Reverse Consumer Preference from Global Brands to Local Brands in the Soft Drink Industry
Keywords:Culturally Rooted Flavors, Global Brands, Local Brands, Reverse Consumer Preference
AbstractIndia as a nation is still being exposed to global brands in the soft drinks industry though multinational players have had a good hold on the market for the past two decades. While Indian consumers are still experiencing benefits of globalization in the last few years, a new trend has emerged where these consumers are showing reverse preference to local brands as well. Reverse consumer preference does not imply rejection of global brands or acceptance of local brands alone. However, this does imply that there is a new love or loyalty being displayed towards a local brand. This phenomenon is being supported by the fact that local players are reporting higher growth rates compared to global giants in the soft drink market. Strong affinity that a consumer displays towards the culturally rooted flavors is not affected by exposure to wide array of global brands or inducement through promotion. That local brands are getting more attention could be on the account of two factors. Either local brands with global flavors are coming up displacing global brands or the preference of people towards local flavors are being capitalized upon by local suppliers which global players are unable to match. The implications of such a distinction are important. If the former is true, what is at play is some form of reverse engineering on the product that local players are able to undertake outwitting the global player. If the latter is true it is an indication that global players are providing some form of demonstration effects to the local counterparts in distribution, promotion etc. but with different flavors altogether. What this would mean is that in the former case there is brand substitution whereas in the latter case there is flavor substitution. Both these phenomena could also be occurring simultaneously.
Ratner RK, Kahn BE, Kahneman D. Choosing less preferred experiences for the sake of variety. J Consum Res [Internet]. 1999; 26(1):1–15. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/209547 https://doi.org/10.1086/209547
Mathur A, Moschis GP, Lee E. Life events and brand preference changes. J Consum Behav. 2003 Dec; 3(2):129–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.128
Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Importance of variance preferences in gambling decisions. J Exp Psychol. 1968; 78(4):646–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026647
O'Donnell M, Evers ERK. Preference reversals in willingness to pay and choice. Journal of Consumer Research. 2019; 45(6):1315–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy052
Fiedler K. Construal level theory as an integrative framework for behavioral decision-making research and consumer psychology. J Consum Psychol. 2007; 17(2):101–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S10577408(07)70015-3
Van Horen F, Pieters R. Preference reversal for copycat brands: Uncertainty makes imitation feel good. J Econ Psychol. 2013; 37:54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.05.003
Abe S, Okuse Y. Direction of comparison effect and consumer research: From general to specific implications. Behaviormetrika. 2018; 45(1):211–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-017-0039-3
Jastrzab T. Soft drink wars. New York: Bloomberg LLC; 2018.
Narasimhan TE. Regional beverage brands to have a field day this summer as mercury soar. Business Standard. 2018.
Euromonitor. Soft Drinks in India. London; 2018.
Fry C, Spector C, Williamson KA, Mujeeb A. Breaking down the chain: A guide to the soft drink Industry. Newark; 2011.
Nowlis SM, Simonson I. Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. J Mark Res. 1997; 34(2):205–18. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3151859
Tempere S, Peres S, Espinoza AF, Darriet P, GiraudHeraud E, Pons A. Consumer preferences for different red wine styles and repeated exposure effects. Food Qual Prefer. 2019; 73:110–6. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.12.009
Pervan M, Visic J, Pavic I. Inconsistency in consumer preferences: Some interesting insights. Procedia Econ Financ [Internet]. 2015; 23:726–32. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S221256711500461X https://doi.org/10.1016/S22125671(15)00461-X
Tan H, Lv X, Liu X, Gursoy D. Evaluation nudge: Effect of evaluation mode of online customer reviews on consumers' preferences. Tour Manag. 2018; 65:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.011
Tong DYK, Tong XF, Yin E. Young consumers' views of infused soft drinks innovation. Young Consum [Internet]. 2012; 13(4):392406. https://doi.org/10.1108/17473611211282635
Mogos Descotes R, Pauwels-Delassus V. The impact of consumer resistance to brand substitution on brand relationship. J Consum Mark [Internet]. 2015; 32(1):34. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-07-20141041
Adriant B. Sources of customer preferences with soft drinks: A comparative study of different customer segments. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res. 1998; 16(1):115–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09593960500453641
Lai C, Godey B. Construction of international brand portfolios: Impact on local brands. J Prod Brand Manag [Internet]. 2011 Aug 23; 20(5):402–7. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421111157928
Dhar R, Wertenbroch K. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. J Mark Res [Internet]. 2000 Feb 1; 37(1):60–71. https://doi.org/10.1509/ jmkr.220.127.116.1118
Pichon P-E, Vignolles A. A taste of nostalgia: Links between nostalgia and food consumption. Qual Mark Res An Int J [Internet]. 2014 Jun 3; 17(3):225– 38. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2012-0027
Sulmont-Rosse C, Chabanet C, Issanchou S, Koster EP. Impact of the arousal potential of uncommon drinks on the repeated exposure effect. Food Qual Prefer [Internet]. 2008; 19(4):412–20. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.12.003
Balabanis G, Diamantopoulos A. Domestic country bias, country-of-origin effects and consumer ethnocentrism: A multidimensional unfolding approach. J Acad Mark Sci. 2004; 32(1):80. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0092070303257644.