The Development of Brand Loyalty
Author(s): W. T. Tucker
Source: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Aug., 1964), pp. 32-35
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3150053
Accessed: 27/03/2009 10:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing Research.
http://www.jstor.org
32
The
of Brand
Development
Loyalty
W. T. TUCKER*
> The experiment reported here examines the growth of brand loyalty in a setting where there is no
prior consumer knowledge about any of the available brands. Search behavior precedes the development of brand loyalty, which grows to measurable strength despite the virtual identity of the available
brands, suggesting that some consumersare prone to brand-loyal behavior.
Most studies of brand loyalty have involved the
measurementand descriptionof loyalties to existing
brands of merchandise.From these studies it can be
safely concludedthat there are rather wide variations
in loyalty among individualsand that brand loyalty is
at least in part a function of the frequencyand regularitywith which a brandhas been selectedin the past
[5] and in part a function of the type of product involved [6]. Rathersophisticatedanalyseshave suggested
that some sort of Markov process best describes the
growth of brand loyalty [3, 4]. One of the primary
characteristicsof the relevantresearchis its relianceon
maximumrealism and the minimal distortion of the
context of consumerbehavior[2]. Even effortssuch as
Pessemier'sstudy measuringthe strengthof brandloyalty are ingeniousin their effortsto maintainthe semblanceof realismunderdifficultcircumstances[7].
Valuableas such methodologicaltechniquesare, they
cannot be broughtto bear on some critical aspects of
brandloyalty.In orderto discussthese meaningfully,it
is necessary to define brand loyalty, despite the apparent simplicity of the terms. For purposes of this
paper, brand loyalty is conceived to be simply biased
choice behaviorwith respect to brandedmerchandise.
If there are two cola drinksofferedto a person a number of times, his degree of brandloyalty can be stated
in termsof the relativefrequencywith whichhe chooses
one brand rather than the other. If he selects Pepsi
Cola rather than Coca Cola (and both are equally
available) enough of the time to persuadethe statistically sophisticatedobserverthat the differencein frequency is not due to chance, he may be said to be
brandloyal. No considerationshouldbe given to what
the subjectthinks or what goes on in his central nervous system;his behavioris the full statementof what
brandloyaltyis.
It is always dangerousto fragmentmolar behavior
into theoretical sub-systems,but the obviously complex characterof brand loyalty demandssome further
analysisif it is to be fully useful eithertheoreticallyor
to practicalmarketers.The loyaltymay be to some sub* W. T. Tucker is professor of marketing at the University of Texas.
set of characteristics:the shapeof the bottle, the sweetness of the drink,the colorson the cap, the brandname,
or whatever.Now imagine that the loyalty to Pepsi
Cola described above existed during that time when
Pepsi was marketedin 12 oz. export beer bottles and
the only bottled Coca Cola contained 6 oz. Imagine
furtherthat a single change was made: a new 12 oz.
bottle of Coca Cola (there was such an experimental
size at one time) was availableto him as an alternative
to the 12 oz. Pepsi. This might change his choice so
that he would subsequentlychoose Coca Cola more
frequentlythan Pepsi.
It is tempting to suggest that the individual was
neverreallybrandloyal to Pepsi at all, but merelypreferred a larger drink. But chaos lies in this direction.
Suppose for instance that the Pepsi Cola formula or
drink is next placed in the Coca Cola bottle capped
with the red, white and blue Pepsi Cola cap and the
Coca Cola is placed in the old exportbeer bottle with
a Coca Cola cap-and that the individualshiftsback to
the Pepsi. What becomes of brand loyalty? In fact
brandloyaltyis alwaysa biasedresponseto some combinationof characteristics,not all of which are critical
stimuli.This way of looking at brand loyalty may not
be congenial,but somethingmuch like it (the gestalt
approach suggests variations) seems required either
for researchon the natureof brandloyalty or practical
questionsregardingchanges in product, packaging,or
advertising.
One of the hypothesesthat the experimentreported
here undertakesto support is the notion that brand
loyaltywill grow in an almostcompletelyinfertilefield,
that biased choices will develop even when products
are virtually identical and brand names are close to
meaningless.Clearly, this hypothesisis an outgrowth
of the precedingview of brand loyalty. It also stems
from a confirmedbelief that the stochastic learning
model is not wholly satisfactoryas a descriptionof
brandchoice.
The stochasticlearningmodel is based on an historical sequence of psychological experimentsin which
there were alwaysright (rewardedor unpunished)responses and wrong (unrewarded or punished) responses. (Those few experimentsnot of this nature
THEDEVELOPMENT
OF BRANDLOYALTY
seem to have receivedlittle independentattentionuntil
recent years.) There seem to be two underlyingproblems in the learningmodel: (1) it assumesthat a reinforced (usually a rewarded) response will have an
increased probability of recurring; (2) it seems to
imply that reinforcement,or differentialsin level of
reinforcement,form the sole basis for choice. It is
possible that a rewardedchoice (say the selection of a
brand of shaving cream by the first-timeuser at age
15) may in fact decrease the likelihood of a repeat
purchase if the individualis interestedin finding out
more about differentkinds of creams or soaps. This
could be referredto as search behavior.And, further,
it seems possible that this boy could become brand
loyal even if he could perceiveno advantagewhatsoever
in any particular preparation, since such behavior
would at least decreasethe effort of decision making.
More positive influences may be in the connotative
meaningsand associationsthat naturallygrow around
objects one uses, the activities he engages in, and
people with whom he interacts.It is too easy an assumption to declare that brand loyalties established
in this fashionwould be fragileor transient.Psychological theory,if not learningtheory,suggeststhat one may
learnto like what he chooses as readilyas he may learn
to choose what he likes. Such possibilitiesseem worth
33
In order to determine the strength of any brand
loyalties formed during the experiment,once a panel
memberchose the same breadthreetimes in succession,
a premiumwas placed on another brand. The brand
selected for the premiumwas that brand most seldom
selectedpreviously.Wheretwo or more brandssatisfied
this requirementa random selection among them of
the brand for the premiumwas made. The premium
used was a new penny fixed to the brandlabel. If the
woman did not select the brand with the premiumon
the firsttrial, the premiumwas increasedby one penny
per trial for each subsequenttrial until the panel member selectedthe desiredbrandor the experimentended.
It was anticipatedthat the experimentwould begin
with a period of search or exploratorybehavior,during which the selection of any brand would decrease
the probabilitythat the same brand would be selected
again. Following this period, it was believed that the
selection of any brand would increase the likelihood
that the same brandwould be selectedon the following
trial.It was furtheranticipatedthat brandloyaltywould
be establisheddespitehomogeneityof productand that
the degree of loyalty indicated by three successive
choicesof the samebrandmightbe measurablein terms
of the number of cents required to cause a change
in selection.
investigating.
The present experiment differs from most of the
previous work in that it suffers the disabilitiesof obvious artificialityat the same time that it gains the
capacityto examinesome of the above aspectsof brand
loyalty not open to observationin the "real" world.
The experimentconsisted simply of twelve successive
consumerchoices of breadfrom amongfour previously
unknownbrands.Forty-twowomen participatedin the
experiment.They were selected by two-stage random
samplingfrom a single census tract in order to minimize deliveryproblems.Each womanwas told that the
study was designedto find out how women went about
purchasingwhen they moved to a new location and
were faced with unfamiliarbrands.She was then asked
to select one of four loaves of breadmarked"L," "M,"
"P,"and "H."Packagingwas otherwiseidentical.Letter
designationswere chosen for ease of memory.And, althoughall are consonantsfrom the middleof the alphabet and have approximatelythe same frequency of
use in the Englishlanguage,it is not assumedthat they
are "neutral"symbols. In fact, it seems probablethat
no set of symbols which are discriminablecan be
neutralor equally pleasing or have common meanings
for all individuals.
The position of the brands on the tray was varied
in Latin squaredesignso that no brandwas in the same
position two times in a row and so that each brand
occurred in each position with equal frequency. The
bread used for all brandswas identical, sandwich-loaf,
thin-sliced bread, taken from a single oven on the
morningof delivery.
THE PERIOD OF SEARCH
The evidence for a period of search or exploratory
consumer behavior is clear. During the first several
choices, the sequence of two choices of the same
brandwas far below that expectedby chance. Twentynine of the forty-twowomen systematicallytried each
of the brandsin orderduringtheir first four selections.
Of course, it should be rememberedthat the nature of
the experimentseems to suggest that a complete exploration is the sensible thing to do. Several of the
panel members indicated in advance that they had
already made the decision to try each of the four
brands.
There is no clear indication when the period of
search ends for an individual.Some of the housewives
completed 12 successivechoices without ever selecting
the samebrandtwice in succession.Suchbehaviorcould
equallywell be describedas extendedsearchor indifference. At the same time, patternsfor the entire group
suggest that the first four choices were qualitatively
differentfrom the remainingselections.Table 1 shows
the relative frequencyof repeatinga choice on each
of the 12 trials. Included in the data are only those
persons who have not become brand loyal and who
have a brandrun lengthof one.
Clearlysomethinghappensafter the fourthchoice in
termsof willingnessto repeatthe selectionof any given
brand. The indication is not, however, that search
activityhas ended for all participants.The relativefrequency of repeating the fourth choice on the fifth
trial (given no earlierrepeatof the third choice on the
34
JOURNALOF MARKETING
AUGUST1964
RESEARCH,
Table I
RELATIVE
OF SELECTING
X BRAND,GIVEN
FREQUENCY
THEPRECEDING
SELECTION
OF X, BUTNOT XX
Trial number
Relative frequency
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.048
.050
.026
.210
.300
.346
.288
.240
.136
.261
.105
fourth trial) remains below the expected value of .25,
although not significantly so. (The relative frequency
of a repeated choice of this sort up to the fourth trial
is significant far above the .10 level, is in fact about 31
standard errors below the expected.)
The tailing off in the relative frequency of a repeated
selection during the later trials is in part the consequence of growth in brand loyalty. Women who had
become brand loyal no longer have brand run lengths
of one except under the influence of premiums. Therefore, persons who had become brand loyal (had selected the same brand three times in a row) were
eliminated from the data shown in Table 1 for all trials
subsequent to the establishment of brand loyalty.
out the experiment was .396, significantly above chance
at the .05 level.
While it is impossible to state conclusively the stage
of brand loyalty reached by those women who had not
selected any brand on three consecutive trials, there
were suggestions that some women had established a
relative loyalty to two of the brands (ending trials of
M, H, M, H, M and P, H, P, H) and that some had
essentially eliminated one of the brands from further
consideration (six of the non-loyal women selected one
of the brands only once in the twelve trials).
The extremes in non-loyalty to brand were provided
by four women who developed position loyalties of considerable duration. Position loyalties were not simple to
judge, since participants could perform exploratory
behavior among brands by the simple expedient of selecting from the same tray position for consecutive
trials. Where continuous selection from a single posi-
tion continuedfor a long period or where it emerged
Exactly half of the women engaged in the experiment
reached the criterion of brand loyalty by the end of
twelve trials. These loyalties emerged at every possible
point. Table 2 shows the frequency with which brand
loyalty emerged on the various trials.
as an apparent solution to the decision process during
the later trials, there seems rather conclusive evidence
for stating that position loyalties did emerge. (It should
be pointed out that all position loyalties were for the
tray position at the participant's extreme left.)
A conclusion that seems almost inescapable is that
women vary greatly in their susceptibility to brand
loyalty. In some, the sort of behavior referred to as
brand loyalty seems to have become functionally autonomous and may be a preferred form of behavior
in any applicable situation.1 At the other extreme there
appear to be those (suggested here by the positionloyal participants) to whom brand differences unaccompanied by product differentiation are inconsequential. This variation among women in susceptibility to
brand loyalty may be one of the major consumer variables which face the marketer of certain kinds of products.
Table 2
THE STRENGTH OF LOYALTIES
THE EMERGENCE OF BRAND LOYALTY
THETRIALSON WHICHWOMENCOMPLETED
THEIR
OF ANY BRAND
THIRDCONSECUTIVE
SELECTION
Trialnumber
Numberof women
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
12
I
2
I
3
1
3
3
2
4
4
It can undoubtedly be presumed that additional
women would have reached the criterion of brand loyalty with further trials. Two of the women not previously brand loyal selected the same brand on trials
eleven and twelve. The probability of selecting a brand
the third time given two consecutive selections through-
There is a strong temptation to believe that when a
woman encounters a preferred brand and another
brand at a reduced price (simulated in this experiment
by the addition of one or more pennies to a competing
brand) her choice is somehow limited to those alternatives. Of course, behavior in the marketplace constantly demonstrates that this is not the case. In the
present experiment, six of the women who switched
from the brand to which they had become loyal,
switched first to a brand that did not contain the premium of one or more pennies. Four of these switched to
a non-premium brand when the first penny was placed
on the premium brand. One switched after two cents
was applied, one after three cents. Undoubtedly a
gestalt psychologist would suggest that the addition of
1
Cunningham'sposition that no important number of shoppers is prone to brand loyalty is based on quite different data
[1] and does not really contradict this position.
THEDEVELOPMENT
OF BRANDLOYALTY
35
a premiumto any brand restructuredthe entire situation. As one woman who changed,but not to the premium brand,said, "No wonderyou put the special on
brand'P.' It's the worstone of all."To her the premium
apparentlywas a signal to do something,but anything
ratherthanthe encouragedaction.
Six of the brand-loyalwomen switched to the premium brandfor premiumsvaryingfrom 2-7 cents. The
average value of these accepted premiums was 3/2
cents. Eight women were still selecting their favorite
brandwhen the experimentended. Premiumsthat they
refused on the last opportunityvaried from 1-7 cents.
Theiraveragewas 3/2 cents.
Even the women who had establishedpositionloyalties showedresistanceto change.Three of these women
were offered premiums. Two who were offered premiums on a different position after five consecutive
choices from the same position switched to the premium position for premiums of one cent and two
cents. The third woman,for whom premiumswere begun aftereight successiveselectionsfrom the same position, shifted to a choice from another location when
the premiumreachedthree cents. She did not select a
loaf from the premiumposition at any time, although
a total of five cents was placed on the brand in that
positionat the time of her last choice.
Obviously because of the variation in response to
premiumsand the small numberof women involved,it
is impossibleto drawany generalconclusionsaboutthe
averagestrengthof brandor position loyalties that developed duringthe experiment.At the same time, it is
clear that such loyalties are more than trivial, even
thoughthey are based on what may seem trivialdistinctions.
Table3
ORDEROF TRIALOF BRANDSTO WHICH PARTICIPANTS
BECAMEBRAND-LOYAL
Rank order in which
brand was chosen
Number of women
who became loyal
First
Second
Third
Fourth
8
6
2
5
OTHER FINDINGS
Whilethere is no satisfactoryevidencethat the order
of choice affectsthe likelihoodthat a particularbrand
will be the one to which a woman becomes loyal, Table 3 showsthe relevantdistributions.
CONCLUSIONS
An exploratoryexperimentsuch as the one reported
here is more often suggestivethan conclusive.The followingconclusionsare, therefore,tentative:
1. Some consumers will become brand loyal even
when there is no discriminabledifference between
brandsother than the branditself.
2. The brand loyalty established under such conditions is not trivial, although it may be based on
what are apparently trivial and superficial differences.
3. Consumers vary greatly in their susceptibility to
brandloyalty.
4. Brand loyalty and preference for particularproduct characteristics are quite different considerations that together make up what is normally referred to as brand loyalty.
5. While it is difficult to identify exploratory consumer behavior,it seems clear that some consumer
selections are largely exploratory in nature and
may indicate that a repeat purchase is highly unlikely.
REFERENCES
1. Ross M. Cunningham, "BrandLoyalty-What, Where, How
Much?" Harvard Business Review, 34 (1956), 116.
2. Ronald E. Frank, "Brand Choice as a Probability Process,"
Journal of Business, 35 (1962), 43.
3. Frank Harary and Benjamin Lipstein, "The Dynamics of
Brand Loyalty: A Markovian Approach," Operations Research, 10 (1962), 17.
4. Jerome D. Hertiner and John F. Magee, "Customer Behavior as a Markov Process," Operations Research, 9
(1961), 105.
5. Alfred A. Kuehn, "Consumer Brand Choice-A Learning
Process" in Ronald E. Frank, Alfred A. Kuehn and William
F. Massy, Quantitative Techniques in Marketing Analysis,
Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1962.
6. James 0. Peckham, "The Consumer Speaks," Journal of
Marketing, 27 (1963), 21.
7. Edgar A. Pessemier, "A New Way to Determine Buying
Decisions," Journal of Marketing, 23 (1959), 41.