Influencers and Consequences of Brand Loyalty –A study based on select
Newspapers in Hyderabad
Mallika S. Shetty
Department of Management Studies
St.Francis College for Women
Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016
mallika_shetty21@yahoo.co.in
09848519360
Prof.S.V.Satyanarayana
Department of Commerce
Osmania University, Hyderabad-500007
vajjalasura@yahoo.com
08500283271
ABSTRACT
The importance of newspapers in our daily lives just cannot be undermined. It is that
powerful media which connects us to the world around us. In the present times when
television channels are competing against each other to score high on the parameters of
breaking news, expert opinions and sting operations, comfort for the news seeker lies in that
humble broadsheet that asks for our attention rather mutedly.
But, is the newspaper as humble as we think it to be? The answer is a sure ‘No’. The
newspaper as a product is unique. It has probably got the shortest life span. It is sold to, two
kinds of users, the readers and the advertisers for different purposes. Unlike other economic
goods, it also has a democratic function in informing citizens, setting the agenda for social
debate and serving as the watchdog for political, economic and social centres of power.
With more than 12,500 registered daily newspapers in India, the competition is severe.
Newspaper companies are employing innovative means of propaganda across media sources
to score a point and gain reader loyalty. This research article studies in-depth the brand
building efforts of Newspapers. Primary data collected from readers will form an integral part
of analysis that will guide the newspaper companies to stand out and appeal to an audience
that is already suffering from information overload.
The Internet is gaining ground by the day, opening up several options for news consumption.
In this scenario, it becomes all the more important for the newspaper companies to be aware
of the threat that challenges the survival of the physical newspaper. The effort should be to
strengthen the core product and make it addictive for the reader in the morning. This research
work proposes to factor in all the opportunities and the threats prevailing in the Indian
newspaper industry and thereby present a framework to sustain its efforts in staying relevant
in the changing times.
KEY WORDS: Loyalty influencers, Loyalty consequences, Attitudinal loyalty ,Behavioural
loyalty, SmartPLS, Brand loyalty model
Introduction:
With innovations changing the way news is consumed- quality, professionalism and accuracy
is taking a backseat. The best source in a media-overwhelmed world is often a reliable one:
the daily newspaper. The Newspaper not only provides raw news but also offers an analysis
,which translates the news into information ,telling the reader ‘what it all means’ and
persuading them to concur. Increasingly important in the multichannel world is the brand.
People have to know who to trust. Old established brands equal strong relationships. Trusted
newspapers can play up their reputation as a way to retain readers.
While it is true that newspapers are “in the business of news”, it is also a hard fact that they
can remain in this business only if they make money. The economic support for newspapers
comes from advertisers and not consumers. Advertising, contributed 67 percent to the total
revenue of the Indian print sector in the financial year 2013(FICCI-KPMG report,
2014).Newspaper companies will have to prove their reach to the advertisers, if they have to
earn their patronage.
As per the office of the registrar of newspapers for India, total registered English and Hindi
newspapers and periodicals as on March 2013 were 12,634 and 37,891respectively. The
calendar year 2013 saw the print industry in India grow by 8.5 per cent from INR224 billion
in 2012 to INR243 billion. The future looks bright for the newspaper industry but it cannot be
complacent. The emergence of digital and social media news delivery has the potential to
pose a serious challenge. However, low literacy rates and poor internet penetration could be a
major hindrance for the digital medium to make any significant impact to the print industry in
India. The bigger risk for newspapers may not be from technology alone, but from the
content itself.
To differentiate themselves from competitors, newspapers need to consistently innovate on
design, info-graphics, supplements, features and other approaches. It is very important to
engage readers in a constructive dialogue in an era where facts are available freely through
multiple sources. Newspapers therefore will be forced to experiment more, provide
differentiated content and start building communities to thrive in this highly competitive era.
With all newspapers using an advertising –based business model, price is not a point of
differentiation between different newspapers as the readers only invest their time and effort
(McDowell, 2006).It is this reality that makes it imperative for the newspaper companies to
build their brand in the minds of the readers.
Building a loyal reader base should be the priority goal of any newspaper. In relation to
newspapers, Loyalty indicates that the reader day after day chooses to pick up the paper and
read it. The increasing competition in the media market and the possibilities that the Internet
provides for accessing information makes it essential for the Newspapers to work on
strategies that will create a connect between the reader and the newspaper.
This study attempts to collect the composite of the consumer’s experiences, perceptions and
feelings and then analyse the same to measure the brand on a number of key perceptions
identified as being important to consumers.
Literature review
Hooke (2012) cites the global economic crisis, decreased advertising revenues and changing
patterns in media use as some of the major factors for the decline in the newspaper markets in
the west. Contrasting the situation in the East, he says that the growing middle class, growing
literacy levels and higher disposable income will boost newspaper sales and advertising
revenues. He opines that the elite English newspapers will face the challenges like their
western counterparts, but sees a bright future for the growing vernacular press that have
embraced the tabloid tradition.
Hayden (2012) discusses about the ways Indian newspapers are developing ways of staying
relevant in reader’s lives while also appealing to the advertisers. He feels that there needs to
be efforts to built loyalty among readers by emphasising their local identity and encouraging
grassroots leadership. He also cautions that trouble for Indian newspapers, however, may lie
on the horizon. Fashionable new websites are slowly emerging as alternatives to newspapers.
In time, they might pose a legitimate threat to print's stronghold on India's morning-news
consumption.
Ali (2012) analyses the preferences and behaviour of the readers of the newspapers on the
basis of their attitudes, needs, wants and beliefs. He measured brand loyalty with the criterion
of continued patronage. It was gathered that credibility and in-depth coverage of news were
important. He concludes that newspaper brands should concentrate on developing their image
by focusing on the changing needs of customers and address the needs of consumers to
strengthen their loyalty and widen readership base.
Das and Sengupta (2012) analysed the case of Times of India, by application of diffusion of
innovation theory and disruptive technology theory, the nature of challenges it faces and the
survival strategies adopted by the newspaper. The innovative strategies identified by them,
which will help the industry to achieve differentiation, are innovation in production,
marketing, use of information technology and in content design and layout.
Singh and Arya (2012) concluded that source of information, habitual exercise and source of
entertainment to be the reasons behind preferring to read the newspaper. The urban
population felt that the only way to know the happenings in the locality was through the
newspaper.
Punniyamoorthy and Raj (2007) arrived at nine constructs to explain the brand loyalty
behaviour. The model was developed using factor analysis, multiple regression analysis and
analytical hierarchy process. They identified that involvement; perceived value, functional
value, emotional value, price worthiness, social value, brand trust, customer satisfaction,
commitment and repeated purchase behaviour were the variables that were found to have an
influencing power on loyalty.
Objectives of the study
As evident from the present research review regarding the phenomenon of Brand Loyalty,
there are numerous findings that make the extension of this concept to different product
categories easier. It was observed that there are a very few studies related to the
understanding of the factors that influence patronage behaviour among newspaper readers.
The present study therefore sets forth to achieve the following objectives:
1. To identify the influencers of brand loyalty among newspaper readers.
2. To determine the consequences of brand loyalty among newspaper readers.
3. To establish and validate the influencers and consequences of brand loyalty through a
statistical modelling technique.
Methodology adopted
The primary data that was needed for the study was collected with the help of a questionnaire
that was pretested and modified. Multistage random sampling technique was employed for
collecting responses. The greater Hyderabad municipal corporation (GHMC) is divided into
five zones. One of the zones (central) was selected randomly. It comprises of four circles.
One of the circles was chosen. Questionnaires were distributed randomly among 1000
households belonging to the seven wards out of the fifteen present in that circle. The criterion
that was used to determine the usability of the questionnaires was that the respondent had to
opt for one of the six newspapers chosen for the study (The Hindu, The Times of India,
Deccan Chronicle, Eenadu, Sakshi and Andhra Jyothi) as the ‘Most preferred newspaper.
This way of the 627 completed questionnaires received, only 609 were deemed fit for the
purpose of the study.
The data analysis in this study is only restricted to the factors affecting brand loyalty. For the
purpose of modelling, the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) technique using SmartPLS
software is adopted .SEM is a statistical technique for testing and estimating casual relations
using a combination of statistical data and qualitative causal assumptions (Sewall Wright ,
1921; Trygve Haavelmo ,1943). One of the primary advantages of SEM is that it can be used
to study the relationships among latent constructs that are indicated by multiple measures.
Concept of brand loyalty
The understanding of the term brand loyalty has seen a gradual change over the years.
Researchers over the years have strived to identify possible influences on the decision
making capacity of an individual with respect to his purchasing behaviour
The American marketing association puts the concept in perspective. It defines brand loyalty
as "The situation in which a consumer generally buys the same manufacturer-originated
product or service repeatedly over time rather than buying from multiple suppliers within the
category". More importantly this behaviour is understood to be a function of psychological
processes (Kyner, 1973) and has the ability to withstand situational influences and marketing
efforts (Oliver, 1999).
Loyalty was considered as the share of total purchases (Cunningham, 1956; Farley, 1964),
buying frequency or buying pattern (Tucker, 1964; Sheth, 1968) or buying probability
(Harary & Lipstein,1962; McConnell, 1968). Loyalty was not investigated as a construct but
as a simple variable measuring the frequency of customer purchase.
One of the first researchers who used a two-dimensional definition of loyalty was Day
(1969), who was of the view that brand loyalty should be evaluated on the basis of attitudinal
as well as behavioural criteria. Likewise, Dick and Basu (1994) point out that even a
relatively important repeat purchase may not reflect true loyalty to a product but may merely
result from situational conditions such as brands stocked by the retailer. In their framework,
attitude is a requirement for true loyalty to occur.
Worthington, Russell-Bennett and Hartel (2009) state that brand loyalty cannot be regarded
only as a simple one or two-dimensional concept but, as a complex construction which
involves multiple dimensions. They argue that consumers’ thoughts and feelings regarding a
brand are expressed as an action. In this way they divide attitudinal loyalty into a simple two
component structure of cognitive loyalty and emotional or affective loyalty that can be used
to develop an understanding of brand loyalty as a whole. When this component is included
with behavioural loyalty, a tri-dimensional view of brand loyalty is derived.
Researchers have used various combinations of the above approaches to study loyalty with
respect to several products and services. This has given credence to the argument that loyalty
is a multi-dimensional construct and at any given point of time for any given product could
include various measures that may be behavioural, attitudinal, cognitive, affective and
conative in nature.
Proposed conceptual model of brand loyalty for daily newspapers
The extensive study of the available literature on brand loyalty resulted in the identification
of four predictors or variables that influence brand loyalty. These can be collectively called as
loyalty influencers. The resultant positive attitude and behaviour of the reader have been
conceptualised as loyalty consequences.
Overall brand loyalty is the outcome variable which is determined by four predictor
variables - Brand trust, Product quality, Functional value and Social value (Loyalty
Influencers)
Overall brand loyalty is expressed in the form of two components - Attitudinal loyalty and
Behavioural loyalty (Loyalty Consequences)
The arrows in the model show the hypothesised relationships between the variables supported
by theoretical and empirical studies.
Figure 1: Proposed conceptual model of brand loyalty for daily newspapers
A brief explanation of the seven identified variables that will be a part of the proposed
conceptual model is given below:
Brand trust: Trust is defined as the expectations of the parties in a transaction and the risks
associated with assuming and acting on such expectations. Chaudhuri & Holbrook (2001)
defines Brand Trust as the “willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the
brand to perform its stated functions”. Deutsch (1958) & Lewis and Weigert (1985) argue
that trust is not mere predictability but confidence in the face of risk.
In the context of a product like daily newspapers, it is unlikely that the selling organisation
can develop personal relationships with each reader. The entity on which the trust is reposed
here is just the name or the masthead of the newspaper. Trust in the newspaper brand in this
context is the reader’s willingness to rely on the news and other information that is published
in the newspaper. The reinforcement of the trust in the newspaper is also brought about by
the publisher by associating with several causes which are social, spiritual and political in
nature.
Physical product quality: The concept of product quality can be critically defined from two
different perspectives, namely objective quality and the perceived quality (Brunso, Bredahl,
Grunert & Scholderer,2005). Objective quality refers to the technical, measurable, and
verifiable nature of products/services, processes, and quality controls. This includes product
features, product performance, and durability amongst others. While subjective or perceived
quality refers to the consumers' value judgments or perceptions of quality. Product Quality
encompasses the features and characteristics of a product or service that bears on its ability to
satisfy stated or implied needs. In other words, product quality is defined as “fitness for use”
or “conformance to requirement” (Russell and Taylor, 2006).
The newspaper reader has to be navigated to the important news, advertisements and other
announcements in a relaxed manner so as to achieve maximum impact. The effort is to offer
an elegant and functional newspaper. Readers do give a lot of importance to an efficient
navigation system, legible typography and interesting photographs. The objective is two-foldone to make it easy to the reader’s eyes and two to make it attractive for the advertisers.
Functional value: Functional value can be a key influence on readers that would make them
happy with their decision of subscribing to the concerned newspaper. Functional value can be
described as the benefits obtained from the performance, quality and price of a product.
Sheth, Newman and Gross (1991) describes functional value as the benefit perceived or
obtained from functional, pragmatic and physical performance of a situation. He claims that
customers are initially affected by the functional value of a product in their preferences.
Gerth ,Russi and Siegert (2012) emphasised that the visual aspects such as logos are not
important to understand the functional value. They termed ‘functional value’ of a media
brand as the internal business values reflected in the way media content is produced.
Social value: Newspapers have a substantial social component to them. They help people
connect with each other. They also create communities of users who can bond with each
other. This social value helps define the users and fans of the brand into a community. Once
the community has been defined, the brand needs to provide its members a platform through
which they can communicate with each other and with the brand. According to Holbrook
(2006), Social value refers to the case when consumption experience serves as a way to
influence the responses of others and make a good impression.
Overall brand loyalty: The critical goal for companies interested in creating loyal
relationships with customers is to create offers that consistently deliver identity-appropriate
benefits to the right groups of consumers in order to create an authentic relationship. When a
brand meets or exceeds functional benefits and meets customers' need for certain
psychological benefits, the brand engenders Brand Loyalty. In the proposed conceptual
model, Brand Loyalty is posited as a Dependent Variable. This model also deviates from the
conceptual model proposed by Oliver (1997), and adopts Lee’s (2003) observation that the
cognitive stage is more likely to be an antecedent to loyalty rather than loyalty itself.
Attitudinal loyalty: The conceptual model presents that the most important outcome when a
reader is loyal to a newspaper, is the formation of a positive attitude towards the newspaper.
This research proposes that positive attitudes are not an antecedent to Brand loyalty rather it
is a consequence of Brand loyalty. Strong attitudes are resistant to change are stable overtime,
and have powerful impact on information processing and behaviour. Positive attitudes when
developed, there is a psychological attachment to a selected company or brand (Park & Kim,
2000; Day, 1969) and is often expressed as an ongoing relationship to a brand
(Mascarenhas,Kesavan and Bernacci ,2006). Krosnick and Petty (1995) define attitudinal
loyalty as “the extent to which attitudes manifest the qualities of durability and
impactfulness” namely, the extent to which an attitude is persistent, is resistant to change,
impacts information processing, and guides behaviour.
Behavioural loyalty: Behaviour can be understood as a specific response to a specific
stimulus. Behavioural loyalty would therefore in the context of newspapers be the reader
responses to the various situations that arise in the context of his reading environment, like
not receiving the newspaper on time or increase in price. The proposed conceptual model
suggests that once the reader is loyal to a particular newspaper, he/she will exhibit a
behaviour that will align to his/her loyalty. Since, the reader now becomes attached to the
brand, any deviations in the environment that had earlier stimulated loyalty, will be
scrutinised with patience and acted upon rationally.
Figure 2: The proposed conceptual model represented in SmartPLS statistical software
to conduct the Structural Equation Modelling
Table 1: Components of the measurement /outer model1
Latent Variables2
Indicators 3
Brand trust
Trust_1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
Physical product quality
ProQual_1,2
Functional value
FValue_1,2,3,4,5,6
Social value
SValue_1,2,3,4,5
Overall brand loyalty
BL_1
Attitudinal loyalty
AttStr_1,2,3,4,5
Behavioural loyalty
BehStr_1,2,3,4
_________________________
1
Specifies the relationship between the latent variables and their observed indicators
2
Variables not observed directly. Also known as constructs or factors
3
Questions used to operationalise or indicate the presence of the latent variables
Hypothesis that is tested in the structural /inner model 4
H 1 : BTRUST→OVERALL_BL
There is a positive relationship between Brand Trust generated by
the newspaper and the presence of Brand Loyalty towards it.
H 2: PROQUAL→ OVERALL_BL
There is a positive relationship between product quality of the
newspaper and Brand Loyalty towards it.
H 3:FVALUE→ OVERALL_BL
There is a positive relationship between Functional value derived
from the newspaper and Brand Loyalty towards it.
H 4: SVALUE→ OVERALL_BL
There is a positive relationship between the Social Value derived
from the newspaper and Brand Loyalty towards it.
H 5 : OVERALL_BL →ATT_LOYALTY
Attitudinal loyalty exhibited by the readers towards the newspaper
is influenced by the overall Brand Loyalty towards it.
H 6: OVERALL_BL →BEH_LOYALTY
Behavioural loyalty exhibited by the reader towards the newspaper
is not dependent on the overall Brand Loyalty towards it.
H 7: ATT_LOYALTY→BEH_LOYALTY
There is a positive relationship between Attitudinal Loyalty and
Behavioural Loyalty displayed by the reader towards the
newspaper
H 8 :BTRUST→ATT_LOYALTY
There is a positive relationship between Brand Trust generated by
the newspaper and the Attitudinal Loyalty displayed by the reader
towards it
H 9 :BTRUST→BEH_LOYALTY
There is a positive relationship between Brand Trust generated by
the newspaper and the Behavioural Loyalty displayed by the
reader towards it
H 10: PROQUAL→ATT_LOYALTY
There is a positive relationship between the product quality of the
newspaper and the Attitudinal Loyalty displayed by the reader
towards it.
H 11 :PROQUAL→BEH_LOYALTY
There is a positive relationship between the product quality of the
newspaper and the Behavioural Loyalty displayed by the reader
towards it.
H 12: FVALUE→ATT_LOYALTY
There is a positive relationship between the functional value
derived from the newspaper and the Attitudinal Loyalty displayed
by the reader towards it.
H 13: FVALUE→BEH_LOYALTY
There is a positive relationship between the functional value
derived from the newspaper and the Behavioural Loyalty
displayed by the reader towards it.
H 14 : SVALUE→ATT_LOYALTY
There is a positive relationship between the social value derived
from the newspaper and the Attitudinal Loyalty displayed by the
reader towards it.
H 15 : SVALUE→BEH_LOYALTY
There is a positive relationship between the social value derived
from the newspaper and the Behavioural Loyalty displayed by the
reader towards it.
Data analysis
Table 2: Sample characteristics
Characteristics
% of sample size 609
Gender
Characteristics
% of sample size 609
Age(years)
Male
42
16-25
30
Female
58
26-35
15
Ed. Qualification
% of sample size 609
36-45
25
Secondary or Lower
1
46-55
23
Under-graduate
25
56-65
7
Graduate
52
Above 65
1
Post graduate
22
______________________
4
Shows the relationship between the latent variables
Occupation
%
Monthly family income
%
(Rs.)
Students
26
Below 30 k
17
Homemakers
15
30k-50k
28
Govt. employees
4
50k-70k
17
Pvt. sector employees
35
70k-90k
8
Entrepreneurs
19
Above 90k
30
Retired
1
Most preferred
%
No. of years of reading
%
newspaper
their most preferred
newspaper
The Hindu
25
0-10
54
The Times of India
30
11-20
26
Deccan Chronicle
30
21-30
13
Eenadu
12
31-40
5
Sakshi
2
41-50
1
Andhra Jyothi
1
50 and more
No. of newspapers read
%
1
25
2
39
3
25
4 and more
11
Source: Primary data
Figure 3: Output obtained after running the PLS algorithm in SmartPLS
Evaluation of the measurement model:
The measurement model is assessed to validate the individual indicators as well as the
composite reliability of indicators for each latent variable. The numbers on the arrows that
point away from the latent variable towards the indicators, represent the ‘Outer loadings’.
The outer loadings represent the correlations between the latent variable and the indicators.
The outer loading for each Indicator is squared, to calculate the Indicator reliability. Since
outer loadings are correlations, each indicator should at least explain 50% of the variance in
the latent variable. Hulland (1999) has prescribed that an indicator reliability of 0.40 or
higher is acceptable. With this threshold as the consideration, the indicators with squared
loadings 0.40 or below are eliminated and the model is re-run. This elimination resulted in 20
indicators being retained from the 37 indicators used initially.
The internal consistency reliability is checked by the measure of composite reliability. A
measure of 0.70 is a threshold for modest composite reliability (Hulland, 1999; Nunnally,
1978). A value of 0.73 and above for all the seven latent variables indicate that all items in
each latent variable form a single, strongly cohesive and conceptual construct.
Table 3: Measures of Composite reliability and Average variance extracted
Composite
reliability
Average variance
extracted(AVE)
Attitudinal Loyalty
0.8779
0.5906
Behavioural Loyalty
0.7608
0.5155
Brand Trust
0.846
0.5241
Functional Value
0.7362
0.4825
Overall Brand Loyalty
1
1
Product Quality
1
1
0.812
0.6867
Social Value
Source: Default report-SmartPLS
Likewise, for a latent variable, the AVE measures the amount of variance captured by the
associated indicators relative to the amount due to measurement error. If a AVE is greater
than 0.50, it means that a latent variable guarantees at least 50% more valid variance
explained than error in its measurement (Chin, 1998; Fornell and Cha, 1994).All the AVE
values reported in the above table are greater than the threshold of 0.50, thus confirming the
convergent validity of the indicators to measure a given latent variable.
Finally, the discriminant validity is evaluated using the Fornell and Larcker criterion. The
square root of AVE is compared with the correlation coefficients among the latent variables.
The square root of AVE of a latent variable should be greater than the correlations between it
and any other latent variable in the model (Chin, 1998; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hulland,
1999).
Table 4: Discriminant validity results using the Fornell-Larcker criterion
ATT_LOYALTY
BEH_LOYALTY
BTRUST
FVALUE
OVERALL_BL
PROQUAL
ATT_LOYALTY
0.7685
BEH_LOYALTY
0.66
0.7179
BTRUST
0.6577
0.5683
0.7239
FVALUE
0.4265
0.3988
0.4837
0.6946
OVERALL_BL
0.7206
0.5118
0.5828
0.3362
1
PROQUAL
0.2815
0.2712
0.3714
0.3721
0.3124
1
SVALUE
0.4227
0.4223
0.455
0.3777
0.4497
0.2997
SVALUE
0.8286
Source: Default report-SmartPLS
Evaluation of the Structural Model
To assess the significance and relevance of the various hypothesised relationships in the
proposed model of brand loyalty for daily newspapers, the structural model is assessed. This
involves examining the model’s predictive capabilities and the relationships between the
constructs.
Collinearity assessment: First, the latent variables are tested for the presence of collinearity.
Collinearity is a linear association between two or more explanatory or predictor latent
variables. Presence of collinearity increases the standard errors of the coefficients. Increased
standard errors may make some predictor variables statistically insignificant. Variance
Inflation Factors (VIF) measure how much the variance of the estimated coefficients is
increased due to the correlations among the predictor variables. The latent variable scores are
used as an input for multiple regression in IBM SPSS statistics to get the VIF values, as
SmartPLS does not provide these numbers. As a rule of thumb, VIF of 5 or lower (Tolerance
level of 0.2 or higher) is needed to avoid collinearity issues.
Table 5: Collinearity assessment for the predictor variables of overall brand loyalty
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
t
Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
1
Std. Error
-2.094E-005
.032
TRUST
.450
.039
FVAL
.010
PQ
SVAL
Beta
Tolerance
VIF
-.001
.999
.450
11.442
.000
.655
1.526
.038
.010
.276
.783
.704
1.421
.076
.036
.076
2.138
.033
.804
1.244
.219
.037
.219
5.954
.000
.750
1.333
a. Dependent Variable: OVERALL
Source: SPSS output
Table 6: Collinearity assessment for the predictor variables of attitudinal loyalty
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
t
Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
Std. Error
1.517E-005
.025
TRUST
.317
.034
FVAL
.109
OVERALL
Beta
Tolerance
VIF
.001
1.000
.317
9.205
.000
.539
1.856
.030
.109
3.630
.000
.704
1.421
.501
.032
.501
15.501
.000
.612
1.634
-.041
.028
-.041
-1.434
.152
.798
1.254
.025
.030
.025
.826
.409
.708
1.412
1
PQ
SVAL
a. Dependent Variable: ATT
Source: SPSS output
Table 7: Collinearity assessment for the predictor variables of behavioural loyalty
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
t
Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
1
Std. Error
1.748E-005
.029
ATT
.469
.047
TRUST
.171
FVAL
Beta
Tolerance
VIF
.001
1.000
.469
9.954
.000
.385
2.597
.043
.171
4.020
.000
.472
2.117
.067
.035
.067
1.891
.059
.689
1.452
-.008
.044
-.008
-.188
.851
.438
2.285
PQ
.018
.033
.018
.537
.591
.795
1.258
SVAL
.120
.035
.120
3.445
.001
.708
1.413
OVERALL
a. Dependent Variable: BEH
Source: SPSS output
The VIF values for all the three sets of predictor variables that determines Overall Brand
Loyalty, Attitudinal Loyalty and Behavioural Loyalty are well below the threshold of 5.
Thus, it is proved that there is no Collinearity between the predictor constructs.
Assessing the significance of the hypothesised relationships: Using the technique of
bootstrapping, T-statistics are obtained which allows for the significance testing of the
structural path. Using a two-tailed t-test with a significance level of 5%, the path co-efficient
will be significant if the T-statistic is larger than 1.96.
For the proposed conceptual Model of Brand Loyalty for Daily newspapers, the T-statistics
obtained for the 15 hypothesised relationships are evaluated. The insignificant path
relationships are removed from the model and the PLS-SEM estimation is carried out again.
This results in the retention of only 9 significant path relationships for this conceptual model.
They are H1, H2, H4, H5, H7, H8, H9, H12 and H15.
Table 8: T-statistics for the hypothesised relationships in the proposed conceptual
model
Hypothesis Number
Hypothesised path relationships
T-staitistic
Result (p<0.05)
H1
BTRUST→OVERALL_BL
9.9343
Significant
H2
PROQUAL→OVERALL_BL
2.0959
Significant
H3
FVALUE →OVERALL_BL
H4
SVALUE→OVERALL_BL
5.9351
Significant
H5
OVERALL_BL→ATT_LOYALTY
13.8512
Significant
H6
OVERALL_BL →BEH_LOYALTY
H7
ATT_LOYALTY→BEH_LOYALTY
9.2294
Significant
H8
BTRUST→ATT_LOYALTY
7.8277
Significant
H9
BTRUST→BEH_LOYALTY
4.0113
Significant
H 10
PROQUAL →ATT_LOYALTY
H 11
PROQUAL →BEH_LOYALTY
H 12
FVALUE→ATT_LOYALTY
2.9941
Significant
H 13
FVALUE→BEH_LOYALTY
1.738
Not significant
H 14
SVALUE →ATT_LOYALTY
H 15
SVALUE→BEH_LOYALTY
Source: Default report-SmartPLS
0.2771
0.1708
1.2148
0.5187
0.88
2.9801
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Significant
Assessing the path coefficients
Table 9: Path coefficients of the significant hypothesised relationships
ATT_LOYALTY
BEH_LOYALTY
OVERALL_BL
ATT_LOYALTY
-
0.4750
-
BTRUST
0.3139
0.1943
0.4538
FVALUE
0.1061
-
-
OVERALL_BL
0.5019
-
-
PROQUAL
-
-
0.0780
0.1332
0.2199
SVALUE
Source: Default report-SmartPLS
As seen in the table above, Overall Brand Loyalty shows the highest impact on Attitudinal
Loyalty (0.5019).This shows that there is a positive attitude formation amongst the readers
once they have developed a sense of loyalty to the newspaper they read. Brand Trust, has the
next highest influence on positive attitude formation.
Attitudinal Loyalty has the highest impact on Behavioural Loyalty (0.4750) than any of the
other three latent variables. Next, is the impact of Brand Trust that is the second highest on
Behavioural Loyalty (0.1943) followed by Social Value (0.1332).
Likewise, Brand Trust is the major influence on Overall brand loyalty (0.4538).This is the
first level of loyal feeling that should be generated in a reader, that is the ability to proclaim
that “Yes, I am loyal to this newspaper”. Once this is achieved, the positive attitudes that
emanate can be harnessed to the advantage of the brand. Social Value is the second highest
influencer of Overall Brand Loyalty.
The path coefficients also represent an impact of a 1-point change in one latent variable on
another. Eg: A 1 point change in Brand Trust will result in a increase of 0.4538 in Overall
Brand Loyalty.
Assessment of predictive capability of the model: This is done by evaluating the coefficient of determination (R2) of the latent variables. The coefficient of determination,
commonly called as R-square is indicative of the level of explained variability in the model.
It is expressed as a value between zero and one. A value of one indicates a perfect fit, and
therefore, a very reliable model for future forecasts. A value of zero, on the other hand, would
indicate that the model fails to accurately model the dataset. Chin (1998) describes R2 values
of 0.67, 0.33 and 0.19 in PLS path model as substantial, moderate and weak.
Table 10: Coefficient of determination ( R2 )
Variable
R2
0.6133
ATT_LOYALTY
0.4796
BEH_LOYALTY
0.3878
OVERALL_BL
Source: Default report-SmartPLS
The coefficient of determination, R2, is 0.615 for Attitudinal Loyalty, 0.4796 for
Behavioural Loyalty. The value is 0.3878 for Overall Brand Loyalty.
This means that the exogenous variables of Brand Trust, Product Quality, Functional Value
and Social Value explain 61.5% of the variance in Attitudinal Loyalty and only 38.78%
variance in the Overall Brand Loyalty. The four exogenous variables along with Attitudinal
Loyalty explain 48.48% of the variance in Behavioural Loyalty. All the three values can be
considered to be moderate.
R-squared should be optimised. It seen that it is the highest for Attitudinal Loyalty, which
confirms the theoretical assumption that the relative importance of attitude or behaviour to
the loyalty construct would appear to be related to the object of loyalty and the conditions of
the market(Bennett and Thiele,2002). In the case of ‘Daily Newspapers’, positive attitudes
would play a stronger role than behaviour considering that the switching costs are not too
high in case of newspapers and it is assumed that the reader’s lack competitive
differentiation.
Implications of the study
The conceptual model of brand loyalty developed for daily newspapers has been validated
using the SmartPLS application. The four variables of brand trust, product quality, functional
value and social value which is the loyalty influencers brings about a sense of patronage in
the reader towards the newspaper he/she reads. Brand trust is the most influential among the
four identified variables. This is indicative of the fact that in the modern media environment,
trust in journalism is important. Readers value the newspaper first for the trustworthy content
in the form of news, views and analyses that it offers. It is seen that the functional value does
not contribute significantly in building loyalty.
The deviation taken by this conceptual model in positing attitudinal and behavioural loyalty
as the consequences of overall brand loyalty has gained support by the statistical assessments.
The major influence on attitudinal loyalty is overall brand loyalty. And, it is attitudinal
loyalty that influences positive behaviour.
Conclusion
The business model of the newspaper companies is majorly (more than 75%) advertiserdependent. Having a strong core product that is linked closely to the lifecycle of the reader is
the only option for the publisher to ensure the longevity of the newspaper both in terms of
credibility and profitability. Also important, is the need to secure the loyalty of the youth of
the country. The internet may not be a threat to the newspaper industry in India; in fact
newspapers are going to be strategic partners in the process of consolidation of the major
online retailers who are fresh with funds and ideas. The future looks promising, but
complacency may cost dearly. The model of brand loyalty for newspapers that is validated in
this study highlights the crucial parameters that need to be maintained and improved for
survival in the highly competitive newspaper industry.
References
Ali, Shaukat (2012).A study of consumer behaviour & Loyalty in print media – Challenges &
strategic prescriptions with Special reference to English, Hindi, Marathi News Paper readers.
Abhinav,1(4),64-70.
Bennett, R., & Rundle-Thiele, S. 2002. A comparison of attitudinal loyalty measurement
approaches. Brand Manage, 9(3), 193-209.
Brunso, K., Bredahl, L., Grunert, K. G., & Scholderer, J. (2005). Consumer perception
of the quality of beef resulting from various fattening regimes. Livestock Production Science,
94, 83-93.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2),
81-93.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. In
G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research , Mahwah, N J: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cunningham, R. M. (1956). Brand loyalty - what where how much?. Harvard Business
Review, 34, 116-128.
Das, M., & Sengupta, P. (2012) .An analysis of newspaper publishing industry-can it survive
the onslaught of the digital media .Zenith:International Journal of Business Economics &
Management Research, 2(12), 114-130.
Day, G.S. (1969). A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Journal of advertising
research, 3, 29-35.
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2,265-279.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer Loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual
framework .Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2, 99-113.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F.(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50.
Farley, J.U. (1964). Brand Loyalty and the Economics of Information. Journal of Business,
37(4), 370-381.
Gerth, M.M., Russi, L., & Siegert, G. (2012). Functional values and brand personality: The
Perception of Consumers and Media Professionals in Six European Countries. Working paper
of IPMZ Media economics management division, 9, 8-9.
Harary, F., & Lipstein, B. (1962). The Dynamics of Brand Loyalty: A markovian approach.
Operations research, 10, 19–40.
Hayden, M. (2012). In India, English language Newspapers is thriving.
http://adage.com/article/global-news/india-english-language-newspapers-thriving/237795
Hooke, P. (2012) .Why newspaper markets are growing in China and India, while they
decline in the US and UK. http://ejournalist.com.au/v12n1/Hooke.pdf
Holbrook, M. B. (2006).Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal
introspection: An illustrative photographic essay, Journal of Business Research, 59,714-725.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A
review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.
Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D.B. (1973). Brand loyalty versus repeat purchasing behaviour. Journal
of Marketing Research, 1, 1-9.
Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty &
J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 967–985.
McDowell, W. S. (2006). Issues in marketing and branding, in Handbook of
Media Management and Economics.
McConnell, J. D. (1968). The Development of Brand Loyalty: An experimental study.
Journal of Marketing Research, 5(1), 13-19.
Mascarenhas, O., Kesavan, R., & Bernacchi, M. (2006). Lasting Customer Loyalty: A Total
Customer Experience Approach. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(7), 397-405.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1999) .Whence Consumer Loyalty?. Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44.
Park, S., & Kim, Y. (2000). Conceptualizing the Attitudinal Loyalty Construct in
Recreational Sport Contexts, Journal of Sport Management, 14,197-207.
Punniyamoorthy, M.,& Prasanna Mohan Raj, M. (2007). An empirical model for brand
loyalty measurement .Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 5(4),
222-233
Russell, R. S., & Taylor, B. W. (2006).Operation Management: Quality and
competitiveness in a Global Environment (5th Ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., River
Street.
Singh, K.G.,& Arya, R. (2012) .A study of newspaper readership patterns among the urban
population of Punjab. International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering, 2(6), 58-74.
Sheth, J. (1968). A Factor Analytical Model of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing
Research, 395-404.
Sheth, J., Newman, & Gross, B. (1991). Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of
Consumption Values. Journal of Business Research, 22,159-170.
Trygve Haavelmo (1943) .The statistical implications of a system of simultaneous equations.
Econometrica, 11, 11-12.Reprinted in D.F.Hendry and M.S.Morgan (Eds), The foundations
of econometric analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Tucker, W. (1964). The Development of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research, 3235.
Wright, Sewall (1921) .Correlation and Causation. Journal of Agricultural
Research,20(7)557-585.
Worthington, S., Russell-Bennett, R., & Hartel, C.E. J. (2009).A tri-dimensional approach for
auditing brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 17(4), 243-253.
www.ficci.com/.../FICCI-Frames-2014-KPMG-Report-Summary.pdf
************