外文翻譯--了解零售品牌概念的見解與研究重點(diǎn)（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　5200單詞，2.8萬英文字符,8700漢字</p><p>　　出處：Ailawadi K L, Keller K L. Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and research priorities[J]. Journal of Retailing, 2004, 80(4):331-342.</p>&l

2、t;p>　　Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and research priorities</p><p>　　Kusum L. Ailawadi, Kevin Lane Keller</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　With

3、the growing realization that brands are one of a firm’s most valuable intangible assets, branding has emerged as a top management priority in the last decade. Given its highly competitive nature, branding can be especial

4、ly important in the retailing industry to influence customer perceptions and drive store choice and loyalty. We integrate lessons from branding and retail image research to provide a better understanding of how retailers

5、 create their brand images, paying special attention to</p><p>　　© 2004 New York University. Published by Elsevier. All rights reserved.</p><p>　　Keywords: Retail branding; Store brands; St

6、ore image; Retail assortment</p><p>　　Retailers as brands</p><p>　　The last decade has seen major flux in retailing, especially in the U.S. grocery and general merchandise industry. On one hand,

7、 the growth of promotions and private labels has been seen by many as an indicator of growing retailer power. On the other hand, the growth of discounters and warehouse clubs has put immense pressure on traditional retai

8、lers and significantly increased retail competition both within and be- tween retail formats. Since a large portion of most retailers’ revenue and profit</p><p>　　Although many important branding principles

9、apply, retailer brands are sufficiently different from product brands that the actual application of those branding principles can vary. Retailer brands are typically more multi-sensory in nature than product brands and

10、can rely on rich consumer experiences to impact their equity. Retailers also create their brand images in different ways, e.g., by attaching unique associations to the quality of their service, their product assortment a

11、nd merchandising</p><p>　　In most consumer industries, the image and equity of retailer brands also depends on the manufacturer brands they carry and the equity of those brands. Retailers use manufacturer br

12、ands to generate consumer interest, patronage, and loyalty in a store. Manufacturer brands operate almost as “ingredient brands” that wield significant consumer pull, of- ten more than the retailer brand does. To the ext

13、ent “you are what you sell,” manufacturer brands help to create an image and establish a positionin</p><p>　　At the same time, retailers compete with manufacturers for consumer pull to increase their relativ

14、e market power and their share of the total channel profit pie (Steiner 1993). In doing so, they may sell some of their own brands. In fact, in industries like apparel, one can find several examples of retailers who car

15、ry only their own private label products, e.g., GAP, Brooks Brothers, and Talbots. Private label products may have their own unique brand names or be branded under the name of the re</p><p>　　Understanding h

16、ow a retailer should be positioned and how the brand assortment sold by the retailer is related to its image are thus of critical importance. Some retailers have managed their brands more effectively than others, as is e

17、vident in their performance. For instance, although overall U.S. retail profitability did not improve during the eighties and nineties, some retailers have fared exceedingly well (Ailawadi, Borin, & Farris 1995).<

18、/p><p>　　The purpose of this article is to (1) integrate the lessons from branding and retail image research to provide a better understanding of how retailers create their brand images; review what we know abo

19、ut how the types of brands that retailers sell – manufacturer brands and private labels– influence and are influenced by the retailers’ brand image; and (3) highlight some important areas that deserve further research in

20、 the form of three sets of research priorities.</p><p>　　The dimensions of retailer image</p><p>　　Following the American Marketing Association’s definition of a brand, a retail brand identifies

21、 the goods and services of a retailer and differentiates them from those of competitors. A retailer’s brand equity is exhibited in consumers responding more favorably to its marketing actions than they do to competing re

22、tailers (Keller 2003). The image of the retailer in the minds of consumers is the basis of this brand equity.</p><p>　　Researchers have studied a multitude of retailer attributes that influence overall image

23、, e.g., the variety and quality of products, services, and brands sold; the physical store appearance; the appearance, behavior and service quality of employees; the price levels, depth and frequency of promotions; an

24、d so on. Lindquist (1974) and Mazursky and Jacoby (1986) categorized these attributes into a smaller set of location, merchandise, service, and store atmosphere related dimensions. To organize</p><p><b&g

25、t;　　Access</b></p><p>　　The location of a store and the distance that the consumer must travel to shop there are basic criteria in their store choice decisions. Beginning with gravity models (e.g., Huf

26、f, 1966) store choice and the optimization of retail site location attracted a lot of research attention in the eighties (e.g., Achabal, Gorr, & Mahajan 1982; Donthu & Rust 1989; Ghosh & Craig 1983). Today, s

27、uburban sprawl, greater driving distances, the appearance of new warehouse retail formats that are often located in</p><p>　　Consistent with this trend, Bell, Ho, and Tang (1998) find that location no longer

28、 explains most of the variance in store choice decisions. Rather, store choice decisions seem to be consistent with a model where consumers’ optimize their to- tal shopping costs, effort to access the store location bein

29、g one component of their fixed cost of shopping. That is not to say, however, that location is unimportant. Consumers’ store choice may be based on different criteria depending upon the nature of th</p><p>　

30、　In summary, although location no longer explains a major portion of the variance in consumers’ choice of stores, it is a key component in consumer’s assessment of total shopping costs and is still important for retailer

31、s who wish to get a substantial share of wallet from fill-in trips and small basket shoppers.</p><p>　　Store atmosphere</p><p>　　Mehrabian and Russell (1974) note that the response that atmosphe

32、re elicits from consumers varies along three main dimensions of pleasantness, arousal, and dominance. This response, in turn, influences behavior, with greater likelihood of purchase in more pleasant settings and in sett

33、ings of intermediate arousal level. Different elements of a retailer’s in-store environment, e.g., color, music, and crowding, can influence consumers’ perceptions of a store’s atmosphere, whether or not they visit </

34、p><p>　　Store atmosphere mediates consumer perceptions of other dimensions of store image. For instance, Baker et al. (2002) find that store environment factors, particularly physical design perceptions, signif

35、icantly affect consumers’ perceptions of merchandise price, merchandise quality, and employee service quality. Schlosser (1998) argues that, since store atmosphere has a social identity appeal, a pleasing atmosphere in t

36、he store should influence perceptions of socially communicative products in th</p><p>　　In summary, a pleasing in-store atmosphere provides substantial hedonic utility to consumers and encourages them to vis

37、it more often, stay longer, and buy more. Although it also improves consumers’ perceptions of the quality of merchandise in the store, consumers tend to associate it with higher prices. From a branding perspective, an ap

38、pealing instore atmosphere offers much potential in terms of crafting a unique store image and establishing differentiation. Increasingly, brands are being posit</p><p>　　Price and promotion</p><p

39、>　　No matter how the characteristics of the consumer, product, store, or purchase situation might differ, price represents the monetary expenditure that the consumer must incur in order to make a purchase. From the va

40、st literature on pricing, we highlight three areas that are of direct relevance to consumers’ image and choice of retailers.</p><p>　　Store price perceptions</p><p>　　A retailer’s price image sh

41、ould be influenced by attributes like average level of prices, how much variation there is in prices over time, the frequency and depth of promotions, and whether the retailer positions itself as EDLP or HILO. Decades ag

42、o, however, Brown (1969) highlighted the difference between consumers’ perceptions of price levels in various stores and reality, showing that consumers may use non-price related cues like service offerings and quality

43、levels to form their price percep</p><p>　　Desai and Talukdar (2003) develop a product-price saliency framework to examine how consumers form an overall store price image (OSPI). They show that products with

44、 high unit prices and high purchase frequency are more salient and therefore contribute more to OSPI, with purchase frequency dominating unit price in importance. Alba, Broniarczyk, Shimp, and Urbany (1994) examine how c

45、onsumers’ perceptions of store prices change with prior beliefs and information about how frequently a store has a p</p><p>　　Retailer pricing format</p><p>　　A retailer’s price format, which is

46、 on a continuum be- tween Every Day Low Price (EDLP) and High-Low Pro- motional Pricing (HILO), also influences consumers’ store choice and shopping behavior. Bell and Lattin (1998) show that “l(fā)arge basket shoppers” pref

47、er EDLP stores whereas “small basket shoppers” prefer HILO stores. The intuition behind the finding is straight-forward. Large basket shoppers are captive to the pricing across a large set of product categories at a time

48、 and do not have the flex</p><p>　　Ho, Tang, and Bell (1998) also explain why both EDLP and HILO co-exist in the market. They show that average prices are higher in HILO stores and average purchase quantitie

49、s are lower. HILO pricing is more effective in enticing shoppers to make more frequent store visits, but, since shoppers have the flexibility to buy more on trips when prices are lower, the HILO store’s revenue per unit

50、time is lower. In contrast, EDLP decreases shopping frequency but generates higher revenue per unit time. Th</p><p>　　Price promotion induced store switching</p><p>　　The third research area stu

51、dies whether retailer price pro- motions result in store switching by consumers. Kumar and Leone (1988) and Walters (1991) find a significant impact of promotions on store switching/traffic. However, it is unlikely that

52、consumers would keep track of weekly promotions on a multitude of categories in all the stores in their neighbor- hood. Bucklin and Lattin (1992) show that retail promotions in any one category do not directly influence

53、a consumer’s store choice decisio</p><p>　　In summary, consumers are more likely to develop a favorable price image when retailers offer frequent discounts on a large number of products than when they offer

54、less frequent, but steeper discounts. Further, products that have high unit price and are purchased more frequently are more salient in determining the retailer’s price image. One pricing format does not dominate another

55、, but large basket shoppers prefer EDLP stores while small basket shoppers prefer HILO, and it is optimal for HILO s</p><p>　　Cross-category assortment</p><p>　　Consumers’ perception of the brea

56、dth of different products and services offered by a retailer under one roof significantly influence store image. The benefits of a wide assortment are clear. First, the greater the breadth of product assortment, the grea

57、ter the range of different situations in which the retailer is recalled and considered by the consumer, and therefore the stronger its salience. As noted by Keller (2003), salience is the most basic building block for a

58、brand. Second, the one-stop</p><p>　　The branding literature, however, suggests some potential pitfalls of broad assortments, apart from the rather obvious downside that increasing assortment breadth brings

59、with it significantly higher costs for the retailer. Inman, Shankar, and Ferraro (2004) show that certain types of product categories have “signature” associations with specific channels, e.g., supermarkets with food, dr

60、ug channel with medications and health products, and mass merchandisers with household items. But, research ha</p><p>　　The good news, however, is that if the retailer attempts to sell a new line of products

61、 or offer a new service that fails to connect with consumers, there may be little long-term harm as long as the new line is not too closely connected to the retailer’s signature categories or its own brand name. Research

62、 on brand equity dilution has found that parent brands generally are not particularly vulnerable to failed brand extensions: An unsuccessful brand extension potentially damages a parent brand o</p><p>　　Anot

63、her finding from brand extension research is also relevant to retailers’ assortment decisions. Keller and Aaker (1992) showed that by taking “l(fā)ittle steps,” i.e., by introducing a series of closely related but increasing

64、ly distant extensions, it is possible for a brand to ultimately enter product categories that would have been much more difficult, or perhaps even impossible, to have entered directly (Dawar & Anderson 1994; Jap 1993

65、; Meyvis & Janiszewski, 2004). Successfully introduced brand</p><p>　　In summary, a broad assortment can create customer value by offering convenience and ease of shopping. It is risky to extend too far

66、too soon, but, staying too tightly coupled to the current assortment and image may unnecessarily limit the retailer’s range of experimentation (Danneels 2003). The logic and sequencing of a retailer’s assortment polic

67、y are critical to its ability to successfully expand its meaning and appeal to consumers over time.</p><p>　　Within-category assortment</p><p>　　Consumers’ perceptions of the depth of a retailer

68、’s assortment within a product category are an important dimension of store image and a key driver of store choice. As the perceived assortment of brands, flavors, and sizes increases, variety seeking consumers will perc

69、eive greater utility (Kahn & Wansink 2004; McAlister & Pessemier 1982), consumers with uncertain future preferences will believe they have more flexibility in their choices (Kahn & Lehmann 1991), and, in gene

70、ral, it is more likely </p><p>　　Kahn and Lehmann (1991), Hoch, Bradlow, and Wansink (1999), and Boatwright and Nunes (2001) highlight, for ex- ample, the importance of uniqueness or differences in at- tribu

71、te levels among items, with greater uniqueness being as- sociated with greater perceived variety in assortment. Kahn and Wansink (2004) show that the organization and symmetry of an assortment moderate the impact of actu

72、al assortment variety on perceived variety and consumption, with organized and asymmetric assortments havi</p><p>　　Broniarczyk, Hoyer, and McAlister (1998) find that SKU reduction does not lower consumers’

73、perceptions of assortment much unless their favorite item is dropped or the total amount of space devoted to the category is reduced. Further, a moderate decrease in number of SKUs can actually in- crease consumers’ perc

74、eptions of assortment as long as their favorite item and total category space are maintained. Dreze, Hoch, and Purk (1994) and Boatwright and Nunes (2001), do find that aggregate sales actu</p><p>　　In summa

75、ry, greater perceived assortment does influence store image, store choice, and satisfaction with the store, but a greater number of SKUs need not directly translate to better perceptions. Retailers can reduce the number

76、of SKUs sub- stantially without adversely affecting consumer perceptions, as long as they pay attention to the most preferred brands, the organization of the assortment and the availability of diverse product attributes.

77、</p><p>　　Brand assortment</p><p>　　One specific aspect of the retailer’s assortment strategy, brand assortment, has become particularly important in the last decade as a tool for retailers to i

78、nfluence their image and develop their own brand name. Most retailers carry manufacturer brands, but, increasingly, they also offer private label products. One motivation for offering private labels is the higher percent

79、 margins that they provide to retailers (Hoch & Banerji 1993); another is the negotiating leverage they pro- vide over man</p><p>　　The growth in private labels has spawned much research on who buys priv

80、ate label products, whether and how private labels provide leverage to retailers, and the category and market determinants of private label share. We review the main findings from this research and summarize the implicat

81、ions for retail branding. We also review the rather small body of re- search that throws light on whether and how the manufacturer brands carried by a retailer influence consumers’ evaluation of private label </p>

82、<p>　　Private labels</p><p>　　Although the growth of private labels has been interpreted by some as a sign of the “decline of brands,” it could easily be argued that the opposite conclusion is more val

83、id, as private label growth could be seen in some ways as a consequence of cleverly designed branding strategies.</p><p>　　One of the most fundamental questions that researchers have asked about private labe

84、ls is “Who is the private label prone consumer?” Interestingly, despite a large body of re- search on this issue (e.g., Ailawadi, Gedenk, & Nelsin 2001; Richardson et al. 1996), we have few empirical generalizations

85、about the characteristics of the private label user. The best we can say is that s/he is price sensitive but not image sensitive, middle-income, and educated.</p><p>　　Another key question is “Do private lab

86、els give retailers negotiating leverage over national brand manufacturers?” Several analytical models have been developed in recent years that claim the answer to this question is “yes” (Mills 1995; Narasimhan & Wilc

87、ox 1998), and Ailawadi and Harlam’s (2004) empirical analysis supports the hypothesis that retailers are able to earn high margins on national brands in categories where their private label has a high share.</p>&

88、lt;p>　　A third question relates to the category characteristics that are conducive to private label success. Several researchers have noted that private label proneness is more category specific than consumer specific

89、 (e.g., Sethuraman 1992; Sethuraman & Cole 1997). Private labels gain higher share in large, less-promoted categories with a small number of brands, and when the price differential between national brands and private

90、 label is large (Dhar & Hoch 1998; Hoch & Banerji 1993; Sethuraman 1992). </p><p>　　The fact that the perceived quality differential between private labels and national brands is so important clearly

91、 means that the better the private label position in terms of quality, the more likely it is to succeed. However, should the private label be positioned against the leading national brand? Sayman, Hoch, and Raju (2002) s

92、how analytically that it is profitable for the private label to position itself close to the leading national brand, particularly when the leading brand has a high s</p><p>　　Is private label use related to

93、store loyalty? The answer has direct relevance to the ability of private labels to help build retailers’ brands. Conventional wisdom certainly has it that store image and loyalty may improve as consumers become familiar

94、with the private label and their shopping is facilitated by the ability to buy a single brand across a wide range of product categories (e.g., Steenkamp & Dekimpe 1997). Corstjens and Lal (2000) also show analyticall

95、y that the ability to engender s</p><p>　　Corstjens and Lal (2000) provide empirical evidence of a positive correlation between private label use and store loyalty using scanner data for one product categor

96、y, and Ailawadi et al. (2001) show a positive association using survey data. On the other hand, Ailawadi and Harlam (2004) find that heavy private label users buy significantly less from a retailer than do medium private

97、 label users. Further, none of these studies can attest to the direction of causality in the relationship. As a res</p><p>　　In summary, private label users span a wide array of demo- graphic and psychograph

98、ic characteristics, so retailers who use a strong private label strategy are not limiting themselves to only a narrow section of the market. The negotiating lever- age provided by a successful private label can make it e