Quality Labeling as Instrument to Create Product Equity: The Case of IKB in the Netherlands

  • Hans C. M. van Trijp
  • Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp
  • Math J. J. M. Candel


In response to the problems associated with intensifying competition and slow growth in the demand for food, European businesses increasingly attempt to add value to the agricultural raw material. To adopt a successful differentiation strategy, they must make the transition from the well-known product-oriented approach to marketing (based on homogenization, and cost minimization through economies of scale) to a consumer-oriented approach (identifying and meeting the needs of particular groups of consumers). The best performing companies demonstrate an unwavering focus upon the market place and relate all their operating decisions to the dictates of customer needs. The strategic reorientation of agribusiness coincides with consumer trends demanding higher quality than ever before. Therefore, differentiation on product attributes that consumers deem important may be a viable strategy to agribusiness.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, Ralph I. and Kenneth P. Uhl (1964), “Influence of Beer Brand Identification on Taste Perception,” Journal of Marketing Research, 1, 36–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buzell, Robert D. and Bradley T. Gale (1987), The PIMS principles: Linking Strategy to Performance. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cunningham, Scott M. (1967), “The Major Dimensions of Perceived Risk.” in Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, D.F. Cox, ed. Boston, Ma: Harvard University Press, 82–108.Google Scholar
  5. Engel, James F. and Roger D. Blackwell (1982), Consumer Behavior, 4th ed. Chicago: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hoyer, Wayne D. and Stephen P. Brown (1990), “Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat-purchase Product,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jacoby, Jacob and Robert W. Chestnut (1978), Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Janiszewski, Chris (1988), “Preconscious Processing Effects: The Independence of Attitude Formation and Conscious Thought,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meulenberg, Matthias T.G. and Maarten Kool (1994), “Chain Marketing of Agricultural Products,” in Management Studies and the Agribusiness 1994, Geoffrey Hagelaar ed. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Agricultural University, Department of Management Studies, 325–36.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, J.A., D.G. Topel and R.E. Rust (1976), “USDA Beef Grading: A Failure in Consumer Information?” Journal of Marketing, 40, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Oude Ophuis, Peter A.M. (1994), “Sensory Evaluation of ”Free Range“ and Regular Pork Meat under Different Conditions of Experience and Awareness,” Food Quality and Preference, 5(3), 173–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Porter, Michael E. (1980), Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Rossiter, John R. and Larry Percy (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (1986), Kwaliteitsbeoordeling van Vleeswaren [Quality Perception of Meat Products], Rijswijk, The Netherlands: Commodity Board for Livestoch and Meat.Google Scholar
  15. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (1989), Product Quality: An Investigation into the Concept and how it is Perceived by Consumers. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  16. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (1990), “A Conceptual Model of the Quality Perception Process,” Journal of Business Research, 21(4), 309–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Hans C.M. van Trijp (1989), “A Methodology for Estimating the Maximum Price Consumers are Willing to Pay in Relation to Perceived Quality and Consumer Characteristics,” Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 1 (2), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Van Trijp, Hans C.M. (1991), Het imago van vleessoorten bij de Nederlandse Consument [The Image of Meat Types among Dutch Consumers]. Rijswijk, The Netherlands: Commodity Board for Livestock and MeatGoogle Scholar
  19. Zajonc, Robert B. (1980), “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need no Inferences,” American Psychologist, 35, 151–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zusman, P. (1967), “A Theoretical Basis for Determination of Grading and Sorting Schemes,” Journal of Farm Economics, 49, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans C. M. van Trijp
    • 1
  • Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp
    • 2
    • 4
  • Math J. J. M. Candel
    • 3
  1. 1.Unilever Research LaboratoryVlaardingenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Catholic University of LeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Marketing and Marketing Research of WangeninngenMarketing Research of Wageningen Agricultural UniversityThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Marketing and Marketing Research of Wangeninngen Agricultural UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations