| dc.description.abstract | Introduction: This research paper investigated the extent to which value propositions-the
summation of the brand's functional, emotional and self-expressive benefits that bring value
to the customer-affect tea brand choices. The paper sought to resolve tea brand managers'
dilemma: whether or not tea by any other name tastes the same. As tea brand marketers
continuously search for unique identities for their teas, their marketing strategy increasingly
becomes fixated on price-the first sign of a brand sliding into a faceless commodity. For tea
brand managers, the search for differentiation becomes somewhat of a "holy grail," as
consumers fail to distinguish in their minds one tea brand from another.
The study examined one way of achieving differentiation of tea brands: value proposition. It
is based on the premise that brand-building initiatives produce distinct identity for tea brand
rather than tea product. Hence, the association that a consumer makes with the brand-if
directly linked to actual product differences-provides a compelling reason to buy and build
loyalty. This way, consumers get attracted to the branded product rather than another
unbranded, factory-door version or own-label tea alternatives. In view of that, brand identity
provides additional cues to drive purchase decisions.
Methodology: 118 households in Nairobi's Golf Course area were randomly sampled to
examine choice of tea brands in the Kenyan market. Homemakers were asked to evaluate
how they perceived benefits their favourite brands offered. Flagship brands-each from tea
packing firms that sold more than 100,000 kilogrammes in 2005-were presented to
respondents. Using importance of benefits sought scales, respondents were asked to select
their favourite brands, indicating how important or unimportant to them features/benefits in
the brand's value proposition were. Likert-type scales were used to measure brand attitude
and satisfaction indices.
Results: Of the three value proposition mix elements, functional attributes of tea brands were
found to drive most purchase decisions (71.8%). Emotional (57.3%) and self-expressive
(51.3%) features were to a lesser extent important. On the correlation between the elements
of value proposition mix, Spearman's rho showed a low, but significant correlation between
functional and emotional benefits (rho=0.266, P<0.05). A higher correlation (rho=0.340) was
apparent between functional and self-expressive benefits. Emotional and self-expressive
benefits were equally significantly correlated (rho=0.336).
Theoretical and Practical Implications: Clearly, tea buyers consider product functionality
(does the product do what Ineed it to do?) first before thinking about its emotional appeal
(does it appeal to me emotionally) and then differentiation (how is its different from other
products T could substitute it for). By optimally combining functional, emotional and selfexpressive
attributes that resonate well with a given target market, tea firms should discover
unique value package that drives the tea consumer, and realise more value from their
promotion budgets and, in the long-term, succeed in building market share locally and
regionally.
Limitations: The study conclusions are based on sample drawn from an urban income
segment, and therefore cannot be generalised nationally. However, it provides a basis for a
more generalisable national study, to inform promotional decisions in the tea industry and
government policy on tea value-addition. The findings should also spur further academic
research on whether or not tea by any other name tastes the same. | en |
