Journal List > J Nutr Health > v.50(3) > 1081505

TOOLS
Lee, Na, and Lee: Effects of brand image on brand relationship quality and reuse intentions in bab food∗
Research Article

J Nutr Health 2017;50(3):302-311.

Published online: 20 January 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2017.50.3.302

Effects of brand image on brand relationship quality and reuse intentions in bab food∗

Ho-Jin Lee1, Hee-Ra Na2, Min-A Lee†

1Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, Kookmin University, Seoul 02707, Korea

2Department of Food and Nutrition, Kookmin University, Seoul 02707, Korea

†To whom correspondence should be addressed. tel: +82-2-910-5745, E-mail: malee@kookmin.ac.kr

∗ This research was supported by Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (IPET) through High Value-added Food Technology Development Program, funded by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (Grant number: 314055–02–2-HD020).

Received 24 April 2017       Revised 11 May 2017       Accepted 1 June 2017

Copyright © 2017 The Korean Nutrition Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of brand image of baby food on brand relationship quality and reuse intentions. Methods: A total of 211 questionnaires completed by customers who bought Brand B baby food were obtained from empirical research. SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 23.0 were employed for statistical analysis. Results: Customers perceived Brand B baby food as “Convenient”, “Professional”, “Reliable”, “Famous”, and “Healthy”. Overall, the results indicate that perceived image for Brand B baby food had a significantly positive effect on brand relationship quality in terms of self-concept connection, commitment, and partner quality and intimacy. In addition, commitment and partner quality and intimacy had significantly positive effects on reuse intentions for Brand B baby food. Conclusion: The results of this study reveal the importance of brand image in baby food to improve brand relationship quality in terms of commitment and partner quality and intimacy as well as reuse intentions. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize positive brand image as a key factor in forming relationships between consumers and brands as well as search for ways to apply marketing strategies based on brand image.

Keywords: baby food, brand image, brand relationship quality, reuse intentions

References

1. Jeon MH, Cho JK. A case study of gold kids service marketing for domestic hotels. J Product Res. 2015; 33(3):59–68.
2. Korean Statistical Information Service. 2015 population and housing census [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea;2016. [cited 2017 Mar 17]. Available from:. http://kosis.kr.
3. Statistics Korea. 2016 women's life in statistics [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea;2016. [cited 2017 Mar 17]. Available from:. http://kostat.go.kr.
4. Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation. 2015 processed food segment market status: infant formula market [Internet]. Naju: Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation;2016. [cited 2017 Mar 17]. Available from:. http://www.atfis.or.kr.
5. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (KR). Food and food additive production performance [Internet]. Cheongju: Ministry of Food and Drug Safety;2016. [cited 2017 Mar 17]. Available from:. http://www.mfds.go.kr.
6. Korean Statistical Information Service. Mining and manufacturing survey/item number classifieds businesses [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea;2014. [cited 2017 Mar 17]. Available from:. http://kosis.kr.
7. Bebecook (KR). Production stage for baby food [Internet]. Seoul: Bebecook;; [cited 2017 Apr 5]. Available from:. http://www.bebecook.com.
8. Kim YK, Hur W. Dimensions of brand relationship quality (BRQ): focusing on the influence of product categories & communication factors. Korean J Journal Commun Stud. 2003; 47(4):190–219.
9. Blackston M. Beyond brand personality: building brand relationships. Aaker DA, Biel AL, editors. editors.Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising's Role in Building Strong Brands. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum;1993. p. 113–124.
10. Cho HM. The influence of congruence between brand personality and parental self image on brand relationship quality. Korean Bus Educ Assoc. 2006; 9:85–113.
11. American Marketing Association. Dictionary [Internet]. Chicago (IL): American Marketing Association;c1995. [cited 2017 Mar 17]. Available from:. https://www.ama.org/resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=B.
12. de Chernatony L, Dall'Olmo Riley F. Defining a "brand": beyond the literature with experts' interpretations. J Marketing Manag. 1998; 14(5):417–443.
crossref
13. Kim DK, Koh IK. A study on the influence of brand image and product attributes upon purchase intention: focusing on the analysis of full-sized sedan. Korean Corp Manage Rev. 2010; 17(4):215–231.
14. Fournier S. A consumer-brand relationship framework for strategic brand management [dissertation]. Gainesville (FL): University of Florida;1994.
15. Fournier S. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. J Consum Res. 1998; 24(4):343–373.
crossref
16. Kim BJ, Kang MS, Cho HH. A study on the form of consumer-brand community relationship. J Aviat Manag Soc Korea. 2007; 5(2):187–202.
17. Kim YK. Dimensions of consumer-brand relationships. Advert Res. 2002; 54:7–32.
18. Choi MW, Cho BL. A study of the brand relationship quality: with focus on the relation with the components of brand equity. Korean J Advert Public Relat. 2005; 7(4):127–168.
19. Kim KH, Park JW, Kim JK. Consumer–brand relationship quality: when and how it helps brand extensions. J Bus Res. 2014; 67(4):591–597.
crossref
20. Park JW, Kim KH, Kim JK. Acceptance of brand extensions: interactive influences of product category similarity, typicality of claimed benefits, and brand relationship quality. Adv Consum Res. 2002; 29(1):190–198.
21. Smit EG, Bronner F, Tolboom M. Brand relationship quality and its value for personal contact. J Bus Res. 2007; 60(6):627–633.
crossref
22. Xie D, Heung VC. The effects of brand relationship quality on responses to service failure of hotel consumers. Int J Hosp Manag. 2012; 31(3):735–744.
crossref
23. Kim M, Seo KH, Lee SB. A study on the structural relationships among brand personality, customer-brand relationship quality, and repurchase intention: focusing on domestic pizza market. Culin Sci Hosp Res. 2013; 19(2):130–148.
24. Lee YJ, Kim YK, Han KS, Choi DJ. A study on the effect of brand recognition on brand personality, brand image and customer-brand relationship quality in the university contract foodservice industry. Culin Sci Hosp Res. 2011; 17(2):51–73.
25. Kim HA. Effect of the consumer-brand relationship quality on the brand loyalty in the fast food restaurant in Masan, Korea. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 2005; 34(4):489–495.
26. Kim HA. Effect of the consumer-brand relationship quality on the revisit intent and recommendation intent in the family restaurant in Masan, Korea. Korean J Food Cult. 2006; 21(4):396–405.
27. Ryu GS, Jang JM, Lee HK. The impact of CRM programs on word-of-mouth behavior: the mediating role of consumer-brand relationship quality. J Consum Stud. 2004; 15(3):87–109.
28. Park SH, Kim TH, Kim JS. A study on the impacts of hotel restaurant brand personality on the quality of the customer-brand relationship and revisits. Korean J Hosp Adm. 2005; 14(4):99–115.
29. Park SH, Kim TH, Lee SB. A study of the impact of family restaurant brand personality on the quality customers-brand relationship and revisits. J Foodserv Manage. 2006; 9(2):47–66.
30. Park YB, Ahn DH, Lee SW. A study on the effect of brand personality, relationship quality on the customer satisfaction, loyalty in the foodservice industry. J Foodserv Manage. 2009; 12(5):187–204.
31. Kim JY, Lee KH. Brand images of children's wear and mother's purchase intention: focus on self-image congruence and behavioral intention model. Res J Costume Cult. 2011; 19(3):622–636.
32. Cho HM, Song KS. A study on the influence of congruity between brand personality and parental self image on satisfaction in the prestige brand market of infant apparels. Consumption Cult Study. 2007; 10(1):29–48.
33. Oliver RL. Satisfaction: abehavioral perspective on the consumer. 2nd ed.New York (NY): Routledge;2015.
34. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. 2nd ed.Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum;2004.
35. Hair JF. Multivariate data analysis: aglobal perspective. 7th ed.Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall;2010.
36. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill;1967.
37. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J Mark Res. 1981; 18(3):382–388.
crossref
38. Kim JG, Kim JH, Kim HG. The effect of product innovativeness on brand relationship quality and purchase intention. Logos Manag Rev. 2015; 13(3):37–56.

Fig. 1.
Research model
jnh-50-302f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Structural path model with parameter estimate
jnh-50-302f2.tif
Table 1.
Description of the respondents and reasons for buying products of brand B
Variables Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Gender    
 Female 206 97.6
 Male 5 2.4
Age    
 20's 16 7.6
 30's 178 84.4
 40's 17 8.1
Occupation    
 Homemaker 133 63.0
 Office worker·Administrative worker 40 19.0
 Professional worker 30 14.2
 Self employed 5 2.4
 Production worker 1 0.5
 Others 2 0.9
Education level    
 ≤ High school 23 10.9
 Community college 57 27.0
 Bachelor's degree 108 51.2
 Graduate degree (s) 23 10.9
Monthly household income (won)    
 Less than 2.5 million won 33 15.6
 2,500,000 to 4,999,999 115 54.5
 5,000,000 to 7,499,999 44 20.9
 7,500,000 to 9,999,999 9 4.3
 Above 10,000,000 10 4.7
Number of children    
 One 138 65.4
 Two 67 31.8
 Three 6 2.8
Age of children1) (month)    
 1st 27.58 ± 26.11
 2nd 14.79 ± 17.13
 3rd 9.17 ± 2.79
Reasons for buying products of brand B    
 Excellent quality 40 19.0
 Used by people around me 99 46.9
 Likeable package 4 1.9
 Influenced by advertisement 10 4.7
 Easy to buy 4 1.9
 Reasonable price 10 4.7
 Brand image 24 11.4
 Etc 20 9.5

1) Mean ± SD

Table 2.
Descriptive statistics of measures
Variables M ± SD1) Skewness Kurtosis
Brand B image      
 Reliable 4.27 ± 0.62 –0.370 0.070
 Professional 4.30 ± 0.58 –0.142 –0.583
 Healthy 4.13 ± 0.67 –0.253 –0.363
 Luxurious 3.78 ± 0.77 0.196 –0.925
 Pure 3.68 ± 0.70 –0.428 1.187
 Neat 4.08 ± 0.66 –0.412 0.520
 Famous 4.27 ± 0.71 –0.695 0.221
 Convenient 4.35 ± 0.72 –1.208 2.341
 Fresh 4.10 ± 0.72 –0.391 –0.254
 Friendly 3.88 ± 0.77 –0.460 0.416
 Safe 3.97 ± 0.74 –1.008 2.786
 Diverse 3.81 ± 0.96 –0.552 0.011
 Refined 3.62 ± 0.76 0.224 –0.520
Brand relationship quality      
 (Affective & Socio-emotive attachment): Self-concept connection      
  B brand helps me make a statement about what is important to me in life. 3.84 ± 0.82 –0.485 0.156
  B brand's image and my self image are similar in a lot of ways. 3.37 ± 0.80 0.149 0.195
  B brand reminds me of who I am. 2.99 ± 0.90 0.138 –0.062
 (Behavioral ties): Commitment      
  I will stay with B brand through good times and bad. 3.45 ± 0.90 –0.116 –0.227
  I feel very loyal to B brand. 3.95 ± 0.81 –0.235 –0.705
 (Supportive cognitive beliefs): Partner quality and intimacy      
  B brand has always been good to me. 3.18 ± 0.99 0.144 –0.742
  I know a lot about B brand. 3.28 ± 0.85 –0.059 0.270
  B brand treats me like an important and valuable customer. 3.58 ± 0.81 –0.283 0.169
Reuse intention      
 I intend to reuse B brand in the near future when I buy food products for infants. 4.02 ± 0.75 –0.525 0.198
 I am willing to pay more to use food products for brand B. 3.60 ± 0.89 –0.256 –0.274
 I prefer to use brand B first when I buy food products for infants. 4.06 ± 0.75 –0.498 –0.011

1) Likert 5-point scale: 1. strongly disagree, 3. normal, 5. strongly agree

Table 3.
Differences in brand relationship quality by reasons for buying products of brand B
    Brand relationship quality
    
Reasons for buying products of brand B Self-concept connection
 Commitment
 Partner quality and intimacy
M ± SD1) p-value2) M ± SD1) p-value2) M ± SD1) p-value2)
Excellent quality (n = 40) 3.63 ± 0.70   4.01 ± 0.72   3.69 ± 0.75  
Used by people around me (n = 99) 3.37 ± 0.63   3.66 ± 0.67   3.29 ± 0.64  
Likeable package (n = 4) 3.08 ± 0.32   3.25 ± 0.87   3.25 ± 0.74  
Influenced by advertisement (n = 10) 3.40 ± 0.60 2.42∗ 3.25 ± 0.48 2.42∗ 3.10 ± 0.32 1.52
Easy to buy (n = 4) 3.42 ± 0.50 3.50 ± 0.58 3.08 ± 0.50
Reasonable price (n = 10) 3.17 ± 0.80   3.35 ± 0.94   3.13 ± 0.83  
Brand image (n = 24) 3.38 ± 0.42   3.73 ± 0.69   3.22 ± 0.77  
Etc. (n = 20) 3.27 ± 0.75   3.72 ± 0.75   3.38 ± 0.64  
Total (n = 211) 3.40 ± 0.64   3.70 ± 0.71   3.34 ± 0.69  

1) Likert 5-point scale: 1. strongly disagree, 3. normal, 5. strongly agree 2) p value by ANOVA

∗ p < 0.05

Table 4.
Reliability and convergent validity properties of variables
Construct items Cronbach's alpha Standardized factor loading Construct reliabilities Average variance extracted
Image        
 Image1   0.467    
 Image2   0.641    
 Image3   0.700    
 Image4   0.658    
 Image5   0.688    
 Image6   0.730    
 Image7 0.918 0.577 0.949 0.745
 Image8   0.661    
 Image9   0.722    
 Image10   0.640    
 Image11   0.799    
 Image12   0.627    
 Image13   0.656    
Brand relationship quality1)
 SC1   0.782    
 SC2 0.638 0.729 0.844 0.644
 SC3   0.657    
 CM1 CM2 0.585 0.640 0.649 0.716 0.558
 PQ1   0.469    
 PQ2 0.670 0.603 0.752 0.513
 PQ3   0.784    
Reuse intention
 UI1   0.804    
 UI2 0.800 0.683 0.826 0.614
 UI3   0.719    

1) SC; Self-concept connection, CM; Commitment, PQ; Partner quality and intimacy

Table 5.
Correlations matrix among the latent constructs (squared)1)
Measure Image Self-concept connection Commitment Partner quality and intimacy Reuse intention
Image 0.745∗        
Self-concept connection 0.506 (0.256) 0.644∗      
Commitment 0.525 (0.276) 0.685 (0.469) 0.558∗    
Partner quality and intimacy 0.493 (0.243) 0.724 (0.524) 0.741 (0.549) 0.513∗  
Reuse intention 0.570 (0.325) 0.614 (0.377) 0.701 (0.491) 0.684 (0.468) 0.614∗
Composite reliability 0.949 0.844 0.716 0.752 0.826

1) Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

∗ AVE (average variance extracted)

Table 6.
Standardized parameter estimates of the structural equation model
Hypothesized relationship Standardized path coefficient t-value Results
H1: Image → Self-concept connection 0.657 5.109∗∗∗ Supported
H2: Image → Commitment 0.779 7.146∗∗∗ Supported
H3: Image → Partner quality and intimacy 0.740 5.731∗∗∗ Supported
H4: Self-concept connection → Reuse intention –0.030 –0.222 Not supported
H5: Commitment → Reuse intention 0.493 4.070∗∗∗ Supported
H6: Partner quality and intimacy → Reuse intention 0.451 2.392∗ Supported
Chi-square (χ2) = 471.138 (p < 0.001), df = 238, χ2/df = 1.980, CFI = 0.908, TLI = 0.893, IFI = 0.909, RMR = 0.047, RMSEA = 0.068

CFI; comparative fit index, IFI; incremental fit index, TLI; tucker-Lewis index, RMR; root mean square residual, RMESA; root mean square error of approximation

∗ p < 0.05,

∗∗∗ p < 0.001

TOOLS
Similar articles