Unique selling proposition for community pharmaciesFor assignment help please contact

at help@hndassignmenthelp.co.uk or hndassignmenthelp@gmail.com 

Despite community pharmacies crucial job of advising customers, and

providing medication and healthcare products, they are coming under

increased pressure from larger retail pharmacy chains (Schmidt and

Pioch, 2005). However, it is not only pressure from large retail

pharmacies that is affecting them, some of the pressure also comes from

supermarket chains that have their own in store pharmacists. The real

issue that community pharmacists face is developing a unique selling

proposition that meets the needs and requirements of the pharmacies

current and future clientele while at the same time developing

relationships with them, and therefore strengthening their loyalty with

the store (Schmidt and Pioch, 2005). This unique selling proposition can

be communicated by the pharmacy to the public through branding.

Kapferer (2008) states that there is more to branding than just naming a

product or service and letting the public see that it has been stamped

with the logo and imprint of a certain organisation. Instead he insists that

branding involves long-term association, a large amount of commitment

as well as good resources and skills. Wood (2000) states that it is

essential that the management of brands is carried out strategically

because when a consumer is making a purchase decision a brand is

regularly the main reason for differentiation between competitive

offerings, therefore the branding of a product is crucial to the success of

a company. Kapferer (2008) believes that brands make the choice for the

consumer easier, the leading brand on the market is obviously well

known, used, and purchased by a lot of people therefore it is presumed

that the product is very good if not the best on the market, this reduces

the likelihood of customers choosing alternative brands. Kara et al.

(2009) shares this belief by stating that brands can give confidence to

customers when making purchase decisions; purchasing a well known

brand implies a lower risk to the customer.

Brands are developed in ways to promote positive images, values and

prestige, if a customer uses a certain brand it is saying something about

what kind of lifestyle they have and can generate a positive identity for

them (Ginden, 1993, Cited in Rooney, 1995). Woods (2000) adds that a

brands image is customized to meet a target markets need and wants by

using the four P's of marketing (product, place, price, and promotion).

Consequently, the success of the use of this method depends on the

customer's loyalty to the brand. In addition, the value of a brand is also

depending on loyalty; if customers are loyal to your brand then this will

guarantee future sales and therefore future cash flows (Wood, 2000).

From Woods' (2000) belief of using the four P's of marketing to position

your brand he points out that each element of the marketing mix is

important when sending out your brands message. For example the price

of a brand says a lot about the prestige associated with it. However,

Jenkinson (1995, p.116) believes that "real brand quality comes from an

emotional bond created by trust, dialogue, frequency, ease of use and a

sense of value and added satisfaction. Loyalty is the reflection of a

customer's subconscious emotional and psychological need to find a

constant source of value, satisfaction and identity". To create a brand

image the customers must first of all be made aware that the brand exists

and once you have distinguished your particular brand from the others, it

is easier to develop its image (Rooney, 1995).

If we wish to examine how successful a particular brand is it is important

to look at its brand equity. "Brand equity is the current financial value of

the flow of future profits attached to the brand itself" (Kapferer, 2008,

p.143). Kapferer (2008) states that brands have developed their financial

value because they have created a lasting impression in the minds and

hearts of influential characters as well as customers. Spence and

Essoussi (2010) proposes that differences in consumers' knowledge of a

certain brand changes their responses to marketing activities, for

example; a strong brand is one in which customers respond more

favourably to marketing activities when the brand is identified, compared

to when it is not. Therefore, to build a successful brand the management

must create and develop a positive brand identity (Spence and Essoussi,

2010).

In 1993, Wentz and Suchard pointed out that firms were applying

branding to more unfamiliar settings where the role of branding is

becoming more popular (Cited in Rooney, 1995). This is obvious in the

area of pharmacy branding, Schmidt and Pioch acknowledged in 2005

that independent pharmacies constitute more than half of the pharmacy

retail market in the UK. Extreme polarisation is seen in the market: it is

greatly concentrated on one side, with the highly branded Boots, Lloyds

and other big names at the forefront of the market, and on the other side

divided into a great number of small and medium sized enterprises

(Schmidt and Pioch, 2005). See Figure 1 for a detailed view of the market

concentration.

(Figure 1: Source: Schmidt and Pioch, 2005)

A study by Clark and White (2009) examined the attitudes of members of

the Australian retail pharmacy industry) to potential entry by one or

more powerful competitors. This study showed that the retail pharmacy

market in Australia is similar to that in the UK (see figure 1). However,

unlike the UK market the Australian pharmacy guild has an agreement

with their government which ensures that retail pharmacies are the only

channel for distribution of prescription drugs (Clark and White, 2009).

They state that in Australia "approximately 45 per cent of pharmacies are

members of a branded chain or banner group" whereas approximately

80% of their grocery industry is held by only 3 companies- making it the

most highly concentrated industry in the developed world (Clarke and

White, 2009, p.281). Factors like these cause many small businesses to

close and discourage new pharmacies from opening. Clark and White

(2009) add that the Australian supermarket industry has pressured the

government to open the supply of prescription pharmaceuticals to them

but have so far not been successful. This would lead to supermarket

chains becoming powerful players in the distribution of medicines,

similar to the UK market. "A dominant brand is an entry barrier to

competitors because it acts as a reference in its category" (Kapferer,

2008, p.24). In other words the dominating and leading brand sets the

standards for new competitors on the market.

Schmidt and Pioch (2005) found that small to medium sizes retail

pharmacies were not making use of branding and add that branding,

when thought of in respect to retail, can take many different forms, for

example, store brands, store sub-brands, and use of national brands.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons that supermarkets in store pharmacies

are becoming more successful. In 2007, sales of own-brands accounted

for 49% of grocery sales in the UK and over 20% in the USA (marketing,

2007). Distributors' brands, in the past, were thought of as 'non-brands',

and these seamed to attract only price sensitive customers (Kapferer,

2008). However, retailer own-brands are now ranked as top brands in

many categories (Huang and Huddleston, 2009). Huang and Huddleston

(2009) suggest that the change we see today in relation to own brands

comes from the fact that retailers are now keen to develop and market

their own-brands rather than just passively distributing the main national

brands. Researchers seem to agree on an emerging pattern when

referring to own-brands and even though the old variety of low price, low

quality retailer own-brands do still exist, the new general trend has been

to go form low price, low- to high-quality products (Huang and

Huddleston, 2009). In the current era own brands now vary their range

to attempt to cover different price levels from low to high compared to

national brands, they also make use of new emerging needs known as

'trends' for example Tesco Fair Trade, Tesco Organic, and Tesco Healthy

Eating (Kapferer, 2008). According to Huang and Huddleston's (2009)

positioning of retailer own-brands graph (see figure 2) there are 3 types

of retailer own brands.

ImageFigure 1Positioning of retailer own-brands

(Figure 2: Source: Huang and Huddleston, 2009)

According to Corstjens and Corstjens (1995) generics give consumers the

lowest possible price by cutting out all expenses on advertising,

packaging, and marketing. Corstjens and Corstjens (1995) state that the

majority of generic goods are basic, functional products and often have a

commodity-style presentation with minimalist black and white packaging.

Generics do not compete with national brands; instead they are available

as product alternatives for them, and usually have lower quality and

inferior image compared to national brands (Laaksonen and Reynolds,

1994).

Mimic brands are the largest group on the market; these were made to

directly compete with national brands on the market by mimicking them

(Huang and Huddleston, 2009). Mimic brands aim to have an acceptable

quality while at the same time being cheaper than national brands, they

often have similar packaging and are available mainly to offer

alternatives to the more expensive national brands (Burt and Davis,

1999). There have been many occasions in the past were the

manufactures of national brands have taken legal action against the

mimic brand manufacturers because the product was so similar to the

national brand (Huang and Huddleston, 2009).

The third types are retailer own-brands. The most common of retailer

own-brands, are premium own-brands (Huang and Huddleston, 2009).

According to Huang and Huddleston (2009) the introduction of premium

own-brands was aimed to provide customers with a high value-added

product with a modern design and sometimes even better quality than

leading national brands. Often premium own-brands are not priced lower

that national brands (Laaksonen and Reynolds, 1994). Huang and

Huddleston (2009) state that in the UK the use of these premium own-

brands is increasing rapidly, they are earning widespread acceptance

and they can now compete with leading national brands which gives the

consumers a range of brands to choose from. Davies (1998) states that

when the store brand name is based on quality appeal then it will be

easier to market the own-brand as a premium product (Cited in Schmidt

and Pioch, 2005); an example of this is the branding of Marks and

Spencer's own-brand products.

However, Rao and Monroe (1989) provided a model form a study relating

price, perceived quality, perceived sacrifice, perceived value, and

willingness to buy. In this model they confirmed that price has both

objective external properties and subjective internal representations that

are derived from the perception of price: higher prices lead to a higher

perceived quality and to greater willingness to buy (Cited in Kara et al.

2009). Therefore consumers may be wary about the quality of a product

if the price is too low. According to Kim and Sung (2009) when customers

are purchasing a drug such as a pain reliever they often question

whether they should choose a generic or a brand name drug. They say

that if pharmacists were asked about the differences between generic

and brand drugs they might say there is little difference, except for the

name and price. This is because, according to the US Food and Drug

Administration 'a generic drug is identical or bioequivalent to a brand

name drug in dosage form, safety strength, route of administration,

quality, performance characteristics and intended use' (Cited in Kim and

Sung, 2009). Therefore when purchasing branded drugs like these the

consumer is clearly only choosing the brand name because of their

loyalty to the brand or perception of quality they have built around the

brand. Geuens (2004) also believes that store brand and private labels

are becoming increasingly popular and there is continued decreasing

differentiation between competitive offers these days, therefore having a

strong brand name can make a huge difference in customer purchase

decisions.

In consumer behaviour research, a considerable amount of attention has

been given to the construct 'brand personality'; this refers to the set of

human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker, 1997). Halliday

(1996) says that practitioners view brand personality as a key way to

differentiate a brand in a product category (Cited in Aaker, 1997).

Research has shown that brand personality can even be applied to

medicines; doctors and specialists can attribute human personality traits

to different medicines. Kapferer (2008) found that some of the

personality traits the experts attributed to drugs were linked with

prescription levels. Kapferer (2008) states that; a product (an active

ingredient) cannot be given personality traits whereas a brand can.

Therefore, brands of drugs do have a mental existence and influence in

the minds of the prescribers (Kapferer, 2008). The study also found that

although experts recognised that products themselves are identical and

that brands of these products are the same in the functional benefits they

deliver the experts still prescribed one brand three times more

frequently than the other (Kapferer, 2008). This shows that even in

professional sectors, brands are a psychological reality, which are

present even in the minds of rational decision makers (Kapferer, 2008).

Another factor to consider when examining a company's branding is its

corporate social responsibility. This is a growing concern among firms

due to the populations increased interest in eco-friendly goods. Ethics

show that buyers are expecting, more and more, responsible behaviours

from their brands (Kapferer, 2008). Companies are showing willingness

to demonstrate socially responsible behaviour, as this may have an effect

on the socio-economic context in which they operate, as well as on their

own performance (Morsing and Perrini, 2009). Of course it matters

greatly whether multi-national companies have good ethical business

practices and strong social responsibility however it is also an issue for

small business to address. There are many ways SMEs can engage in

corporate social responsibility: "formal engagement, networking within

and across sectors, volunteerism and giving to charity provide an

extremely fruitful opportunity to invest in social capital, cultivating close

relationships within the social and business environment" (Morsing and

Perrini, 2009, p.3).

Customers may choose to shop in larger stores in comparison to small

chains to take advantage of their loyalty/ Club cards. Loyalty cards are

even more valuable to shoppers since the economic downturn. According

to Colloqy (a US loyalty marketing research and education firm) retail

pharmacy sales have increased 1.5% last year (according to data

published in 2009) despite the fact that sales were declining in most

retail sectors. Experts in the US suggest that this industry is strong and

will see continued growth due to the ageing of the population and the

increase of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure

Blank, 2009). Reward and loyalty cards are becoming increasingly

popular in all types of retail environments. Customers can collect 'points'

from purchasing goods or services from pharmacies (Boots advantage

card), Supermarkets (Tesco club card), airlines (Virgin Atlantic airlines

flying club), as well as hotels, clothing stores, hardware stores etc. Blank

(2009) states that, in the US, membership of drug chains in retail reward

programs now account for the largest share of all US loyalty programs

and that these schemes expand the sales of both pharmacy orders and in-

store products.

Liesse (1990) states that; brands that constantly advertise and regularly

change and update their product will excel in their industries and;

companies that believe in outstanding advertising are those who build

leadership brands (Cited in Rooney, 1995). A study carried out by Kim

and Sung (2009) about purchase-decision involvement stated that if

brand names carry a great weight for consumers looking at a certain

product category then they will make their purchase decision based

mainly on brand names and in this case product-decision involvement

would be high because of the importance of the brand. They also stated

that when a customer is loyal to a brand and purchases the brand

regularly the person's product-decision involvement will still be high

because of the perceived strong difference between brands within a

product category (Kim and Sung, 2009). In contrast to this the state that

"if brand names do not meaningfully differentiate (in terms of value-

expressive motives) from other competing brands within a product

category (for example, some popular over-the-counter drugs), consumers

will make purchase decisions based on the utilitarian and functional

features of the product, regardless of brand names (Kim and Sung, 2009

p.511). Their research suggested that purchase- decision involvement

should be measured in terms of four different involvement constructs:

cognitive Vs affective involvement and product Vs brand involvement.

The cognitive Vs affective involvement is similar to the think product Vs

Feel products in the FCB (Foote, Cone, and Belding) grid for analysing

consumer product relationships (Vaughn, 1980). Kara et al. (2009)

suggest that the purchase and use of a product may evoke feeling,

emotions, or provide a means for a person's self expression and identity

formation. Kim and Sung (2009) describe the product Vs brand

involvement as 'utilitarian Vs value -expressive' (Kim and Sung, 2009).

They use the following example to further explain what is meant by this

type of involvement: a customer may be involved in their MP3 player

purchase decision out of many types and features (storage, sound,

design) of the products in the market, and he may also be involved in his

brand decision out of many different brands (Apple, Sony, etc.) (Kim and

Sung, 2009). Their study emphasises that if marketers know the varying

level and kind of involvement their customers have with their brands and

how (cognitively or affectively) their customers are involved with what

product attributes (product functionality or brand) then they could

develop optimal and effective marketing strategies (Kim and Sung, 2005).

Figure 2 shows the affective-cognitive purchase-decision involvement

plot.

http://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/imageqv/actual/g0u/

20090701/9039940.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNLe80Sepq84v

%2bbwOLCmr0iepq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS

(Figure 2: Source: Kim and Sung, 2009)

The Cognitive-Affective purchase- decision involvement is a tool which

allows researchers and practitioners to compare certain areas of

involvement not only within a product category but also across product

categories (Kim and Sung, 2009).

However, Schmidt and Pioch (2005) found that when pharmacists are

selling medicines they are guided by the ethics of not overcharging their

clients who are looked at as patients rather than consumers. In their

study they found that pharmacists are more focused on improving and

maintaining the services they offer as therapeutic experts than

maintaining a good retail environment. The respondents to their study

agreed that they were healthcare providers first and foremost, and the

retail side of thing come in with a poor second. Pharmacists see

themselves as service providers with a retail element, rather than as

retailers with a service element, which might be a more fitting

description of the competing brands of the multiples where typically the

pharmacy is the smaller section within a much larger commercially

oriented retail shop (Schmidt and Pioch, 2005). Similarly, Brower (2009)

states that one of the biggest sources of conflict between pharmacists

and store managers is a misunderstanding about their respective roles

and goals. Store managers may not understand the very strict rules

governing the pharmacy department and pharmacist practice. On one

hand, store managers often do not recognise customers as patients and

on the other, pharmacists do not recognise each patient as a store

customer (Brower, 2009). Brower (2009) states that the lack of business

education and experience often leaves pharmacists unprepared to meet

non-patient-orientated tasks like preparing a budget or managing

employee relations and suggests that pharmacists should complete a

management course while store managers in turn should understand the

legalities involved with operating a pharmacy.