Article Versions
Export Article
Cite this article
  • Normal Style
  • MLA Style
  • APA Style
  • Chicago Style
Research Article
Open Access Peer-reviewed

Retailers Benefits from Manufacturers’ Brands a Study of the Egyptian Hypermarkets Industry

Marwa Elgebali
Journal of Business and Management Sciences. 2019, 7(1), 1-11. DOI: 10.12691/jbms-7-1-1
Received December 02, 2018; Revised January 06, 2019; Accepted January 16, 2019

Abstract

Purpose: -The research primary aim is to explore the role that manufacturer's brand play in the retailer's satisfaction. A conceptual model of manufacturer's brand benefits from the retailer’s perspective is tested in the Egyptian hypermarket's industry. Design/methodology/approach: -The study sampled 102 products in 17 chains stores in the country, and also engaged the management of such business entities in a series of interviews during the data collection process. A descriptive approach was utilized, during the data analysis process before the final presentation of the findings in various forms, including tables and figures. Findings: -There is a dire need for the manufacturers to establish positive relationships not only with the retailers but also the end users to enhance satisfaction with their brands. The findings of the study affirm the fact that manufacturer's brand has profound influence on the retailer satisfaction. For instance, a hypothetical test on the satisfaction of the retailer with the product from manufacturer and trust relations affirmed positive outcome. Moreover, the findings of the study further revealed that retailer commitment to manufacturer's brand contributes significantly to the former's satisfaction. Lastly, retailer's assessment of in-store products is another issue that influences the retailer satisfaction. Research limitations and implications: -Further research to assess the manufacturer's brand influence on retailers as well as end consumer is needed, taking into considerations other fundamental factors other than trust, commitment, and store assessment that may impact retailer satisfaction. Originality/value: -The study is the only one to include all Hypermarkets in a fast-growing emerging market like Egypt.

1. Introduction

The heightened competition in the global business market coupled with environmental challenges and inherent complexities in operations of supply chains present enormous challenges to the management of the supply chain across the globe 1. The increased buying volume of large retailers in the retail industry has contributed significantly to the constant increase in their bargaining power. According to Farris and Ailawadi 2, the retailers' buying power is attributable to the fact that a huge portion of the brands' revenue belongs to a small number of such retailers. The above issue implies that the retailers are capable of influencing the decisions of the end consumer as well as the manufacturers. Managers have a challenging role of understanding the manufacturers' brand and their role in customer evaluations and retail purchases of the retailers. The above factor is critical to the success of any venture in the highly competitively contemporary global market. According to Zboja and Voorhees 3, powerful superstores have increasingly dominated the modern retail market, thereby minimizing the importance of brands witnessed in the past.

Previous studies cite profitability of manufacturers' brands as the underlying factor that makes them more important to the retailers. Notably, the brands play a significant role in building store traffic as well as being the "ingredient brands" 4. However, the studies have placed much emphasis on the judgments of the retailers on the manufacturers rather than the brands. Leone et al. 5 argue that the above factor has contributed to the lack of empirical evidence on the advantages associated with manufacturer brands, in particular for the intermediaries. The proposed research assesses the benefits of the brand model to retailers as suggested by Brodie and Motion 6, with reference to the earlier work of Glynn et al. 7.

Earlier researches have attempted to evaluate the impacts of manufacturer brands on the retailer satisfaction 8, 9. However, these researches focuses on the measurements of these benefits from a manufacturer's perspective. For example, Aurier and Lanauze 10 have looked at in-store brand expression as an important factor for manufacturers in the frequently purchased packaged goods. The concept studies in-store interactions with the brand on three different components namely perceived quality of in‐store manufacturer brand presentation, in‐store manufacturer brand image expression and perceived closeness of brand image with store image. Forslund, 11 have looked at the manufacturer-retailer relationship from the logistics side, exploring logistics performance management practices namely on-time delivery, service level, lead time and damages.

Lennerts 12, studied the impact of manufacturer innovativeness on the manufacturer’s relationship with retailers. The results of the study show that manufacturer innovativeness affects the power balance in distribution channels, which is similar to finding from 13. Retailer dependency and thus manufacturer power is seen as means that transforms manufacturer innovativeness into overall success by reducing manufacturer’s deliberation and pursuing innovative actions in a goal-consistent manner 12. Innovation that is contributed to the product categories by both manufacturer and retailer brands was also studied by Chimahundu 14, who looked at the strategic coexistence between retailer brands and manufacturer brands and the role of innovation in it.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

According to Kotler 15, a brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitor" (p. 442). While the previous studies put much focus on the importance of manufacturer products to the final consumer, they ignored the value of the brands to the retailers as well as their significance in strengthening the manufacturer-retailer relationship 16.

According to Tran and Cox 16, retailers often put emphasis on the purchase of right products at the convenient time, at the best prices. The primary goal of the retailer in the transaction process is to maximize profits by selling the products to the end user 17. In such respect, the retailers can only achieve profit maximization by stocking brands which not only fulfil the expectations of consumers but also offer satisfaction to the retailers about their business relationship with the manufacturer 18. Managers within the food processing industry often receive benefits from suppliers in three categories, namely; product, promotion, and service-related components 19. According to Rao and McLaughlin 20, the decision by the retailer to engage in business operation often depends upon the marketing attributes as well as financial variables. In such respect, it is notable that

H1a. The monetary gains of the manufacturer’s brand have a positive influence on the satisfaction of the retailer with the brand

Past studies have delved into the manufacturers-retailers tie, including the aspects of trade promotions and cooperative advertising 21, 22. Ruekert and Churchill 8 also reiterated the significance of consumer brand advertising in strengthening the relationship between retailers and manufacturers. According to Duncan 23, manufacturers also have the capability to influence the sales volume of brands in stores through various marketing initiatives. Manufacturers offer excellent support to the retailers through several initiatives, including the provision of information on the market trend, trade promotions, as well as advertisements 24. The above authors affirmed the acknowledgment by the retailers that manufacturers play a critical role in stimulating product category growth through the above strategies among other approaches. Gassenheimer and Ramsey 25 affirm that the retailer satisfaction also hinges in the manufacturer product as well as the sales support offered by the manufacturer.

H1b. The manufacturer's brand support has positive influences on the retailer’s brand satisfaction

Webster 26 argues that pre-established brand demand, the manufacturers' brands accord the retailers an opportunity to establish an effective customer relationship. The study also identified brand equity as one of the beneficial aspects of manufacturer brands to the retailer. Quality products enabled the retailers to enhance their reputation, an issue that impacts favourably on the subsequent sales and general performance of such brands 27. Porter and Claycomb 28 assert that having a considerable amount of high valued products in a retailers' store enhances his store image, thereby increasing the performance of the business and subsequent profitability. Also, Verbeke et al. 29 established that a manufacturers' brand of value is instrumental in influencing the retailer's shelf allocation as well as in-store promotional support. The aspect of the p-value in Table 2 rejects the above hypothesis, thereby depicting that there is no significant influence on the satisfaction of the retailer.

H1c. The customer’s brand equity towards the brand of the manufacturer has positive influences on the satisfaction of the retailer with the brand

Retailer’s stock their stores with appropriate brands to not only ensure availability of the required brands but also enhance the shopping experience of the clients 30. Several other studies affirm the retailer buyer choice is dependent on the satisfaction of the customer 31, 32. According to Emerson and Grimm 33, the satisfaction of a retailer hinges on the power of the customer. Thus:

H1d. The expectations of customers of the store on the manufacturer's brand has a positive influence on the satisfaction by the retailer.

Given the fact that the hypothesis is satisfied at the significant level of 5%, there is no alarm in suggesting that customer's store expectation has a substantial positive impact on the retailer's satisfaction.

Retailer Evaluations of Manufacturer Brands

The layout of a store as well as the promotional activities is central to the performance of a manufacture's brand. The activities mentioned above require retailer's commitment through adequate resource allocation. The interview results alluded to the fact that such endogenous constructs like in-store product performance, cooperation, and trust hinges on the satisfaction of the retailer. According to Kumar 34, trust is an aspect of the business that enables retailers to utilize the manufacturer expertise and specialist investment effectively. Brand trust entails the feeling that retailers hold while interacting with the manufacturer brand. The trust may encompass the reliability of the brand supply, the expertise of the brand manufacturer, as well as the credibility of the marketing information shared by the brand manufacturer 35.

Ganesan 36 asserts that the cooperation between retailers and manufacturers depends primarily on mutual trust. The attractiveness of the manufacturer's brands only manifests when there are a stronger collaboration and vice versa 37. Similarly, Selnes 38 affirmed that the retailer trust hinges strongly on the manufacturer satisfaction. Thus:

H2a. The retailer utility with the manufacturer's brand is affected positively by retailer's level of trust in the manufacturer’s brand.

From the interviews, it is important to acknowledge the commitment by the retailers to the manufacturer brand, especially when it is successful. While satisfaction is a precursor of commitment, existing literature has often focused on the satisfaction of the retailer, not with the brand but the manufacturer. For instance, Selnes 38 established that manufacturer commitment hinges greatly on higher satisfaction levels among the buyers. Similarly, Biong 9 uncovered a link between the satisfaction of the retailer and the loyalty and brand of the manufacturer. The hypothesis is satisfied at 1% significance level. Thus, it is to note that retailer can only achieve satisfaction when there is mutual trust.

H2b. Retailer level of satisfaction with the brand of the manufacturer has a positive relationship with the retailer's level of commitment that brand.

The satisfaction of the hypothesis occurs at 1% significance level; a positive correlation is admissible between the engagement of the retailer and their satisfaction with the brand. The findings from the interviews reiterated that retailers often utilize retail outlets and not such manufacturer measures like market share to assess the brand performance. Frazier et al. 39 defined the performance of the manufacturer by how well they pursue their functions. Jap 40 also established a relationship between retailer performance and supplier investments. On a similar note, Kumar et al. 41 also attributed the performance of the brand to the satisfaction of manufacturer with the retailer. Therefore, the hypothesis alludes to the connection between product performance and retailer satisfaction.

H2c. Retailer level of satisfaction with the brand by manufacturer has a positive relationship with retailer's assessment.

The satisfaction of the above hypothesis occurs at 1% significance level; thus, the satisfaction of the retailer is positively related to brand as well as his assessment of in-store performance of the brand.

3. Methodology

The study was conducted in the context of Egyptian independent retail grocery sector. The choice of Egypt as the study area hinges on the fact that irrespective of its attractive market to the manufacturers, there is limited research on branding in the Egyptian context. The retailing industry is flouring in the country, with a global ranking of 13th about the most attractive retail market 42. Consumer survey (2010) reveals that Egypt is not only one of the most promising markets but also the fastest expanding in its region. The country became position fifteen in the world retail ranking 2009 42.

The study adopted a descriptive research, involving the use of interviews to acquire relevant data for the research. Notably, the study utilized a sample size of 102 product evaluations by 17 different chains in Cairo, Giza, and Alexandria. Besides, the study used hypermarkets in Egypt with a minimum of 2 branches in the country. It is also important to mention that the researcher engaged the store or purchasing managers in a 20-30 minutes interview during the data collection process. Products categories chosen for the study included shampoo, tea, and tomato paste due to their common nature almost in all supermarkets. The data collection process took six months, between January and June 2016.

4. Results and Analysis

The study analysed and estimated the structural equation model (SEM) using the R - Program (3.3.2). SEM is a hybrid statistical technique often used by researchers to build and test statistical models 43. It addresses multiple equations simultaneously and encompasses such special aspects of SEM like regression and path analysis, as well as confirmatory factor analysis 43. Studies demonstrate that the structural equation model is often ideal in analysing data from social science studies due to its effectiveness in imputing the relationship between latent variables and observed variables 43. The study tested the effects of the exogenous constructs on endogenous constructs through a mediating variable as shown in the path diagram 43. By designing a SEM model on R-program, the researcher managed to assess the causal relationship through two ways. First, the study evaluated the relationship described above through reporting the standardized estimates between exogenous and endogenous constructs, and, second, it achieved through validating the model's significance and goodness of fit. The study estimated the standardized path coefficients using diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation method because the data for the study is not measurable on a continuous scale. Instead, the researcher utilizes the Likert-type rating scales as well as the dichotomously scored multiple choice items to do so, and, thus, DWLS estimation method was ideal for handling the categorical data as seen in the research 44. Finally, the study measured the model fit by different incremental fit indexes, including comparative Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals (SRMR), etc.

The researcher used the IBM-SPSS (21) software to analyse the validity of the dataset. SPSS is a powerful software used by researchers to address several business and research problems through hypothesis testing, ad-hoc analysis, and reporting. It does facilitate not only easier access and management of data but also selection and performance analysis among other research-based activities. The researcher evaluated how reliable is it to use Cronbach's alphato construct, depending on the relationship between the item and total aspects. The researcher eliminated the items causing low Cronbach's α value (less than 0.7) from the construct of the latent (unobserved variable). The study accepted the level of internal consistency of each construct at Cronbach's alpha ranging between 0.707 and 0.808, thus exceeding the acceptable value as presented in Table 1 45. Additionally, the study verified the convergent validity of the measurement model; with CR values ranging between 0.736 and 0.919 for the constructs using the average variance extract (AVE) and construct reliability (CR). The average variance extract gave values exceeding the minimum criterion of 0.5 for all constructs, except for Customer's Satisfaction with a value of 0.47. As a result, there was a verification of the convergent validity, and finally, the standardized loadings of the measurement items (observed variables) also affirmed the convergent validity by having significant values ranging between 0.46 and 1.

The researcher tested the correlations among the observed variables, with variables constructing "brand equity" in the attempt to assure the discriminant validity of the measurement model. Notably, the issue above differs significantly from those constructing "customer's expectations" as presented in Table 4.

All measurements results are satisfactory, therefore the need to evaluate the structural model.

4.1. Structural Model

Table 3 presents the appropriateness of the data and the structural model, with a significant χ2 value. Since the χ2 measurement is responsive to size of the sample, there is need to depend on normed χ2 value, usually calculated by dividing χ2 value with its degrees of freedom, given a value of 1.55 meets the acceptable range 46. CFI and TLI measurements reported a value greater than their cut-off point of 0.90 or higher 47, 48 with values of 0.942 and 0.932 respectively, giving an indication of having a good model fit. RMSEA = 0.076 met the proposed criterion of having a reasonably well-fitted model by having an RMSEA value ranging between 0.05 and 0.08 49. SRMR is the only fit index that did not indicate a good model fit. However, it is attributable to the lack of a reasonably large sample size.

Table 2 highlights a relationship between the latent variables. It is notable that only manufacturer support and brand equity on customer’s satisfaction did not give a significant relationship with a high p-value. Monetary gain and customer expectations reveal a moderate and a robust significant positive impact on customer’s satisfaction ( 0.281, p<0.10, and 0.82, p<0.05), respectively. Additionally, end user satisfaction strongly affects trust, cooperation, dependence, commitment, and performance constructs with standardized estimates ranging between (0.513 and 0.867).

4.2. Decisions Regarding Hypotheses

According to the results of Table 2 the following decisions are taken:

Ÿ H1a. The financial benefits of the manufacturer’s brand positively influence retailer satisfaction with the brand.

This hypothesis is satisfied at significance level 10%, where the standardized estimate value shows a positive moderate influence from financial benefits on retailer’s satisfaction with the brand

Ÿ H1b. The manufacturer’s brand support positively influences retailer satisfaction with the brand.

According to the p-value in Table 2 it is concluded that this hypothesis is rejected, i.e. brand support has no significance influence on retailer’s satisfaction.

Ÿ H1c. The customer brand equity of the manufacturer’s brand positively influences retailer satisfaction with the brand.

According to the p-value in Table 2 it is concluded that this hypothesis is rejected, i.e. brand equity has no significance influence on retailer’s satisfaction.

Ÿ H1d. The customers’ expectations of the store with respect to the manufacturer’s brand positively influences retailer satisfaction with the brand.

This hypothesis is satisfied at significance level of 5%, thus it can be concluded that customer’s expectation of store has a strong positive influence on retailer’s satisfaction.

Ÿ H2a. Retailer satisfaction with the manufacturer’s brand relates positively to a retailer’s trust in the manufacturer on matters concerning the brand.

This hypothesis is satisfied at significance level of 1%, thus it can be concluded that retailer satisfaction with the manufacturer’s brand relates positively to a retailer’s trust in the manufacturer on matters concerning the brand.

Ÿ H2b. Retailer satisfaction with the manufacturer’s brand positively relates to a retailer’s commitment to the brand.

This hypothesis is satisfied at significance level of 1%, thus it can be concluded that retailer satisfaction with the manufacturer’s brand positively relates to a retailer’s commitment to the brand.

Ÿ H2c. Retailer satisfaction with the manufacturer’s brand positively relates to a retailer’s assessment of the brand’s in-store performance.

This hypothesis is satisfied at significance level of 1%, thus it can be concluded that retailer satisfaction with the manufacturer’s brand positively relates to a retailer’s assessment of the brand’s in-store performance.

The study conducted evaluations on five different dimensions, including brand equity, financial benefits, customer expectations, manufacturer support, and business partnership. The process mentioned above utilized a pre-designed questionnaire with various attributes to cover each dimension effectively. The questions stipulated in the questionnaire revolved around the least and most expensive brands in three different product categories, including Tea, Tomato Sauce, and Shampoo. The study scanned the market to establish the existence of the largest number of popular and eligible hypermarkets and supermarkets, and meet their purchasing managers or store managers. The initiative stated above intended to acquire the most accurate and beneficial data, taking into consideration that each hypermarket chain had a single representation in the research.

5. Discussion

From the findings highlighted above, the study can deduce several issues and assumptions. First, the satisfaction of the end consumer hinges on some underlying factors. For instance, the manufacturer brand that is not only available in the retail store but also presents certain financial benefits has modest effects on the satisfaction levels of a customer. While some potential consumers decide to purchase certain brands due to loyalty and quality among other characteristics, studies show that the cost, especially affordability of the product remains one of the aspects that influence their purchase options 50. On the other hand, the findings of the research allude to the fact that the expectations of a customer have strong positive impact on the customer satisfaction. Although it may appear that financial aspect of manufacturer brand has more effects on the buying choice, the brand that meets the expectation of the customer often sways the consumer's buying choice even more 50. Most of the end customers prefer a brand with characteristics that conform to their expectations, including quality, performance, and durability among other aspects rather what may appear cheaper or more affordable. The luxury market, for instance, exhibits the above-stated scenario where the majority of the customers does not consider the financial benefits but concentrate on the quality and loyalty of other issues.

Study findings suggest the existence of several privileges that retailers enjoy from the manufacturers’ brand. The benefits impact positively on their level of satisfaction and their trust on its performance. The findings pose a challenge to the perception that the brand of manufacturers is not valued as such by the retailers. The research points out that a benefit accruing beyond the monetary gain to include the other three satisfaction parameters by retailer 3.

The study findings further point to the strong effects of customer satisfaction on cooperation, trust, dependence, and commitment as well as other performance constructs. For instance, any business contract or relationship between two people or entities often bank on various fundamental aspects such as trust cooperation. When the manufacturer brand has proven to be reliable, the trust of the retailer or manufacturer in the perception of the end consumer often increases. According to Singh and Sirdeshmukh 51, the commitment, trust, and cooperation of the retailer in a business transaction or frequent business engagement with the customer usually impact positively on the level of customer satisfaction. They affirmed the impacts of trust, commitment, and cooperation of the retailer or manufacturer on the customer expectations 51.

The benefits which the manufacturers enjoy from their brands are goes beyond the to the brand equity to include the link connecting the end user and the retailers, the benefits accruing to the retailers and the support offered by the manufacturers towards building the brand and driving it towards establishing a market trust. The brand benefits influence the customer’s perception and retailer’s views on the brand performance, commitment and trust that creates loyalty. The retailers’ monetary gain influences the way a retailer will evaluate the performance of the brand while on the other hand the brand equity has an impact on the commitment by the retailer on the manufacturers’ brand rather than the retailer’s satisfaction level.

5.1. Financial Benefits

Profit / Retail Margin

The level of profitability of the three categories of products under review correlated positively to their prices. The most expensive brand, shampoo product happened to be the most profitable brand, while the least expensive tomato paste brand was the least profitable of all the three brands.

Sales Volume Potential

The highest sales volume potential among categories is the most expensive tomato paste brand. The lowest sales volume potential among all the categories is the least expensive tomato paste brand.

Frequency of Promotional Allowances

Least expensive tomato paste brand offers promotions and discounts more frequent than any other brands in the chosen categories. However, the supermarkets explain that it is still low. Second brands that give frequent promotions and offers are the least expensive shampoo brand and the least expensive tea brand.

Value of Promotional Allowances

The highest value of promotional allowances among all the three brand categories is the least expensive tomato paste brand. The lowest value of promotional allowances among all the three brand categories is the most expensive shampoo and the most expensive tea brand. All least expensive brands of the three selected product categories have a better value of promotional allowances compared to products of the same category.

Retail Selling Price

The most expensive brands of the three selected product categories have higher retail selling prices compared to products of the same category.

5.2. Manufacturer’s Support

Strong Consumer Advertising Support

The highest brand with strong consumer advertising support among categories is the most expensive tomato paste brand. The lowest brand is the least expensive shampoo brand.

Regular Part of Store Advertising Program

The highly ranked brand with the regular part of store advertising among all the three product categories is the most expensive tomato paste brand. The least ranked brand with the regular part of store advertising among all the three product categories is the most expensive tea brand.

Key Brand in the Product Category

The most brand considered as a key brand in the three-chosen product is the most expensive tomato paste brand. The least brand recognized as an essential brand in the product category among all the three categories is the least expensive tomato paste brand.

Useful Category Information Supplied by Manufacturer

The most useful information supplied by the manufacturer is the production of the most expensive tea brand. The least manufacturer providing valuable information is the least expensive tomato paste brand manufacturer.

Important Brand for the Growth of the Product Category

The most valuable brand for the growth of the product category is the most expensive tomato paste brand. The least valuable brand for the growth of the product category is the least expensive tomato paste brand.

Brand enables Supermarket to have an Addition Choice for Customers

The brand that allows the supermarket to have an additional choice for his clients is the most expensive tomato paste brand. On the other hand, the brand that least enables the supermarket to have an additional choice for its customers is the least expensive shampoo brand.

5.3. Brand Equity

Purchasing over competitors is likely to exhibit similarities in their quality level. The brand the most purchased over competitors while having the same quality among all the three categories is the most expensive tomato paste brand. The least purchased over competitors while having the same quality among all the three groups is the least expensive tomato paste brand.

Purchasing Brand over Competitors while having the Same Price

The brand the most purchased over competitors while having the same price among all the three categories is the most expensive tomato paste brand. The brand the least purchased over competitors while having the same price among all the three categories is the least expensive tomato paste brand. Customers will choose a different brand if the price differs from the following products: the least expensive tomato paste brand, the most expensive shampoo brand, and the least expensive shampoo brand.

Purchasing Brand over Competitors even if Competitor is better in any way

The majority of the supermarkets believe that if a competitor is better in any way, the customer will most probably purchase the competitor’s brand. The above notion emanates from the results from the respondents who noted that an average score.

Purchasing Brand over Competitors even if Competitor is Similar to Brand

The brand the most purchased over competitors due to similarity among all the three categories is the most expensive tomato paste brand. The brand the least purchased over competitors while being similar to it among all the three categories is the least expensive tomato paste brand and the least expensive shampoo brand.

5.4. Customer’s Expectations

Customers are only concerned with the existing brands and vice versa. Most supermarkets in the study agree that the clients will not be too concerned if the most and least expensive brands are not available, mostly if it is about the most expensive tea brand.

Customers Expect to Find the Brand in Supermarket

Supermarkets admit that their customers expect to find the most as well as the least expensive brands among all the brand categories. Although the least expensive tomato paste brand has the lowest average score.

Customers Will Complain if Brand is Not Available

Customers will often complain about certain brands if they are not available, particularly the least expensive tea brand and the most expensive tomato paste brand. The most expensive tea brand will be the next most preferred brand. The least brand customers will complain about if they didn’t find in the supermarkets is the least expensive shampoo brand.

Brand is Popular

The most popular one is the most expensive tomato paste brand, while the least popular is the least expensive tomato paste brand. Majority of supermarkets believe that these brands are popular, including the most expensive shampoo brand and the least expensive tea brand.

Customer Expectations Attributes Score for the Collective Most vs. Collective Least Expensive Brands

The most expensive brands received the highest rating for meeting the customer expectations as well as providing benefits to the supermarkets due to their availability. Contrarily, the least expensive brands received the lowest customer expectations’ scores, and the least beneficial for supermarkets. Evaluating the overall least expensive brands, the best customer expectation for a supermarket comes from their expectation to find the brand, while the least comes from not concerned if the brand is unavailable.

5.5. Business Partnership

Satisfaction

Satisfaction entails being at ease and comfortable with the decision to have an individual brand in the supermarket. The highest brand that the supermarkets do not regret having among categories is the most expensive tomato paste brand and the most expensive tea brand. Although the least expensive tomato paste brand and the least expensive shampoo brand receive the least score.

Not Completely Happy with Brand

The brand that most of the respondents are not completely happy with among the three brand categories is the least expensive tomato paste brand. The most expensive shampoo brand remains the product that most of the supermarkets are completely happy with.

Supermarkets are Pleased with the Brand Effect of the Product Range

The most expensive tomato paste brand and the most expensive tea brand are the highest brands that supermarkets are pleased with their effects on the product range. The lowest brand that the supermarket is pleased with its effect on the product range among categories is the least expensive tomato paste brand.

Overall Brand Satisfaction

The highest brand that the supermarket is satisfied with among the three product categories is the most expensive tea brand. The lowest brand that the supermarket is satisfied with among categories is the least expensive tomato paste brand.

Trust

Trust plays a central role in swaying the supermarkets’’ viewpoint about a particular brand. For instance, the study reveals that the brand giving the highest support for being available among all the three categories is the most expensive tomato paste brand.

Assistance and Support Offering Even if Circumstances Change

The respondents accorded the most expensive tomato paste brand as giving them the highest assistance and support even if circumstances change. The most expensive shampoo brand receives the lowest assistance and support if things change brand.

Manufacturer Problem Response

The most expensive tea brand and the most expensive tomato paste brand receives the best rating for responding to problems by the manufacturer. The most expensive shampoo brand is the lowest rated for response problem by the manufacturer.

5.6. Cooperation

Supermarket Helps out Brand

The most helped out by supermarkets among all the three categories is the most expensive tomato paste brand. The least helped out by supermarkets among all the three categories is the least expensive shampoo brand. The most helped out category regardless of its price is the Tomato paste.

Future Profit Depending on Good Relationship Maintaining

Supermarkets believe that a harmonious relationship between retailers and manufacturers is central to their profitability in the future. Taking an in-depth look at the above issue makes one understand that the highest brand to generate more profits due to good relationship maintaining is the most expensive tomato paste brand.

Future Goals Reached by Working with The Brand Rather Than Against It

Supermarkets believe that all of the product categories’ future goals will be reachable by working with all brands, except for the least expensive shampoo brand. A deep insight into the issue reveals that the highest brand to reach future goals by working with the brand is the most expensive tomato paste brand.

5.7. Dependence

Difficult to Find Replacement for Brand

The most expensive tomato paste brand remains the brand that is the most difficult to replace among all the three categories, followed by the most expensive tea brand, and subsequently the most expensive shampoo brand.

Significant Loss in Income if Brand is Not Available

The most expensive tomato paste brand causes the most significant loss among all the three categories.

Competitor Brands are Extremely Limited

All product categories have a broad range of competitors. The most expensive tomato paste brand has the most extreme number of competitors compared to different brands in the group.

5.8. Commitment

Genuinely Enjoy Brand Association

The most expensive tea brand and the most expensive tomato paste form the two brands that supermarkets enjoy their brand association compared to other brands in their category.

The least brand supermarkets enjoy their brand association among all the three categories is the least expensive shampoo brand and the least expensive tomato paste brand.

Positive Feelings are the Main Reason for Continuation

The majority of supermarkets gave the highest rating for almost all brands except for the most expensive tea brand and the least expensive tomato paste brand. It is notable that the largest brand supermarkets continue dealing with due to positive feelings are the most expensive tomato paste brand.

Preference of Brand Association is a Reason not to Drop Brand

The supermarket's preference was found not to matter on the category. Supermarkets can drop the least expensive tomato paste brand more than any other brands as their preference is not the only concern they have to keep the brand.

6. Implications and Conclusions

6.1. Managerial Implications

The existing literature has fallen short of examining the relationship outcomes of manufacturers’ brands for the resellers. In this respect, the paper comes in handy to identify a range of gains achieved by the brands of the manufacturer, particularly to the resellers. The benefits stipulated above may include the connection between the retailers and manufacturer as well as the link to the end user. Notably, the end user plays a critical role in providing manufacturer’s brand support and reseller marketing 26. While financial benefits often feature as the primary brand benefit, the realization of the advantage mentioned above hinges on the efficient utilization of brand-based margins and pricing by the reseller. The means by which the reseller supports the brand is by using manufacturer resources. It is notable that manufacturers in many instances avail supporting resources for their brands to the resellers. These resources may include brand advertising, category development, brand information and expertise, and support of the reseller-promotional program. Lastly, the third benefit revolves around the relationship between the reseller and the customer, particularly the latter’s expectations.

Manufacturers often put much emphasis on the strategic value of brands. They also appreciate the positive and beneficial relationship with resellers in the attempt to achieve the product value offered 52. The following implication notes that the sources above of brand benefits have significant effects on manufacturer-reseller ties. According to Narus and Anderson 52, the trust, satisfaction, and subsequent commitment of the reseller are in part attributed to the benefits of the brand. By focusing on the brand benefits to resellers, manufactures adopt not only their market-based assets but also promote the seller-buyer relationship.

The manufacturer-reseller relationship provides for the exchange of knowledge between resellers and manufacturers concerning category expertise and market information. While the traditional literature put much emphasis on marketing communication as a means of remain focused on the development of major brands 53. Besides, brands also play a central role in justifying the need for the strengthening reseller-manufacturer relationship.

6.2. Suggestions for Future Research

The satisfaction of and trust by both parties in a business transaction is critical to the survival of the relationship and subsequent success of the venture and vice versa. While the study deals with the measurements of these benefits from a manufacturer perspective, there is need to pursue a hybrid research which amalgamates the benefits from both the two parties as well as the end user.

6.3. Conclusion

The survival of business venture in the contemporary society hinges on the relationship that exists between the parties in business. For instance, a positive correlation between manufacturer brand and the resellers is likely to push the business to greater levels. The benefits presented by the manufacturer brand are several, there is need to also acknowledge the significant advantage of the relationship between the manufacturer brand, the reseller, and the end user. This paper attempted to identify a range of benefits offered by the manufacturer brands, particularly to the resellers. Findings indicate existence of a number of benefits from the manufacturers’ brand that the retailers enjoy. These benefits accruing to the retailers affect in a positive way their level of satisfaction and their trust on its performance. The study findings here put to challenge the perception that the brand of manufacturers is not valued as such by the retailers. There is further indication of a benefit accruing beyond the monetary gain to include the other three utilities that form the basis for the retailer evaluation on the brand type.

The gains from the manufacturers brand is not limited to the brand equity but extends to the linkage the customers of the retailers, their monetary gains thereof, and the support they receive from the manufacturers towards building the brand and driving it towards establishment a market trust. The benefits accruing from these brands goes a long way to affecting the customer’s perception and retailer’s views on the performance, commitment and trust that creates loyalty.

Manufacturers focus on supporting the channel will have a positive impact in managing a direct and indirect product line. It indicates that support of the channel creates a good relationship in the market where the brand is established that starts with the end user in mind and influence the brand performance. The findings in the study suggests influencing the brand performance through support of retailer trust in the brand that is based on performance which will guarantee their commitment.

References

[1]  Patil, M., 2015, Challenges for Supply Chain Management in Today’s Global Competitive Environment, Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7, No. 10.
In article      
 
[2]  Farris, P. W. and Ailawadi, K. L. (1992). “Retail Power: Monster or Mouse?”, Journal of Retailing, 68 (4), pp. 351-69.
In article      
 
[3]  Zboja, J.J. and Voorhees, C.M., (2006). “The Impact of Brand Trust and Satisfaction on Retailer Repurchase Intentions”, Journal of Services Marketing, 20 (6), pp. 381-390.
In article      View Article
 
[4]  Ailawadi, K. L., & Keller, K. L. (2004). Understanding retail branding: Conceptual insights and research priorities. Journal of Retailing, 80 (4), 331-342.
In article      View Article
 
[5]  Leone, R.P. et al. (2006). “Linking Brand Equity to Customer Equity, Journal of Service Research”, 9 (2), pp. 125-138.
In article      View Article
 
[6]  Brodie R.J. and Motion, J., 2012, The benefits of manufacturer brands to retailers, European Journal of Marketing, 46 (9): 1127-1149.
In article      View Article
 
[7]  Glynn, M.S., Motion, J.M., and Brodie, R.J. (2007). “Sources of Brand Benefits in Manufacturer-Reseller B2B Relationships”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 22 (6), pp. 400-9.
In article      View Article
 
[8]  Ruekert, R.W. and Churchill, G.A. Jr (1984). “Reliability and Validity of Alternative Measures of Channel Member Satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (2), pp. 226-33.
In article      View Article
 
[9]  Biong, H. (1993). “Satisfaction and Loyalty to Suppliers within the Grocery Trade”, European Journal of Marketing, 27 (7), pp. 31-8.
In article      View Article
 
[10]  Aurier, P., and Lanauze, G., (2011). "Impacts of in‐store manufacturer brand expression on perceived value, relationship quality and attitudinal loyalty", International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 39 (11), pp.810-835.
In article      View Article
 
[11]  Forslund, H., (2014). "Exploring logistics performance management in supplier/retailer dyads", International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 42 (3), pp. 205-218.
In article      View Article
 
[12]  Lennerts, S., Eisend, M., Lieven, T., Molner, S., Brexendorf, T. and Tomczak, T., (2016). “The Power of Innovativeness in Manufacturer-Retailer Relationships”, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 23 (3).
In article      View Article
 
[13]  Ailawadi, K. L., Bradlow, E. T., Draganska, M., Rooderkerk, R., Sudhir, K., Wilbur, K., and Zhang, J., (2010). “Empirical models of manufacturer-retailer interaction: A review and agenda for future research”, Marketing Letters 21 (3), pp 273-285.
In article      View Article
 
[14]  Chimhundu, R., McNeill, L. S. and Hamlin, R. P. (2015). “Manufacturer and retailer brands: Is strategic coexistence the norm?”, Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 23 (1).
In article      View Article
 
[15]  Kotler, P. (1991). “Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control”, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
In article      
 
[16]  Tran, Q. and Cox, C. (2009). “Chapter 4: Building Brand Equity between Manufacturers and Retailers. In Glynn M. S. and Woodside, A. G. ed. Business-To-Business Brand Management: Theory, Research and Executive case study Exercises”, Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing, (15), Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 115-194.
In article      PubMed
 
[17]  Fairhurst, A. E., and Fiorito, S. S. (1990). “Retail Buyers’ Decision Making Process: An Investigation of Contributing Variables”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 1 (1), pp. 87-100.
In article      View Article
 
[18]  Buchanan, L., Simmons C. J. and Bickart, B.A. (1999), “Brand equity dilution: retailer display and context effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 34, 355.
In article      
 
[19]  Ulaga, W. and Chacour, S. (2001). “Measuring Customer-Perceived Value in Business Markets”, Industrial Marketing Management, 30, pp. 525-540.
In article      View Article
 
[20]  Rao, V.R. and McLaughlin, E.W. (1989). “Modelling the Decision to Add New Products by Channel Intermediaries”, Journal of Marketing, 53 (4), pp. 80-8.
In article      View Article
 
[21]  Murry, J.P. and Heide, J.B. (1998). “Managing Promotion Program Participation within Manufacturer-Retailer Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, 62 (1), pp. 58-68.
In article      
 
[22]  Montgomery, D.B. (1975). “New Product Distribution: An Analysis of Supermarket Buyer Decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (3), pp. 255-264.
In article      View Article
 
[23]  Duncan, T., (2002). “IMC: Using Advertising and Promotion to Build Brands Marketing Series”, McGraw-Hill: Irwin Series in Marketing.
In article      
 
[24]  Glynn, M.S., Motion, J.M., and Brodie, R.J. (2012). “The Benefits of Manufacturer Brands to Retailers”, European Journal of Marketing, 46 (9), pp.1127-1149.
In article      View Article
 
[25]  Gassenheimer, J.B. and Ramsey, R. (1994). “The Impact of Dependence on Dealer Satisfaction: A Comparison of Reseller-Supplier Relationships”, Journal of Retailing, 70 (3), pp. 253-266.
In article      View Article
 
[26]  Webster, F.E. (2000). “Understanding the Relationships among Brands, Consumers, and Resellers”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), pp. 17-23.
In article      View Article
 
[27]  Jacoby, J. and Mazursky, D. (1984). “Linking Brand and Retailer Images: Do the Potential Risks Outweigh the Potential Benefits?”, Journal of Retailing, 60, pp. 105-122.
In article      
 
[28]  Porter, S.S. and Claycomb, C. (1997). “The Influence of Brand Recognition on Retail Store Image”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 6 (6), pp. 373-87.
In article      View Article
 
[29]  Verbeke, W., Bagozzi, R.P., and Farris, P. (2006). “The Role of Key Account Programs, Trust, and Brand Strength on Resource Allocation in the Channel of Distribution”, European Journal of Marketing, 40 (5), pp. 502-32.
In article      View Article
 
[30]  Buchanan, L., Simmons, C.J., and Bickart, B.A. (1999). “Brand Equity Dilution: Retailer Display and Context Effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (3), pp. 345-55.
In article      View Article
 
[31]  Nilsson, J. (1977). “Purchasing by Swedish Grocery Chains”, Industrial Marketing Management, 6 (5), pp. 317-328.
In article      View Article
 
[32]  Gagliano, K.B. and Hathcote, J. (1994) “Customer Expectations and Perceptions of Service Quality in Retail Apparel Specialty Stores”, Journal of Services Marketing, 8 (1), pp. 60-69.
In article      View Article
 
[33]  Emerson, C.J. and Grimm, C.M. (1999) “Buyer-Seller Customer Satisfaction: The Influence of the Environment and Customer Service”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 14 (5), pp. 403-15.
In article      View Article
 
[34]  Kumar, N. (1996). “The Power of Trust in Manufacturer Retailer Relationships”, Harvard Business Review, November/December, pp. 92-106.
In article      
 
[35]  Delgado, E., Munuera, J.L. and Yagüe, M.J. (2003), “Development and validation of a brand trust scale”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 35-54.
In article      
 
[36]  Ganesan, S., (1994). “Determinates of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationship”, Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), pp. 1-19.
In article      View Article
 
[37]  Kaufman, P., Jayachandran, S. and Rose, R.L. (2006). “The Role of Relational Embeddedness in Retail Buyers’ Selection of New Products”, Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (4), pp. 580-587.
In article      View Article
 
[38]  Selnes, F. (1998). “Antecedents and Consequences of Trust and Satisfaction in Buyer-Seller Relationships”, European Journal of Marketing, 32 (3), pp. 305-22.
In article      View Article
 
[39]  Frazier, G., Gill, J.D., and Kale, S.H. (1989). “Dealer Dependence Levels and Reciprocal Actions in a Channel of Distribution in a Developing Country”, Journal of Marketing, 53 (1), pp. 50-69.
In article      View Article
 
[40]  Jap, S. D. (1999), “Pie-Expansion Efforts: Collaboration Processes in Buyer-Supplier Relationships”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 461-475.
In article      
 
[41]  Kumar, N., Stern, L.W., and Achrol, R.S. (1992). “Assessing Reseller Performance from the Perspective of the Supplier”, Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (2), pp. 238-253.
In article      View Article
 
[42]  Ramzy, O, James, R.O., (2012), The Egyptian retailing industry”. Journal of international Business Economy, 11(3): 1, 2, 5.
In article      
 
[43]  Kwiatkowski, F., Girard, M., Hacene, K., and Berlie, J. (2000). “A Suitable Statistical Software Adapted for Research in Oncology”, Bulletin du Cancer, 87 (10), pp. 715-721.
In article      PubMed
 
[44]  Bandalos, D.L. (2014). Relative performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 102-116.
In article      View Article
 
[45]  Saunders, John, and F A.W. Watt. (1979). “Do Brand Names Differentiate Identical Industrial Products?”, Industrial Marketing Management, 8, pp. 114-123.
In article      View Article
 
[46]  Jalilvand, M.R. & Samiei, N. (2012). The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth on Brand Image and Purchase Intention. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1-11.
In article      View Article
 
[47]  Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives," Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55. Jöreskog.
In article      View Article
 
[48]  Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60.
In article      
 
[49]  Mac Callum, R. C., 1996, Power Analysis and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling, Psychological Methods, the American Psychological Association, Inc. 1996, Vol, I, No. 2. 13.
In article      
 
[50]  Cronin, J. J., Brady, M.K., and Hult, G.T.M. (2000). “Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments”, Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), pp. 193-218.
In article      View Article
 
[51]  Singh, J. and Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). “Agency and Trust Mechanisms in Consumer Satisfaction and Loyalty Judgments”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), pp. 150-167.
In article      View Article
 
[52]  Narus, J. A., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). Strengthen Distributor Performance Through Channel Positioning. Sloan Management Review, 29, 31-40.
In article      
 
[53]  Aaker, D.A. (1991). “Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name” New York: The Free Press.
In article      
 

Published with license by Science and Education Publishing, Copyright © 2019 Marwa Elgebali

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Cite this article:

Normal Style
Marwa Elgebali. Retailers Benefits from Manufacturers’ Brands a Study of the Egyptian Hypermarkets Industry. Journal of Business and Management Sciences. Vol. 7, No. 1, 2019, pp 1-11. http://pubs.sciepub.com/jbms/7/1/1
MLA Style
Elgebali, Marwa. "Retailers Benefits from Manufacturers’ Brands a Study of the Egyptian Hypermarkets Industry." Journal of Business and Management Sciences 7.1 (2019): 1-11.
APA Style
Elgebali, M. (2019). Retailers Benefits from Manufacturers’ Brands a Study of the Egyptian Hypermarkets Industry. Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 7(1), 1-11.
Chicago Style
Elgebali, Marwa. "Retailers Benefits from Manufacturers’ Brands a Study of the Egyptian Hypermarkets Industry." Journal of Business and Management Sciences 7, no. 1 (2019): 1-11.
Share
  • Figure 2. Path diagram of the Structural Equation Model with standardized coefficients of diagonally weighted least squares estimates
[1]  Patil, M., 2015, Challenges for Supply Chain Management in Today’s Global Competitive Environment, Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7, No. 10.
In article      
 
[2]  Farris, P. W. and Ailawadi, K. L. (1992). “Retail Power: Monster or Mouse?”, Journal of Retailing, 68 (4), pp. 351-69.
In article      
 
[3]  Zboja, J.J. and Voorhees, C.M., (2006). “The Impact of Brand Trust and Satisfaction on Retailer Repurchase Intentions”, Journal of Services Marketing, 20 (6), pp. 381-390.
In article      View Article
 
[4]  Ailawadi, K. L., & Keller, K. L. (2004). Understanding retail branding: Conceptual insights and research priorities. Journal of Retailing, 80 (4), 331-342.
In article      View Article
 
[5]  Leone, R.P. et al. (2006). “Linking Brand Equity to Customer Equity, Journal of Service Research”, 9 (2), pp. 125-138.
In article      View Article
 
[6]  Brodie R.J. and Motion, J., 2012, The benefits of manufacturer brands to retailers, European Journal of Marketing, 46 (9): 1127-1149.
In article      View Article
 
[7]  Glynn, M.S., Motion, J.M., and Brodie, R.J. (2007). “Sources of Brand Benefits in Manufacturer-Reseller B2B Relationships”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 22 (6), pp. 400-9.
In article      View Article
 
[8]  Ruekert, R.W. and Churchill, G.A. Jr (1984). “Reliability and Validity of Alternative Measures of Channel Member Satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (2), pp. 226-33.
In article      View Article
 
[9]  Biong, H. (1993). “Satisfaction and Loyalty to Suppliers within the Grocery Trade”, European Journal of Marketing, 27 (7), pp. 31-8.
In article      View Article
 
[10]  Aurier, P., and Lanauze, G., (2011). "Impacts of in‐store manufacturer brand expression on perceived value, relationship quality and attitudinal loyalty", International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 39 (11), pp.810-835.
In article      View Article
 
[11]  Forslund, H., (2014). "Exploring logistics performance management in supplier/retailer dyads", International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 42 (3), pp. 205-218.
In article      View Article
 
[12]  Lennerts, S., Eisend, M., Lieven, T., Molner, S., Brexendorf, T. and Tomczak, T., (2016). “The Power of Innovativeness in Manufacturer-Retailer Relationships”, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 23 (3).
In article      View Article
 
[13]  Ailawadi, K. L., Bradlow, E. T., Draganska, M., Rooderkerk, R., Sudhir, K., Wilbur, K., and Zhang, J., (2010). “Empirical models of manufacturer-retailer interaction: A review and agenda for future research”, Marketing Letters 21 (3), pp 273-285.
In article      View Article
 
[14]  Chimhundu, R., McNeill, L. S. and Hamlin, R. P. (2015). “Manufacturer and retailer brands: Is strategic coexistence the norm?”, Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 23 (1).
In article      View Article
 
[15]  Kotler, P. (1991). “Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control”, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
In article      
 
[16]  Tran, Q. and Cox, C. (2009). “Chapter 4: Building Brand Equity between Manufacturers and Retailers. In Glynn M. S. and Woodside, A. G. ed. Business-To-Business Brand Management: Theory, Research and Executive case study Exercises”, Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing, (15), Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 115-194.
In article      PubMed
 
[17]  Fairhurst, A. E., and Fiorito, S. S. (1990). “Retail Buyers’ Decision Making Process: An Investigation of Contributing Variables”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 1 (1), pp. 87-100.
In article      View Article
 
[18]  Buchanan, L., Simmons C. J. and Bickart, B.A. (1999), “Brand equity dilution: retailer display and context effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 34, 355.
In article      
 
[19]  Ulaga, W. and Chacour, S. (2001). “Measuring Customer-Perceived Value in Business Markets”, Industrial Marketing Management, 30, pp. 525-540.
In article      View Article
 
[20]  Rao, V.R. and McLaughlin, E.W. (1989). “Modelling the Decision to Add New Products by Channel Intermediaries”, Journal of Marketing, 53 (4), pp. 80-8.
In article      View Article
 
[21]  Murry, J.P. and Heide, J.B. (1998). “Managing Promotion Program Participation within Manufacturer-Retailer Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, 62 (1), pp. 58-68.
In article      
 
[22]  Montgomery, D.B. (1975). “New Product Distribution: An Analysis of Supermarket Buyer Decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (3), pp. 255-264.
In article      View Article
 
[23]  Duncan, T., (2002). “IMC: Using Advertising and Promotion to Build Brands Marketing Series”, McGraw-Hill: Irwin Series in Marketing.
In article      
 
[24]  Glynn, M.S., Motion, J.M., and Brodie, R.J. (2012). “The Benefits of Manufacturer Brands to Retailers”, European Journal of Marketing, 46 (9), pp.1127-1149.
In article      View Article
 
[25]  Gassenheimer, J.B. and Ramsey, R. (1994). “The Impact of Dependence on Dealer Satisfaction: A Comparison of Reseller-Supplier Relationships”, Journal of Retailing, 70 (3), pp. 253-266.
In article      View Article
 
[26]  Webster, F.E. (2000). “Understanding the Relationships among Brands, Consumers, and Resellers”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), pp. 17-23.
In article      View Article
 
[27]  Jacoby, J. and Mazursky, D. (1984). “Linking Brand and Retailer Images: Do the Potential Risks Outweigh the Potential Benefits?”, Journal of Retailing, 60, pp. 105-122.
In article      
 
[28]  Porter, S.S. and Claycomb, C. (1997). “The Influence of Brand Recognition on Retail Store Image”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 6 (6), pp. 373-87.
In article      View Article
 
[29]  Verbeke, W., Bagozzi, R.P., and Farris, P. (2006). “The Role of Key Account Programs, Trust, and Brand Strength on Resource Allocation in the Channel of Distribution”, European Journal of Marketing, 40 (5), pp. 502-32.
In article      View Article
 
[30]  Buchanan, L., Simmons, C.J., and Bickart, B.A. (1999). “Brand Equity Dilution: Retailer Display and Context Effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (3), pp. 345-55.
In article      View Article
 
[31]  Nilsson, J. (1977). “Purchasing by Swedish Grocery Chains”, Industrial Marketing Management, 6 (5), pp. 317-328.
In article      View Article
 
[32]  Gagliano, K.B. and Hathcote, J. (1994) “Customer Expectations and Perceptions of Service Quality in Retail Apparel Specialty Stores”, Journal of Services Marketing, 8 (1), pp. 60-69.
In article      View Article
 
[33]  Emerson, C.J. and Grimm, C.M. (1999) “Buyer-Seller Customer Satisfaction: The Influence of the Environment and Customer Service”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 14 (5), pp. 403-15.
In article      View Article
 
[34]  Kumar, N. (1996). “The Power of Trust in Manufacturer Retailer Relationships”, Harvard Business Review, November/December, pp. 92-106.
In article      
 
[35]  Delgado, E., Munuera, J.L. and Yagüe, M.J. (2003), “Development and validation of a brand trust scale”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 35-54.
In article      
 
[36]  Ganesan, S., (1994). “Determinates of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationship”, Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), pp. 1-19.
In article      View Article
 
[37]  Kaufman, P., Jayachandran, S. and Rose, R.L. (2006). “The Role of Relational Embeddedness in Retail Buyers’ Selection of New Products”, Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (4), pp. 580-587.
In article      View Article
 
[38]  Selnes, F. (1998). “Antecedents and Consequences of Trust and Satisfaction in Buyer-Seller Relationships”, European Journal of Marketing, 32 (3), pp. 305-22.
In article      View Article
 
[39]  Frazier, G., Gill, J.D., and Kale, S.H. (1989). “Dealer Dependence Levels and Reciprocal Actions in a Channel of Distribution in a Developing Country”, Journal of Marketing, 53 (1), pp. 50-69.
In article      View Article
 
[40]  Jap, S. D. (1999), “Pie-Expansion Efforts: Collaboration Processes in Buyer-Supplier Relationships”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 461-475.
In article      
 
[41]  Kumar, N., Stern, L.W., and Achrol, R.S. (1992). “Assessing Reseller Performance from the Perspective of the Supplier”, Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (2), pp. 238-253.
In article      View Article
 
[42]  Ramzy, O, James, R.O., (2012), The Egyptian retailing industry”. Journal of international Business Economy, 11(3): 1, 2, 5.
In article      
 
[43]  Kwiatkowski, F., Girard, M., Hacene, K., and Berlie, J. (2000). “A Suitable Statistical Software Adapted for Research in Oncology”, Bulletin du Cancer, 87 (10), pp. 715-721.
In article      PubMed
 
[44]  Bandalos, D.L. (2014). Relative performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 102-116.
In article      View Article
 
[45]  Saunders, John, and F A.W. Watt. (1979). “Do Brand Names Differentiate Identical Industrial Products?”, Industrial Marketing Management, 8, pp. 114-123.
In article      View Article
 
[46]  Jalilvand, M.R. & Samiei, N. (2012). The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth on Brand Image and Purchase Intention. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1-11.
In article      View Article
 
[47]  Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives," Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55. Jöreskog.
In article      View Article
 
[48]  Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60.
In article      
 
[49]  Mac Callum, R. C., 1996, Power Analysis and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling, Psychological Methods, the American Psychological Association, Inc. 1996, Vol, I, No. 2. 13.
In article      
 
[50]  Cronin, J. J., Brady, M.K., and Hult, G.T.M. (2000). “Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments”, Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), pp. 193-218.
In article      View Article
 
[51]  Singh, J. and Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). “Agency and Trust Mechanisms in Consumer Satisfaction and Loyalty Judgments”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), pp. 150-167.
In article      View Article
 
[52]  Narus, J. A., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). Strengthen Distributor Performance Through Channel Positioning. Sloan Management Review, 29, 31-40.
In article      
 
[53]  Aaker, D.A. (1991). “Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name” New York: The Free Press.
In article