Brand personality and customer trust in community pharmacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The community pharmacy industry is an increasingly competitive sector, where independent pharmacies must compete with national and multinational chains for market share. Each pharmacy seeks to differentiate and earn customer trust. The purpose of this paper is to seek to better understand the effectiveness of differentiating via developing a unique corporate brand personality in the pursuit of customer trust. Design/methodology/approach A survey was conducted in a small city in Western Canada. Patients who have recently filled a prescription were asked to assess their perceptions about the brand personality of the pharmacy they last visited, and evaluate how much they trust the pharmacy. Data were analyzed using SPSS and structural equation modeling (SEM). Findings The results indicated that significant brand personality differences exist among various types of pharmacies. Customers rated independent pharmacies slightly more trustworthy than multinational mass merchandise and national chain pharmacies. SEM analysis revealed that sincerity and competence have the most significant impact on building customer trust. Originality/value The findings suggest that independent pharmacies may be able to differentiate themselves by developing a brand personality that is competent and sincere, whereby they earn the trust from their customers. The authors' findings also suggest that a sophisticated appearance might be an expensive option that does not provide satisfactory return on the investment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".