands that are evaluated favorably anddamaged by association with brands that are evaluated less favorably(Jacoby and Mazursky, 1984). Conversely, brand images may not be asreadily influenced by association with retail images. Brand images can benegatively influenced by association with retailers having less favorableimages; however, when brand images are associated with retailers havingmore favorable retail images, there is little change or influence to the brand’simage (Jacoby and Mazursky, 1984). This suggests that brand image plays amajor role in the development of a consumer’s perception of retail image(Zimmer and Golden, 1988). Furthermore, this indicates that brand image, asa construct, is more stable than retail image across various situations. Thisstability may be attributable to the fact that marketing specifically creates orpositions a brand’s image using a rather limited number of congruentdimensions (e.g. quality, price, and sales communications activities). Thus,brand image may be able to stand on its own as it calls to mind a list ofdesired attributes and associations that provide value to a consumer in avariety of ways regardless of the retailer carrying the brand (Aaker, 1991;Ward et al., 1992). On the other hand, retail image appears to be a morecomplex construct, and is therefore less stable than brand image. Whilemerchandise quality and brand image(s) are major predictors of retail image,they are not the only predictors (Baker et al., 1994; Mazursky and Jacoby,1986). This may help explain, for instance, the success of off-price retailersand manufacturers’ outlets. The value provided to the customer, in terms ofthe dimensions of low prices and favorable brand names, creates a retailimage that is positive in the consumer’s mind.
Based on the premise that brand image, as an informational cue, is heavilyaccessed by consumers when evaluating stores, we suggest that merchandisequality inferences based on brand image will directly influence retail image.While a few studies have recognized the importance of brand image as aninformational cue of merchandise quality, brand image has generally beenstudied by manipulating the presence or absence of brand names. As pointedout by Stokes (1985), this is a purely academic exercise because fewproducts are marketed without brand names in today’s marketplace.Consequently, few retail stores carry nonbranded merchandise. To remedythis methodological issue, we suggest that the presence of an anchor brandand the number of recognizable brands a store carries, rather than the merepresence or absence of brand names, directly influence customers’perceptions of a store’s image. A study designed to test these ideas isexplained in the next section.
The studyA study was conducted using brands associated with the apparel industry toinvestigate the hypothesized paths in our model. The first step of ourresearch consisted of a pilot study to discover the awareness of specificbrand names and a pretest of the descriptive scenarios that were to be used inthe main study. Finally, the main study was conducted to test thehypothesized relationships (see Figure 1).
In the pilot study, apparel brand names were generated from two sources.First, 50 marketing students at a large midwestern university in the USAwere given a sheet of paper divided into three equal sections with thefollowing headings: very high quality, high quality, quality. The studentswere asked to list apparel brand names that they thought would fit into eachof the three categories. Table I displays the frequency distributions of brandnames that were generated.
In addition, a second source was used to develop a more complete list ofrecognizable brands. Selected specialty stores, catering to the age group ofour sample population (18 to 23 years old), were interviewed in two UScities in two midwestern states. The interviews yielded the following brandnames:
• Cole-Hann
• Eagle Eye
• Gant
• Izod
• Knautic
• Liz Claiborne
• Perry Ellis
• Polo
• Ruff Hewn
By combining the frequency distributions from the two sources, a final listof highly recognizable, high quality apparel brand names was generated.
Note:a Liz Claiborne was not used in the study because the brand represents a women’s clothing
line only. It was felt that the male respondents would not recognize this brand
Apparel industry
Specifically, seven of the eight brands identified by the interviewed shoppersas “very high quality” or “high quality” were chosen, along with twoadditional brands that the interviewed retailers consistently identified as highquality, recognizable brands among the target market (i.e. males and females18-23 years old). This list is as follows:
• Calvin Klein
• Cole-Haan
• Gant
• Guess
• Izod
• Levi
• Nike
• Polo
• Reebok
A second list of imaginary or “created” brand names was used to test thepropositions that brand names influence consumers’ perceptions of retailimage. The group of “created” brands is:
• Antigua
• Blue Shore
• Gentry
• Gulf Coast
• Peacocks
The brand names were pretested with shoppers (18-23 years old); the brandnames were generally rated very low or unrecognizable.
The second phase of the pretest was conducted using 45 shoppers (marketingstudents at a university located in the southern USA) to assess the clarity ofthe research scenarios. The pretest subjects were given the followingscenario:
A new clothing store will be locating in town next spring. The store will be aprogressive retailer of young adults’ clothing and apparel. The owners haveindicated that the retail outlet will stock the following name brands.
One-third of the subjects was given a list of seven of the recognizable brandsfrom the pilot study; another third was given a list of three recognizablebrands and four created brands; the final third was given a list of tworecognizable brands and five created brands. All the shoppers were thenasked questions about brand image and retail image. The findings of thepretest resulted in two changes before the main study was conducted. First,the word “progressive” was removed from the scenario because it influencedthe respondents’ perceptions of retail image. Second, the lists of brandspresented to the shoppers were modified. It was found that there were nosignificant differences in shoppers’ perceptions of image when evaluatingconditions with two versus three recognizable brands. Specifically, the list ofthree recognizable brands and four created brands was eliminated becausethere was no significant difference between this list and the list of tworecognizable and five created brands.
Manipulation checks during the pretest indicated that the brands chosen tobe “recognizable” were in fact recognized and perceived to be high qualitybrands by the pretest shoppers. We chose the “Polo” brand as the anchorbrand (i.e. a brand having strong awareness, recognition, and qualityperceptions among the target group of shoppers) to be used in the mainstudy. This decision was based on post-interviews with pretest shoppers thatrevealed Polo had high brand and quality awareness. (Interviews with thespecialty retailers during the pilot study also supported this decision.) Inaddition, the post-interviews revealed an interesting finding; the pretestshoppers assumed that if Polo was to be carried by the store, all the brandscarried by the retailer would be of high quality. This finding allowed us totest our propositions about the effect of the presence/absence of an anchorbrand on retail image, as well as, the effect of the number (high versus low)and the recognition of brands (high recognition versus low recognition). Wedivided our experimental treatments into the following four levels:
(1) anchor brand present/high number of recognizable brands;
(2) anchor brand present/low number of recognizable brands;
(3) anchor brand not present/high number of recognizable brands;
(4) anchor brand not present/low number of recognizable brands.
The final instrument consisted of a self-administered questionnairecontaining two sections. The first section presented the scenario of the retailclothing store and asked specific questions concerning retail store image.The second half of the questionnaire contained the brand imagemanipulation checks. The modified scenario is presented below. The fourlists of brands, in the order presented to the subjects in each treatment, arepresented in Table II:
A new clothing store will be locating in town next spring. The store will be anoutlet for young adults’ clothing and apparel. The owners have indicated that theretail outlet will stock the following name brands.
(seven recognizable (two recognizable brands andBrand list brands) five created brands)
Anchor brand present Polo PoloCole-Haan GuessGuess GentryNike Blue ShoreLevi AntiguaReebok PeacocksCalvin Klein Gulf Coast
Number of subjects 42 38
Anchor brand not present Izod IzodGant GuessGuess GentryNike Blue ShoreLevi AntiguaReebok PeacocksCalvin Klein Gulf Coast
Number of subjects 29 27
A multidimensionalconcept
MeasuresThere is not a widely accepted measure of retail store image. Consequently,we conducted a systematic review of the retail image and perceived qualityliteratures as a basis for developing scale items for the retail store imageconstruct. Work by Zimmer and Golden (1988) indicated that retail image isa multi-dimensional construct. Using the summary of image descriptors(Zimmer and Golden, 1988, p. 285), 15 statements were developed tomeasure dimensions of retail image that were hypothesized to relate to ourtarget population (18 to 23 year old shoppers). The scale items focussed onthe following dimensions of retail image: merchandise, service, and physicalfacilities/atmosphere. Following the generation of the image questions, apanel of experts (students the age of the sample population and academicresearchers) were asked to evaluate the questions for their wording andappropriateness. The scale items, displayed in Table III, were measuredusing five-point Likert type scales, ranging from “1 = strongly disagree” to“5 = strongly agree.” Means for each of the items are presented.
Sample and manipulation checksThe questionnaire was administered to 136 shoppers (18-23 year old collegestudents attending a university located in the midwest USA). The number ofsubjects per treatment is shown in Table II. The respondents were asked toevaluate the fictional clothing store based on the presence or absence of ananchor brand and differing numbers of recognizable brand names carried bythe retail store. Prior to testing the model, manipulation checks wereconducted. We tested the name brands used in the treatments to ensure thatthey were recognizable and considered high quality brands by the shoppers,compared to the created brands. In addition, Polo, the chosen anchor brand,was tested for its recognizability and perceived quality among the shoppers,as compared to all other brands used in the study. The checks indicated thatthe study’s manipulations were successful.
1. This looks like the type of store where I would like to shop 3.622. I would like more information about this store 3.973. My wardrobe would be stylish and neat if I shopped at this store 3.694. I would tell my friends about this store 3.765. This store will carry the latest fashions and styles 3.836. The physical facilities of the store should be visually appealing 4.337. The interior furnishings in the store should give the shopper the
appearance and feeling of a quality retail outlet 4.208. The employees should be appropriately dressed and neat 4.329. The store should have a pleasant shopping environment 4.33
10. The employees should be able to give me fashion tips and advice 4.0011. The store should offer a full line of services (tailor, credit, gift-wrapping) 3.9312. The employees should be knowledgeable about fashion trends 4.1613. The employees should be helpful and courteous 4.4514. The sales help will be mature and helpful 4.1915. If I had a question about clothing styles or fashions, I could get the answer
at this store 3.84
Note:*Items were measured using 5-point scale, with 1= strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree
Manipulation checks
Purification of scaleThe first step in our analysis was to conduct an exploratory analysis toidentify the dimensions of retail store image. The responses to the scale weresubjected to a principal components factor analysis with an orthogonalrotation. The latent root criterion (i.e. only eigenvalues greater than 1.0 areconsidered) indicated a three factor structure. In addition, to minimize thecross-loadings in the factor matrix, items with loadings of 0.30 or higher ontwo or more factors were eliminated (Hair et al., 1992). This resulted in sixitems being eliminated from the scale. A reliability analysis (i.e. anexamination of the coefficient alphas) indicated an additional item should bedropped from the scale. The final factor structure consisted of eight itemsretained across three dimensions (see Table IV). These dimensions followedprevious categorizations of retail store image. The three dimensions werelabeled fashion, service, and atmosphere.
Discussion of resultsA one-way ANOVA was performed to determine the treatment effects onretail store image. Findings indicated that brand image did significantlyinfluence overall retail store image (F3,135 = 2.79; p < 0.0432). Thus, thecombined effect of the presence of an anchor brand and a relatively largenumber of recognizable brands carried by a store positively related tocustomers’ perceptions of retail store image. When investigating theseeffects on retail store image (using LSD multiple comparison post hoc tests),some interesting findings surfaced. First, the treatment containing the sevenrecognizable brands (high number of recognizable brands), including theanchor brand, had the highest retail store image scores (
–X1 = 4.14).
Likewise, the treatment containing the two recognizable brands and the fivecreated brands (low number of recognizable brands), excluding the anchorbrand, had the lowest retail store image scores (
–X4 = 3.82). The difference
between these scores (–X1 and
–X4) was statistically significant at the 0.05
level. Second, in the high number of recognizable brands treatment, theinfluence of the presence of the anchor brand was significant (
–X1 = 4.14
(anchor brand present);–X3 = 3.85 (anchor brand not present)). A summary of
the overall retail image scores for each of the treatments is displayed inTable V.
The next step in the analysis was to collapse across the experimental factorsto identify the individual and combined effects. In other words, the intent
Table IV. Factor analysis results of retail store image measure
Dimension Items
Factor 1: fashion 1. My wardrobe would be stylish and neat if I shopped at thisstore
2. I would tell my friends about this store3. This store will carry the latest fashions and styles
Factor 2: service 4. The employees should be knowledgeable about fashiontrends
5. The store should offer a full line of services (tailor, credit,gift-wrapping)
6. The sales help will be mature and helpful
Factor 3: atmosphere 7. The interior furnishings in the store should give the shopperthe appearance and feeling of a quality retail outlet
8. The employees should be appropriately dressed and neat
Retail store image scores
was to investigate if the presence of the anchor brand, the number ofrecognizable brands, or the interaction between the two factors influencedretail store image. It was discovered that, when controlling for the presenceof the anchor brand, the number of recognizable brands carried by a retailstore did not influence the store’s image. In contrast, when controlling forthe number of recognizable brands, the presence of the anchor brand didinfluence the retail store’s image. Consequently, it appears that, in terms ofbrand image, the presence of an anchor brand has a positive effect on theretail store’s image, while the number of recognizable brands does notinfluence perceptions of a retail store’s image.
Finally, the effect of brand image on each of the retail store imagedimensions was tested. These tests indicated that brand image was related toperceptions of fashion (F3,135 = 5.53; p < 0.0013), but not to perceptions ofservice (F3,135 = 0.65; p < 0.5871) and atmosphere (F3,135 = 0.83; p < 0.4803).Furthermore, the effects of brand image on fashion perceptions mirrored thepattern of effects found for overall retail store image, with one exception. Inthe low number of recognizable brands treatment, when the anchor brandwas present, the retail image fashion score (
–X2 = 3.83) was significantly
different than when the anchor brand was not present (–X4 = 3.47).Scores for
the fashion dimension of retail store image are displayed in Table VI.
In summary, this study found that brand image influences perceptions ofretail store image. In particular, brand image influences customers’perceptions of fashion, but not of service and atmosphere. Thus, there isstrong evidence to suggest that a tactic for ensuring a favorable retail imageis a merchandise mix composed of a relatively high number of recognizablebrands, one of which should have strong brand awareness – an anchor brand.Of the two brand strategies – high image versus number – it is moreimportant to feature an anchor brand than it is to carry a large number ofrecognizable brands when trying to enhance retail store image.
Table VI. Mean scores for fashion dimension of retail store image
Description Treatment Mean*(%)
Anchor brand present/high number of recognizable brands 1 4.06a
Anchor brand present/low number of recognizable brands 2 3.83a,b
Anchor brand not present/high number of recognizable brands 3 3.51b,c
Anchor brand present/low number of recognizable brands 4 3.47b
Note:*Statistically significant differences ( p ≤ 0.05) in scores are indicated by different letters
Table V. Mean scores for overall retail store image
Description Treatment Mean*(%)
Anchor brand present/high number of recognizable brands 1 4.14a
Anchor brand present/low number of recognizable brands 2 4.03a,b
Anchor brand not present/high number of recognizable brands 3 3.85b
Anchor brand present/low number of recognizable brands 4 3.82b
Note:*Statistically significant differences ( p ≤ 0.05) in scores are indicated by different letters
Perceptions of fashion
Managerial implications and recommendationsThe data analysis in the current study confirms that there is a relationshipbetween brand image and retail image. From previous research (Jacoby andMazursky, 1984), it is known that brand image can substantially improve ordamage a retail store image, depending on how the brand is evaluated.Furthermore, brand image tends to be more powerful than retail image, asbrand image is not substantially improved by being linked with a morefavorable retail image (but can be damaged by a less favorable retail image).Therefore, retailers and brand managers must be concerned with theinterdependencies between retail store image and brand image.
The most favorable retail image perceptions were found when the retail storecarried both an anchor brand and a relatively large number of recognizablebrands (i.e. seven brands compared to two). This is not a particularlysurprising finding; however, the findings regarding the separate effects onretail image of an anchor brand and the number of recognizable brandscarried by a retail store have implications for brand managers and retailers.
First, the influence of a strong anchor brand on customers’ perceptions ofretail store image was confirmed. This implies that one strategy for retailersto enhance their images is to include a brand with strong brand image – ananchor brand – in their merchandise mix. For brand managers who want tobe associated with retail stores that have favorable images, this implies thatthey should take one of two actions. First, brand managers can, through theirmarketing mix strategies, attempt to position their brand as an anchor brandto offer retailers. Or second, brand managers can choose to distribute theirproducts through retail stores that possess a strong image and that carry atleast one strong anchor brand. Either of these tactics will ensure the brandmanager’s product is associated with an image – retail store and product mix– that is favorable.
While the influence of an anchor brand on retail image was the main findingof the study, other findings related to the combined effect of an anchor brandand the number of recognizable brands carried by a retail store also haveimplications for brand managers and retailers. One such finding was that if aretailer carries a relatively high number of recognizable brands, adding ananchor brand should increase customers’ perceptions of overall retail image;however, if a retailer carries a relatively low number of recognizable brands,the mere presence of an anchor brand will not enhance customers’ overallperceptions of the retail image (compared to another store carrying arelatively low number of recognizable brands, without an anchor brand).This implies that if a retailer carries a relatively large number ofrecognizable brand names, to enhance the customers’ perceptions of thestore’s image, one of the brands should possess strong brand recognition andquality awareness among the retailer’s target market. In other words, theretailer needs to carry an anchor brand. On the other hand, for retailers thatdo not carry many highly recognizable brand names, the inclusion of ananchor brand will not necessarily enhance retail image. Rather, retail storeimage can be improved or clarified by positioning the store using attributesother than brand recognition. For instance, a store may decide that it wantsto create an image of low price-cost leadership. The product mix strategymight focus on stocking brands that are low price leaders in their productclass. Moreover, the retailer may decide that stocking generic or privatelabel brands may be the best positioning strategy available.
A related finding of the study was that if a specialty retailer does not carryan anchor brand, simply adding more recognizable brands that do not havestrong brand awareness will not improve customers’ perceptions of retailimage. In other words, it is more important for a specialty retailer to featurean anchor brand than it is to simply carry a large number of recognizablebrands. The implications of this may be different for different retail formats.For example, because specialty retailers typically carry a relatively narrowvariety and deep assortment they must allocate their limited resources tosecuring one brand with strong awareness – an anchor brand. This may limitthe inclusion of other lesser known brands in their merchandise mix. Incontrast, department stores have more flexibility in selecting brands to becarried because of their wide merchandise variety and deep assortment.While they must still concentrate on securing an anchor brand, they have theflexibility and resources to also carry recognizable brands that may notnecessarily be anchor brands. From a strategic perspective, this findingsuggests that retailers (especially specialty retailers) may need to emphasizeother image attributes – such as customer service and personnel or thephysical condition and atmosphere of the store – to enhance the retail image.In addition, brand managers who can offer an anchor brand to retailers havea competitive advantage, as they can provide evidence that adding theanchor brand should enhance the image of the store.
Brand image and dimensions of retail store imageIn concert with earlier research, the results of the study indicated that retailstore image is a multi-dimensional construct. The findings suggested thatretail store image is composed of fashion, service, and atmospheredimensions. Of particular interest to brand managers is the finding that brandimage influences customers’ perceptions of fashion, but not of service andatmosphere. This allows brand managers to focus their efforts with retailerson the enhancement of customers’ perceptions of the retailer’s fashionimage. In other words, brand managers should emphasize the positiveinfluence their brands can have on customers’ perceptions of the retailer’sfashion image, particularly if the brand manager has an anchor brand tooffer. This is a significant finding for retailers also, because they need torecognize that while brand image serves as an informational cue to theirretail stores’ images, brand image may influence the fashion image of theirstores. They need to understand other factors that provide informational cuesrelated to customers’ perceptions of service and atmosphere, the other twoelements of retail image. For example, Baker et al., (1994) found thatambient factors, such as music and lighting, design factors, such as color,layout, and organization of merchandise, and social factors, such as thenumber of salespeople, also influence retail store image. These factors, inparticular, may influence the service and atmosphere dimensions of retailstore image.
ConclusionBrand image influences retail image; however, this study revealed severaladditional aspects of this association of which brand managers and retailersshould be aware. First, the effects of an anchor brand on retail image werehighlighted by this study. Retailers and brand managers should be aware ofthe implications of this finding. The measures of retail store image used inthis study show promise and potential in isolating the dimensions of retailimage. This is important because, as the study pointed out, determinants ofretail image may influence one dimension of image but not others. Brand
managers and retailers should realize that the influence of brand imagerelates to the fashion dimension of retail image, but not to the service andatmosphere dimensions. Although there is considerable room forimprovement in these measures of retail store image, the identification of thefashion, service, and atmosphere dimensions allows future research todetermine what additional factors influence the separate dimensions of retailimage. The creation of consumer perceptions concerning a brand is a crucialstrategic decision facing brand managers. It must be remembered that brandmanagers and retailers are not merely promoting a physical good or service,rather they promote an image. A brand’s image is a combination of aconsumer’s subjective perceptions of the product’s innate characteristics,and the environment that surrounds a brand – the retail setting. Ultimatesuccess of a brand and a retailer is determined by how closely the image ofthe selling organization and the product meet the expectations of theconsumer.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, TheFree Press, New York, NY.
Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. (1994), “The influence of store environment onquality inferences and store image,” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22No. 4, pp. 328-39.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1992), Multivariate DataAnalyses with Readings, 3rd ed., Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY.
Jacoby, J. and Mazursky, D. (1984), “Linking brand and retailer images – do the potential risksoutweigh the potential benefits?,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 105-22.
Keaveney, S.M. and Hunt, K.A. (1992), “Conceptualization and operationalization of retailstore image: a case of rival middle-level theories,” Journal of Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 165-75.
Lindquist, J.D. (1974-1975), “Meaning of image: a survey of empirical and hypotheticalevidence,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 29-37.
Martineau, P. (1958), “The personality of the retail store,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36,January-February, pp. 47-55.
Mazursky, D. and Jacoby, J. (1986), “Exploring the development of store images,” Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 62, Summer, pp. 145-65.
Monroe, K.B. and Krishnan, R. (1985), “The effect of price on subjective product evaluations,”in Jacoby, J. and Olson, J.C. (Eds), Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores andMerchandise, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 209-32.
Olshavsky, R. (1985), “Perceived quality in consumer decision making: an integratedtheoretical perspective,” in Jacoby, J. and Olson, J.C. (Eds), Perceived Quality: HowConsumers View Stores and Merchandise, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 3-29.
Stokes, R. (1985), “The effect of price, package design, and brand familiarity on perceivedquality,” in Jacoby, J. and Olson, J.C. (Eds), Perceived Quality: How Consumers ViewStores and Merchandise, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 233-46.
Ward, J.C., Bitner, M.J. and Barnes, J. (1992), “Measuring the prototypicality and meaning ofretail environments,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68, Summer, pp. 194-220.
Zimmer, M.R. and Golden, L.L. (1988), “Impressions of retail stores: a content analyses ofconsumer images,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 265-91.
(Stephen S. Porter and Cindy Claycomb are both Assistant Professors in Marketing andEntreneurship at the W. Frank Barton School of Business, Wichita State University, Kansas,USA.)
Executive summary and implications for managers andexecutives
Brands and the retailer: an uneasy allianceTo what extent do manufacturer brands influence your image of a retailer?This question, I suspect, will receive the answer “it depends” from mostpeople. In this case (fashion clothing) the chances are that the brandsstocked are essential to image. In other retail sectors the impact ofmanufacturer brands is less. Porter and Claycomb show support for therelevance of brands to clothing retailing but we must treat any transfer toother sectors with caution. Even in the apparel sector there are successfuloutlets (Marks & Spencer for example) that do not stock named brands butrely on their own powerful brand.
Assuming the importance of the brands we stock in our shop, we need toconsider the balance between creating our own image independent of thosebrands and securing the right impression by reference to those brands.Relying on the fickle nature of fashion brands could prove a risky strategyover the long term. Three aspects to retail image management needattention:
(1) Getting the right brand mix.
(2) Creating your own image independent of stock branding.
(3) Developing customer loyalty.
It’s not all designer labels, is it?The brand name provides reassurance to the consumer. In the case offashion this assurance extends beyond issues of product quality to issues ofpersonal image and style. For many people the brands worn are used as avehicle for impressing friends, displaying wealth and signaling style. Theman who buys a Rolex watch doesn’t just buy the watch because it’s of topquality. He wants to demonstrate a certain image plus his ability to affordsuch an expensive item. The same goes for other fashion and luxuryproducts.
The shop that stocks the top designer brands wants to pass across the imagethat those products demonstrate. And in using these brands to create thatclassy image, the shop hopes that this sense of class transfers to other lesswell-known brands in the shop. However, as Porter and Claycombdemonstrate, this effect depends on the balance between the top brands andother brands. You cannot use just one or two “anchor” brands to create theright image, you have to have a range of top brands alongside the “anchor.”A reminder that, as ever, consumers are not nearly so easily fooled as manylike to think.
Fashion retailers should consider:
• Creating a core stock of top brands – ideally those with provenlongevity.
• Using this core in advertising, direct mail and PR activity.
• Researching changes in consumer brand preference so as to manage“secondary” brands.
• Cooperation with brand owners in advertising and promotion.
This summary has beenprovided to allowmanagers and executivesa rapid appreciation ofthe content of thisarticle. Those with aparticular interest in thetopic covered may thenread the article in toto totake advantage of themore comprehensivedescription of theresearch undertaken andits results to get the fullbenefit of the materialpresent
You need your own image tooWhile the right brand mix provides the core for retail image in the fashionsector we must not ignore efforts to create a brand for the store itself. Weknow that, over time, consumers relate to the store brand as much as they doto the brands stocked by the shop. The retailer who relies on the big brandsfor creating image runs the risk of losing out as fashion changes and other,competing retailers establish their own independent brand franchise:
• Deliver on quality and support – remember top brands need top serviceto go with them.
• Make sure staff understand and appreciate the brands you stock –including the lesser names.
• Don’t let manufacturer brands dominate your advertising andpromotions.
• Develop your shop’s image through PR activity.
• Focus on your local target audience rather than general advertising.
• Make sure you add value to the brands by helping people create theright style.
Make them your customers not the designer labels’Anyone (well, almost anyone) can stock top labels in their shop. But noteveryone can produce the service, attention and care that goes to creating asuccessful retailer. Your task is to make customers come to you out ofpreference rather than to another store. This loyalty follows from hard workat your image and service and cannot be taken for granted:
• Go out of your way for customers – and make sure your staff do likewise.
• Involve your customers – ask them about what to stock, get feedbackabout service and, above all, speak to them regularly.
• Open to match your customers’ needs not your convenience. Justbecause you sell posh clobber doesn’t mean making it hard to buy isjustified.
• Find out about your customers; keep good records and use them forstock planning and communications.
Remember, you’re a service businessStocking the right brands may be important but it’s not the be all and end allof good retailing. Sticking the brands on your racks won’t make yousuccessful in the long run. You have to be the customers’ friend, assistantand guide through the frightening world of style and fashion. You are, tomost customers, the “expert” and they want you to help them make the rightchoice.
Too often fashion retailers seem to think that they can employ any old dimwitand, so long as the brand mix is right, make loads of money. It might workwith some but most customers want more from their shopkeeper. If you don’toffer that extra added value then someone else will and your shop willdecline and close. The days of piling it high and selling at obscene pricesare long gone (if they ever existed). If that’s your attitude to fashionretailing, go find something else to do.
(A précis of “The influence of brand recognition on retail store image.”Provided by Marketing Consultants for MCB University Press.)
