Brand Attractiveness and Strategic Repositioning: A Study Applied to Brands in the Brewery Sector ()
1. Introduction
This work starts from a theoretical observation that of the increasingly important observation of the competition in the market and the need for a strategic repositioning, drawing inspiration from the work of Baynast et al. (2021). The acceleration of this conversion is due to the dynamism of the economies, the increase in the number of brands and the unavoidable struggle of origins. With the disappearance of a plethora of brands on the market, like Shlap, Squasoh, Lemokn squash, brewing companies keep on producing other brands. This disappearance of soft drinks brands shows that they have ceased attracting customers on a given market. The Tonc brand has become Tomp Tonc. This brand has seen its packaging improved with the modification of its shape and the packaging now has a yellow label. Currently on the market, the Malti Tonc new non-alcoholic malt drink from the Breweries, of which ingredients are vitamins, is increasingly available. The R brand is a refreshing natural drink made from malt. She is rich in vitamins, minerals and carbohydrates. This brand has almost disappeared from the market in the face of competing like brands AR and MD. This disappearance can be explained by an unfavorable positioning. The growing urgency of a strategic repositioning constitutes the starting point of this research. Indeed, in crowded markets, a brand value becomes very important. A brand is a noun or a symbol, a logo or a form, a packaging that makes it possible to recognize the goods and services offered by a seller and to differentiate them from those of the competition (Porter, 1979).
The objective of this article is to analyze the brand attractiveness factors likely to contribute to a strategic repositioning on a given market. The central question of this article is whether there is a link between the attractiveness of brands and the strategic repositioning on a given market. At the end of this question, two hypotheses are put forward:
H1: The more attractive brands are, the more they explain their positioning on a given market.
H2: A strategic repositioning results from an improvement in the attractiveness of brands.
These hypotheses (H1 and H2) will make it possible to build a research model. The answer to the central question of this research is based on the hypothetical-deductive approach, indicated for a quantitative study (Evrard et al., 2003). The highlighting of a conceptual approach analyzing the theoretical aspects of the subject of this article will be completed by a double exploratory study with companies and consumers. After the exploratory study, a survey will be conducted among 1400 beer consumers. The descriptive analysis will make it possible to describe the behavior of beer consumers on the one hand and the hypothesis will be tested the analysis of the linear correlation. This work is structured in three parts: the literature review, the research methodology and the discussions.
2. Literature Review
Literature on the brands attractiveness is practically inexistent. Some researchers have addressed this concept.
Such situation made this work complex. Nevertheless, we have succeeded in identifying some brands attractiveness factors, more particularly: the brand origin, the distribution sales point of the brand, the individual’s purchasing power, the brand innovation and the individual’s age. This research work will make a contribution to filling this void. A bibliographic study relating to our field of research (Dubuisson-Quellier, 2022) reports how certain researchers define brand. So according to Baynast et al. (2021) a brand as a name and a set of signs that indicate the origin of an offer, differentiate it from its competitors, influence the perception and behavior of consumers through a set of mental representations. It thus creates value for the company. Or the logo is an element of the brand. The logo is a used to recognize the brand. A logo that has improved over times is likely to be considered as being a brand attractiveness factor. The logo of the brand has evolved from 1962 to the present day, as has that of the M brand. According to the free encyclopedia: attractiveness is the set of characteristics or attributes held by a brand and which give it a certain superiority over its direct competitors. The attractiveness of the brand comes from its specificity, from its encounter with precise values of certain groups (Schwartz, 2006). A mobilization of the work of Baynast et al. (2021), allows a better clarification of the concept of repositioning. Indeed, Bettonville (2015) in its work seeks to measure a strategy of repositioning. Trout (2010) for its part propose repositioning and to adopt consumer’s perceptions of the brand or the market. Repositioning is most often a measure taken in the face of the decline of a brand in a competitive context and/or in the face of the aging of the brand. It is rarely an action of anticipation or offensive evolution of the brand. Dubois et al. (2005) consider that repositioning is mainly done either with existing customers … or with new users. For him, repositioning is necessary for various reasons: the arrival of a competing brand whose positioning is close to the current brand and which is harmful to it, a change in consumer preference… To this corpus are added other works, in particular those of Trout and Rivkin (2009) which presents strategic repositioning as the way to correct perceptions towards your brand. The question that can be asked here is how to define the brand? With the evolution of the market and in the face of rapid changes in the environment, tough competition encourages managers the search for new ideas to innovation. Innovation is likely to lead the company to occupy a new position on the markets. However, the difficulty of achieving this is greater for an innovative company, mainly because of the technological and commercial risks to which the company is confronted. In recent years, we have observed that the globalization of economies has tended to give priority to international brands, thus leading to the disappearance of certain brands. Conceived as a factor in the discovery of innovations, this phenomenon of globalization does not close the doors to brands. These can draw on their originality and exploit spaces nit or insufficiently covered by competing brands (either local, global, national, or international). Since the beginning of the 1985 s, globalization and innovation have favored a proliferation of the most diverse competing brands on the market.
Other studies have been able to establish that the brand allows this proximity, this relationship with Jullian (2018). It is this set of considerations that led us to focus on the subject of this research “Brand attractiveness and strategic repositioning: a study applied to brands in the brewery sectors”. The terms involved in this topic lead to the following conceptual framework.
3. Conceptual Framework
During the 1993s and 2002s, many companies focused on developing international brands (Kapferer, 2004). These many brands very often recall their countries of origin with the label “made in” and raise questions about the relationships that are established between brands and customers in the different markets. At the same time, we see that consumer needs are constantly growing. Purchasing behavior as well as the perception of product quality mediates the relationship between psychological process and identity.
Several studies have focused on the geographical origin of brand. Those of Aurier and Fort (2005) constitute an example. It appears that the latter is more interested in brands that reflect its context. The choice to consume locally is thus motivated by a “identity re appropriation”, that is to say, to consume what is closest to oneself, with the precise feeling of resisting globalization (Robert-Demontrond, 2005) thus becoming sensitive to the made in. In other thinks, the “made in” is likely to influence the purchase provided that the place of origin of the offer has an identity strong enough for the consumer to be sensitive to it (Loussaïef, 2004). The justification of the concept of repositioning addressed in the conceptual framework above, stems from the search for a competitive advantage in the sense of Baynast et al. (2021). It therefore happens that in the repositioning, the brand and particularly its attractiveness, occupies a central place in this research works.
A review of literature on the notion of positioning was presented by Saqib (2021). This notion discussed in the conceptual framework here above, recalls that it represents the way the company wants the public to perceive the product compared to competitors. Thus, positioning is based on competition and the need to develop a competitive advantage in the sense of Porter (1979) made it a consideration of his five strengths. But Lendrevie and Lévy (2014) consider that “a positioning can evolve gradually and be enriched, without its fundamental elements being modified”. Chirouze (2007) suggests to repositioning. Baynast et al. (2021) for their part, believe that the repositioning of a brand is a more radical operation which consists in changing the constituent elements of the already established positioning. For him it is therefore not simply a question of communicating on a new offer, but of modifying the perception of the offer and the brand. So, repositioning a brand is a delicate task (Baynast et al., 2021). It therefore appears that in the repositioning the brand and particularly its attractiveness occupies a central place. Because, to develop a competitive advantage, the brand must be attractive. In other words, if in a particular positioning the attractiveness of a brand is lacking, a repositioning is needed that takes more appropriately the attractiveness of the brand in question. Therefore, increasingly, repositioning decisions are based on internal and external factors (Holley et al., 1999), such as cultural, political, economic or even technological factors that make management of brands by managers a little more complex every day. When we talk about repositioning, it is about “readjusting this desired image” in spirit of customers. The question of the relationship between the attractiveness of brand and their repositioning is new in literature. The concept of repositioning is not even if it has not always been in the same terms as in the present study. Indeed, although the notion of repositioning is not presented unanimously in marketing, all major paths seem to have been traced since the pioneering work of Trout & Ries (1972).
The literature review is the overview and critical evaluation of a set of works related to a research question, Beyina (2018) consider that “a large literature exists on the subject” of repositioning. A concept insufficiently addressed, repositioning has been at the heart of many studies over the past two decades. However, this concept is still difficult to apprehend. Repositioning is necessary in the case of a perception problem which is generally linked with brand who have a fail positioning. The first orientation is psychological and based on the market’s perception of the firm’s products. Some works emphasize the adaptation of said perceptions. Repositioning is addressed here in the sense of the adaptation of “consumers’ perceptions of the brand” (Ries & Trout, 2000). However, if the initial offer proposed has contributed to an insufficient positioning, the company may find it necessary to carry out a repositioning. It becomes necessary to concretely understand how the attractiveness of brands is taken into account in repositioning. In marketing theory, the works that take into the attractiveness of brands is practical inexistent. Thus, the question of taking into account the attractiveness of brands in the repositioning or quite simply the relationship betwen the repositioning and attractiveness of brands remain open and its treatment requires the formulation of adequate hypothesis.
The object of this research is to analyze the factors of attractiveness of the marks likely to contribute to a strategic repositioning of a given market. The repositioning of a brand on the basis of its attractiveness then leads us to ask the central question of this research: “is there any link between the attractiveness of brands and the repositioning on a given market?” This research question is divided into several subsidiary questions:
Does brand attractiveness explain the positioning of brands on a given market?
Are there expletory factors of brand attractiveness likely to influence positioning and contribute to repositioning?
Would repositioning result from an improvement in the attractiveness of brands?
These questions highlight the objective of the research. The objective of this research is to show that there is a link between the attractiveness of brands and the repositioning. This objective breaks down into several specific objectives:
To show that the attractiveness of brands explains positioning;
Highlight the factors explicative of the attractiveness of the brands likely to contribute to passed from positioning to repositioning;
Show that a repositioning would result from an improvement in the attractiveness of brands.
The general hypothesis of this thesis is that: the attractiveness of a brand explains its repositioning on a given market. This central hypothesis is broken down into two sub-hypothesis as follows: positioning defines how the brand or company wants to be perceived by consumers. Positioning is critical to brand success Marsden (2002). Inman et al. (1990), suggest that a consumer may consider that an offer is attractive to the point of making it a criterion of choice. Bawa and Menon (1997) concludes that an offer relating to a brand usually purchased or said to be preferred by the consumer is more likely to be perceived as more attractive or more favorable and will ultimately lead to a higher probability of response. Following this set of reflections, we formulate the following hypothesis:
H1: The more attractive brands are, the more they explain their positioning on a given market.
H1-1: The weaker the innovations brought to the brand attractiveness are, the more they explain the positioning.
H1-2: The stronger is that brand attractiveness, the more it explains the positioning.
H1-3: The higher is the level of income, the more it explains the positioning.
H1-4: The stronger is the image of a point of sales, the more it explains the positioning.
H1-5: Positioning depends on the age range of consumers. Mintzberg (1987) in his work shows that repositioning is the movement from one strategic position to another. Bettonville (2015) consider that “Increased competition, changing markets and the crisis are such that it is becoming increasingly difficult for a brand to grow on a market. It is a recurring fact: companies must reposition themselves in order to cope with these variations”. Variations can be favoured by innovativity (Gielens & Steenkamp, 2007). Innovation is part of the perspective of global economic change (Bekolo & Beyina, 2009) and companies in general evolve in an environment market by profound and rapid changes (Sogbossi & Houessou, 2018). Chandon et al. (2000) believes that to increase the perceived attractiveness of an offer, trigger a response and, ultimately, boost sales, the value of the product must be increased (in addition to a face value). Repositioning is a necessary choice for the survival of a brand… The brand evolves in an unstable environment which obliges it to submit to perpetual changes in order to grow in parallel with market trends… Each brand has its own standards, its own behavior and even its own vocabulary…when a manager does a complete repositioning of his brand.
H2: A repositioning was result from an improvement in the attractiveness of brands.
H2-1: A repositioning in terms of innovatively stems from the improvement in the attractiveness of the brand.
H2-2: A repositioning in terms of brand strategies stems from improved brand attractiveness
H2-3: Repositioning is based on positive word of mouth stems from improved brand attractiveness.
H2-4: Repositioning is based on psychological aspects stems from improved brand attractiveness.
After presenting the hypotheses we construct the conceptual model (see Graph 1).
4. Methodology Adopted
In order to answer the central question posed and test the consequent hypothesis, we first made the choice of epistemological positioning. Indeed, positivism only recognizes as scientific character, affirming that the only logic which makes it possible to be realitic is the deductive logic. Inductive logic makes it possible to move from particular observations to general statements. Deductive logic is reasoning which concludes from premises from hypothesis to the truth of a proposition (or its non-refutation) by using rules of inference. Indeed, the object of our research, on the ground is not easy. The choice of the positivist paradigm seems to be coherent because it is based on reality. The purpose of this research is to collect information from the field. Here, the reality is unique. Generalizations beyond time and context are quite possible. There are real causes. We take the positivist approach. This approach fulfills the desired conditions. There are
![]()
Graph 1. Conceptual model: relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable.
two methodological approaches: the hypothetical-deductive approach and the inductive approach (Evrard et al., 2003). We have chosen the hypothetical-deductive approach to try to answer the questions asked. The method is indicated in the context of quantitative methods (Evrard et al., 2003). This approach suggests starting from a theoretical framework to understand, explain and measure the links between the phenomena to be explained and the phenomenon explained. The choice of this approach is due to the descriptive and explanatory objectives. The theory on the attractiveness of the brand is sufficiently rich requiring questions. The research methodology adopted was carried out in two stages, a double exploratory study in the field with business leaders in the Brewing sector and consumers.
The study conducted with 30 managers aims to identify the elements of attractiveness and positioning of brands on the market. An open questionnaire made it possible to identify opinions through a directive interview. An exploratory study conducted with consumers will help us to identify the variables likely to influence them when they are faced with brands. We will therefore conduct semi-structured interviews with them. The introduction to this type of interview begins with a sentence that gradually unfolds the general theme of interview to the respondent. The themes addressed in the interview guide are determined by the objective and the problem of this work. This method has the advantage of encouraging the respondent to express their views in their own. Interviews will be processed through content analysis. A survey was conducted using a questionnaire that who administered to 1400 consumers. We caarried 1400 consumer survey in the following cities. According to Evrard et al. (2003: p. 260), “questionnaire elaboration is without any doubt the most delicate stage as far the realization of a survey is concerned”. Igalens and Roussel (1998: p. 294) remind that when this stage is reached, the most important thing to do is to mix simplicity and clarity for the persons who are interviewed. Precision must also be used to respect the variables definitions. The realization the questionnaire, we have taken into consideration according to recommendations made by Malhotra et al. (2005). It has been done during several stages. A first questionnaire has been submitted to 10 experts: 04 lecturers in Management Science, 03 lecturers in Marketing and 03 professionals of brewery companies and consultants in Marketing. The observations and suggestions they have made have contributed to improve the way the questionnaire has been conducted. The questionnaire has been realized under the face-to-face basis near about fifteen consumers as it is recommended by Malhotra et al. (2004). A pre-test has been carried out near 120 individuals according to the following characteristics: age and different socio-professional categories. This stage has permitted to verify the dimension of the scales that we have chosen; to estimate their reliability owing to the analysis of some factors such as CRONBACH ALPHA coefficient. Another pre-test stage has been carried out near a convenience sample of 170 individuals. The final survey has been realized in different other towns near 1640 beer consumers. The survey has been realized by 18 surveyors recruited and trained. The survey has been realized in the following manner: 05 surveyors in (1st to 5th); 06 surveyors (1st to 6th); 03 surveyors. The size of the ideal sample has been determined according to CONCHRAN.
This has allowed us to obtain significant results for an event and a high level of risks, t = confidence level (95%, that’s to say 1.96); p = estimated proportion of the population representing the characteristics; m = error margin (5%); N = 1400 beer consumers.
This research was conducted out in the field and is therefore positivist. The quota sampling method was adopted in this research because of the lack of a sampling frame. Within the framework of this research, the use of measurement scales has been done according to evaluation criteria’s of their efficiency. These evaluation criteria’s have been proposed by Vernette (1991). From those Vernette’s works that we have obtained four criteria’s as follows:
1) Administration rapidity;
2) Construction simplicity; comprehension and treatment;
3) Acceptance of the instrument by the interviewee;
4) Scale flexibility in different levels.
We have preferred this choice because the Liker’s evaluation scales are the most used in opinions interview (Evrard et al., 2003). So, in this study, we have put a particular accent on different scales of the questionnaire. The questionnaire has had five levels, going from “I absolutely agree” to “I don’t agree at all”. We have also taken the item “Neutral” into consideration. The items formulation and the order of questions have been made according to Evrard et al. (2003) recommendations. The final questionnaire has been realized under the face-to-face basis in different sales points during one month by a team of 18 interviewers near 1700 consumers. Among the 1700 interviewees, only 1400 have been judged as being exploitable, giving a rate of 82%. Some of them were wrongly filled in and many others were not entirely filled in.
Once the items were presented we determined the staff according to sex in Table 1. We interviewed a total of 616 men and 784 women. The percentages obtained respectively are 44% men and 56% women.
The final questionnaire shows the different age groups of respondents per percentage.
The different age groups of the respondents can be found in Table 2 below:
Table 1. Distribution of beer drinkers by gender.
Sex |
Effective |
Percentage |
Men |
616 |
44% |
Women |
784 |
56% |
Total |
1400 |
100% |
(Sources: by us).
Table 2. Different age range.
Age range (year) |
Percentage |
22- 29 |
32.3 % |
30 - 44 |
27.8% |
45 - 59 |
14.2% |
60 - 64 |
1.4% |
More than 65 |
3.5% |
(Sources: by us).
The verification of the factorial scales of measurement that we have retained has been done owing to factorial analysis, taking into account their reliability, according to CRONBACH ALPHA recommendations. We have: verified that the data’s are factorial, determined the number of factors to be retained, realized a factors rotation, interpreted the different factors, and also verified the reliability of the measurement. The factorial structure confirmation has been carried out for the items that we have retained and the proper values have been identified. The BARLETT test has been carried out and the variance has also been identified. The items designed and used to measure the selected variables come from the literature surveyed on the attractiveness of brands on the one hand and repositioning on the other. According to Evrard et al. (2003), it is necessary to put a particular accent of the formulation of the items and also on the order of questions. This will make avoid confusion and mixture. We have avoided to ask questions in the same way, in order to minimize the possibility of making the interviewee answer in a different manner. We have also divided the questionnaire into different themes.
The BARLETT test showing significant p < 0.001 and the ALPHA CRONBACH value of the reliability scale is of 0.966 which is nearly 1.0. The KMO is of 0.811 the total variance explained for both first axles is of 89.189%.
Flat storing: Breakdown of the number of consumers surveyed by gender.
The results show that several reasons justify the fact that the attractiveness of brands does not have an effect on positioning. These reasons are:
Brand equity problem. Indeed, there is certainly a strong brand problem only M brand is strong.
The brand equity of M brand is stronger than that of other beers, hence the firm’s weaker positioning in the event of M brand low appeal.
The items used can be found in Table 3 below.
Brand with high added value must be developed. The problems identified are: Market saturation, data maturity.
We have started from the hypothesis that the more key criteria’s there are in the choice of the brand, the more this brand is in demand. The differences in points of sale in which we carried out the survey can be found in Table 4 below.
Table 5 presents the questions, the different income levels as well as the marital status of the respondents and their significance.
A series of important criteria’s in its choice, the more attractive it is. The more a brand meets a series of important criteria’s for the prospect/customer, the more attractive it is (seems to be). Construction of a composite indicator of the demand for a brand/product according to these attributes (the most important criteria in the choice of a brand). Score = 1; the brand is very attractive; Score = 0: The brand is less attractive.
The construction of this indicator took into consideration a series of 4 factors: degree of satisfaction with regard to the innovations brought to the firm, brand strategies used brand awareness (word of mouth) and the psychological
Table 3. Measurement scare of the brand attractiveness.
Items |
Quality of
representativeness |
Factor
Contribution |
Cronbach’s Alpha scale |
Q9A-I’m attracted by this brand because it is available in sales points |
0.63 |
0.148 |
0.966 |
Q9B-I’m attracted by this brand because it is known |
0.661 |
0.151 |
Q9C-I’m attracted by this brand because my level of income allows me to afford it |
0.497 |
0.135 |
Q9D-I’m attracted by this brand because it’s coming from abroad |
0.475 |
0.13 |
Q9E-I’m attracted by this brand because it takes the age range into consideration |
0.445 |
0.119 |
Q9F-I’m attracted by this brand because it gives me new ideas |
0.527 |
0.141 |
Q9G-I’m attracted by this brand because it made life easier |
0.661 |
0.16 |
Q9H-I’m attracted by this brand for its notoriety |
0.485 |
0.126 |
Proper values |
4.913 |
KMO = 0.881 |
Bartlett test |
Significant |
P < 0.001 |
Variancy explained |
89.189% |
N = 512 |
(Sources: by us).
Table 4. Distribution of beer consumers in the different points of sale.
DIFFERENT POINTS OF SALE |
NUMBER OF CONSUMERS |
Shop |
500 |
Market |
400 |
Supermarket |
210 |
Service-station |
100 |
Other |
190 |
Total |
1400 |
(Sources: by us).
Table 5. Attractiveness index of M brand.
Items |
B |
E.S |
Wald |
Sig. |
Exp (B) |
Cmr-brand |
1.026 |
1.115 |
0.846 |
0.358 |
2.790 |
Mixed-brand |
−2.690 |
1.431 |
3.535 |
0.060 |
0.068 |
Shop |
2.806 |
0.799 |
12.328 |
0.000 |
16.538 |
Market |
−0.822 |
0.665 |
1.531 |
0.216 |
0.439 |
Supermarket |
0.286 |
0.657 |
0.190 |
0.663 |
1.331 |
Service-station |
2.242 |
1.004 |
4.989 |
0.026 |
9.408 |
Other |
1.289 |
1.022 |
1.592 |
0.207 |
3.630 |
Q20_A = 1-Popular (low status) |
0.258 |
1.527 |
0.029 |
0.866 |
1.294 |
Q20_A = 2-Résidential (average standing) |
0.868 |
1.611 |
0.291 |
0.590 |
2.383 |
Q21 = 22 - 29 years |
−0.436 |
0.956 |
0.208 |
0.648 |
0.647 |
Q21 = 45 - 59 years |
−2.361 |
1.448 |
2.656 |
0.103 |
0.094 |
Q22_1 = 2. Vocational training |
1.189 |
1.370 |
0.752 |
0.386 |
3.282 |
Q23_B = 1. Senior manager |
−0.129 |
1.555 |
0.007 |
0.934 |
0.879 |
Q23_B = 2. Retire |
2.123 |
2.100 |
1.021 |
0.312 |
8.353 |
Q23_B = 3. Purpul student |
−0.098 |
1.542 |
0.004 |
0.949 |
0.907 |
Q23_B = 4. Unemployed |
2.172 |
1.549 |
1.964 |
0.161 |
8.772 |
Q25 = < 50 |
2.189 |
1.150 |
3.622 |
0.057 |
8.922 |
Q25 = 51 - 100 |
1.975 |
1.407 |
1.970 |
0.160 |
7.205 |
Q25 = 101 - 150 |
1.863 |
1.392 |
1.791 |
0.181 |
6.441 |
Q25 = 301 - 400 |
0.856 |
1.218 |
0.494 |
0.482 |
2.355 |
Q25 = 401 - 500 |
4.012 |
1.463 |
7.520 |
0.006 |
55.277 |
Q25 = 501 et + |
2.170 |
1.606 |
1.824 |
0.177 |
8.756 |
Q26 = 1-Single |
−1.093 |
2.904 |
0.142 |
0.707 |
0.335 |
Q26 = 2-Married of common-law |
−0.918 |
2.924 |
0.099 |
0.754 |
0.399 |
Originality |
−2.666 |
1.233 |
4.675 |
0.031 |
0.070 |
Price |
0.756 |
1.212 |
0.389 |
0.533 |
2.130 |
Constant |
−5.895 |
3.761 |
2.457 |
0.117 |
0.003 |
(Sources: by us). Legend: B: coefficients estimated; ES: standard error; Wald: sig statistical test; Sig: critical probability to validate the model; Exp: signifies odds ration it indicates the increased odds and.
aspects of the brand. We have built a firm positioning indicator that takes into account these different variables according to their level of influence.
IRPF
Indicator = 1: The firm is well positioned (high);
Indicator = 2: The firm is moderately positioned (medium);
Indicator 3: The firm is weakly positioned (weak).
We consider that a firm is well positioned if its notoriety, the degree of satisfaction is high.
The various factors taken into account to measure the attractiveness of brands.
The manufacturer (local or foreign), preference on the manufacturer;
The distribution (different points of sale);
The customer (by categorization residence, Age, Education, CSP, monthly income);
Innovation (difference by costs), sustainable competition.
Attractiveness index of M brand products and presentation of the determinants of the attractiveness of this brand.
From this table, we note that the critical probability, to validate the model is good. We can deduct that the model is good. Indeed, the HOSMER-test (see Table 7) or model adjustment test: it allows to know if the specified model is good or bad. It is based on the following hypothesis test:
H0: good adjustment
H1: bad adjustment
The confusion matrix is a table that presents different predictions and test results, comparing them with actual values. The confusion matrix or contingency table error matrix allowed us to assess the quality of the classification. The value contained is 82% showing a good prediction of the model.
The determinants of the attractiveness of the M brand
The results show that the determinants of attractiveness for M brand are: the manufacturing origin of the brand if M is a mixed brand, it is 15 times less likely to be an attractive brand on the market. Of the brand if M brand is sold in points of sale such as boutiques it has a better chance of being attractive in the market (see Table 5). The more an individual has a relatively high purchasing power (monthly income between 400,000 and 500,000 Fcfa) the more he is 55 times more likely to find M brand as an attractive brand innovation.
The brand models recapitulative are presented in Table 6 below.
The Hosmer and Lemeshow test is found presented in Table 7 below.
The confusion matrix for M brand is found in Table 8 below.
Table 9 presents the M brand confidence interval.
Then Brand tends is weak, the less likely it seen to appear attractive on the
Table 6. M brand Models recapitulative (Sources: by us).
Models recapitulative |
Step |
Likelihood -2 Log |
Chi-square of Cox and Snell |
Chi-square of Nagelkerke |
1 |
131.024a |
0.437 |
0.605 |
Table 7. M brand HOSMER and LEMESHOW.
Hosmer and Lemeshow test |
Step |
Chi-square |
Ddl |
Sig. |
1 |
6.506 |
7 |
0.482 |
(Sources: by us).
Table 8. M brand confusion matrix.
Confusion matrix |
Step 1 |
Attraction level (Regroup) |
0 Less attractive |
103 |
19 |
84.4 |
1 Very attractive |
17 |
46 |
73.0 |
Overall percentage |
|
|
80.5 |
Model prediction rate: 80.5% |
(Sources: by us).
Table 9. M brand confidence interval.
Zone |
Standard errora |
Sig. asymptoticb |
Asymptotic confidence interval at 95% |
Lower bound |
Upper bound |
0.904 |
0.022 |
0.000 |
0.861 |
0.946 |
(Sources: by us).
market. This phenomenon can be explained by consumer’s perception of M brand as a premium brand. A brand innovation tends to be seen as an upward change in price.
Several attractiveness indices of other beers need to be taken into account in this work. Their determinants are not identical. The WALD test was used to “test the true value of the parameter” based on estimation. The likelihood function being defined as a function of the parameters of a statistical model calculated from observed data and giving the value-2.
In this paragraph, we are going to present the repositioning model of the brand.
The results point out that several reasons justify the fact that brands attractiveness has no effect on the positioning. Those reasons are the following:
Problem of the capital brand. As a matter of fact, there is certainly a problem of strong brand. And in this case, only M brand is strong;
The M brand capital brand is stronger than the one of the other beers. From this reason, there is a less positioning strategy of the firm in case of a weak attractiveness of M brand.
Construction of the score of brands attractiveness:
We start from the following hypothesis:
The more there are criteria in the choice of the brand, the more that brand is required on the market. The more a brand has a series of important criteria, in its choice, the more it is attractive. The more a brand corresponds to a series of important criteria, for customers, the more it seems to be attractive. Construction of the demand indicator according to its criteria (the most important criteria in the choice of a brand). Score 1: the brand is attractive; Score 2: The brand is less attractive.
Construction of the repositioning indicator of the firm:
The construction of such an indicator has taken a series of four (04) factors:
Level of satisfaction concerning innovations brought to the firm, strategies of brands which are such, the brand notoriety (from mouth to ear) and the psychological aspects of the brand. We have built a positioning indicator of the firm which takes into consideration these different criteria’s according to their level o f influence. We note that the critical probability to validate the brand is good (see Table 10).
Then we can deduct that the brand is good. As a matter of fact, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (the brand adjustment test) allows to know whether the specific model is good or bad. It takes a root on the following hypothesis test:
H0: good adjustment;
H1: bad adjustment.
The confusion matrix is a table which shows the tests results, when comparing them with real values. The confusion matrix or the contingency table or the error matrix has enabled us to evaluate the quality of classification. The value obtained is around 82%, showing a good prediction of the model.
Concerning the determinants of attractiveness of the M brand, the results obtained show that determinants of attractiveness of the M brand are as follows:
The origin of the making of the brand: the origin of M beer makes it an attractive brand on the market.
The distribution point of the brand: if the M beer is sold in sales points such as shops stores or petrol service stations, it has more chances to be attractive on the market.
The individual’s purchasing power: the more an individual has a relatively high purchasing power (monthly revenue comprised between 400,000 and 500,000 Fcfa), the more he has 55 times of chances to find that M beer is an attractive beer on the market.
Table 10. Summary of models of other brands of beer summary of R-square.
Summary of models |
Step |
Likelihood Log-2 |
Chi-square of Cox et Snell |
Chi-square of Nagelkerke |
1 |
133.866a |
0.436 |
0.600 |
(Sources: by us).
The brand innovation: the more the M brand has a tendency to show itself being original, the more it has chances to appear attractive on the market.
This phenomenon can be explained by the perception that consumers have about M as being a high class beer. A brand innovation tends to be perceived as a advantage think for enterprise. Our work shows that:
Evaluation of the brand adjustment of data’s to the regression model of the other beers. The Wald test has been used “to test the true value 80.5% of parameter”, based on the estimation.
The HOSMER and LEMESHOW test which indicates whether there is an important difference between foreseen values and observed values, we note that there is a similarity between those two values:
Confusion Matrix of the other brands:
The confusion matrix or the contingency (see Tables 11-14) or the error matrix has enabled us to evaluate the quality of classification. The value obtained is about 80.5%, showing a good brand prediction.
The determinants of other beers attractiveness are presented in Table 15.
The results show that the determinants of other beers attractiveness for other brands of beer are as follows:
The origin of the brand fabrication (Hypothesis validated): a brand of beers coming from abroad has three (03) times more chances to be attractive on the market than other brands of beers;
The distribution point of sale the brand: the brands of beer which are sold in the shops have more chances to be attractive on the market;
The age of the individual: young people are more likely to find other brands of beer attractive on the market (Table 3) (other beers than B brand) see Table 12.
The results of the Hosmer and Lemeshow test can be found in Table 12.
The confusion matrix for other beers can be found in Table 14.
Individuals with relative income between 400,000 and 500,000 Fcfa are more likely to find the brand M attractive on the market. In short, in view of the results obtained, the most attractive brand is the M brand.
Table 11. Confusion matrix of M brand.
Confusion matrix |
Step 1 |
M brand level of attractiveness (Regrouped) |
0 Less attractive |
103 |
19 |
84.4 |
1 Very attractive |
17 |
46 |
73.0 |
Global percentage |
|
|
80.5 |
Rate of good brand predictive: 80.5% |
(Sources: by us).
Table 12. Recapitulation of other beers brands.
Models recapitulation |
Step |
Likelihood Log-2 |
R-two of Cox and Snell |
R-two of Nagelkerke |
1 |
133.866a |
0.436 |
0.600 |
(Sources: by us).
Table 13. Hosmer and Lemeshow of other beers brands.
Hosmer and Lemeshow test |
Step |
Chi-square |
Ddl |
Sig. |
1 |
5.226 |
8 |
0.733 |
(Sources: by us).
Table 14. Confusion matrix of other brands of beers.
Confusion matrix |
Step 1 |
Level of the beer attractiveness |
0 less attractive |
99 |
21 |
82.5 |
1 very attractive |
12 |
53 |
81.5 |
Global percentage |
|
|
82.2 |
(Sources: by us).
In the multidimensional analysis of the brands of the brewing companies selected as part of this survey, we can distinguish 03 profiles of beer brands in the assessment of their attractiveness.
Profile 1: these are the brands that are distinguished by their personality, availability (psychological appearance) like the Brands M Sooth, M brand.
Profile 2: these are the brands that are distinguished by the made in (provenance, notoria); Blonde beer such as P, Ak Beer. The validity of research is defined by Wacheux (1996) as: “the capacity of the instruments to appreciate effectively and really the object of the research for which they were created”. Indeed, internal validity and external validity are of-ten apprehended separately Ayerbe and Missonier (2007) consider that “the question of validity is often apprehended in methodological works at the end of research, as if to ensure its relevance or to reassure themselves that they are not tainted by any bias and that they are therefore valid.
The confidence interval is found in Table 15 below.
Our results have no bias and are therefore valid.
Internal validity
It involves a correlation between the predicted ratings for the validation stimuli we have two types of tactics related to internal validity: ensuring the accuracy of the conclusions with the respondents and making explicit the rules used for the confirmation of proposals. We ensured the accuracy of the conclusions with the respondents and made explicit the rules used for the confirmation of the proposals.
Table 15. Attractiveness index of order beer brands on repositioning.
IRPS |
B |
Standard
error |
Wald |
Sig. |
Exp (B) |
95% confidence interval for Exp (B) |
Làwer bound |
Upper bound |
Average |
Constant |
−0.602 |
0.259 |
5.389 |
0.020 |
|
|
|
[Beer attraction level = 0] |
4.729 |
1.041 |
20.644 |
0.000 |
113.217 |
14.720 |
870.775 |
[Beer attraction level = 1] |
0b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weak |
Constant |
−19.482 |
1.009 |
373.013 |
0.000 |
|
|
|
[Beer attraction level = 0] |
23.525 |
0.000 |
|
|
16,477,742,691.109 |
6,477,742,691.109 |
16,477,742,691.109 |
[Beer attraction level = 1] |
0b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Sources: by us).
Theoretical implications
The theory of consumer’s behavior has allowed us to point out the hypothesis of our research. The H1 hypothesis presents the hypothesis of the results of hypothesis tests which have a link with: The more attractive brands are, the more they explain their positioning on a given market. The HOSMER test confirms that four out of five sub-hypothesis have been validated.
The H2 hypothesis presents the synthesis of the result of hypothesis test having a link with this hypothesis: A strategic repositioning result from an improvement in the attractiveness of brands. The HOSMER and LEMESHOW test show that all the hypotheses have been validated, because there is a link of cause to effect on the repositioning and the brands attractiveness. Then we can conclude that the brands attractiveness have a positive impact on the positioning. This work helps to better understand the how ameliorate brands attractiveness. It allows to see better how to proceed to reposition different brands in one market.
Definition of the brands attractiveness
The preceding works have axe the towns attractiveness, of shelves and not of brands. The suggestion we can make is the following: “the brands attractiveness is the capacity and the aptitude of those brands to attract the customers towards them.”
Definition of local brand: “A brand is called local according to its locality”.
This means a brand carrying a local noun of its locality. It’s a brand of which the origin is take into consideration, but of which the noun is orientated towards the country which put it for the first time on the market and reminds to the consumer of the same locality, his culture and his origin.
Managerial implications:
These implications can be seen in several levels:
Managerial implications in terms of brand strategies:
Mindful of the results that we have obtained, a good notorietie favorise brand attractiveness and are necessary for the repositioning.
Managerial implications in terms of innovatively level: it is important the firms innovate in permanence because innovation is made in a slow motion in this sector. Brands repositioning in order to make them be more attractive, positioning here will be done.
Our suggestions: brands should be positioned not only on the basis of brands attractivities, but also on the basis of innovavativeness; to modify the taste of some brands B and AK; to change the B design; to modify the conditionment.
Making the brands be more attractive
It’s necessary to improve and to promote the brand image of every brand. To reinforce: the quality of logo (AK brand); of design (AK brand); the brand personality, its packaging (AK brand, B): As a matter of fact, as far as the AK brand is concerned, the conditionment is less attractive. The shape of conditionment must be reviewed as well: the uniformity of the color (AK beer); the noun (AK brand).
Improving insufficient brands attractiveness:
To make some brands which are already attractive be more attractive than they are, firms have a big interest to innovate on a more and more competitive market with the advent of social networks and digital. As far as the AK brand is concerned, since it doesn’t attract many consumers, the color of the bottle should also be changed and become sky blue, “air” model. The quality which is appreciated enough by consumers.
Limits and future ways:
When making our researches, we have discovered that there are some limits. From this, we have decided to show implications. This work has been realized on a one sectors of activities only. It would be judicial that it should be extended on many other sectors of activities in the globalization matter. When making our researches, we had initially chosen five sectors of activities. We have noted that there were only one brewery sector which could give information which could make us move forward in our research. A comparative study can be made in another context, more precisely within developing countries in view to see whether the level of attractiveness is the same as in view to see whether the level of attractiveness is the same as in the other sectors of activities comparatively to those who have been studied within that research.
Future ways: researches on risks linked to the bad positioning should be made and deepened. As for researches ways, this work can be realized on other sectors of activities brands. For example, the cosmetics sector which contains a considerable variety of brands. Another axle of research is to take local brands into consideration. Another axle of research is to establish the link existing between digital marketing and positioning of the attractive brands.
5. Discussions and Conclusions
The main objective of this research was to show that there is a link between brands attractiveness and repositioning on a given market. In order to find an answer to the central question asked and to test consequent hypothesis, we have firstly chosen the epistemological positioning. Afterwards, we have applied the quantitative method. As a matter of fact, positivism only recognizes as being scientific the method laying on the respect of the formal logic (deductive logic). Our research on the field has not been easy. The aim of this research is to collect information on the field. Generalizations beyond time and context are strongly possible. There are actual causes. We have adopted the positivist approach. This approach fills in the conditions we are looking for. There are two methodological approaches: hypothetical-deductive approach and the inductive approach (Evrard et al., 2003). We’re going to choose the hypothetical-deductive approach to attempt to find answers to the questions which are asked. This method is indicated within the framework of quantitative methods (Thietart, 2014). This way suggests to move from a theoretical framework to understand, explain and measure links existing between variables explained. We have chosen this approach because of descriptive and objectives which can be explained. The theory on the brand attractiveness is insufficiently rich, but requires questions of hypothetical-deductive type. The methodology of the research adopted has been carried out in two stages: a double exploratory study on the field from chiefs of enterprises of the Brewery. The study which has been made from 30 responsible is aimed to count attractiveness elements and brands positioning on the market in view to see in which measure a repositioning can be done. We have set up a series of questions to apprehend this question. A survey opened has permitted to identify opinions through a directive conversation. An explorative study carried out from consumers will help us to identify variables susceptible to have an influence when they are facing the brands. We will then conduct semi-directive interviews.
The quantitative study used presents an interest to incite the person who answers to express himself in his own language. A survey was conducted owing to a series of questions out near 1400 consumers.
We have realized a survey near the consumers of the following towns. This work has been realized on the field and is then positivist. The method sample by quota has been adopted in this research. The items conceived and used to measure the variables which have been retained are issued from the literature identified on the brand attractiveness on one hand and repositioning on the other hand. We have carried out a review of definitions proposed by the different research work. Taking into account of the multiplication of concepts definitions, we have been interested in those having a link with our article. The following definition is: “Brands attractiveness is the ability and the aptitude of those brands to attract consumers to them”. We have put a particular accent on the brands attractiveness concept. This has allowed us to detect several factors explaining brands attractiveness.
Those factors are not being sufficiently specific to attractiveness practices which are current in Cameroon, as well as the brands chosen. An exploratory survey has allowed us to complete that literature. We have first asked questions to a few enterprises managers in order to see how enterprises wish to see consumer’s behavior concerning brands. We have afterwards interrogated consumers in order to better understand the necessity of repositioning the brands. The review of literature that we have realized has allowed us to note and to conclude that there are so many concepts used to study repositioning. Different remarks made by consumers have led us to improve the literature review on the re-positioning, to better orientate our research and to deepen it. Several variables have been retained within the framework of this work as the variables relative to the brands attractiveness. We have taken models relative to the comprehension of the consumer behavior.
H1: The more the brands are attractive, the more they explain the positioning on a given market.
H2: A repositioning result from an improvement in the attractiveness of brands.
We have proposed a conceptual model, basing ourselves on the hypothetical-deductive method. We have retained hypothesis to give an answer to the problem. We have also made epistemological and theoretical choices which have led us to the question of a resolved research. We have used several tools to apprehend that question. Some measures scales of variables have been adopted and some have been created. The validation of those different scales has been done on the basis of factorial exploratory and confirmatory and the CRONBACK Alpha calculation. A final survey has been realized and adopted. It has been carried out near 1400 drinks consumers. The data’s obtained have been treated owing to SPSS software. The consumer behavior in front of the brands attractiveness and in front of repositioning has been described. The “chi-two test”, the HOSMER and LEMESHOW (the model adjustment test) have allowed us to see that the specified model is good. The confusion matrix or contingency table or error matrix has allowed us to evaluate the quality of classification. The value obtained is at the level of 82%, showing a good model prediction.
Our results bring into evidence two major contributions. Firstly, the results show that the attractiveness determinants for the M brand are: the origin of the brand fabrication, the distribution point of the brand, individual’s purchasing power; notoriety, brand innovation. In the second time, the results show that the attractiveness determinants for the other brands of beer are the following: the brand fabrication origin; the brand distribution point, the individual’s age; the individual’s purchasing power. Taking into consideration the results obtained, the most attractive brand is the M brand. According to the existing literature, the major contributions of those works can be summarized in the following manner: firstly, it seems to be obvious that brand attractiveness favors a positioning. Secondly we have demonstrated that an improvement of brands attractiveness contributes to the strategic repositioning and in the end, we have brought into light for the first time, the following results.
In terms of recommendations, two points seem to be taken into consideration:
On the managerial plan:
This work has put into evidence a few attractiveness factors susceptible to improve the strategic repositioning in order to boost the sales as well as the rent ability of the enterprise. Several recommendations have been made to the enterprises managers. The identifiable limit of this work which founds the future perspectives is elaborated on the fact that we haven’t examined all the sectors of activities. Moreover, this research has been realized, but can also be realized and even in other countries. The accent has not been put on the brand in the digital context. As far as research ways are concerned, this work can also be realized on other brands of other sectors of activities. Future ways research will permit to tackle them. Another research axle is to establish the link existing between the digital marketing and the strategic repositioning of attractive brands.