© 2013. Jairo Kirwa Mise, Chandrasekeran Nair, Odhiambo Odera & Martin Ogutu. This is a research/review paper, distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Volume 13 Issue 3 Version 1.0 Year 2013
Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal
Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA)
Online ISSN: & Print ISSN:
Abstract - This study sought to establish and compare the loyalty characteristics among the soft
drinks consumers in Kenya and India. The study locations were in Barat on University, Kenya and
Mahatma Gandhi University in Kerala, India. An ex post facto survey research design was
employed and the target population was young consumers who were sampled from the local
universities in both countries. The study adopted incidental random sampling technique where
respondents were selected based on their ease of access and willingness to respond.
Questionnaire was used to collect data and descriptive statistics was employed to analyze and
present the data. The study established that in India, peer group are more powerful in influencing
potential consumers to take soft drinks while in Kenya parents perform a crucial role.
Keywords : brand loyalty, soft drinks and consumer.
GJMBR-E Classification : JEL Code: L68
ComparativeStudyonBrandLoyaltyinKenyaandIndiaConsumerSoftdrinksMarkets
Strictly as per the compliance and regulations of:
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya
and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
Jairo Kirwa Mise
?
, Chandrasekeran Nair
?
, Odhiambo Odera
?
& Martin Ogutu
Abstract - This study sought to establish and compare the
loyalty characteristics among the soft drinks consumers in
Kenya and India. The study locations were in Barat on
University, Kenya and Mahatma Gandhi University in Kerala,
India. An ex post facto survey research design was employed
and the target population was young consumers who were
sampled from the local universities in both countries. The
study adopted incidental random sampling technique where
respondents were selected based on their ease of access and
willingness to respond. Questionnaire was used to collect data
and descriptive statistics was employed to analyze and
present the data. The study established that in India, peer
group are more powerful in influencing potential consumers to
take soft drinks while in Kenya parents perform a crucial role.
Keywords : brand loyalty, soft drinks and consumer.
I. Introduction
he Indian carbonated industry is worth Rs 60-billion
and growing now at 5% annually with a compound
annual growth rate of 4.5% where Coke and Pepsi
have a combined market share of around 95% directly
or through franchisees (Euromonitor, 2011). Kenya's soft
drink market is worth approximately USD 1 billion. A
great portion of the market is dominated by carbonated
soft drinks and synthetic juices (Euromonitor, 211).
Youth market is a powerful segment of consumer to be
considered as a separate section (Ness et al.,2002).
Specific factors that influence the youth in their
purchasing behavior pattern has been a serious issue to
the behavioural researchers (Bush et al., 2004). The
studies suggest hat consumers’ behaviour is affected by
lot of sources such as family values (Baltas, 1997;
Feltham, 1998) peer group influences (Feltham, 1998;
Ness et al., 2002). Solomon (1994) highlighted that
teenagers will realise the influence of brand loyalty while
purchasing differrent kinds of products in their age and
influenced to buy the product during the age period.
Hence the youth or teen may rely on the
particular age and keep purchasing their favourite brand
on that age onwards (Hollander & German, 1992).
Previous research (Pollay et al., 1996; Roehm & Roehm,
2004) assumes that the youth customers are not much
Author ? : School of Economics and Business Studies, Maseno
University, Kenya and PhD Scholar, University of Kerala India.
Author ? : University of Kerala India.
Author ? : University of Southern Queensland, Australia and Masinde
Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kenya.
E-mail : [email protected]
Author : Department of Business Administration, School of
Business, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
loyal to the brand however, these findings are relatvely
uncertain and creating more argument. Giges’s (1991)
established that the life styles and consumption habits
of people aged 14-34 around the world to be similar
especially in terms of their consumption of soft drinks.
II. Literature Review
‘Soft drink’, refers to any of a class of non-
alcoholic beverages, usually but not necessarily
carbonated, containing a natural or artificial sweetening
agent, edible acids, natural or artificial flavors, and
sometimes juice (Bert, 2011). The term was originated to
distinguish the flavored drinks from hard liquor, or
spirits. Marketing of carbonated soft drinks dates back
to 17
th
century to imitate the popular and naturally
effervescent waters of famous springs, with primary
interest in their reputed therapeutic values. The concept
of brand loyalty has had a long and inconsequent
history. The very first mention of the idea was attributed
to Copeland (1923) and since then, over 200 definitions
have appeared in the literature (Jacoby & Chestnut,
1978). Consumer’s exhibit varied tendencies as regards
their purchase behavior. Whereas others are very loyal,
others are spuriously loyal and others are quite
indifferent in their purchase behavior.
Most studies on brand loyalty have been based
in the Western World (Ryan et al., 1996; Evan set al.,
1996; Romariuk & Sharp, 2003). Bloemer et al. (1995)
examine the relationship between brand loyalty and
satisfaction levels of the buyer. Chaudhuri et al. (2001)
sought to establish relationship between brand loyalty
and trust developed by the customer. Podoshen (2008)
investigates the role of racial factor on product brand
loyalty. Mohammed (2006) explores the influence of
price factor on brand loyalty. Mei Mei et al. (2006)
investigate the influence of brand name and product
promotion while Angeline (2006) examines the influence
of age bracket on brand loyalty in soft drinks segment.
Repeat purchase is a behavioral tendency
where customers purchase the same product or brand
regularly and consistently. When this happens over time,
the customer develops loyalty to the brand due to
unique attributes identified during the frequent
purchases. Assael (1995) argues that ‘Loyals’ use
repeat purchasing of a brand as a means of reducing
risk. Johnson & Forwell (1991) define an overall
customer satisfaction as the customer’s rating of the
brand based on all encounter and experiences. Bennett
T
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
23
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
?
?
& Thiele (2004) affirm that if the customers experience
high level of satisfaction they are predisposed to the
particular brand and intention to repurchase. Product
quality encompasses the features and characteristics of
a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfy
stated or implied needs. Romaniuk &Sharp (2003)
conclude that the more attributes (non negative)
associated with a product brand; the more loyal
consumers are likely to be. Codogan & Foster (2000)
establish that consumers with high brand loyalty are less
price sensitive.
According to Keller et al. (1998), a famous
brand name can disseminate product benefits and lead
to higher recall of an advertised benefit than a non-
famous brand name hence leading to high recall and
repurchase. Promotion is a component of a marketing
mix which takes the form of communication between the
product and the correct or potential consumers. Several
studies (Evans et al., 1996) suggest that promotion,
especially in form of a well-targeted advertisement
cannot only make the consumers less price sensitive
and more loyal, but also change their knowledge,
attitude and behaviors towards the product. This study
sought to examine the six key factors then rank to
establish the most influential factor in the African and
Asian markets studied.
III. Methodology
An ex post facto survey research design was
employed in the study. Out of a total population of
116,008 students, 1312 respondents were sampled
comprising of 434 Kenyans and 878 Indians from
selected public universities in India and Kenya. The
students’ sampled represented 1.2% of the target
population in 2 public universities in Kenya and Kerala
respectively. The study adopted incidental random
sampling techniques. Respondents were selected
based on their ease of access and willingness to
respond (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006). Questionnaire was
used to collect the data. A pilot study was conducted in
Baraton University in Kenya and Mahatma Gandhi
University in Kerala (Kottayam) state, India in November
2011 to ascertain the reliability of the research
instrument. Using the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient
formula, the results indicated a reliability coefficient of
0.79 in Baraton University, Kenya and 0.72 in Mahatma
Gandhi University, India, which is considered
acceptable. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze
and present the data.
IV. Findings
a) Popular brands consumed
The participants who were consumers of soft
drinks in the two countries were asked to indicate the
brands that they mostly use.
Table 1
:
Soft Drink Brands Consumed per Country
Nationality
Total
Soft Drink
Kenyan
Indian
Coca-Cola
Frequency
190
57
247
% within Nationality
46.0%
8.7%
23.1%
% of Total
17.8%
5.3%
23.1%
Fanta
Frequency
94
53
147
% within Nationality
22.8%
8.1%
13.8%
% of Total
8.8%
5.0%
13.8%
Sprite
Frequency
69
281
350
% within Nationality
16.7%
42.9%
32.8%
% of Total
6.5%
26.3%
32.8%
Pepsi
Frequency
24
43
67
% within Nationality
5.8%
6.6%
6.3%
% of Total
2.2%
4.0%
6.3%
Mirinda
Frequency
17
167
184
% within Nationality
4.1%
25.5%
17.2%
% of Total
1.6%
15.6%
17.2%
Soda water
Frequency
9
0
9
% within Nationality
2.2%
.0%
.8%
% of Total
.8%
.0%
.8%
other soft drinks
Frequency
10
54
64
% within Nationality
2.4%
8.2%
6.0%
% of Total
.9%
5.1%
6.0%
Total
Frequency
413
655
1068
% within Nationality
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% of Total
38.7%
61.3%
100.0%
Source : Research Data (2012)
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
24
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
From the results in Table 1, it is evident that
Cocacola and Fanta brands are the most popular in
Kenyan Market at 46% and 23 % respectively. In Indian
market, it was established that Sprite topped at 43 %
followed by Mirinda at 26 %.
b) Brand loyalty type
Respondents were asked to rate the extent they
agreed with the Likert five point scale that measured
wether they were truely loyal, spuriously loyal, indifferent,
or not loyal at all.The findings were as follows:
Table 2
:
Brand loyalty among Indian Consumers(N= 651)
Statement
Responses
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
I always insist on my favorite brand and cannot
take any other optional brand (truly loyal)
206
31.6
80
12.3
36
5.5
165
25.3
164
25.2
I purchase my brand regularly and I have no
other option (Spuriously Loyal )
379
58.2
152
23.3
26
4.0
94
14.4
0
0
I don't stick to one single brand only; I shift
from one brand to another (Brand Switcher)
279
42.9
143
22.0
45
6.9
142
21.8
42
6.5
I am not keen on any specific brand and can
take any (Indifferent buyer)
252
38.7
98
15.1
18
2.8
161
24.7
122
18.7
Source : Research Data (2012)
Table 3
: Brand loyalty among Kenyan Consumers(N= 412)
Statement
Responses
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
I always insist on my favorite brand and cannot take
any other optional brand (truly loyal)
76
18.4
122
29.6
79
19.2
58
14.1
77
18.7
I purchase my brand regularly and I have no other
option (Spuriously Loyal )
104
25.2
126
30.6
95
23.1
60
14.6
27
6.6
I don't stick to one single brand only; I shift from one
brand to another (Brand Switcher)
76
17.5
130
30.0
91
21.0
96
22.1
19
4.4
I am not keen on any specific brand and can take any
(Indifferent buyer)
48
11.1
125
28.8
83
19.1
111 25.6
44
10.1
Source : Research Data (2012)
From Table 3, 29.6% of the respondents
disagreed that they were truly loyal, 19.2% were neutral
on the statement, 18.4% strongly disagreed, 18.7%
strongly agreed while 14.1%
respondents agreed that
they were truly loyal. The responses
suggest that
majority of the Kenyan soft drinks consumer youths
(50.0%) are not truly loyal consumers to their brands. On
spurious loyalty, it was
established
that 30.6% of the
Kenyan respondents disagreed that they spuriously
loyal, 25.2% strongly disagreed, 23.1% were undecided,
14.6% agreed that they while 6.6% respondents strongly
agreed that they were spuriously loyal. The responses
indicate
that majority of the respondents from Kenya are
not spuriously loyal. 30.0% of the Kenyan respondents
disagreed that they were brand switchers, 17.5%
strongly disagreed, 22.1% agreed, 21.0% were neutral
while 4.4% strongly agreed. The responses
reveal
that
majority of the Kenyan soft drink consumers (47.5%)
disagreed that they are brand switchers.
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
25
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
Table 2 indicates that 31.6% of the Indian
respondents strongly disagreed that they are truly loyal
to the brands, 25.3% agreed, 25.2% strongly agreed,
and 12.3% disagreed while 5.5% respondents were
undecided. The finding reveals that majority of the
Indian soft drink consumers (50.5%) were truly loyal.
58.2% of the Indian respondents strongly disagreed that
they were spuriously loyal, 23.3% disagreed, 14.4%
agreed while 4.0% were undecided. The results
demonstrate that majority of the respondents (85.1%)
disagreed that they were spuriously loyal. On brand
switchers, 42.9% of the respondents strongly disagreed
that they were not brand switchers, 22.0% respondents
disagreed, 41.8% agreed, 6.9% were undecided while
6.5% strongly agreed that they were brand switchers.
The responses indicate that majority of the Indian
respondents (64.9%) are not brand switchers. 38.7% of
the respondents strongly disagreed that they were
indifferent buyers, 18.7% strongly agreed, 24.7%
agreed, 15.1% disagreed while 2.8% were neutral. The
study establishes that majority of the Indian soft drink
consumers were truly loyal to their brands.
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
25.6% of the respondents agreed that they were
indifferent buyers, 28.8% disagreed, 11.1% strongly
disagreed and 19.1% were neutral while 10.1% strongly
agreed that they were indifferent buyers. The results
demonstrate that majority of the Kenyan respondents
were indifferent buyers.
From the findings it can be established that
majority of the Kenyan soft drinks consumers are
indifferent buyers as compared to their Indian
counterparts who are mostly truly loyal to their brands.
V.
Conclusion
Soft drinks are still popular beverage in the
youth market in both Kenya and India. However, it is
evident from the study that the consumption of soft
drinks in India is reducing with health concern as the
main cause for the same. Parents are very crucial in
introducing their children to various soft drinks brands
and subsequently shaping their loyalty in Kenyan
Market. In India, peer influence is the major factor in
introduction of soft drinks brands. Most Kenyans enjoy
their
soft drinks during evening hours but their Indian
counterparts prefer during the day. Equally, majority of
Indian soft drinks consumers (51 percent) indicated to
be totally loyal to their brands while majority of their
Kenyan counterparts (36 percent) where established to
be indifferent to various brands.
Indian soft drinks
marketing firms need to focus on varied brands for
specific segments. There was a marked reduced intake
of soft drinks by Indians than Kenyans.
References Références Referencias
2.
Assael, H. (1995) Consumer Behaviour
and
Marketing Action
Cincinnati: South Western College
Publishing.
3.
Baltas, G. (1997). Determinants of store brand
choice: a behavioral analysis. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 6.(5), pp. 315-24. 74.
4.
Benett, R. & Rundle –
Thiele, S. (2004). Customer
satisfaction should not be the only goal. Journal
of Services Marketing
18(7), PP. 514-523.
5.
Bert, V. (2011) "105 what
is your generic term for a
sweetened carbonated beverage?"
Harvard Dialect
Survey
Retrieved 6/3/2011.
6.
Bloemer, J. M. M. and Hans D. P. Kasper (1995)
“The Complex Relationship between Consumer
Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty,” Journal of
Economic Psychology, 16 (2).
7.
Bush, A.J. Martin, C.A. & Bush, V.D. (2004) Sports
Celebrity Influence of the Behavioral
Intentions of
Generation Y. Journal of Advertising Research, 44,
pp.108-118.
8. Codogan, J.W. and Foster, B.D.(2000) Relationship
selling and Customer loyalty; an empirical
investigation, Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
18 (4), pp. 185-199.
9. Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001) the chain
of effects from brand trust and brand effect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of
Marketing, 65, pp. 81-93.
11. Euromonitor (2011) Soft drinks in India
www.euromonitor.com/soft-drinks-in-india/report.
12. Evans, M., Montinho, L and Raaij, W.F.V. (1996),
Applied Consumer Behaviour, Addison-Wesley
Pnb.co, Harlow; Reading Mars.
13. Feltham, T. (1998) Leaving Home: Brand Purchase
Influences on Young Adults Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 15 (4), 372-385.
14. Giges, N. (1991). “Global Spending Patterns
Emerge”, Advertising Age, November 11, pp.64.
15. Gravetter, F. J. & Forzano, L. B. (2006)Research
methods for the behavioral sciences 2
nd
Ed. Mason,
OH: Thompson.
16. Hollander, S.C. and German, R. (1992), Was There
A Pepsi Generation Before Pepsi Discovered It?
Chicago: NTC Business Books Hussey.
17. Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978)Brand loyalty
New York; Wiley.
18. Johnson, M.D and Forwell, C (1991) A framework
for complaining customer satisfaction across
individuals and product categories. Journal of
Economy Psychology pp 267-86.
19. Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management;
Building, Measuring and Management of Brand
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New equity,
Jersey.
20. Mei-Mei, L., Monstsun, C., Ka-leung, M. and Wing-
sun, L. (2006) Brand loyalty of sportswear in Hong
Kong, Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology
Volume 5, Issue 1. and Management,
22. Ness, N., Gorton, M. and Kuznesof, S. (2002) The
student food shopperBritish Food Journal, 104 (7),
pp. 506-25. 81
23. Podoshen, J. (2008) "The African American
Consumer Revisited: Brand Loyalty, Word of Mouth,
and the Effects of the Black Experience," Journal of
Consumer Marketing. Vol. 25, No. 4: 211-222.
24. Pollay, R., Siddarth, W., S., Siegel, M., Haddix, A.,
Merritt, R.K., Giovino, G.A. and Eriksen, M.P. (1996)
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
26
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
10. Copeland, M.T. (1923) Relation of consumer’s
buying habits to marketing method. Harvard
Business Review, 1, p. 282-289.
21. Mohammed, I., (2010) Customer Satisfaction in
Mobile Phone service in Bangladesh, World
Vol. 2.
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
of Management,
Journal
“The last straw? Cigarette advertising and realized
1. Angeline, G. (2006) Close Decomposing Brand
Loyalty; Exploring the effect of teenage status and
Gender on Brand loyalty; from: http://faculty.vmv.
edu/angeline/ close loyalty logit.pdf extracted in
Nov.2011.
market shares among youths and adults,” Journal
of Marketing,
25.
Roehm, H.A. & Roehm, M.L. (2004) “Variety-Seeking
and Time of Day: Why Leader Brands Hope Young
Adults Shop in the Afternoon, but Follower Brands
Hope
for Morning”. Mark. Lett 15 (4):
213-221.
26.
Romaniuk, J. and Sharp, B.(2003) Brand salience
and customer defection in
subscription markets
Journal of Marketing Management 19(1/2), 25-44
27.
Ryan, M.J. Rayner, R. and Morisson, A.(1999)
Diagnosing Customer Loyalty drivers, Marketing
Research pg. 18-26
28.
Solomon, M. R. (1994). Consumer Behavior
Allyn
and Bacon: Needham Heights, MA.
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
27
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
60 (2), 1.
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
This page is intentionally left blank
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
28
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
doc_863286721.pdf
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Volume 13 Issue 3 Version 1.0 Year 2013
Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal
Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA)
Online ISSN: & Print ISSN:
Abstract - This study sought to establish and compare the loyalty characteristics among the soft
drinks consumers in Kenya and India. The study locations were in Barat on University, Kenya and
Mahatma Gandhi University in Kerala, India. An ex post facto survey research design was
employed and the target population was young consumers who were sampled from the local
universities in both countries. The study adopted incidental random sampling technique where
respondents were selected based on their ease of access and willingness to respond.
Questionnaire was used to collect data and descriptive statistics was employed to analyze and
present the data. The study established that in India, peer group are more powerful in influencing
potential consumers to take soft drinks while in Kenya parents perform a crucial role.
Keywords : brand loyalty, soft drinks and consumer.
GJMBR-E Classification : JEL Code: L68
ComparativeStudyonBrandLoyaltyinKenyaandIndiaConsumerSoftdrinksMarkets
Strictly as per the compliance and regulations of:
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya
and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
Jairo Kirwa Mise
?
, Chandrasekeran Nair
?
, Odhiambo Odera
?
& Martin Ogutu
Abstract - This study sought to establish and compare the
loyalty characteristics among the soft drinks consumers in
Kenya and India. The study locations were in Barat on
University, Kenya and Mahatma Gandhi University in Kerala,
India. An ex post facto survey research design was employed
and the target population was young consumers who were
sampled from the local universities in both countries. The
study adopted incidental random sampling technique where
respondents were selected based on their ease of access and
willingness to respond. Questionnaire was used to collect data
and descriptive statistics was employed to analyze and
present the data. The study established that in India, peer
group are more powerful in influencing potential consumers to
take soft drinks while in Kenya parents perform a crucial role.
Keywords : brand loyalty, soft drinks and consumer.
I. Introduction
he Indian carbonated industry is worth Rs 60-billion
and growing now at 5% annually with a compound
annual growth rate of 4.5% where Coke and Pepsi
have a combined market share of around 95% directly
or through franchisees (Euromonitor, 2011). Kenya's soft
drink market is worth approximately USD 1 billion. A
great portion of the market is dominated by carbonated
soft drinks and synthetic juices (Euromonitor, 211).
Youth market is a powerful segment of consumer to be
considered as a separate section (Ness et al.,2002).
Specific factors that influence the youth in their
purchasing behavior pattern has been a serious issue to
the behavioural researchers (Bush et al., 2004). The
studies suggest hat consumers’ behaviour is affected by
lot of sources such as family values (Baltas, 1997;
Feltham, 1998) peer group influences (Feltham, 1998;
Ness et al., 2002). Solomon (1994) highlighted that
teenagers will realise the influence of brand loyalty while
purchasing differrent kinds of products in their age and
influenced to buy the product during the age period.
Hence the youth or teen may rely on the
particular age and keep purchasing their favourite brand
on that age onwards (Hollander & German, 1992).
Previous research (Pollay et al., 1996; Roehm & Roehm,
2004) assumes that the youth customers are not much
Author ? : School of Economics and Business Studies, Maseno
University, Kenya and PhD Scholar, University of Kerala India.
Author ? : University of Kerala India.
Author ? : University of Southern Queensland, Australia and Masinde
Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kenya.
E-mail : [email protected]
Author : Department of Business Administration, School of
Business, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
loyal to the brand however, these findings are relatvely
uncertain and creating more argument. Giges’s (1991)
established that the life styles and consumption habits
of people aged 14-34 around the world to be similar
especially in terms of their consumption of soft drinks.
II. Literature Review
‘Soft drink’, refers to any of a class of non-
alcoholic beverages, usually but not necessarily
carbonated, containing a natural or artificial sweetening
agent, edible acids, natural or artificial flavors, and
sometimes juice (Bert, 2011). The term was originated to
distinguish the flavored drinks from hard liquor, or
spirits. Marketing of carbonated soft drinks dates back
to 17
th
century to imitate the popular and naturally
effervescent waters of famous springs, with primary
interest in their reputed therapeutic values. The concept
of brand loyalty has had a long and inconsequent
history. The very first mention of the idea was attributed
to Copeland (1923) and since then, over 200 definitions
have appeared in the literature (Jacoby & Chestnut,
1978). Consumer’s exhibit varied tendencies as regards
their purchase behavior. Whereas others are very loyal,
others are spuriously loyal and others are quite
indifferent in their purchase behavior.
Most studies on brand loyalty have been based
in the Western World (Ryan et al., 1996; Evan set al.,
1996; Romariuk & Sharp, 2003). Bloemer et al. (1995)
examine the relationship between brand loyalty and
satisfaction levels of the buyer. Chaudhuri et al. (2001)
sought to establish relationship between brand loyalty
and trust developed by the customer. Podoshen (2008)
investigates the role of racial factor on product brand
loyalty. Mohammed (2006) explores the influence of
price factor on brand loyalty. Mei Mei et al. (2006)
investigate the influence of brand name and product
promotion while Angeline (2006) examines the influence
of age bracket on brand loyalty in soft drinks segment.
Repeat purchase is a behavioral tendency
where customers purchase the same product or brand
regularly and consistently. When this happens over time,
the customer develops loyalty to the brand due to
unique attributes identified during the frequent
purchases. Assael (1995) argues that ‘Loyals’ use
repeat purchasing of a brand as a means of reducing
risk. Johnson & Forwell (1991) define an overall
customer satisfaction as the customer’s rating of the
brand based on all encounter and experiences. Bennett
T
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
23
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
?
?
& Thiele (2004) affirm that if the customers experience
high level of satisfaction they are predisposed to the
particular brand and intention to repurchase. Product
quality encompasses the features and characteristics of
a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfy
stated or implied needs. Romaniuk &Sharp (2003)
conclude that the more attributes (non negative)
associated with a product brand; the more loyal
consumers are likely to be. Codogan & Foster (2000)
establish that consumers with high brand loyalty are less
price sensitive.
According to Keller et al. (1998), a famous
brand name can disseminate product benefits and lead
to higher recall of an advertised benefit than a non-
famous brand name hence leading to high recall and
repurchase. Promotion is a component of a marketing
mix which takes the form of communication between the
product and the correct or potential consumers. Several
studies (Evans et al., 1996) suggest that promotion,
especially in form of a well-targeted advertisement
cannot only make the consumers less price sensitive
and more loyal, but also change their knowledge,
attitude and behaviors towards the product. This study
sought to examine the six key factors then rank to
establish the most influential factor in the African and
Asian markets studied.
III. Methodology
An ex post facto survey research design was
employed in the study. Out of a total population of
116,008 students, 1312 respondents were sampled
comprising of 434 Kenyans and 878 Indians from
selected public universities in India and Kenya. The
students’ sampled represented 1.2% of the target
population in 2 public universities in Kenya and Kerala
respectively. The study adopted incidental random
sampling techniques. Respondents were selected
based on their ease of access and willingness to
respond (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006). Questionnaire was
used to collect the data. A pilot study was conducted in
Baraton University in Kenya and Mahatma Gandhi
University in Kerala (Kottayam) state, India in November
2011 to ascertain the reliability of the research
instrument. Using the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient
formula, the results indicated a reliability coefficient of
0.79 in Baraton University, Kenya and 0.72 in Mahatma
Gandhi University, India, which is considered
acceptable. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze
and present the data.
IV. Findings
a) Popular brands consumed
The participants who were consumers of soft
drinks in the two countries were asked to indicate the
brands that they mostly use.
Table 1
:
Soft Drink Brands Consumed per Country
Nationality
Total
Soft Drink
Kenyan
Indian
Coca-Cola
Frequency
190
57
247
% within Nationality
46.0%
8.7%
23.1%
% of Total
17.8%
5.3%
23.1%
Fanta
Frequency
94
53
147
% within Nationality
22.8%
8.1%
13.8%
% of Total
8.8%
5.0%
13.8%
Sprite
Frequency
69
281
350
% within Nationality
16.7%
42.9%
32.8%
% of Total
6.5%
26.3%
32.8%
Pepsi
Frequency
24
43
67
% within Nationality
5.8%
6.6%
6.3%
% of Total
2.2%
4.0%
6.3%
Mirinda
Frequency
17
167
184
% within Nationality
4.1%
25.5%
17.2%
% of Total
1.6%
15.6%
17.2%
Soda water
Frequency
9
0
9
% within Nationality
2.2%
.0%
.8%
% of Total
.8%
.0%
.8%
other soft drinks
Frequency
10
54
64
% within Nationality
2.4%
8.2%
6.0%
% of Total
.9%
5.1%
6.0%
Total
Frequency
413
655
1068
% within Nationality
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% of Total
38.7%
61.3%
100.0%
Source : Research Data (2012)
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
24
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
From the results in Table 1, it is evident that
Cocacola and Fanta brands are the most popular in
Kenyan Market at 46% and 23 % respectively. In Indian
market, it was established that Sprite topped at 43 %
followed by Mirinda at 26 %.
b) Brand loyalty type
Respondents were asked to rate the extent they
agreed with the Likert five point scale that measured
wether they were truely loyal, spuriously loyal, indifferent,
or not loyal at all.The findings were as follows:
Table 2
:
Brand loyalty among Indian Consumers(N= 651)
Statement
Responses
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
I always insist on my favorite brand and cannot
take any other optional brand (truly loyal)
206
31.6
80
12.3
36
5.5
165
25.3
164
25.2
I purchase my brand regularly and I have no
other option (Spuriously Loyal )
379
58.2
152
23.3
26
4.0
94
14.4
0
0
I don't stick to one single brand only; I shift
from one brand to another (Brand Switcher)
279
42.9
143
22.0
45
6.9
142
21.8
42
6.5
I am not keen on any specific brand and can
take any (Indifferent buyer)
252
38.7
98
15.1
18
2.8
161
24.7
122
18.7
Source : Research Data (2012)
Table 3
: Brand loyalty among Kenyan Consumers(N= 412)
Statement
Responses
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
F
%
I always insist on my favorite brand and cannot take
any other optional brand (truly loyal)
76
18.4
122
29.6
79
19.2
58
14.1
77
18.7
I purchase my brand regularly and I have no other
option (Spuriously Loyal )
104
25.2
126
30.6
95
23.1
60
14.6
27
6.6
I don't stick to one single brand only; I shift from one
brand to another (Brand Switcher)
76
17.5
130
30.0
91
21.0
96
22.1
19
4.4
I am not keen on any specific brand and can take any
(Indifferent buyer)
48
11.1
125
28.8
83
19.1
111 25.6
44
10.1
Source : Research Data (2012)
From Table 3, 29.6% of the respondents
disagreed that they were truly loyal, 19.2% were neutral
on the statement, 18.4% strongly disagreed, 18.7%
strongly agreed while 14.1%
respondents agreed that
they were truly loyal. The responses
suggest that
majority of the Kenyan soft drinks consumer youths
(50.0%) are not truly loyal consumers to their brands. On
spurious loyalty, it was
established
that 30.6% of the
Kenyan respondents disagreed that they spuriously
loyal, 25.2% strongly disagreed, 23.1% were undecided,
14.6% agreed that they while 6.6% respondents strongly
agreed that they were spuriously loyal. The responses
indicate
that majority of the respondents from Kenya are
not spuriously loyal. 30.0% of the Kenyan respondents
disagreed that they were brand switchers, 17.5%
strongly disagreed, 22.1% agreed, 21.0% were neutral
while 4.4% strongly agreed. The responses
reveal
that
majority of the Kenyan soft drink consumers (47.5%)
disagreed that they are brand switchers.
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
25
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
Table 2 indicates that 31.6% of the Indian
respondents strongly disagreed that they are truly loyal
to the brands, 25.3% agreed, 25.2% strongly agreed,
and 12.3% disagreed while 5.5% respondents were
undecided. The finding reveals that majority of the
Indian soft drink consumers (50.5%) were truly loyal.
58.2% of the Indian respondents strongly disagreed that
they were spuriously loyal, 23.3% disagreed, 14.4%
agreed while 4.0% were undecided. The results
demonstrate that majority of the respondents (85.1%)
disagreed that they were spuriously loyal. On brand
switchers, 42.9% of the respondents strongly disagreed
that they were not brand switchers, 22.0% respondents
disagreed, 41.8% agreed, 6.9% were undecided while
6.5% strongly agreed that they were brand switchers.
The responses indicate that majority of the Indian
respondents (64.9%) are not brand switchers. 38.7% of
the respondents strongly disagreed that they were
indifferent buyers, 18.7% strongly agreed, 24.7%
agreed, 15.1% disagreed while 2.8% were neutral. The
study establishes that majority of the Indian soft drink
consumers were truly loyal to their brands.
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
25.6% of the respondents agreed that they were
indifferent buyers, 28.8% disagreed, 11.1% strongly
disagreed and 19.1% were neutral while 10.1% strongly
agreed that they were indifferent buyers. The results
demonstrate that majority of the Kenyan respondents
were indifferent buyers.
From the findings it can be established that
majority of the Kenyan soft drinks consumers are
indifferent buyers as compared to their Indian
counterparts who are mostly truly loyal to their brands.
V.
Conclusion
Soft drinks are still popular beverage in the
youth market in both Kenya and India. However, it is
evident from the study that the consumption of soft
drinks in India is reducing with health concern as the
main cause for the same. Parents are very crucial in
introducing their children to various soft drinks brands
and subsequently shaping their loyalty in Kenyan
Market. In India, peer influence is the major factor in
introduction of soft drinks brands. Most Kenyans enjoy
their
soft drinks during evening hours but their Indian
counterparts prefer during the day. Equally, majority of
Indian soft drinks consumers (51 percent) indicated to
be totally loyal to their brands while majority of their
Kenyan counterparts (36 percent) where established to
be indifferent to various brands.
Indian soft drinks
marketing firms need to focus on varied brands for
specific segments. There was a marked reduced intake
of soft drinks by Indians than Kenyans.
References Références Referencias
2.
Assael, H. (1995) Consumer Behaviour
and
Marketing Action
Cincinnati: South Western College
Publishing.
3.
Baltas, G. (1997). Determinants of store brand
choice: a behavioral analysis. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 6.(5), pp. 315-24. 74.
4.
Benett, R. & Rundle –
Thiele, S. (2004). Customer
satisfaction should not be the only goal. Journal
of Services Marketing
18(7), PP. 514-523.
5.
Bert, V. (2011) "105 what
is your generic term for a
sweetened carbonated beverage?"
Harvard Dialect
Survey
Retrieved 6/3/2011.
6.
Bloemer, J. M. M. and Hans D. P. Kasper (1995)
“The Complex Relationship between Consumer
Satisfaction and Brand Loyalty,” Journal of
Economic Psychology, 16 (2).
7.
Bush, A.J. Martin, C.A. & Bush, V.D. (2004) Sports
Celebrity Influence of the Behavioral
Intentions of
Generation Y. Journal of Advertising Research, 44,
pp.108-118.
8. Codogan, J.W. and Foster, B.D.(2000) Relationship
selling and Customer loyalty; an empirical
investigation, Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
18 (4), pp. 185-199.
9. Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001) the chain
of effects from brand trust and brand effect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of
Marketing, 65, pp. 81-93.
11. Euromonitor (2011) Soft drinks in India
www.euromonitor.com/soft-drinks-in-india/report.
12. Evans, M., Montinho, L and Raaij, W.F.V. (1996),
Applied Consumer Behaviour, Addison-Wesley
Pnb.co, Harlow; Reading Mars.
13. Feltham, T. (1998) Leaving Home: Brand Purchase
Influences on Young Adults Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 15 (4), 372-385.
14. Giges, N. (1991). “Global Spending Patterns
Emerge”, Advertising Age, November 11, pp.64.
15. Gravetter, F. J. & Forzano, L. B. (2006)Research
methods for the behavioral sciences 2
nd
Ed. Mason,
OH: Thompson.
16. Hollander, S.C. and German, R. (1992), Was There
A Pepsi Generation Before Pepsi Discovered It?
Chicago: NTC Business Books Hussey.
17. Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, R.W. (1978)Brand loyalty
New York; Wiley.
18. Johnson, M.D and Forwell, C (1991) A framework
for complaining customer satisfaction across
individuals and product categories. Journal of
Economy Psychology pp 267-86.
19. Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management;
Building, Measuring and Management of Brand
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New equity,
Jersey.
20. Mei-Mei, L., Monstsun, C., Ka-leung, M. and Wing-
sun, L. (2006) Brand loyalty of sportswear in Hong
Kong, Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology
Volume 5, Issue 1. and Management,
22. Ness, N., Gorton, M. and Kuznesof, S. (2002) The
student food shopperBritish Food Journal, 104 (7),
pp. 506-25. 81
23. Podoshen, J. (2008) "The African American
Consumer Revisited: Brand Loyalty, Word of Mouth,
and the Effects of the Black Experience," Journal of
Consumer Marketing. Vol. 25, No. 4: 211-222.
24. Pollay, R., Siddarth, W., S., Siegel, M., Haddix, A.,
Merritt, R.K., Giovino, G.A. and Eriksen, M.P. (1996)
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
26
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
10. Copeland, M.T. (1923) Relation of consumer’s
buying habits to marketing method. Harvard
Business Review, 1, p. 282-289.
21. Mohammed, I., (2010) Customer Satisfaction in
Mobile Phone service in Bangladesh, World
Vol. 2.
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
of Management,
Journal
“The last straw? Cigarette advertising and realized
1. Angeline, G. (2006) Close Decomposing Brand
Loyalty; Exploring the effect of teenage status and
Gender on Brand loyalty; from: http://faculty.vmv.
edu/angeline/ close loyalty logit.pdf extracted in
Nov.2011.
market shares among youths and adults,” Journal
of Marketing,
25.
Roehm, H.A. & Roehm, M.L. (2004) “Variety-Seeking
and Time of Day: Why Leader Brands Hope Young
Adults Shop in the Afternoon, but Follower Brands
Hope
for Morning”. Mark. Lett 15 (4):
213-221.
26.
Romaniuk, J. and Sharp, B.(2003) Brand salience
and customer defection in
subscription markets
Journal of Marketing Management 19(1/2), 25-44
27.
Ryan, M.J. Rayner, R. and Morisson, A.(1999)
Diagnosing Customer Loyalty drivers, Marketing
Research pg. 18-26
28.
Solomon, M. R. (1994). Consumer Behavior
Allyn
and Bacon: Needham Heights, MA.
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
27
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
60 (2), 1.
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
This page is intentionally left blank
© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)
28
Y
2
0
1
3
e
a
r
Comparative Study on Brand Loyalty in Kenya and India Consumer Softdrinks Markets
G
l
o
b
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
V
o
l
u
m
e
X
I
I
I
I
s
s
u
e
I
I
I
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
I
(
)
E
doc_863286721.pdf