Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/52740
|
| Title: | 消費者為基礎的食品製造商品牌與零售商自有品牌權益之研究
Consumer-based brand equity of food industry manufacturer brand and retailer private brand |
| Authors: | 廖怡禎 |
| Contributors: | 李仁芳
廖怡禎 |
| Keywords: | 零售商自有品牌
製造商品牌
品牌權益
價格溢酬
Retailer’s Private Brand
Manufacture’s Brand
Brand Equity
Price Premium |
| Date: | 2010 |
| Issue Date: | 2012-04-17 09:12:26 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 以消費者為基礎的零售市場趨勢變化，重新定義了品牌對於消費者的意涵，使製造商品牌和零售商自有品牌權益的戰爭有了新的趨勢。新的零售概念開始萌芽後，零售商自有品牌逐漸成長，而通常付出代價的是製造商。
本研究試圖由消費者、製造商、與零售商三個不同構面，探討對於品牌權益的認知差異。以消費者為基礎的零售商自有品牌權益認知的問卷調查資料，也依據抽樣樣本的性別、年齡、月收入、教育程度與職業別進行分析，以期能檢視不同消費族群，對於零售商自有品牌主觀認知的差異不同。
研究發現，台灣的消費者對於零售商自有品牌的品牌識別比例高達97.87%；但是對於品牌意涵的回應比例卻低於25%。盡管高達83.45%的消費者認為零售商自有品牌，在未來的發展會有增加的趨勢；但對於高價零售商自有品牌的接受性還是較低。
性別對於零售商自有品牌的主觀認知影響不大。但是年齡差異的影響則明顯不同。雖然三十歲以上的消費者，主觀的認知到零售商自有品牌的產品創新，不過對照其他不同年齡組群，也只有年齡較長的消費者(四十一歲以上的族群)，基於對於製造商品牌心理的連結與行為的忠誠度，未來還是選擇不會購買更多的零售商自有品牌產品。顯然的，零售商自有品牌產品的品牌權益，對於四十一歲以上的理性族群消費者的吸引力仍舊不足；反倒是，商店本身的品牌權益，對於各年齡層的消費者購買行為，都具有正面的效果。
同樣的，消費者的教育程度與自有品牌創新的滿意度成反比。而不同於一般人主觀的認知，高收入的族群對自有品牌產品的滿意度，已經實質的高過其他中低收入族群。
對於零售商自有品牌的趨勢而言，個案中的零售便利商店，都認為自有品牌會是零售商未來的發展方向與趨勢。不過，零售便利商店對於自有品牌創新差異化模式，會因不同零售商而有很大的差異。7-ELEVEN的差異化，是在價值上的創新，價格因素還是主要考量；全家便利商店則認為產品的獨特與創新上的差異，會是吸引消費者購買的重要因素。因此，全家對於自有品牌的品牌權益與價格溢酬，自然會有比較樂觀的看法。而單就自有品牌商品營業額的成長幅度而言，7-ELEVEN和全家便利商店去年分別高達110%與130%。
食品製造商由於主觀認知上的落差，因而忽視來自零售商品牌的威脅所導致的危機。這種狀況或許可透過不同通路系統多樣性的代工模式，進而分散來自零售便利商的威脅與風險。品牌產品製造與自有品牌代工兼容並進的雙軌發展模式，會是製造商生存的策略之一。
零售通路的自有品牌產品，已經得到消費者主觀認知上的注意與肯定。聰明的消費行為，也讓消費者逐漸轉向價值創新的零售商自有品牌，而捨棄了製造商品牌產品。零售商自品牌產品，不再只是市場的低價替代性產品。創新價值的零售商自有品牌產品的品牌權益，賺取了原本屬於製造商品牌的價格溢酬。
低價不是便宜，而是刪除了不合理的價格溢酬。雖然價格是品牌發展的重點，可是價值更是關鍵。零售商自品牌產品『平價奢華』的價值創新，會是感動消費者的價值主張。
消費者已經清楚知覺到零售商自有品牌所提供的品牌價值；零售商也知道自己擁有的通路優勢與經濟的規模，並以產品價值創新與獨特的差異性，積極零售商自有品牌權益的革命。製造商必須注意消費者對於零售商自有品牌權益的認知、與正面自有品牌回應的趨勢，以及零售商的積極品牌打造的企圖心；清楚品牌競爭的事實，以維護製造商產品的品牌權益。
製造商品牌並沒有消失，只是品牌權益已不再是製造商所獨有。零售商自有品牌，會是製造商未來必須面對的最大挑戰。
Recent change in the consumer-based retail market trend has redefined consumers’ perception of the meaning of brand. War over brand equity between the manufacturer and the retailer has evolved to another level. As retailers’ private brand (PB) takes on a new concept, it is taking a toll at the manufacturer’s expense.
This research tries to identify the perception of private brand from three different perspectives: the manufacturer, the retailer, and the consumer. The consumer-based retailers’ PB equity survey data was analyzed for the difference in subjective perspective based on respondents’ gender, age, personal income, level of education, and occupation.
The result shows that 97.87% of the respondents recognize the brand identity of retailers’ PB. However, only 25% of the respondents are aware of the brand meaning and actually purchase PB products on a regular basis. 83.45% of the respondents answered positively on the future development of PB, but the majority still can’t accept the notion that retail prices for PB are higher than the manufacturers’ brand (MB).
Gender does not seem to be a factor in the consumer’s perception of PB. However, age does have a major influence on the acceptance of the PB for consumers. Although older respondents, 30-years old or older, recognize the competitiveness of PB products for their innovative capability, with the emotional connection and the brand loyalty toward MB, the group of 41-year-olds or older expressed reluctance to purchase more PB products in the future. Obviously brand equity of PB products has yet to develop brand relationship with older consumers to allure them into the shops. On the contrary, brand equity of the retailer shops itself does have a positive influence on the sales of PB products.
Consumers’ educational level has a negative effect on the degree of satisfaction in PB product innovation. Furthermore, contrary to general perception, consumers with higher income level registered a higher preference for the PB product as well.
Both of the two convenience stores (CVS) in this case study agree with the upward trend of the PB. In fact, in 2009, 7-ELEVEN and FamilyMart each grew an impressive 110% and 130% respectively in sales revenue of their PB products.
However, both CVS have very different innovation models in strategic thinking and positioning their stores. 7-ELEVEN focuses more on value innovation and uses pricing as differentiation tactic in the market. On the other hand, FamilyMart puts product innovation and uniqueness as its priority to attract consumers.
Manufacturers who choose to ignore the threat of PB may subject themselves to the high risk presented by the burgeoning of such products. One possible solution may be through OEM/ODM of PB for various retailers in order to diversify and minimize possible threats and risks. Production of manufacturers’ own brand and retailers’ private brand in a two-track manufacturing system may well be a strategic way to survive for manufacturers.
Consumers are aware of and have recognized the existence of PB in retailer stores. The idea of smart shopping has its own right on the value innovation of PB for the consumer. PB no longer represents cheap products in the retail market. As PB positions itself with higher retail prices, it will possess the brand equity and earn the price premium at the toll of MB.
Low pricing does not imply cheap quality but the elimination of excessively unreasonable price premium of a product. Pricing is important to brand development, but value should be the key in establishing the perception of brand quality. Affordable luxury is a value innovation of the PB that creates an irresistible value proposition to touch the heart of consumers.
Consumers have clearly perceived the brand value of the PB. Retailers are also aware of the advantages they have with the channel, the scale and scope of economy; as a result, they are vigorously preparing for the battle to redefine the meaning of brand. It is time for manufacturers to change their mindset and face the inconvenient truth of the competition over brand equity.
Manufacturers’ brand still has its own right, but the brand equity is no longer monopolized by them. Retailers’ PB has certainly become the strongest competition that manufacturers will need to confront now and in the near future. |
| Reference: | 中文文獻
1. 主計處產業關聯表 (2003)，台灣經濟研究院產經資料庫整理，2003年7月。
2. 司徒達賢 (2005)，策略管理新論：觀念架構與分析方法，再版，臺北：智勝文化。
3. 江材祥 (2000)，台灣連鎖便利商店經營策略之研究，大業大學管理研究所碩士論文。
4. 邱志聖 (2006)，「策略行銷分析- 架構與實務應用」，二版，台北：智勝文化。
5. 邱稜育 (2007)，「探究全國品牌製造商代工零售商私有品牌的策略動機因素」，國立高雄第一科技大學行銷與流通管理系碩士論文。
6. 沈家玄 (2006)，「全國品牌權益侵蝕：代工私有公司有品牌的後果分析」，國立高雄第一科技大學行銷與流通管理系碩士論文。
7. 吳思華 (2000)，策略九說，三版，台北市：臉譜出版。
8. 林宜青 (2004)，「自有品牌與全國品牌競爭下，對供應鏈整合機制之影響」，臺灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。
9. 高騰蛟 (2001)， 「做餅的人生，明天有夢： 義美六十七年」，盧世祥執筆，台北市，遠流。
10. 陳萬淇 (1995)，個案研究法，華泰書局，台北。
11. 葉重新 (2001)，教育研究法。台北市：心理出版社。
12. 袁幸慈 (2006)，「商店形象與自有品牌形象對自有品牌知覺風 險、知覺品質、知覺價值與購買意願之影響 - 以大型量販店為例」，國立成功大學國際企業研究所碩士論文。
13. 黃姿云 (2005)，「零售業商店國際品牌和自有品牌對於購買傾向的影響- 以家樂福量販店為例」，國立成功大學企管理研究所碩士論文。
14. 張榮華 (2005)，「品牌權益與交易成本之關係研究」，東吳大學國際貿易學系碩士班碩士論文。
15. 張瑩婉和簡相堂 (2008)，「研究食品製造業與通路商競合關係研究」，食品工業發展研究所，經濟部工業局 ITIS。
16. 陳麗婷 (2009)，「台灣食品自有品牌與製造商品牌之競爭態勢觀察」， 食品工業發展研究所，經濟部工業局 ITIS。
17. 顏子瑋主編 (2009)，「2009台灣地區大型店舖總覽」，流通快訊雜誌社。
英文文獻
1. Aaker, D. A. (1991), “Managing Brand Equity”, New York: Free Press.
2. Aaker, D. A. (1992), “The Value of Brand Equity”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 13， p. 29.
3. Aaker, D. A. (1995), “Managing Brand Equity”, New York, the Free Press.
4. Breandenburger, A. M. and B. J. Nalebuff (1996), “Co-opetition”， Pearson.
5. Bronnenberg, B. J. and L. Wathieu (1996), “Asymmetric Promotion Effects and Brand Positioning”, Marketing Science, Vol.15, pp.379-394.
6. Dodds, W. B., K. B. Monroe and D. Grewal (1991), “The Effects of Price, Brand and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.28, pp.307-319.
7. Gass, S. I. and A. A. Assad (2005), “An annotated timeline of operations research: an informal history. “ Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.49.
8. Ghosh B. K. (1990), “Equipment Investment Decision Analysis in Cellular Manufacturing, “International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.10， No.7， p. 5-20.
9. Hoch, S. J. (1996), “How Should National Brands Thinks about Private Labels?” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 37 (winter), p. 89 - 102.
10. Hauser, J. R. and G. Urban (1986), “The Value Priority Hypothesis for Consumer Budget Plans”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.12, pp.446-462.
11. Keith, L. and L. Thomassen (2009), Private Label, Kogan Page, Piladelphia PA, USA.
12. Keller, K. L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57(1), p. 1-22.
13. Keller, K. L. (2008), “Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Brand Equity”, 3rd ed., Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
14. Kim, P. (1990), “A Perspective on Brand”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Fall, p 20- 30.
15. Kotler, P. (1997), “Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control”, 9th ed., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
16. Krishman, H. S. (1996), “Characteristics of Memory Associations: A Consumer-Based Brand Equity Perspective”, International Journal of Research Marketing Vol.58, p. 97-105.
17. Kuma, N. and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp (2007), “Private Label Strategy: How to Meet the Store Brand Challenge”, Harvard Business School Press.
18. Lassar, W., M. Banwari, and S. Arun (1995), “Measuring Customer base Brand Equity”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.12, No.4, p.11-20.
19. Lichtenstein, D. R., R. G. Netemeyer and S. Burton (1990), “Distinguishing Coupon Proneness from Value Consciousness: An Acquisition-Transaction Utility Perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.54, pp.54-67.
20. Morgenson, G. (1991), “The Trend Is Not Their Friend”, Forbes, September 16, pp.114-119.
21. Park, C. S. and V. Srinivasan (1994), “A Survey-Based Method for Measuring and Understanding Brand Equity and Its Extendibility”， Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), p.271-288.
22. Prahalad, C. K., & G. Hamel (1990), “The Core Competence of the Corporation”, Harvard Business Review，May-June 1990. Vol. 68, No. 3, p. 79-91.
23. Quelch, J. A., and D. Harding (1996), “Brands versus Private Labels: Fight to Win”, Harvard Business Review, (Jan. – Feb.), p. 99 – 109.
24. Rangaswamy, A., B. Raymond, and A. O. Terence (1993), “Brand Equity and the Extendibility of Brand Names”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (March), p.61-75.
25. Sawyer, A. G. and P. Dickson (1984), “Psychological Perspectives on Consumer Response to Sales Promotion, In: Jocz, K. (Ed.), Research on Sales Promotion”. Marketing Science Institute， Cambridge, MA.
26. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.52, pp.2-22.
網路文獻
1. Noorda， R. (2006)， “Ray Noorda - Pioneer of co-opetition”， The Independent。http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/ray-noorda-422415.html.
2. 李芸霈，(2007年)，「7-ELEVEN，搶攻日常消費品版圖 零售通路霸主，挺進上游搞品牌」，30雜誌。http://www.dgnet.com.tw/articleview.php?article_id=754&issue_id=184.
3. 黃仁益，(2009年)，「沒嘴的貓在賣什麼？」，出版行銷誌。http://publishingmarketing.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/.
4. 金鼎綜合證券股份有限公司產業察訪報告，(2010年)，http://pchome.syspower.com.tw/stockfile/20100420/127174092194.pdf.
5. 統一超商，維基百科，(2010年) ，http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E7%B5%B1%E4%B8%80%E8%B6%85%E5%95%86.
6. 理財網，(2010年)，「統一超今年自有品牌產品營收佔比上看25%，方巧文報導」，http://www.funddj.com/KMDJ/News/NewsViewer.aspx?a=7f0e5944-01b8-4c39-8303-2215c6586f2f |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
經營管理碩士學程(EMBA)
97932066
99 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097932066 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [經營管理碩士學程EMBA] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 206601.pdf | 1816Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 8190 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
