Does brand loyalty influence double jeopardy? A theoretical and empirical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Compared with the large brands, not only do the small brands attract fewer customers but also their customers buy them less frequently. This twin disadvantage of the less popular brands is termed “double jeopardy” (DJ). Earlier studies on the DJ effect have generally explained this as a behavioral phenomenon relating to the size structure of the market. This article aims to argue that the DJ effect is also influenced by the relationship between consumer choice antecedents and consumer buying behavior. Design/methodology/approach Using consumer attitudinal and behavioral data on various toothpaste brands collected by a leading consumer goods company, it is shown that small brands are jeopardized in terms of individual‐level choice antecedents of both loyal and switching consumers. In particular, small brands are further jeopardized for brand=switching consumers in terms of weaker attitude‐choice relationship. Findings The research findings have significant managerial implications. the research suggests that double jeopardy of small brands may not be as irreversible phenomenon posited. A more in‐depth understanding of the individual‐level antecedents of consumer choice should help small brands to develop innovative offensive and defensive strategies aimed at favorable individual choice antecedents of loyal and switching consumers. For example, it may be prudent for a small brand to concentrate on a selected few segments (such as brand‐loyal segments) instead of spreading scarce brand resources across scattered promotion and distribution strategies. Originality/value Examines the choice antecedents of consumers who either are loyal to a brand or are brand switchers.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".