Big brands versus small brands: matching and demand analyses

This thesis extends the study of consumer behavior analysis, a synthesis between behavioral psychology, economics, and marketing by applying a new method of handling the dataset of four fast-moving consumer goods collected through a panel of British consumers. Methodology: The aim of the study is to investigate the differences between big brand and small brand choice patterns of consumers in terms of matching, maximisation, and demand at both aggregate and individual level of analysis. Besides, it examines the differences between big brand and small brand groups in terms of demand elasticities with the use of both linear and non-linear models (calculating essential values). Results: For the former part, interestingly, there are striking differences in results between the two sets of matching analyses. For example, strong support is shown for matching in aggregate whilst undermatching is the rule at the individual level. Besides, demand patterns observed are downward sloping for aggregate analysis while upward-sloping demand curves are observed for all chosen individuals. Last but not least, maximisation at aggregate level is generally observed whereas diverse and inconclusive results of the maximisation patterns are found for individual analysis. For the latter - demand analyses, the results show that price, utilitarian and informational reinforcement - independent variables - all exert impacts on the quantity purchased. Besides, the demand for cheaper big brands is less elastic than that for cheaper small brands showing that consumers give more serious consideration to price reductions. Moreover, according to essential value’s analysis,buying and consuming big brands, which offer higher levels of informational rewards said to give consumers extra nonfunctional satisfactions as well as fulfilling their functional wants and needs. The “double jeopardy effect” is also confirmed when small brand groups that often have the lower price, utilitarian and informational benefits suffer from lower penetration rates as well as less frequency of purchase