LOYALTY DEGREE OF MICROBREW CONSUMERS

82

83 Arguably, these numbers reveal a very high degree of aided awareness of the microbreweries competing in the market and thus it can be generally concluded that microbrew consumers as a minimum experience level 1 outcomes as seen through the revised PCM.

When consumers show traits of a distinct interest or initial attitude formation towards one or more brands, and use this/these to fulfill social and individual needs, they (as a minimum) are found in the attraction process and experience the level 2 outcomes of loyalty.

Based upon the data gathered it becomes evident that microbrew for many consumers is a product that is a part of social occasions and thus fulfill a purpose when consumed, as it is a natural part of evenings with snacks and food, and other social gatherings at bars, restaurants, etc., as the majority of the respondents claim to use microbrew in such a manner (see question 14). That the majority of the respondents claimed to enjoy sharing microbrew with other and introducing them to new microbrew further substantiates the notion of the social utility achieved by sharing the experience of consuming quality beer (see question 16). Furthermore, the liking of introducing friends and family to types of microbrew substantiates the presence of social situational factors, as consumers may act as ambassadors by encouraging others to undertake trail of one or more brands.

Additionally, 77 % claim to like using microbrew as a topic of conversation, thereby highlighting the social functions it serves and that e.g. either talking about a microbrew or experiencing that your guests enjoy the brew being served, fulfill the dispositional need of belonging and social interaction (see questions 17 and 21). Simultaneously, microbrew is used by half the respondents as a reward to oneself after undertaking a certain task, while 72 % take pleasure in drinking a microbrew alone and enjoy its taste and character. Thereby, hedonic motives are present as a driver of consumption, as individuals take pleasure in enjoying a microbrew alone and to do so in the company of others.

Of the respondents 69% said to have at least one preferred brewery, which in itself supports the notion of a high ratio of consumers to be found in the attraction process as a minimum, and when arguing as for why these breweries were preferred the respondents revealed the typical reasons as to why they have started to form an attitude towards these brands and thus a liking for them (see question 22). The overriding argument for why a given microbrewery was preferred was unsurprisingly taste. As trivial as this may seem, it none the less marks a connection between the consumer and the brand as the consumer find that the brand can fulfill his or her needs and thereby agree to their perception of quality. On a similar note two thirds of the respondents stated the

84 product portfolio as a reason for preferring a given microbrewery, thereby again admitting to trusting the brand to be able to live up to its promise of quality. As for reasons that were more explicitly tied to the consumers’ personality and were frequently named as arguments, were those of brewing method and region of the brewery, thus fulfilling a psychological need in terms of e.g.

having the same values (region-wise) and respectively being able to claim agreement to the knowledge of how to produce quality beer via the brewing method (see question 24).

Based upon the findings that have been highlighted in relation to the process of attraction it is found that the majority of microbrew consumers do undergo the attraction process and as many as 69%

have explicitly stated that they have one or a few preferred brands (see question 22) that are utilized and consumed as to fulfill and achieve level 2 based outcomes such as social needs and the resulting psychological satisfaction that is derived thereof. However, having concluded this, the next step becomes to determine whether the attraction towards a select or a few brands can be seen to have evolved into an attachment.

For a consumer to experience the attachment process the individual need to have formed a meaningful psychological connection with a brand that makes it hard to substitute, offers a strong attitude towards it and identification with the brand and its values.

As previously have been touched upon, 87% of the respondents do not exercise store loyalty as they do not go to the same retailer when buying microbrew see question 7). The variety in purchase behaviour stands to argue for consumers being exposed to different microbrew brands per store and an increasing number of different brands as store behaviour is not consistent. Simultaneously, it is worth noticing that only 13 % percent decide upon which microbrew to buy before arriving at the store, which argues for a low degree of top of mind awareness of their preferred brand, should they have one (see question 9). Combined these two points argue for an attitude towards the given brand that is not strong, as the consumer is not purposely planning to buy it nor acting to do so.

The aforementioned can be said to show traits of low ideal attachment to the preferred brand(s), that the consumers none the less are attracted to as shown in previous section, and the low degree of attachment is further highlighted when considering substitutability. An amazing high 95 % believe that they can find the same quality and experience with another microbrewery than their preferred and as such, it stands to reason that the majority of the respondents do not have a psychological connection to their preferred brand that make it non substitutable (see question 23).

85 Conversely, 22% of the respondents of the respondents stated that they had a single preferred microbrewery, and named it, and thereby showing an outspoken attachment. This stands in juxtaposition to above notions and given the substitutability of the preferred brand, it must be assumed that naming a preferred microbrewery does not automatically imply strong attachment.

Therefore, it is found that the majority of the respondents are found to be attracted to one or several brands, while some of these are likely to show traits of attachment without displaying the outcomes of such loyalty. Thus, it is concluded that the respondents in the survey primarily are undergoing the attraction process and experience the outcomes of this as found in level 2 of the revised PCM. As such, a handling of the ultimate state of loyalty, allegiance and the outcomes of this, hereby projecting on the subject, will not be assessed. Rather, emphasis will from hereon be placed on utilizing the knowledge about the attraction process and how to strengthen this process and ultimately ensure a progression towards to the attachment process, as well as, generating an enhanced process towards those stages by addressing the awareness process.