Advanced

Manufacturer brands versus private brands: Hoch's strategic framework and the Swedish food retail sector

Anselmsson, Johan LU and Johansson, Ulf LU (2014) In International Review of Retail Distribution & Consumer Research 24(2). p.186-212
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the knowledge of how manufacturer brands choose and can choose to defend themselves vis-à-vis introduction of private brands by retailers. The study adopts the same research approach as a Dutch empirical study (Verhoef, P. C., E. J. Nijssen, and L. M. Sloot. 2002. “Strategic Reactions of National Brand Manufacturers Towards Private Labels – An Empirical Study in the Netherlands.” European Journal of Marketing 36 (11/12): 1309–1326) that tested and rejected large parts of the original and well-known conceptual framework by Hoch (Hoch, S. J. 1996. “How Should National Brands Think About Private Labels?” Sloan Management Review 37 (2): 89–102) consisting of six manufacturer strategies to defend... (More)
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the knowledge of how manufacturer brands choose and can choose to defend themselves vis-à-vis introduction of private brands by retailers. The study adopts the same research approach as a Dutch empirical study (Verhoef, P. C., E. J. Nijssen, and L. M. Sloot. 2002. “Strategic Reactions of National Brand Manufacturers Towards Private Labels – An Empirical Study in the Netherlands.” European Journal of Marketing 36 (11/12): 1309–1326) that tested and rejected large parts of the original and well-known conceptual framework by Hoch (Hoch, S. J. 1996. “How Should National Brands Think About Private Labels?” Sloan Management Review 37 (2): 89–102) consisting of six manufacturer strategies to defend against private brands. This study is based on the Swedish market, a more typical market compared with the Dutch market characterized by high innovation level and high penetration of private brands. The study builds on a combination of qualitative and quantitative interviews with brand managers at 100 manufacturers in the Swedish Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) market. The results support Hoch's original conceptual framework concerning appropriate defence strategies for manufacturer brands. However, the two differentiation strategies – value for money and new and improved – are seen as one category of the strategies, which creates a simpler and more distinct structure to the framework. The results show that it is the largest and the leading manufacturers that choose this strategy. The lower the penetration of private brands, the larger the share of manufacturers that choose this strategy. The study gives a more nuanced picture concerning the motives behind the strategies and also concerning the differences between how manufacturers act depending on size and market share. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
manufacturer brands, private brands, Hoch's defence strategies, food retail sector, Sweden
in
International Review of Retail Distribution & Consumer Research
volume
24
issue
2
pages
186 - 212
publisher
Routledge
external identifiers
  • scopus:84899909908
ISSN
0959-3969
DOI
10.1080/09593969.2013.851102
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
16420af9-b083-4429-bf79-e4d7b0887454 (old id 4611318)
alternative location
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09593969.2013.851102?queryID=%24%7BresultBean.queryID%7D
date added to LUP
2014-08-29 10:16:02
date last changed
2017-01-01 03:22:25
@article{16420af9-b083-4429-bf79-e4d7b0887454,
  abstract     = {The purpose of this study was to contribute to the knowledge of how manufacturer brands choose and can choose to defend themselves vis-à-vis introduction of private brands by retailers. The study adopts the same research approach as a Dutch empirical study (Verhoef, P. C., E. J. Nijssen, and L. M. Sloot. 2002. “Strategic Reactions of National Brand Manufacturers Towards Private Labels – An Empirical Study in the Netherlands.” European Journal of Marketing 36 (11/12): 1309–1326) that tested and rejected large parts of the original and well-known conceptual framework by Hoch (Hoch, S. J. 1996. “How Should National Brands Think About Private Labels?” Sloan Management Review 37 (2): 89–102) consisting of six manufacturer strategies to defend against private brands. This study is based on the Swedish market, a more typical market compared with the Dutch market characterized by high innovation level and high penetration of private brands. The study builds on a combination of qualitative and quantitative interviews with brand managers at 100 manufacturers in the Swedish Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) market. The results support Hoch's original conceptual framework concerning appropriate defence strategies for manufacturer brands. However, the two differentiation strategies – value for money and new and improved – are seen as one category of the strategies, which creates a simpler and more distinct structure to the framework. The results show that it is the largest and the leading manufacturers that choose this strategy. The lower the penetration of private brands, the larger the share of manufacturers that choose this strategy. The study gives a more nuanced picture concerning the motives behind the strategies and also concerning the differences between how manufacturers act depending on size and market share.},
  author       = {Anselmsson, Johan and Johansson, Ulf},
  issn         = {0959-3969},
  keyword      = {manufacturer brands,private brands,Hoch's defence strategies,food retail sector,Sweden},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {186--212},
  publisher    = {Routledge},
  series       = {International Review of Retail Distribution & Consumer Research},
  title        = {Manufacturer brands versus private brands: Hoch's strategic framework and the Swedish food retail sector},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2013.851102},
  volume       = {24},
  year         = {2014},
}