What Really Drives Loyalty in the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Market?

Abstract

This article seeks to determine the real drivers of customer loyalty in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) market. The study uses beer consumers in Lithuania as an empirical base for the research. A combination of qualitative (experiment) and quantitative (cross-sectional study and partial least squares structural equation modelling) research techniques are applied. The results reveal that loyalty in the FMCG market is driven by purchase frequency, promotion, price and perceived quality via moderating variables such as brand trust and brand satisfaction. Moreover, they demonstrate that consumers mostly do not recognize their favourite product among similar products; therefore, taste properties or other physical attributes of some FMCG products do not significantly contribute to the formation of brand loyalty.

JEL classification: M31, M39

Keywords

Brand loyalty FMCG structural equation modelling beer

Introduction

The debate about the real determinants of brand loyalty has been ongoing for more than five decades (Ebrahim, 2020; Knox & Walker, 2001; Tucker, 1964). Over this period, the focus of the research on brand loyalty has shifted from the tangible products market (Mishra et al., 2016; Ramesh Kumar & Advani, 2005) to virtual products (Kaur et al., 2020), retailers (Murray et al., 2017), perceptions of private labels (Hwang et al., 2021b) and financial services (Kosiba et al., 2018). Brand and customer loyalty have been considered to be mainly driven by the brand experience in the tangible products market (Ong et al., 2018; Rasool et al., 2021), which should be particularly true in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector (Mostafa & Kasamani, 2020). However, some theories have challenged the abovementioned mainstream approach regarding the strength of the relationship between brand experience and brand loyalty (Hwang et al., 2021a), suggesting that brand experience is related to consumers’ perceptions of brands, which is itself influenced by various marketing measures (Chen-Yu et al., 2016) but not by the physical attributes or characteristics of the product. Some studies even contend that the average consumer is hardly able to distinguish between competitive products in the FMCG market (Robertson et al., 2018). Such discrepancies in the scientific evidence, both on a theoretical and practical levels, generate confusion regarding which factors are crucial in driving brand loyalty and what practitioners need to be aware of and consider in order to better engineer their marketing campaigns.

Therefore, the purpose of this article is to identify the key factors that contribute to brand loyalty in the FMCG market. The findings of the present research, which is based on the combination of the qualitative (experiment) and quantitative (cross-sectional study and the partial least squares structural equation modelling) research techniques further highlight the relative irrelevance of the consumer experience in the development of brand loyalty. The results of the present research contribute to the brand loyalty theory showing the importance of the habitual and transactional loyalty in the formation of brand loyalty in the FMCG market. On the other hand, our investigation also disclosed that emotional loyalty is not extremely relevant in the researched context. Additionally, we demonstrate that purchase frequency directly and positively influences the formation of brand loyalty. We show that promotion, perceived product quality and price are important factors in the development of brand loyalty in the FMCG market through mediating constructs such as brand satisfaction and brand trust.

The article is arranged as follows. The theoretical section provides a comprehensive review of the relevant literature and establishes a basis for the development of hypotheses. The methodological section introduces the materials and methods used for the research and the conceptual research model. The results section of this article presents the main findings of the research. The discussion section compares the results with the conclusions of previous work in the field. Finally, in the conclusion section, the findings are summarized, the limitations of the research are recognized, and suggestions for future research are offered.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Building

Studying food products, Kadanali and Demir (2018) explain purchase frequency as an effect developing from brand familiarity and mutual trust. Product trust is important and related to purchase frequency: the higher the trust, the more likely consumers are to purchase a product, as noted by Benson et al. (2020) in a study on trust in food brands. Based on the work of Lin et al. (2017), Atulkar (2020) argues that trust helps to develop and maintain lasting relationships with consumers, thereby creating brand loyalty. Indeed, consumers buy products from trusted brands more often because the perceived risk associated with choosing or purchasing them is lower (Atulkar, 2020). Relatedly, in a study of consumer loyalty in the soft drinks market, Fortes et al. (2019) claim that customers who buy branded products more frequently and build trust in the brand will be more resistant to negative situational influences and competitors’ marketing efforts.

Studying organic products, Watanabe et al. (2021) state that consumers’ confidence in a brand increase with higher purchase frequency. By purchasing the same product or brand regularly, a person becomes loyal over time because of the unique attributes of that product; Mise et al. (2013) notably explain that the more often consumers buy soft drinks of a certain brand and plan to do so in the future, the more loyal they become to that brand. Based on these scientific clues, we formulate our first two hypotheses:

H₁: Purchase frequency positively affects brand trust, ceteris paribus.

H₂: Purchase frequency positively affects brand loyalty, ceteris paribus.

As consumers of brands interact with advertisements or other attributes, they gradually associate the products with their brands (Nugroho, 2018). Armira et al. (2016) single out advertising as an important factor in the alcohol market and note that advertising campaigns or offers influence consumers’ decisions to choose a brand. Moreover, Kwon et al. (2021) claim that both, advertising and promotion, significantly affect brand trust, leading to better results for the brand and helping to build a relationship between consumers and companies. Similarly, Herlambang et al. (2020) conducted a research demonstrating that promotion has a statistically significant and positive impact on trust, and more frequent use of promotional tools also increases brand trust. If the consumer does not have prior knowledge of the product being purchased, the information provided through marketing channels increases trust, thereby reducing uncertainty for the consumer (Kim et al., 2019).

However, the evidence remains contradictory. Hulu et al. (2018) argue that advertising does not increase consumer trust in a brand, although they note that it may if the appropriate advertising method (such as direct-to-consumer sales) is applied. Importantly, advertising can also have negative effects, such as increased price sensitivity, reduced consumer loyalty (Mendez et al., 2015) and poorer attitudes about product quality if promotions or lower prices are advertised too often (Soomro, 2019). Based on the aforementioned evidence highlighting the significance of promotion in the development of customer loyalty, we formulate our third hypothesis:

H₃: Brand promotion has a positive effect on brand trust, ceteris paribus.

Price is the most important factor that consumers consider when making repeated purchases of certain goods or services (Lie et al., 2019) and their main criterion for evaluating a product (Pratama et al., 2019). When consumers experience benefits or satisfaction from the products they receive, they perceive their price as reasonable and fair (Ekawati & Hutama, 2020). Brand satisfaction is a significant factor in consumer loyalty and is itself partially determined by the price (Delima et al., 2019; Khoironi et al., 2018; Lie et al., 2019; Pratama et al., 2019). Berliansyah and Suroso (2018) also find a positive and significant relationship between these elements specifically regarding the influence of food and beverage prices on satisfaction.

Overall, price plays a significant role in determining consumer contentment or discontentment with a brand across various dimensions. In a study on alcohol consumption, Armira et al. (2016) prove that price is indeed important when choosing and buying alcoholic beverages as most consumers would likely select a cheaper alternative if the price increased. Although price is one of the most flexible marketing elements, companies still face difficulties in determining it and finding the ideal option for their consumers (Khoironi et al., 2018). It is especially important for brands to set a price that is right for consumers. Based on this evidence, we formulate our fourth hypothesis:

H₄: A perceived low price positively affects brand satisfaction, ceteris paribus.

High-quality evaluation is beneficial for brands because it gives customers a reason to buy products, differentiates brands’ products from similar products offered by competitors, allows them to sell at a higher price and encourages and facilitates brand development (Alhaddad, 2015). Farizan et al. (2019) note that when brands meet or exceed consumers’ expectations, maintaining quality in all aspects of the product, consumers will be more interested in buying their products and feel confident about their choice. Thus, brands can sell at a higher price by ensuring the best quality in the market (Beig & Nika, 2019).

In their study of consumer satisfaction, Hudaya et al. (2021) find a positive relationship between quality and consumer satisfaction and note that satisfaction is a reflection of quality. This means that if quality improves, customer satisfaction with the brand will also increase. A positive and significant relationship between these factors is also demonstrated by Berliansyah and Suroso (2018), Calvo-Porral and Levy-Mangin (2016) and Aquilani et al. (2015).

Further, perceived quality is shown to have a positive relationship with consumer trust (Abdelmawgoud & Abdelnaby, 2020; Cuong, 2020). Fortes et. al. (2019) argue that perceived quality promotes brand awareness and recognition in the market, resulting in consumers having greater trust in the brand and feeling that they take a lesser risk when they purchase its product. Moreover, Marakanon and Panjakajornsak’s (2017) research findings indicate that perceived quality has a significant and positive impact on customers’ brand trust.

Coincidentally, perceived quality is also essential in generating consumer loyalty to brands (Calvo-Porral & Levy-Mangin, 2016). Hudaya et al. (2021) report that product quality positively affects loyalty, suggesting that if companies focus on high product quality, consumer loyalty can be easily gained. Nonetheless, this perceived relationship between quality and loyalty is not perfectly clear given that Chadwick and Piartrini (2019) find no significant association between quality and loyalty among youths. From the scientific evidence above, we conclude that perceived quality is one of the key factors in understanding consumer loyalty as it affects both trust and brand satisfaction. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H₅: Perceived quality positively affects brand satisfaction, ceteris paribus.

H₆: Perceived quality positively affects brand trust, ceteris paribus.

According to Kim et al. (2021), when customers perceive that a brand is fulfilling its commitments or expectations, they tend to exhibit greater trust in it; even in the event of unforeseen difficulties, the brand will make efforts to ameliorate the situation. Bernarto et al. (2020) claim that trust is the main and most important aspect of creating business–consumer relationships. By trusting a brand, consumers choose to buy its products repeatedly (Bernarto et al., 2020), which implies that trust helps to maintain long-term relationships and reduces the customers’ perceived risk when purchasing specific products (Atulkar, 2020). Huang (2017) states that if customers exhibit trust in a brand, hey may be more prone to make purchases from the brand in the proximate future or have the intention to do so, thus forming behavioural loyalty. Over time, as their trust in the brand grows, customer loyalty begins to develop.

Numerous studies have identified brand trust as an important variable in determining brand loyalty (Soomro, 2019). Marliawati and Cahyaningdyah (2020) argue that trust is a crucial element in formation of brand loyalty. Chinomona (2016) also observes a strong relationship between these elements. Similarly, Marliawati and Cahyaningdyah (2020) find that trust is the main factor influencing brand loyalty. In the soft drink market, Menidjel et al. (2017) note positive relationships between trust and satisfaction and trust and loyalty. However, these findings are partially contradicted by Bianchi (2015) in a study of wine brand loyalty, which contends that trust in a brand has no significant relationship with loyalty. To test whether brand trust has an effect on brand satisfaction and brand loyalty the following hypotheses are proposed:

H₇: Brand trust positively affects brand satisfaction, ceteris paribus.

H₈: Brand trust positively affects brand loyalty, ceteris paribus.

Examining loyalty in the FMCG market, Farizan et al. (2019) emphasize that satisfaction is a key element in evaluating brand loyalty and leads to repurchase intentions. Marist et al. (2014) conclude that brand satisfaction has a positive relationship with brand loyalty, which entails that consumers who feel content will become more loyal to the brand. Moreover, their study reveals that the impact of brand satisfaction on trust is greater than that of satisfaction on brand loyalty.

The relationship between customer satisfaction and brand loyalty is also confirmed in the research by Mustaqimah et al. (2019), who study loyalty in the cold-pressed juices market, as well as Sudari et al. (2019), who examine food and beverage consumers. Sultan et al. (2019) state that brand loyalty will be higher if consumer satisfaction is higher. Menidjel et al. (2017) highlight that the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty becomes clearer when brand trust is considered as a mediating factor. Therefore, companies that manufacture products such as soft drinks or fruit juices should recognize the significant role that satisfaction plays in establishing trust, which in turn leads to loyalty. This literature allows us to formulate our ninth hypothesis:

H₉: Brand satisfaction positively affects brand loyalty, ceteris paribus.

Further, customers’ positive and pleasant experiences with products create positive moods and emotions that help them feel better and stay loyal to the brands offering the products (Marliawati & Cahyaningdyah, 2020). Khan et al. (2016) also note that positive experiences are a key factor in building brand loyalty. Positive brand experiences are singled out as the most important factor for customers to make future purchases and recommend the brand to the people closest to them (Marliawati & Cahyaningdyah, 2020). In their research on loyalty to bottled water brands, Aung and Tan (2018) identify taste and smell as the attributes that influence brand loyalty and trust. Studying energy drink loyalty, Dharviandi (2016) similarly emphasizes that enhancing the positive taste experience is important to create brand loyalty. Relatedly, Armira et al. (2016) and Moane et al. (2020) find that when choosing an alcoholic beverage, consumers rely mostly on their personal experience, in which taste is especially important. Recent studies have in fact shown that taste is the most influential attribute of craft beer (Lerro et al., 2020), and this criterion may sometimes be more valued by customers than appearance. If the product meets the consumers’ other criteria but does not taste good, they will choose another brand in the future (Moane et al., 2020). Additionally, previous findings have revealed that even when customers are presented with similar products, they report better taste only when they are informed that the particular product is made by a brand they like (Agbaeze et al., 2017). Building on the abovementioned scientific insights, we formulate our last hypothesis:

H₁₀: The taste experience positively affects brand loyalty, ceteris paribus.

Methodology

Our research design combines qualitative and quantitative methods. The rationale for the selection of this approach lies in the fact that it is very difficult to assess the impact of such personal features as experience using purely quantitative techniques (Jayaratne, 1993), so in order to test such features as taste experience, it is suggested to use a qualitative research techniques (Jimborean et al., 2021). If it is possible, variations of the experimental design are preferred (Lee et al., 2018). Following this suggestion, we first performed an experiment to test our 10th hypothesis, namely, the impact of the taste experience on loyalty to a brand.

Qualitative Research

The experiment was conducted in December 2021 with 26 beer lovers. Before the experiment, the participants were asked about their beer consumption habits, that is, how often they drink, which beer they prefer, which beer brand is their favourite and which beer they consume most frequently (see Table A1). The study used products from beer brands that were similar to the participants’ favourite beer in terms of ingredients, taste and alcohol by volume. The beer brands used in the study are listed in Table A2. During the study, the consumers were presented with 5–7 glasses of beer, numbered 1–5 (or 1–7). The participant, not knowing which brands of beer were presented in the glasses, had to identify their favourite beer, which they always buy. The participants did not have access to any other attributes (besides taste) that could provide clues as to which glass contained their favourite beer as the same glasses with the same markings were used for all beers. The participants were asked to find their favourite beer and rank it first. All other beers had to be ranked from second to fifth (or seventh) based on taste.

Quantitative Research

A cross-sectional survey was employed as a research tool to test our first nine hypotheses. This is a quite common research technique for analysing various factors affecting customer loyalty (Morgeson et al., 2020; Morkūnas, 2023; Ngoma & Ntale, 2019; Tang & Li, 2015). Already validated scales were used for the research. This approach is valuable as it helps to ensure the robustness of the results (Rindfleisch et al., 2008). The statements and scales in the survey were adapted from the following sources: The statements for the evaluation of purchase frequency and price were taken from Mise et al. (2013), brand trust from Bianchi (2015), Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera-Alemán (2001) and Soomro (2019), perceived quality from Khan et al. (2019) and Mise et al. (2013), brand satisfaction from Bianchi (2015) and Mise et al. (2013), promotion from Krystallis and Chrysochou (2014) and Kwon et al. (2021), and brand loyalty from Bernarto et al. (2020) and Soomro (2019). A five-point Likert scale was used for the evaluation of the statements.

The questionnaire was uploaded onto a survey platform and disseminated online using social networks. The survey was shared in various groups on Facebook (university students, beer lovers) or sent out individually to users on Facebook and Instagram. The respondents answered the questions anonymously to ensure privacy and impartiality. Only people over the age of 20 years participated in the research. This limitation was set taking into account the legal drinking age in the Republic of Lithuania. The survey was conducted between March 2022 and May 2022 with a total of 236 respondents. Although this is not a very high number (which may be considered a limitation of our study), it corresponds to the average number of respondents (246) in similar studies aiming to reveal other aspects of customer loyalty: 300 respondents (Bianchi, 2015); 151 respondents (Chinomona, 2016); 284 respondents (Fortes et al., 2019); 300 respondents (Sudari et al., 2019); 290 respondents (Kurnianingsih & Riorini, 2021); 151 respondents (Hudaya et al., 2021). Sample used in our research is considered to be sufficient for deriving robust results using partial least squares analysis, which is design to produce reliable results from a relatively small samples (Vinzi et al., 2010).

A partial least squares modelling technique was selected as the main approach for processing the quantitative data. This is one of the few research instruments deriving reliable and robust results from smaller sample sizes (Hair et al., 2019; Morkūnas, 2022). The hypotheses that were tested using quantitative research are represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Results

Although being named the 10th in our research, the H₁₀ was tested first using a qualitative research method—an experiment. The results (presented in detail in Table A2) shows that 17 out of 26 respondents (65%) could not recognize their favourite beer between its main rivals. Such a high margin 2/3 who did not recognize against 1/3 who recognized allows us to state that H₁₀ is rejected (Quinn & Keough, 2002), that is, it can be stated that taste experience is not among the major factors creating a brand loyalty in a FMCG market.

The profile of the research sample is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample.

Definition	Total	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	106	45
Female	130	55
Age
20–29	131	56
30–39	24	10
40–49	42	18
50–59	29	12
60+	10	4
Education
Upper secondary education	29	12
Unfinished higher education	83	35
Higher education	121	51
Other	3	1
Occupation
Student	45	19
Working	117	50
Working student	63	27
Unemployed	5	2
Other	6	3
Income
< Ä300	25	11
Ä301–Ä600	43	18
Ä601–Ä900	43	18
Ä901–Ä1,200	51	22
> Ä1,200	74	31

Source: The authors.

A total of 236 respondents participated in the survey, of which 55% were women and 45% were men. The age of the participants varied between 20 and 72 years, and persons younger than 20 years did not take part as they are legally forbidden from consuming alcoholic beverages in Lithuania. The largest share of the respondents (55%) consisted of young persons between 20 and 29 years of age. Slightly more than half of the respondents (51%) had a higher education, and a significant percentage (35%) were pursuing one at the time of the survey. This is expected considering that more than half of the respondents were under 30 years of age. According to a study by the Lithuanian Statistics of Lithuania (2020), persons with a higher education generally consume alcoholic beverages more often than persons with lower educational attainment.

The monthly income of the respondents was distributed variedly: 29% earned less than €600 per month, and 31% made more than €1,200 per month. This can be explained by the age distribution of the respondents as a significant number of them were under 30 years of age, which implies that their income may be lower. The lowest average (2 ±1.185) allows us to conclude that brands’ advertising campaigns have a very minor impact on the consumers. Judging only from the descriptive statistics, promotion appears to be perceived by the consumers as having the smallest impact on brand selection. The highest mean (Table 2) is found for statements related to consumer satisfaction, which shows that the customers of brands are satisfied with their decision to buy the products of the chosen brand (4.3 ±0.922) and with the specific brand experience (4.3 ± 0.914).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Model-Reliability Indicators.

Constructs and Statements	Descriptive Statistics			Model-Reliability Indicators
Constructs and Statements	Mean	Median	SD	Factor Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	AVE	CR	Rho_A
Purchase frequency					0.834	0.75	0.9	0.842
I purchase from my brand regularly	3.6	4	1.325	0.868
The more often I purchase, the more I get attached to it	3.1	3	1.302	0.84
I will buy from this brand the next time I need one such product	4	4	1.131	0.889
Promotion					0.841	0.671	0.89	0.898
The promotional campaign for the product appeals to me highly in terms of buying the product	2.3	2	1.185	0.692
I react favourably to the advertising and promotions of this brand	3	3	1.173	0.843
I have positive feelings towards the advertising and promotions of this brand	3.4	4	1.205	0.858
The advertising and promotions of this brand are good	3.2	3	1.15	0.87
Price					0.72	0.775	0.873	0.8
Price increases will not prevent me from purchasing	3.4	4	1.065	0.83
The brand provides good value for money	3.9	4	0.971	0.928
Perceived quality					0.792	0.62	0.866	0.823
This brand is of high quality	4	4	0.899	0.879
The components used by the brand are satisfactory	4.1	4	0.873	0.839
My brand offers me products with a constant quality level	4.1	4	1.054	0.774
My brand is always available in the right state (e.g., temperature)	3.9	4	1.062	0.637
Brand trust					0.923	0.764	0.942	0.925
The brand meets my expectations	4.3	4	0.884	0.851
I feel confident about this brand	3.9	4	1.018	0.852
The brand has never disappointed me	4	4	1.073	0.893
The brand guarantees satisfaction	4	4	1.079	0.888
The brand is reliable	4.2	4	0.971	0.887
Brand satisfaction					0.877	0.804	0.925	0.879
Overall, I am satisfied with the specific experience with the brand	4.3	4	0.914	0.912
I am satisfied with my decision to purchase from this brand	4.3	5	0.922	0.934
I will recommend buying from the same brand to my friends	3.9	4	1.142	0.841
Brand loyalty					0.886	0.639	0.914	0.895
This brand would be my first choice	3.7	4	1.273	0.715
I consider myself to be loyal to this brand	3.5	4	1.148	0.843
I will not buy from other brands if the same product is available at the store	3.3	4	1.364	0.756
I say positive things about this brand to other people	3.6	4	1.295	0.78
I am a loyal customer of the brand	3.5	4	1.18	0.849
I intend to regularly buy from the brand	3.8	4	1.112	0.842

Source: The authors.

A structural model was derived to test the hypotheses (see Annexure). The descriptive statistics for the research and the model-reliability indicators are presented in Table 2.

The Cronbach’s alpha ranges between 0.720 and 0.923; thus, the statements can be considered suitable for measuring the research constructs because they are above the recommended reliability limit of 0.7. The composite reliability of a research varies between 0.866 and 0.942, meaning that the research constructs are homogenous and reliable (Vinzi et al., 2010).

To check the convergent validity, factor loadings were calculated. The figures we obtained are between 0.637 and 0.934. The average variance extracted (AVE) ranges from 0.620 to 0.804. All these values are acceptable as they are above 0.5 (Cuong, 2020). Additionally, no collinearity issue was identified as none of the VIF values reached 3 (see Table A3), which is considered to be a very good result (Purwanto & Sudargin, 2021). The R² values for the constructs are the following: 0.589 for brand loyalty, 0.696 for brand satisfaction and 0.596 for brand trust. Consequently, they explain 58.9%, 69.6% and 59.6% of the variance, respectively.

Further, we applied a novel approach in order to test the discriminant validity: the Heteroit-Monotroit (HTMT) criterion introduced by Henseler et al. (2015), which measures the similarity between latent constructs (Table 3).

Table 3.

Results of the HTMT Correlations.

	Loyalty	Perceived Quality	Price	Promotion	Purchase Frequency	Satisfaction
Loyalty
Perceived Quality	0.687
Price	0.608	0.686
Promotion	0.493	0.466	0.344
Purchase Frequency	0.711	0.559	0.521	0.580
Satisfaction	0.749	0.850	0.706	0.481	0.607
Trust	0.768	0.828	0.679	0.529	0.617	0.887

Source: The authors.

All correlations satisfy the required threshold of < 0.9 (Henseler et al., 2015), indicating that the discriminant validity of our constructs is sufficient.

Additionally, to determine whether the independent variables in a model have a significant effect on the dependent variables, the effect size (f²) had to be calculated (Vinzi et al., 2010). The f² values for our constructs are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Effect-Size Values.

Path	f²
Price → Brand satisfaction	0.044
Brand satisfaction → Brand loyalty	0.053
Brand trust → Brand loyalty	0.11
Brand trust → Brand satisfaction	0.455
Purchase frequency → Brand loyalty	0.167
Purchase frequency → Brand trust	0.072
Promotion → Brand trust	0.067
Perceived quality → Brand satisfaction	0.122
Perceived quality → Brand trust	0.599

Source: The authors.

The results of the effect size (f²) show that the constructs of the model have small, medium and high local effect sizes. The high effect size of the model concerns the relationships between brand trust and brand satisfaction and between perceived quality and brand trust. Meanwhile, a moderate effect size is found for the relationship between purchase frequency and brand loyalty. The predictive relevance of the model was assessed using Stone-Geiser (Q²) criteria. Brand trust and brand loyalty show moderate predictive relevance, while brand satisfaction exhibits high predictive relevance (Table 5).

Table 5.

Results of the Stone-Geiser Criteria for the Constructs.

Construct	Q²
Brand trust	0.449
Brand satisfaction	0.545
Brand loyalty	0.365

Source: The authors.

An index of goodness of fit of the model was also calculated, producing a value of 0.67, significantly above the required limit of 0.36 (Wetzels et al., 2009). This means that the model is suitable for assessing the relationships between variables.

Once the model’s suitability for the research had been ascertained, we tested hypotheses 1–9. All the hypotheses were confirmed (Table 6).

Table 6.

Results of the Testing of Hypotheses 1–9.

Hypothesis	Path	Path Coefficient	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	t Statistics	p Value	Result
H ₁	Purchase frequency → Trust	0.202	0.090	0.340	3.231	0.001	Supported
H ₂	Purchase frequency → Loyalty	0.311	0.208	0.426	5.692	0	Supported
H ₃	Promotion → Trust	0.186	0.087	0.299	3.188	0.002	Supported
H ₄	Price → Satisfaction	0.132	0.020	0.253	2.11	0.035	Supported
H ₅	Perceived quality → Satisfaction	0.27	0.106	0.465	2.593	0.01	Supported
H ₆	Perceived quality → Trust	0.549	0.364	0.657	8.317	0	Supported
H ₇	Trust → Satisfaction	0.532	0.290	0.740	4.194	0	Supported
H ₈	Trust → Loyalty	0.355	0.148	0.533	3.372	0.001	Supported
H ₉	Satisfaction → Loyalty	0.22	0.059	0.431	2.108	0.036	Supported

Source: The authors.

As it can be seen from the Table 6, contrary to the experiment results, all the hypotheses raised for the quantitative research were supported. These findings confirm that brand loyalty in the fast-moving consumer market is driven not by the taste experience but by some intrinsic psychological characteristics (perceived quality, perceived price, promotion, purchase intensity, etc.) most of which can be influenced by various marketing actions.

Discussion

The main findings of the research were compared with the conclusions of the prevailing theoretical streams in the field of study. We demonstrate that purchase frequency has an impact on brand trust in an FCMG market. We also show that purchase frequency affects brand trust less than perceived quality (path coefficients of 0.202 and 0.549, respectively). Purchase frequency also has an influence on the formation of FMCG brand loyalty. These findings strengthen the arguments of Mise et al. (2013) according to which the more often consumers purchase products from a particular brand, the more loyal they become. Our results also indicate that the relationship between purchase frequency and brand loyalty is stronger than that between purchase frequency and brand trust. Further, we report a relatively weak relationship between promotion and brand trust (0.186). This partially contradicts the findings of Kwon et al. (2021) in the restaurant sector, which suggest that promotion has a significant effect on brand trust. However, our results may confirm the argument by Hulu et al. (2018) that for advertising to have a significant impact on brand trust, brands need to find out which type of advertising is appropriate for their consumers.

Coincidentally, price affects consumer satisfaction with a brand, but it is the weakest of the relationships identified in the present study. A relatively weak relationship between price and brand satisfaction may mean that price is not a very important factor in determining consumer satisfaction in an FMCG market and that price changes may have less influence on consumers’ decision to purchase a product of a particular brand that builds its marketing strategy on a low price. We argue that if the price is set correctly, it will affect brand satisfaction, just as a poorly set price can reduce consumer satisfaction with a brand in an FMCG market, but no more. Meanwhile, perceived quality influences both brand satisfaction and trust in the FCMG brand. Quality has a positive influence on customer satisfaction, which is related to the fact that when product quality improves, consumer satisfaction with the product also increases. This corresponds to the results reported by Hudaya et al. (2021) and Izzudin and Novandari (2018), who focus on the relationship between these constructs. Suchánek and Králová (2019) and Khoironi et al. (2018) also proved the existence of a significant and strong relationship between perceived quality and satisfaction in the FMCG market. The results of our study suggest that perceived quality has a stronger relationship with brand trust than with brand satisfaction.

Moreover, there is a significant and quite strong relationship (0.532) between brand trust and brand satisfaction. This confirms the results of Bianchi’s (2015) study, which found that brand trust significantly and positively affects brand satisfaction. The relationship between brand trust and brand satisfaction was also observed by Menidjel et al. (2017) and Ali and Muqadas (2015). We also find that brand trust has an impact on brand loyalty (path coefficient: 0.355). This contrasts with the findings of Bianchi’s (2015) study of wine brand loyalty, where trust did not influence loyalty, but confirms those of Menidjel et al. (2017) and Alan and Kabadayı (2014) in the soft drink and food industry, which note that consumers who trust a brand will be more loyal to it. The hypothesis that brand satisfaction affects brand loyalty is also confirmed, but the relationship between these variables is weaker than that between brand trust and brand loyalty. Similarly, a positive relationship between satisfaction and loyalty was observed by Ali and Muqadas (2015), Bianchi (2015) and Farizan et al. (2019). In addition, Suchánek and Králová (2019) and Hudaya et al. (2021) emphasized that increasing satisfaction will increase loyalty.

Conclusion

Our research showed that taste experience cannot be named as one of the determinants of brand loyalty in the FMCG market. Brand loyalty in this particular segment is influenced by the perceived quality, purchase frequency, promotion and perceived price through mediating variables brand satisfaction and brand trust; the latter showing the strongest positive influence on the formation of consumer loyalty. Thus, in order to develop and strengthen consumer loyalty to FCMG brands, the emphasis should be on building consumers’ trust in the brand. Companies operating in this market should thus focus on business strategies related to the promotion of trust. To do so, promotion can be focused on ensuring that advertising and other offers from the brand meet consumers’ expectations and are appropriate for the intended audience. Furthermore, brands must guarantee the constant high quality of their products and their proper presentation (e.g., adequate temperature) at the point of sale.

The perceived high quality of beer products also positively affects consumer satisfaction with a brand. Therefore, it is particularly important to ensure the quality of both the products’ components and their presentation. To cultivate consumer satisfaction, the brands should not only maintain high product quality but also offer a reasonable price. Indeed, a properly set price can increase customer satisfaction, whereas an inappropriate (e.g., too high) price can reduce it. Thus, it is important for FCMG brands to determine what value for money is acceptable and appropriate for their target market. Both of these factors determining consumer satisfaction are essential to the formation of loyalty because customers who are satisfied with a brand and its products will purchase these goods again and be less vulnerable to the actions of competitors, such as various offers and promotions. Further, FMCG brands need to encourage consumers to buy the products they offer more often because the frequency of purchase does not only help build trust but also increases consumer loyalty to a brand.

The revealed importance of the purchase frequency towards the formation of the brand loyalty can be named habitual (Dapena-Baron et al., 2020) although showing some transactional loyalty characteristics due to focus on the economic benefit, that is, price (Louis et al., 2021). The disclosed absence of a substantial component of the emotional loyalty in the formation of a brand loyalty in the FMCG market may also have a potential for the practical implications. Relative low consumers’ emotional connectivity with the brand make some the most sophisticated marketing techniques (neuro marketing, etc.) not particularly useful in the FMCG sector, leaving marketers with a limited arsenal of tools for the creation of brand loyalty. Our findings also allow to derive additional practical implication. The revealed relative irrelevance of the taste experience in the formation of the brand loyalty suggests marketing managers not to overinvest into the some hardly noticeable taste features. It is worth to consider focusing more on the creation of the positive perception about their brands using marketing tools oriented at building a desired perceived quality, perceived attractive price or invest more on the promotion activities inducing repeated purchases.

Summarizing our research, we can state that, in general, the brand loyalty in FMCG sector is driven by the perceptions in the consumer mind created by various marketing actions (perceived quality, perceived price, etc.) but not by, at least, partly tangible factors, such as taste experience.

One of the limitations of our study lies in the fact that not all participants in the experiment may have been familiar with all the beers they tasted. Thus, their preferences may have changed during the experiment. This could partially explain why such a high percentage of the participants did not recognize their favourite product or ranked it behind some of the alternatives presented. To overcome this issue or at least minimize it, we used only well- established beer brands, which have been in the market for no less than 5 years. However, we still cannot fully reject this possible source of research limitation. Although our experiment employed a sufficient number of participants to derive scientifically reliable results (Quinn & Keough, 2002), a higher number of participants would be appreciated to derive more robust results.

Another limitation may emerge from the empirical basis for our quantitative research. We derive our conclusions from the category of beer-product consumers. Other categories may display slightly different results, in part due to the fact that younger consumers (who were not included in the research) are proven to slightly differ in their consumer behaviour (Spero & Stone, 2004; Pham et al., 2019). And in some product categories young consumers are even a focal target group (candies, etc.). Therefore, the broader study of the different FMCG categories with a view to revealing the main determinants of brand loyalty in each category could also be a promising avenue for research with the potential to contribute to marketing science. Another prospective research avenue could be the more thorough investigation of the balance between habitual and transactional loyalty in the role of building the brand loyalty in the FMCG market. Trying to disclose some possible consumer/product groups where emotional loyalty still plays part in the formation of the brand loyalty could also contribute to the development of knowledge in this scientific area.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Annexure

References

Abdelmawgoud

, & Abdelnaby

(2020). What is the level of customers’ trust in the safety of food and beverage labels at Egyptian hotels? International Journal of Heritage, Tourism and Hospitality, 14(1), 35–51. 10.21608/ijhth.2020.120265

Agbaeze

E. K.

, Nnabuko

J. O.

, Ifediora

C. U.

, & Ekoja

G. O.

(2017). Determinants of consumers’ brand switching behaviours in alcoholic beverage industry in Enugu, Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 8(6), 1744–1764.

Alan

A. K.

, & Kabadayı

E. T.

(2014). Quality antecedents of brand trust and behavioral intention. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 619–627. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.081

Alhaddad

(2015). Perceived quality, brand image and brand trust as determinants of brand loyalty. Journal of Research in Business and Management, 3(4), 1–8.

Ali

, & Muqadas

(2015). The impact of brand equity on brand loyalty: The mediating role of customer satisfaction. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 9(3), 890–915.

Aquilani

, Laureti

, Poponi

, & Secondi

(2015). Beer choice and consumption determinants when craft beers are tasted: An exploratory study of consumer preferences. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 214–224. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.12.005

Armira

, Armira

, Drosos

, Skordoulis

, & Chalikias

(2016). Determinants of consumers’ behaviour toward alcohol drinks: The case of Greek millennials. International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship Management, 10(1), 14–27. 10.1504/IJECRM.2016.079377

Atulkar

(2020). Brand trust and brand loyalty in mall shoppers. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 38(5), 559–572. 10.1108/MIP-02-2019-0095

Aung

H. T.

, & Tan

C. C.

(2018). The role of brand image on brand trust and loyalty for purified drinking bottled water brands in Tachileik [Paper presentation]. Asian Academic Society International Conference (AASIC), 853–860.

10.

Beig

F. A.

, & Nika

F. A.

(2019). Brand experience and brand equity. Vision, 23(4), 410–417. 10.1177/0972262919860963

11.

Benson

, Lavelle

, Spence

, Elliott

C. T.

, & Dean

(2020). The development and validation of a toolkit to measure consumer trust in food. Food Control, 110, 2–11. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106988

12.

Berliansyah

R. A.

, & Suroso

(2018). The influence of food and beverage quality, service quality, place, and perceived price to customer satisfaction and repurchase intention. Journal of Research in Management. Service Quality, 1(1), 1. 10.32424/JORIM.V1I1.18

13.

Bernarto

, Berlianto

M. P.

, Suryawan

I. N.

, Masman

R. R.

, Meilani

(2020). The influence of brand awareness, brand image, and brand trust on brand loyalty. Journal Manajemen, 24(3), 412. 10.24912/jm.v24i3.676

14.

Bianchi

(2015). Consumer brand loyalty in the Chilean wine industry. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 21(4), 442–460. 10.1080/10454446.2014.885859

15.

Calvo-Porral

, & Levy-Mangin

(2016). Specialty food retailing: The role of purchase frequency and determinants of customer satisfaction and loyalty. British Food Journal, 118(11), 2798–2814. 10.1108/BFJ-03-2016-0100

16.

Chadwick

, & Piartrini

P. S.

(2019). Product quality, convenience and brand loyalty: A case study of silver queen’s adolescent consumers [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Business and Management, Research (ICBMR 2018), 72. 10.2991/icbmr-18.2019.19

17.

Chen-Yu

, Cho

, & Kincade

(2016). Brand perception and brand repurchase intent in online apparel shopping: An examination of brand experience, image congruence, brand affect, and brand trust. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 7(1), 30–44. 10.1080/20932685.2015.1110042

18.

Chinomona

(2016). Brand communication, brand image and brand trust as antecedents of brand loyalty in Gauteng Province of South Africa. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 7(1), 124–139. 10.1108/AJEMS-03-2013-0031

19.

Cuong

D. T.

(2020). Influence of brand trust, perceived value on brand preference and purchase intention. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(10), 939–947. 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no10.939

20.

Dapena-Baron

, Gruen

T. W.

, & Guo

(2020). Heart, head, and hand: A tripartite conceptualization, operationalization, and examination of brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 27(3), 355–375. 10.1057/s41262-019-00185-3

21.

Delgado-Ballester

, & Luis Munuera-Alemán

(2001). Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1238–1258. 10.1108/EUM0000000006475

22.

Delima

, Ashary

H. M.

, & Usman

(2019). Influence of service quality, product quality, price, brand image, and promotion to consumer satisfaction affecting on consumer loyalty (online shop). SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.3308707

23.

Dharviandi

(2016). Brand experience in building loyalty through the satisfaction and trust in energy drink (case in Indonesia). Aktualita Manajemen, 10(1).

24.

Ebrahim

R. S.

(2020). The role of trust in understanding the impact of social media marketing on brand equity and brand loyalty. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 19(4), 287–308. 10.1080/15332667.2019.1705742

25.

Ekawati

, & Hutama

K. Y.

(2020). The influence of price fairness and corporate image on customer loyalty towards trust. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 4(8), 209–214.

26.

Farizan

, Rohman

, & Hussein

A. S.

(2019). The effect of brand identity, brand image, and perceived value on loyalty with customer satisfaction as mediation variable for costumer fresh juice Bintaro. Journal Aplikasi Manajemen, 17(1), 127–132. 10.21776/ub.jam.2019.017.01.14

27.

Fortes

V. M. M.

, Milan

G. S.

, Eberle

, & Toni

D. D.

(2019). Brand loyalty determinants in the context of a soft drink brand. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 20(5). 10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMR190015

28.

Hair

J. F.

, Risher

J. J.

, Sarstedt

, & Ringle

C. M.

(2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

29.

Henseler

, Ringle

C. M.

, & Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

30.

Herlambang

R. T.

, Lestari

H. R.

, & Hartono

(2020). Analysis price, perception of quality, and promotion with intervening brand trust toward purchase intention Honda Vario 150cc (case study at PT Wahana Makmur Sejati). International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 5(8), 1276–1284. 10.38124/IJISRT20AUG678

31.

Huang

(2017). The impacts of brand experiences on brand loyalty: Mediators of brand love and trust. Management Decision, 55(5), 915–934. 10.1108/MD-10-2015-0465

32.

Hudaya

, Djumarno

, & Djubaedah

(2021). Analysis of factors affecting customer satisfaction to get customer loyalty. Dinasti International Journal of Digital Business Management, 2(5), 783–793. 10.31933/dijdbm.v2i5.964

33.

Hulu

, Ruswanti

, & Hapsari

N. P.

(2018). Influence of product quality, promotion, brand image, consumer trust towards purchase intention (study case on Pocari Sweat isotonic drink). Journal of Business and Management, 20(8), 55–61. 10.9790/487X-2008015561

34.

Hwang

, Choe

J. Y. J.

, Kim

H. M.

, & Kim

J. J.

(2021a). Human baristas and robot baristas: How does brand experience affect brand satisfaction, brand attitude, brand attachment, and brand loyalty? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 99, 103050. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103050

35.

Hwang

, Lee

, Park

, & del Pobil

A. P.

(2021b). Determinants of customer brand loyalty in the retail industry: A comparison between national and private brands in South Korea. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63, 102684. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102684

36.

Izzudin

M. S.

, & Novandari

(2018). The effect of perceived quality, brand image on customer satisfaction and brand awareness toward repurchase intention. Journal of Research in Management, 1(3). 10.32424/jorim.v1i3.44

37.

Jayaratne

T. E.

(1993). The value of quantitative methodology. Social Research, 109.

38.

Jimborean

M. A.

, Salanţă

L. C.

, Trusek

, Pop

C. R.

, Tofană

, Mudura

, Coldea

T. E.

, Farcas

, Ilies

, Pasca

, & Uifălean

(2021). Drinking behavior, taste preferences and special beer perception among Romanian university students: A qualitative assessment research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 3307. 10.3390/ijerph18063307

39.

Kadanali

, & Demir

(2018). Factors affecting consumers’ preferences for purchase place of local food products. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 28(5), 1523–1531.

40.

Kaur

, Paruthi

, Islam

, & Hollebeek

L. D.

(2020). The role of brand community identification and reward on consumer brand engagement and brand loyalty in virtual brand communities. Telematics and Informatics, 46, 101321. 10.1016/j.tele.2019.101321

41.

Khan

, Rahman

, & Fatma

(2016). The role of customer brand engagement and brand experience in online banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(7), 1025–1041. 10.1108/IJBM-07-2015-0110

42.

Khan

M. M.

, Memon

, & Kumar

(2019). Celebrity endorsement and purchase intentions: The role of perceived quality and brand loyalty. Market Forces Research Journal, 14(2), 99–120.

43.

Khoironi

T. A.

, Syah

, & Dongoran

(2018). Product quality, brand image and pricing to improve satisfaction impact on customer loyalty. International Review of Management and Marketing, 8(3), 51–58.

44.

Kim

, Kim

, & Lee

(2019). The effects of brand hearsay on brand trust and brand attitudes. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 28(7), 765–784. 10.1080/19368623.2019.1567431

45.

Kim

, Kim

, Holland

, & Townsend

K. M.

(2021). Consumer-based brand authenticity and brand trust in brand loyalty in the Korean coffee shop market. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 45(3), 423–446. 10.1177/1096348020980058

46.

Knox

, & Walker

(2001). Measuring and managing brand loyalty. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 9(2), 111–128. 10.1080/713775733

47.

Kosiba

J. P. B.

, Boateng

, Okoe Amartey

A. F. O.

, Boakye

R. O.

, & Hinson

(2018). Examining customer engagement and brand loyalty in retail banking: The trustworthiness influence. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 46(8), 764–779. 10.1108/IJRDM-08-2017-0163

48.

Krystallis

, & Chrysochou

(2014). The effects of service brand dimensions on brand loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(2), 139–147. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.07.009

49.

Kurnianingsih

S. W.

, & Riorini

S. V.

(2021). Influence of consumer-based brand equity on brand loyalty through customer satisfaction. Indonesian Journal of Business Analytics, 1(2), 141–160. 10.54259/ijba.v1i2.67

50.

Kwon

, Jung

, Choi

, & Kim

(2021). Antecedent factors that affect restaurant brand trust and brand loyalty: Focusing on US and Korean consumers. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 30(7), 990–1015. 10.1108/JPBM-02-2020-2763

51.

Lee

W. F.

, Gartner

W. C.

, Song

, Marlowe

, Choi

J. W.

, & Jamiyansuren

(2018). Effect of extrinsic cues on willingness to pay of wine: Evidence from Hong Kong blind tasting experiment. British Food Journal, 120(11), 2582–2598. 10.1108/BFJ-01-2017-0041

52.

Lerro

, Marotta

, & Nazzaro

(2020). Measuring consumers’ preferences for craft beer attributes through best-worst scaling. Agricultural and Food Economics, 8(1). 10.1186/s40100-019-0138-4

53.

Lie

, Sudirman

, Butarbutar

, & Efendi

(2019). Analysis of mediation effect of consumer satisfaction on the effect of service quality, price and consumer trust on consumer loyalty. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 8(8), 421–428.

54.

Lin

, Li

, & Wang

(2017). Social commerce research: Definition, research themes and the trends. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 190–201.

55.

Louis

, Lombart

, & Durif

(2021). Packaging-free products: A lever of proximity and loyalty between consumers and grocery stores. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102499. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102499

56.

Marakanon

, & Panjakajornsak

(2017). Perceived quality, perceived risk and customer trust affecting customer loyalty of environmentally friendly electronics products. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(1), 24–30. 10.1016/j.kjss.2016.08.012

57.

Marist

A. I.

, Yulianti

L. N.

, & Najib

(2014). The role of event in Building Brand Satisfaction, trust and loyalty of Isotonic Drink. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(6). 10.5539/ijms.v6n6p57

58.

Marliawati

, & Cahyaningdyah

(2020). Impacts the brand of experience and brand image on brand loyalty: Mediators brand of trust. Management Analysis Journal, 9(2), 140–151. 10.15294/maj.v9i2.36945

59.

Mendez

, Bendixen

, Abratt

, Yurova

, & O’Leary

(2015). Sales promotion and brand loyalty: Some new insights. International Journal of Education and Social Science, 2(1), 103–117.

60.

Menidjel

, Benhabib

, & Bilgihan

(2017). Examining the moderating role of personality traits in the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 26(6), 631–649. 10.1108/JPBM-05-2016-1163

61.

Mise

J. K.

, Nair

, Odera

, & Ogutu

(2013). Factors influencing brand loyalty of soft drink consumers in Kenya and India. International Journal of Business Management and Economic Research, 4(2), 706–713. http://www.ijbmer.com/vol4issue2.php

62.

Mishra

M. K.

, Kesharwani

, & Das

(2016). The relationship between risk aversion, brand trust, brand affect and loyalty: Evidence from the FMCG industry. Journal of Indian Business Research, 8(2), 78–97. 10.1108/JIBR-04-2015-0045

63.

Moane

, Galkin

, & Solmi

(2020). A framework for generating loyalty in the alcohol industry: A case study of Heineken and Budweiser. The Strategic Brand Management: Master papers (6th ed). https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=9031869&fileOId=9031870

64.

Morgeson III

F. V.

, Hult

G. T. M.

, Mithas

, Keiningham

, & Fornell

(2020). Turning complaining customers into loyal customers: Moderators of the complaint handling–Customer loyalty relationship. Journal of Marketing, 84(5), 79–99. 10.1177/0022242920929029

65.

Morkūnas

(2022). Russian disinformation in the Baltics: Does it really work? Public Integrity, 1–15. 10.1080/10999922.2022.2092976

66.

Morkūnas

(2023). Revealing differences in brand loyalty and brand engagement of single or no parented young adults. IIM Kozhikode Society and Management Review, 12(1), 102–111. 10.1177/22779752221108797

67.

Mostafa

R. B.

, & Kasamani

(2020). Brand experience and brand loyalty: Is it a matter of emotions? Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 33(4), 1033–1051. 10.1108/APJML-11-2019-0669

68.

Murray

, Elms

, & Teller

(2017). Examining the role of store design on consumers’ cross-sectional perceptions of retail brand loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 147–156. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.06.001

69.

Mustaqimah

, Hartoyo

, & Nurmalina

(2019). Marketing mix effect towards customer satisfaction and loyalty: Case study of Rejuve cold-pressed drinks. Indonesian Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 310–320. 10.17358/ijbe.5.3.310

70.

Ngoma

, & Ntale

P. D.

(2019). Word of mouth communication: A mediator of relationship marketing and customer loyalty. Cogent Business and Management, 6(1), 1580123. 10.1080/23311975.2019.1580123

71.

Nugroho

(2018). The role of price in deciding to purchase ready-to-drink tea. Journal Manajemen, 22(3), 381–394. 10.24912/jm.v22i3.428

72.

Ong

C. H.

, Lee

H. W.

, & Ramayah

(2018). Impact of brand experience on loyalty. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 27(7), 755–774. 10.1080/19368623.2018.1445055

73.

Pham

T. H.

, Nguyen

T. N.

, Phan

T. T. H.

, & Nguyen

N. T.

(2019). Evaluating the purchase behaviour of organic food by young consumers in an emerging market economy. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 27(6), 540–556. 10.1080/0965254X.2018.1447984

74.

Pratama

M. A.

, Siregar

R. P. S.

, & Sihombing

S. O.

(2019). The effect of consumer-based brand equity and satisfaction on loyalty: An empirical study. Journal Economia, 15(2), 275–291. 10.21831/economia.v15i2.27314

75.

Purwanto

, & Sudargin

(2021). Partial least squares structural squation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis for social and management research: A literature review. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Research, 2(4), 114–123. 10.7777/jiemar.v2i4

76.

Quinn

G. P.

, & Keough

M. J.

(2002). Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press.

77.

Ramesh Kumar

, & Advani

J. Y.

(2005). Factors affecting brand loyalty: A study in an emerging market on fast moving consumer goods. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 4(2), 251–275. 10.1362/1475392054797223

78.

Rasool

, Shah

F. A.

, & Tanveer

(2021). Relational dynamics between customer engagement, brand experience, and customer loyalty: An empirical investigation. Journal of Internet Commerce, 20(3), 273–292. 10.1080/15332861.2021.1889818

79.

Rindfleisch

, Malter

A. J.

, Ganesan

, & Moorman

(2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 261–279. 10.1509/jmkr.45.3.261

80.

Robertson

, Ferreira

, & Botha

(2018). The influence of product knowledge on the relative importance of extrinsic product attributes of wine. Journal of Wine Research, 29(3), 159–176. 10.1080/09571264.2018.1505605

81.

Soomro

(2019). Antecedents of brand loyalty in the fashion industry of Pakistan: Moderating effect of individual-level collectivist values. Journal of Organisational Studies and Innovation, 6(1), 33–46.

82.

Spero

, & Stone

(2004). Agents of change: How young consumers are changing the world of marketing. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 7(2), 153–159. 10.1108/13522750410530057

83.

Suchánek

, & Králová

(2019). Customer satisfaction, loyalty, knowledge and competitiveness in the food industry. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 32(1), 1237–1255. 10.1080/1331677X.2019.1627893

84.

Sudari

S. A.

, Tarofder

A. K.

, Khatibi

, & Tham

(2019). Measuring the critical effect of marketing mix on customer loyalty through customer satisfaction in food and beverage products. Management Science Letters, 1385–1396. 10.5267/j.msl.2019.5.012

85.

Sultan

, Akram

, Abdulhaliq

, Jamal

, & Saleem

(2019). A strategic approach to the consumer perception of brand on the basis of brand awareness and brand loyalty. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147–4478), 8(3), 33–44. 10.20525/ijrbs.v8i3.259

86.

Tang

, & Li

(2015). Is there a relation between religiosity and customer loyalty in the Chinese context? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(6), 639–647. 10.1111/ijcs.12197

87.

Tucker

W. T.

(1964). The development of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(3), 32–35. 10.1177/002224376400100304

88.

Vinzi

V. E.

, Chin

, Henseler

, & Wang

(2010). Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications. Springer. 10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8

89.

Watanabe

E. A. d. M.

, Alfinito

, & Barbirato

L. L.

(2021). Certification label and fresh organic produce category in an emerging country: An experimental study on consumer trust and purchase intention. British Food Journal, 123(6), 2258–2271. 10.1108/BFJ-09-2020-0808

90.

Wetzels

, Odekerken-Schröder

, & van Oppen

(2009). Using PLS PATH modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195. 10.2307/20650284