The Effect of Brand Lovemark on Reusable Cups in Coffee Shops: Machine Use Intention, Willingness to Pay a Deposit, and Green Brand Loyalty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for inviting me to read this manuscript entitled "The Effect of Brand Lovemark on Reusable Cups in Coffee Shops: Machine Use Intention, Willingness to Pay a Deposit, and Green Brand Loyalty". 

The article is based on an interesting idea and presents an appropriate topic. The study that you present is well-organised research with theoretical background, methodology and analysis. The topic is certainly of interest to readers. 

Introduction and Theoretical background are well structured, but it might still require some work. Below you'll find my comments :

1.There is no rationale for sample size or sampling framework. How did the authors define the sampled population?  The readers need to know the sampling framework and recruitment process for the data collection. Representativeness of sample is a big issue in this research.

2. What kind of scales you used for your research to behavioral outcomes (i.e., green brand loyalty, willingness to pay a $1 deposit, and machine use intention) depending on the levels of brand lovemark (low vs. high) toward CSR practices.

3. In Literture Review section you have presented six hypotheses, H1a-H1c and H2a-H2c. Why were the hypotheses not included in the Methodology section?

You only mention in the text that H1 was supported (line 248) and H2 was supported (line 308). Does this mean that the remaining hypotheses have been confirmed or rejected?

4. In line 230 - you mention that of 233 respondents is reported in Table 2, it should be 263.

5. I lacked a real discussion section. The Discussion section should provide a literature review of studies published or accessed elsewhere. Please compare your research with similar studies to draw an adequate conclusion. It is crucial to improve the scientific level of this manuscript.

6. There is no the Conclusion section.  Why?

I believe that if you make the above mentioned changes, the paper could go further in the assesment of the paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Introduction

This paper analyzes in depth the behavior of coffee consumers emphasizing the role of behavioral determinants such as brand love, respect and the CSR dimension. Basically, the authors investigate the series of factors that influence the customers' predisposition to pay more for a coffee brand depending on the gender and the level of lovemark. The authors believe that identifying both the values and the predictors for the response to CSR practices of cafes will make it possible to take measures to increase the chances of success of CSR campaigns. Practically, a deeper understanding of the behavioral determinants can have a significant contribution to the sustainable development of cafes and the economy as a whole.

Theoretical background - The paper has a Literature review section that marks the theoretical context approached during the research. The authors conduct an in-depth investigation of concepts related to Lovemark Theory, CSR Practices on Consumer Behavioral Outcomes in the Coffee Shop Industry, Green Brand Loyalty, Gender Effects in CSR Practices. In this context, the 6 research hypotheses and the proposed research model are formulated. The analysis of specialized literature also captures the new trends in terms of bibliometric analyzes according to the key terms of the work. The authors also seek to identify a research gap that practically reflects the lack of research on the behavior of coffee consumers. Through the obtained results, the authors try to develop a holistic framework for the evaluation of behavioral determinants that can have a significant contribution to the sustainable development of coffee shops.

Method - The study of this paper is quantitative in nature and uses questionnaire for data collection. This study used a scenario-based experimental design on CSR practices in two coffeehouse brands (eg, Starbucks and Dunkin'). Participants were recruited from Qualtrics, an online survey and consumer panel company. Data were collected from a total of 263 respondents. To be eligible, 186 respondents had to have previously visited Starbucks or Dunkin'. Regarding the profile of the participants, a balanced gender distribution was confirmed: 52.9% of the respondents were men, the remaining 47.1% were women. Most respondents were between 31-40 (44.9%) years old, followed by 30 or under (35.4%) years old. Almost half of the respondents to the survey graduated from colleges, representing 49.4% of the total responses. And 31.6% of respondents had a dollar income between $40,000 and $59,999. Data analysis was performed with a complex statistical apparatus. The authors performed the independent t-test to demonstrate a significant mean difference in behavioral outcomes (eg, green brand loyalty, willingness to pay a $1 deposit according to lovemark levels (low vs. high) toward CSR practices. Also, confirmatory factor analysis with AMOS v.21.0 was used to assess constructs for convergent validity and discriminant validity and Pearson correlation analyzes were used to see the correlation between four ability variables in the data set.To test the main effect of lovemark and moderating role of gender on the relationship between lovemark and customer behavioral outcomes, this study used 290 PROCESS v.4.0 macro Model 1 developed by Hayes.

Result- Through the results of this study, the authors aim to provide some significant implications for a better understanding of consumer perceptions and attitudes towards CSR practices in the coffee industry, depending on the level of brand love and respect of customers. This research makes a theoretical contribution to the literature by using lovemark theory to fill knowledge gaps regarding the fluctuating relationship between CSR practices and customer behavioral responses in the coffee shop industry. The study also confirms the interaction effect between two levels of brand love (low vs. high) and gender (male vs. female) on behavioral outcomes (ie, green brand loyalty, willingness to pay a $1 deposit, and 339 intention to use the car). For marketing practitioners the study is a great opportunity for coffee shop managers to develop brand love by confirming the relationship between CSR practices and behavioral outcomes.

Conclusions - The authors do not obviously present the conclusions of their scientific approach. Practically, I suggest starting from the theoretical models initially assumed, validated or invalidated by means of the formulated hypotheses.

The social implications of the study are missing.

Reference - Authors cited relevant papers.

Overall - Globally, this work has significant merits to reveal different causal conditions leading to specific coffee consumer behaviors by considering customer engagement factors.

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your research. Sustainability is certainly an important area of research focus. However, from my read of your paper it is a very poor fit for this special issue. This has very little to do with food, and the contribution to sustainability research is minimal. The focus of the special issue is on food and  health, safety, and sustainability. This is only about how brand loyalty or love can mitigate any negative responses to brand behaviours. Thus, it is all about the brand, not the natural environment, nor the well-being of consumers, etc. I simply do not see the contribution to this special issue. In addition, overall I think the contribution of the research is minimal. it is pretty obvious that those with a strong love for these brands will also be loyal to them. Also, researchers have moved away from looking at demographics in this area.

Below please find some comments that may improve the research. I hope the authors find these helpful.

Literature

The discussion of the various constructs (CSR, green brand loyalty) should be before the hypotheses.

The support for the hypotheses is not sufficiently well developed. Also, isn't it pretty obvious that those who have strong love for the brand will also be loyal to it?

It is not clear to me what consumers would be paying a deposit for and what machine use you are referring to.

 You also need to show the hypothesised relationships in the Figure.

Method:

- "They have many loyal customers who frequently buy their brand and do not  switch to another brand regardless of the change in marketing strategy (Palazon & Del- 184 gado, 2009)." Doesn't this statement negate your hypotheses? From what you are saying it does not matter what these brands do as their loyal customers will stay with them...

You need to provide additional information on where the scales were drawn from. 

Why were demographics asked on a Likert 7-point scale?

Where was the study implemented?

Measures:

- This statement does not have anything to do with the reuseable cup tactic examined in the study, " would be prepared to pay deposit ($1) to be able to use Starbucks again."???

- This statement is double barrelled, " would be a customer of Starbucks even if it received deposit ($1) about its coffee cups, as long as it was reasonable."

- This statement makes no sense, " would accept the policy of paying a deposit ($1), because Starbucks provides match my expectations."

- Lovemark measure - Lovemarks are composed of two major pillars, brand love (i.e. mystery, sensuality and intimacy) and brand respect (i.e. trust, reputation and performance). (Song et al., 2019). How have you measured Lovemarks for these brands?

Why is there no control scenarios in your experiments?

Results:

Shouldn't 4.5 be placed before sections 4.3 and 4.4? You need to establish validity before you examine the hypothesised relationships.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper would benefit from professional editing, as there are many places where the writing is rather awkward.

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your interesting paper. It does have a place however it is all scenario-based and potentially flawed as participants often try and give the responses they think you want you to have.

Abstract: Please clearly identify the gap in the literature. Why is this paper important?

Line 25: Check for consistency in reference punctuation throughout the paper i.e concerns. (Ekasari, 2021).

Lines 25-27: please give evidence or reference at is a bold claim.

Line 62: do you have a definition of lovemark or just association with brand love and brand respect? Bring the definition from literature review to introduction.

Line 64: why identify $1 deposit or is it a deposit?

Machine use intention: please explain as is it the customer or the barista using the machine. I do not see how this fits at this stage?

 Lines 86-87: Can you list the papers in the hospitality industry for comparison if there are only a few.

Lines 88-89: be more specific, you are investigating coffee shops.

Lines 145-146: Why identify gender? Do you want more female customers or improve males perceptions?

Line 189: How did you identify them, Was it in store?

Line 192: gap in sentence.

Methodology still needs work. What weeks/months/years did the data collected? How long was each survey? Where under 18 years olds involved? 30 or under is too great compared your other age intervals.

Could the participants with draw from the study? If so how?

Was it busy eg lunchtime rush? You used two big brands that can be found everywhere in America. Is that brand loyalty, familiarity or convenience?

The results sections is well-written and easy to understand. 

The discussion section is really conclusion so please add this word to the title.

With reviewing each comment and spending more time of the methodology, this paper will be vastly improved. Remember, any reader should be able to read this study and replicate it exactly and currently the reader cannot do that.

Best wishes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are few grammatical errors which need to be proof-read again.

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for the revised version of this paper.

This paper is now more coherent and organised.

The authors have made amendments based on the comments of the reviewers. Thank you for your comments.

I do not see any warrant objections to its publication.

Author Response

Please see the attached. Thank you for your constructive feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please correct the following:

Minor Issues

This opening sentence is not clear. The coffee shop industry is booming with sales way up, so you need to be more specific about what “engagement” you are referring to.

"Despite significant coffee shops’ efforts to promote sustainable practices, customers’ actual  engagement in the coffee shop industry is still low."

 

“In addition, some Starbucks stores install cup return machines to reduce disposable cups”. Please add disposable “cup usage”, to this sentence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the writing could be improved in places.

Author Response

Please see the attached. Thank you for your constructive feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf