RESEARCH

PAPERS
in
Retailing

Not for quotation or

citation without the express
permission of the author.

ISSN 0265 9778

Steve Burt is Professor of Retail Marketing at the University of Stirling, STIRLING FK9
4LA and Jos Carralero-Encinas is a postgraduate student at the University of Stirling.

Research Paper 9901

THE ROLE OF STORE
IMAGE IN RETAIL
INTERNATIONALISATION
Steve Burt & Jos Carralero-Encinas

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this research paper are the responsibility of the authors alone.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

2
The Role of Store Image in Retail Internationalisation

Abstract

Recent work on the internationalisation of retailing has focused on a number of themes such
as the motives for internationalisation, the geographical flows of investment, the impact of
internationalisation upon host environments, and methods and typologies of investment. Less
attention has been paid to the process of internationalisation per se. This paper argues that for
many retailers, competitive advantage in the home market has been based upon the
development of strong store and corporate images as retailers strive to develop themselves as
brands in their own right. The construction of store image, comprising both tangible and
intangible dimensions, compounds problems of moving into international markets - as
consumers in the host environment are less familiar with the intangible dimensions of image,
which have been built up over time with exposure to the retail company. Retail companies
therefore need to fully understand the importance of image in competitive positioning and the
components of store image before attempting to replicate this image and positioning overseas.
This paper explores these issues with reference to Marks and Spencer and the companys entry
into the Spanish market. A survey of customer perceptions of a range of store image
attributes in the UK and Spain, reveals differences and similarities in perceptions, which must
be managed if a standardised position is to be sought in the host market.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

4
The Role of Store Image in Retail Internationalisation
Introduction

This paper seeks to explore the role of store image in the retail internationalisation process.
As retailers in domestic markets are developing their brand image as the key source of
competitive advantage, an appreciation of the transferability of this image is crucial when
moving into non-domestic markets. This is particularly pertinent for those retailers who
choose to internationalise by standardising and replicating the domestic marketing effort and
brand identity. This paper seeks to explore this issue by reporting exploratory research which
examines how a set of pre-determined dimensions and attributes of store image are perceived
by customers in two different markets.

The paper starts with a review of retail internationalisation and the processes involved,
followed by an explanation of store image to establish the functional and symbolic attributes
which are commonly believed to contribute to store identity. The research approach and
method is then explained, the results drawn from a convenience sample of 150 respondents in
each country are reported, and potential issues for retail organisations moving abroad are
considered.

Retail Internationalisation

Whilst Hollanders (1970) book Multinational Retailing, is widely regarded as the seminal
work on retail internationalisation, the increased visibility of international moves by retailers
has stimulated a vast array of academic work in Europe since the mid 1980s. Akehurst and
Alexander (1995a) refer to the torrent of the late 1980s and the flood of the 1990s. From
this literature a number of common themes emerge, namely the motives for retail
internationalisation (eg Treadgold and Davies 1988, Wrigley 1989, Alexander 1990, Williams
1992, Myers 1995); the geographical flows of investment - including studies of specific flows
(eg Kacker 1985, Mitton 1987, Hamill and Crosbie 1990, Burt 1993, Davies and Fergusson
1993, McGoldrick and Holden 1993, Alexander 1995, Sternquist 1997a), the temporal

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

5
dimensions of investment (eg Treadgold 1990/91, Burt 1991, 1995 and various OXIRM
newsletters) and case histories of individual firms (eg Kaynak 1980, Martenson 1981, 1988,
Truitt 1984, Laulajainen 1991, Treadgold 1991, Johnson and Allen 1994, Takahashi 1994,
Wrigley 1997); the impact of internationalisation, particularly of new retail concepts on less
developed retail environments (eg Goldman 1974,1981, Kaynak 1985, Alawi 1986, Ho and
Sin 1987, Loker, Good and Huddleston 1994); and methods and typologies of investment (eg
Kacker 1988, Treadgold 1988, Dawson 1994, Bailey, Clarke-Hill and Robinson 1995,
Simpson and Thorpe 1995). These studies have taken various perspectives ranging from
studies of whole retail sectors, to specific store formats and, in particular, the activities of
individual retail firms.

Less prevalent amongst this literature are studies which explore the process of retail
internationalisation per se. The need to develop a clearer understanding of the processes
involved has been commented upon to varying degrees by Brown and Burt 1992, Dawson
1993, 1994, Pellegrini 1994 and Akehurst and Alexander 1995b. These authors have cited the
lack of a clear definition of retail internationalisation (see Helfferich, Hinfelaar and Kasper,
1997), and confusion as to the applicability of theories developed in other sectors, as
impediments to developing this understanding. Whilst some attempts (Whitehead 1992,
Sternquist 1997a) have been made to apply theory derived from observations of the
manufacturing sector - most notably the eclectic paradigm of Dunning (1981) and the stages
approach championed by the Uppsala school - the inherent characteristics of retailing and the
retail sector question the viability of directly applying such models to the explanation of the
retail internationalisation process. The basic role of retailing in moving goods (and services)
to the final consumer and the position of retail institutions as the final link in the distribution
channel, suggest that theory based on the traditionally viewed productive sectors of the
economy has limited value.

The major source of competitive advantage for retailers is found in the value added delivered
to customers, through the performance of functions or activities. This value added must be
firmly based upon customer needs and values, and may comprise both tangible or functional
and intangible or symbolic elements. The importance of fully understanding the source of

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

6
competitive advantage (and in particular the role of intangible added value) in the domestic
market before moving into foreign environments is recognised in a number of studies. For
example, Simpson and Thorpe (1995) in devising their PLIN model for global expansion of
speciality retailing suggest that retailers need to fully understand the role of Product, Lifestyle,
Image and Niche in creating a differential advantage in the domestic market, before attempting
to move overseas. The ability to offer host market consumers a source of differentiation in the
delivery of added value is a key factor in international success. Burt (1991) suggested that the
international activities of European grocery retailers appeared to be more successful if the
internationalisation process involved the importation of a new concept - such as the
hypermarket or limited line discount store - to the host market. Once the source of this
competitive and differential advantage is recognised, a key issue then becomes whether to
replicate or modify the operation on entering a foreign market.

Dupuis and Prime (1996) introduce the idea of business distance, as the gap between host and
home environments in four areas : consumer behaviour; outlet or store format; networks; and
environment. They argue that any retail format has a grounded history, built up over years of
operation in the home environment, and thus the fit within the host environment needs to be
fully understood. Without this understanding, the decision to export a retail format to
another cultural environment may drastically modify its initial competitive advantage.
Illustrations of the problems of fit are provided by authors such as Tordjman (1988),
Shackleton (1996), and OGrady and Lane (1997) who discuss how French, British and
Canadian retailers have found cultural and business behaviour differences when operating in
the American market.

One study which attempts to tackle the question as to how retail companies might
internationalise is that of Salmon and Tordjman (1989). The two main approaches to the
internationalisation of retail operations identified by these authors - the global and the
multinational approach - focus attention upon attitudes towards a number of management
functions within the retail business. As the nomenclature suggests, the global approach
requires a high degree of standardisation of management functions, whilst the multinational
approach allows for a greater degree of response to host market conditions. While endless

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

7
debate can take place as to the exact degree of standardisation or adaptation within
management functions, and which retail companies conform to which model, there appears
to be a tacit acknowledgement in much of the literature that some form of adaptation in
management practices and approach is required in most non-domestic markets (eg Brown and
Burt 1992, Dawson 1993, McGoldrick and Blair 1995).

One of the management functions discussed in the Salmon and Tordjman schema is marketing.
In the domestic market, marketing and a customer focus have become crucial to the success of
a retail business. Retailers place great emphasis upon developing, maintaining and managing
store and corporate image (Pessemier 1980). Often this image, including the associated
positioning of the firm and branding of the retailer, is the source of competitive advantage particularly as many other functional aspects of a retail operation can be imitated. It is
therefore surprising, as McGoldrick and Blair (1995) comment, that apart from their own
work and that of McGoldrick and Ho (1992), so little research attention has been given to the
image and positioning of retailers operating outside their home markets. Given the
importance of customers to retailing, it would appear that an understanding of the perceptions
of customers in the host market to the retail image or identity being brought to that market is
of fundamental importance to the success of the international venture. An understanding of
retail image, what comprises this image, and how transferable this image or identify is, is
crucial to developing retail operations in foreign markets, especially if the retail image,
typically manifest in a brand, is itself the real source of consumer recognised value added and
competitive advantage.

Owing to the terminology used, Salmon and Tordjmans (1989) treatment of marketing
activities engenders links with the long established standardisation or differentiation debate in
international marketing (eg Buzzell 1968, Sorenson and Wiechmann 1975, Levitt 1983,
Quelch and Hoff 1986). However, this association may have been a distraction to the
understanding of the retail internationalisation process as researchers are diverted into
proving or disproving the extent of globalisation or standardisation of retailer X and
retailer Y. It is not the intention in this paper to expand on this particular debate, but merely
to try and gain some understanding of the dimensions of retail image in an international

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

8
context and to explore the relative importance of these dimensions when moving into nondomestic markets.
Store Image

Defining store image is far from easy (eg Sewell 1974). The mixture of tangible and intangible
dimensions, and the complexity of meanings and relationships attributed to retailers by
customers have long been recognised (eg Myers 1960, Arons 1961, Weale 1961, Rich and
Portis 1964, Kunkel and Berry 1968, Perry and Norton 1970, May 1974, Marks 1976).
Martineau (1958) is attributed with being one of the first to discuss store personality,
Lindquist (1974) develops the distinction between functional qualities and psychological
attributes, and Oxenfeld (1974) argues that store image is a concept which is more than the
sum of its parts , it represents interaction among characteristics and includes extraneous
elements, it has some emotional content a combination of factual and emotional
material. Although originating from an attempt to explain retail identity in an advertising
context, Kapferers (1986) identity prism, comprising physical, personality, cultural, relational,
reflection, and customer self interest facets, similarly combines functional and symbolic
elements and stresses the importance of the customers de-coding of these facets. The
interplay of these tangible and intangible elements and the customers overall interpretation of
them, based upon previous knowledge and experiences, are widely accepted to determine
store image (Hirschman 1981, Marzursky and Jacoby 1986).

Lists of attributes which comprise store image have been devised and in turn criticised by
several authors (eg Zimmer and Golden, 1988). Martineaus (1958) paper identified four core
attributes : layout and architecture; symbols and colour; advertising; and sales personnel.
However, one of the most enduring sources is the nine attributes derived by Lindquist (1974)
from a review of nineteen previous studies. These attributes are: merchandise, including
factors such as quality, assortment, styling or fashion, guarantees and price; service,
encompassing staff service, ease of return, credit and delivery service; clientele, consisting of
social class appeal, self image congruency and store personnel; physical facilities, such as
layout and architecture; convenience, primarily location related; promotion, including sales
promotions, product displays, advertising programmes, symbols and colours; store
Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

9
atmosphere, defined as atmosphere congeniality which represents a customers feeling of
warmth, acceptance or ease; institutional factors, such as the conservative or modern
projection of store, reputation and reliability; and post-transaction satisfaction, seen as returns
and adjustments.

Although regarded as not being totally comprehensive, these attributes encompass both
functional and symbolic elements of store image, and in one form or another have formed the
basis for many studies of store image. Combinations of these attributes have been used in the
plethora of retail image studies originating from the USA, for example, in addition to those
already cited, Kunkel and Berry (1968), Lessig (1973), Doyle and Fenwick (1974), Hansen
and Deutscher (1977), Schiffman, Dash and Dillon (1977), Hirschman, Greenberg and Roberts
(1978), Jacoby and Mazursky (1984), Hildebrandt (1988), and Steenkamp and Wedel (1991),
Joyce and Lambert (1996). Although essentially all based on some form of attribute
measurement, methods vary and substantial debate centres around the measurement
techniques themselves (McDougall and Fry 1974, Swan and Futrell 1980, and Wu and
Petroshius 1987). Amirani and Gates (1993) provide an overview of the different approaches
before introducing their own preferred option, conjoint analysis. These approaches include
variations of semantic differentials (eg Kelly and Stephenson 1967, Hirschman, Greenberg and
Roberts 1978, Menezes and Elbert 1979, Golden, Albaum and Zimmer 1987); multidimensional scaling techniques (eg Jain and Etgar 1976, Palmer 1985); multi-attribute models
(eg James, Durand and Dreves 1976); and content analysis (eg Zimmer and Golden 1988)

The majority of these studies explore image, taken as the consumer perception of the overall
store image, relative to specific purchase behaviour contexts or specific store and service
attributes. A number of studies however point to the issues associated with implementing
image and the dissonance which may exist between management and consumer perceptions of
store image. Marcus (1972) examined image variation across stores within a chain, and
Oppewal and Timmermans (1997) explored management perceptions of store image in a
competitive context. Others, have compared management or corporate views of image with
customer views, highlighting the gap in perceptions which often exists (McClure and Ryan
1968, Pathak, Crissy and Sweitzer 1974, Samli and Lincoln 1989, Keaveny and Hunt 1992).

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

10
Given the even greater potential for misinterpretation of image arising from cultural and
behavioural differences in international markets, one might expect these potential problems of
dissonance to be amplified when entering a foreign market.

Research Purpose and Method

This research seeks to explore how retail companies might manage the internationalisation
process if the source of competitive advantage that they possess is based upon image rather
than any unique trading format or management process. The starting point for this research is
the assumption that having invested heavily in developing a (presumably) successful image in
the domestic market, an internationalising retailer will seek to develop a broadly similar image
in the foreign market. Often, given the historical debate on globalisation in international
marketing, and the interpretation of Salmon and Tordjmans paper, replication and
standardisation is taken as the means of achieving this position. Some recognition is,
however, given to the importance of time in establishing a clear retail image in a non-domestic
market (McGoldrick and Blair 1995). As consumer perceptions of a store image are
determined by exposure to and experience of a store, one should expect image to evolve over
time.

If it is accepted that, at least in the short term, total transfer of a standardised image into a
host market is difficult, one may surmise that it is the less tangible, more experience-related
dimensions of store image which are the most difficult to establish immediately in a new
foreign market. The meaning which domestic consumers attach to these dimensions has been
built up over a number of years of continued experience, but in the case of consumers in the
host market, there is no such history of exposure to the store or retailer. Conversely the more
tangible or functional components of image, with their greater dependency on physical clues,
can be more easily managed in the short run to establish a coherent image, once consumer
perceptions of these components are understood. It therefore becomes important for the
internationalising firm to understand which dimensions of image might transfer immediately
and which might take longer to develop. If a retailers main source of competitive advantage
in the domestic market is based upon the intangible dimensions of image, and these take time

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

11
to develop, there is the danger of assuming that the customer values and perceptions
experienced in the domestic market have transferred automatically to the new market. This in
turn may then lead to complacency and mistakes in positioning and other marketing related
activities.

Based on this premise the objective of this exploratory research was to examine how, for a
single retail company, a set of pre-determined dimensions and associated attributes of store
image chosen to represent tangible and intangible elements of image, were perceived by
customers in two different national markets. Following the discussion above, it was expected
that the intangible dimensions and attributes would be the source of a wider gap in
perceptions in the two markets than the tangible elements of image.

Given this objective a retail company was sought which had considerable international
experience, a strong domestic image founded upon intangible attributes, and which essentially
sought to position itself in the same way in international markets. The retailer selected was
Marks and Spencer, with the comparison made between the domestic (UK) and Spanish
market. Marks and Spencer has made no secret of its international ambitions in recent press
coverage. The company, has a long, but chequered history of retail internationalisation. The
1997 annual report shows that 87 of the 373 company owned Marks & Spencer stores are
non-UK stores, with a further 85 international stores in 20 countries operated as franchises
(Table 1).

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

12
Table 1 : Marks & Spencer Stores Worldwide
Country
United Kingdom

Stores
286

Franchises

Stores

Austria

Belgium

Bahamas

France

20

Bermuda

Germany

Canary Islands

Netherlands

Channel Islands

Republic of Ireland

Cyprus

Spain

Czech Republic

Hong Kong

Finland

Canada

44

Gibralter

Greece

Hungary

Indonesia

Israel

Malaysia

Malta

Philippines

Portugal

Singapore

Thailand

Turkey

TOTAL

85

TOTAL

373

* excludes Brooks Brothers and Kings Supermarkets

Source : Marks & Spencer Annual Report and Financial Statements 1997

These figures exclude the 173 Brooks Brothers stores in the USA and Japan and 20 Kings
Supermarkets in the USA acquired in 1988. In Europe company owned store openings in
France and Belgium in 1975, and the Republic of Ireland in 1979 were followed by the
Netherlands in 1991 and Germany in 1996. The company entered the Spanish market in
1989. In 1996/97 non UK operations (including Brooks Brothers) generated 1276.3m or
16.3% of turnover and 91.4m or 8.8% of operating profit. The European operations -

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

13
including franchises - accounted for 551.5 million (7%) of turnover and generated 37.7m
(3.6%) of operating profit. Twenty years ago in 1976/77, the 3 European stores contributed
1.3% of turnover but traded at a loss of 0.786m.

The success of Marks and Spencer in the domestic market is widely attributed to the
development of a strong store image, with a major emphasis upon the intangible added value
aspects of this image. In the eyes of most UK customers (and competing retailers) the
company possesses an image and reputation second to none. The annual reports are now
embellished with the phrase Quality, Value and Service Worldwide which implies a vision
involving the transfer of a similar image into non-domestic markets. Although the company
operates a range of formats overseas, a standardised image is sought particularly in those
markets where the company trades through full range variety stores, such as France, Spain,
and Germany. This research sought to establish how customers in the UK and Spanish
markets perceived the companys retail offer via a range of tangible and intangible dimensions
of image, and from this draw observations as to how these aspects of store image might be
managed as part of the internationalisation process.

Data was collected via an interviewer administered questionnaire which required respondents
to indicate their level of agreement/disagreement on a seven point likert scale (ranging from
strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1) to a series of statements. All of the statements were
positive, therefore high scores/levels of agreement could also be taken to represent some
degree of satisfaction with the attribute concerned. Six broad categories were constructed to
provide a core group of dimensions ranging from the tangible/functional to the
intangible/psychological aspects of store image. Each of these dimensions was represented by
four statements which related to various aspects of store image commonly identified in the
literature. The chosen dimensions and associated statements are shown in appendix 1.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

14
Whilst all dimensions of store image inevitably contain both tangible and intangible elements,
as any attitude statement is judged by customers on the basis of their own experiences, values
and priorities, the statements and dimensions were chosen to represent different degrees of
tangibility. Physical Characteristics, Pricing Policy and Product Range were felt to be
the more tangible dimensions, presenting customers with a higher proportion of primarily
physical, immediate, clues upon which to base their perceptions - such as store cleanliness,
decor, range, product quality and price. From a management perspective, it was felt that this
higher degree of tangibility, would enable more rapid adaptation of these dimensions to host
market conditions if need arose. The dimensions termed Customer Service, Character
and Store Reputation were felt to represent less tangible dimensions of image, more reliant
on customers experience-based perceptions of staff helpfulness, kindness, trust, store appeal
and position. As such any adaptation or change necessary in response to the host market
would require a longer term view.

The stores chosen exhibited similar basic characteristics in that both carried all seven
departments - ladieswear, menswear, lingerie, childrenswear, gifts, home furnishings and food
- although physically the stores differed. The UK store was on two floors covering 47,000
square feet compared to the Spanish store with 30,000 square feet over four floors. The
stores were both in main shopping street locations and traded for 60 and 66 hours per week
respectively.

As neither store could (would?) provide a demographic breakdown of customers, a

convenience sample of 150 respondents in each country was generated from customers leaving
the store. This was felt an appropriate sample given the exploratory nature of the study.
Basic characteristics of the sample are shown in appendix 2. The Spanish sample was
younger, with fewer respondents living in smaller households and with lower household
incomes.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

15
Results

From the data it was possible to assess how Marks and Spencer was viewed in a domestic and
non-domestic setting with respect to overall image, and to identify differences in absolute and
relative perceptions of attributes and dimensions of store image. In terms of the overall
impression of store image, measured by the degree of agreement with the statements, the
British respondents, as one would expect, had an extremely positive impression of the Marks
and Spencer store image (Figure 1 and table 2) Twelve of the attribute statements scored a
mean of over 6.0 and twenty-three of a mean of over 5.0. Only four attribute statements
achieved a mean of less than 5.5. There is also some evidence of the strength of views held on
the intangible elements of image, with eight of the twelve statements relating to intangibles
scoring over 6.0 in the UK, compared to four of the twelve tangible statements. Although the
Spanish respondents were less favourably disposed towards the attribute statements, seventeen
statements still scored a mean of over 5.0, although only three achieved a mean score of over
6.0.

Figure 1 : Perceptions of Store Image Attributes

Credibility

Cleanliness
7

Attractive Decor
Easy Layout

Trustworthiness
6

Spain

Excellent Atmosphere

Confidence

UK

Reliability

Wide Selection

World-class

Good Quality
2

Middle-class

Fashion

British Appeal

Reliable Brand

Conservative

Fair Prices

Services

Low prices

Easy Returns

Value for money

Product Knowledge
Price/quality
Kind/Helpful

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

16
When comparing the difference in means (Table 2), potential differences and similarities in
perceptions of the same statement between the two countries can be seen. A T-test showed
that all the attribute statements, except for the eight statements showing the least difference in
means, were found to show significant differences between the means at both the 0.05 and
0.01 level. Three of the statements showing the greatest difference in means (the store
carries a wide selection of different products (1.51), St Michael is a reliable brand (1.12),
and the products stocked are of good quality(0.98)) are associated with the broad Product
Range dimension. Whilst some divergence of opinion may surround attributes within the
Product Range dimension, the basic tangibility of these attributes means that they should, in
theory, be more easily or immediately assessed by consumers, and if negative opinions are
formed the retailer may need to take remedial action. The other statements with a difference
in means of 1.00 or more were the Reputation related attributes of Marks and Spencer will
never let you down (1.05) and you have total confidence in Marks and Spencer (1.00). A
third Reputation statement, Marks and Spencer is a world class retailer also had a
relatively large difference between means of 0.73.

At the other end of the scale one can observe that both of the national groups had identical
perceptions of the statement prices are low compared to similar stores(0.01), and that there
was a very high degree of uniformity in opinion on three statements associated with the
Character dimension, namely Marks and Spencer has a British appeal(0.02)
serves the middle class(0.02) projects a conservative image(-0.03). The closeness of
some of these views was unexpected given the intangible nature of this dimension. As with
the Reputation statements it was believed that these intangible Character statements,
based upon experience or exposure to the Marks and Spencer store image, would have shown
a greater degree of divergence in opinion between the UK and Spanish respondents.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

17
If one considers the relative ranking of statements in the two countries based upon mean
scores (Table 3), some similarities of relative perception within countries arose. The top two
statements (the store operates an easy return policy, the store is clean and tidy) in both the
UK and Spain were the same, although in a reverse order, and six of the top ten statements in
the UK could be found on the top ten list for Spain. Similarly the two statements least
favourably received in both countries were the same (prices are low compared to similar
stores, and the merchandise is fashionable). Even at this very crude level this suggests that
within countries some similarity in perception of store image is presented, albeit at the
extremes.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

18
Table 2 : Attribute Statements: Differences in Means

Attribute Statement
The store is clean and tidy
The store decor is attractive
The store layout makes shopping easy
The store atmosphere is excellent
The store carries a wide selection of
different kinds of products
The products stocked are of good quality
The merchandise is fashionable
St Michael is a reliable brand
The prices charged are fair
Prices are low compared to similar stores
You get good value for your money
The relationship between price and quality
is good
Store personnel are kind and helpful
Sales people have a good knowledge of
the products
The store operates an easy return policy
The store offers a high level of customer
service
Marks and Spencer transmits a reliable
image
Marks and Spencer projects a
conservative image
Marks and Spencer has a clear British
appeal
Marks and Spencer serves the middle
class
You have total confidence in Marks and
Spencer
You find Marks and Spencer totally
trustworthy
Marks and Spencer will never let you
down
Marks and Spencer is a world class
retailer

UK
mean

Spain
mean

Diff in
means

T-test

1.59
7.08
0.68
3.42
10.51

2-tail
signif
(0.001)
0.113
0.000
0.498
0.001
0.000

6.63
5.71
5.35
5.83
6.16

6.53
4.73
5.25
5.37
4.65

0.10
0.99
0.11
0.46
1.51

ns
s
ns
s
s

6.57
5.29
6.49
5.56
3.91
5.77
5.87

5.59
4.58
5.37
4.71
3.91
4.89
5.15

0.98
0.71
1.12
0.85
0.01
0.87
0.72

8.76
4.48
7.73
5.37
-0.04
6.08
5.18

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.971
0.000
0.000

s
s
s
s
ns
s
s

6.04
5.86

5.93
5.77

0.11
0.10

0.87
0.74

0.386
0.458

ns
ns

6.72
6.31

6.07
5.77

0.65
0.53

4.37
4.14

0.000
0.000

s
s

6.49

5.79

0.70

6.0

0.000

5.89

5.92

-0.03

-0.22

0.827

ns

6.04

6.02

0.02

0.16

0.874

ns

5.29

5.27

0.02

0.12

0.901

ns

6.16

5.16

1.00

7.52

0.000

6.20

5.66

0.54

4.88

0.000

5.68

4.64

1.05

5.87

0.000

6.14

5.41

0.73

5.25

0.000

Note: 7 = Strongly Agree; 1 = Strongly Disagree

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

19
Table 3 : Ranking of Attribute Statements Based on Means
Attribute Statement

UK
Mean

UK
Rank

Spain
Mean

Spain
Rank

The store operates and easy return policy.

6.72

6.07

The store is clean and tidy.

6.63

6.53

The products stocked are of good quality.

6.57

5.59

10

Marks and Spencer transmits a reliable image.

6.49

4=

5.79

St Michael is a reliable brand.

6.49

4=

5.37

12=

The store offers a high level of customer service.

6.31

5.77

7=

You find Marks and Spencer totally trustworthy.

6.20

5.66

The store carries a wide selection of different kinds of

products.

6.16

8=

4.65

21

You have total confidence in Marks and Spencer

6.16

8=

5.16

16

Marks and Spencer is a world class retailer.

6.14

10

5.41

11

Note : 7 = Strongly Agree; 1 = Strongly Disagree

If the attribute statements are aggregated into the broad image dimensions that they were
intended to represent (Table 4) then a comparison of means reflects the observations above,
namely that perceptions of Character are very similar, whilst the greatest difference in
perceptions occur in respect of Product Range and Store Reputation. It may also be
noted that in both countries the dimension perceived most favourably was the same Customer Service - as was that which was perceived least favourably - Pricing Policy.
Within these extremes there was a reversal of the rankings of the remaining categories. Again
UK perceptions in general were more favourable, as the mean score attributed to the most
favoured dimension in Spain was bettered by all but one dimension in the case of the UK.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

20
Table 4 : Image Dimensions: Differences in Means - ranked by UK mean

Dimension

UK
Mean

Spain
Mean

Diff in
means

T-test

2-Tail signif
(0.001)

Customer Service
Store Reputation
Product Range
Physical Characteristics
Character
Pricing Policy

6.24
6.13
6.13
5.88
5.84
5.27

5.81
5.29
5.08
5.47
5.70
4.67

0.43
0.84
1.05
0.41
0.14
0.60

4.33
3.13
8.90
6.32
1.42
4.62

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.157
0.000

Note: 7 = Strongly Agree; 1 = Strongly Disagree

Finally, if one examines the differences between the mean scores attained by each of the
ranked dimensions within each country (Table 5), it is evident that the dimensions are
perceived more closely in the UK than in Spain - in the case of the UK only 0.40 separates the
means of the top five ranked dimensions, whilst 0.52 separates the means of the top four
ranked dimensions in Spain. As the statements were all positive statements, this may suggest
as one would expect, that a more cohesive and coherent image is projected, or perceived by
customers, in the UK.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

21
Table 5: Differences Between the Means of the Ranked Image Dimensions

UK

SPAIN

Between Dimensions
Ranked

Difference

Cumulative
Difference

Difference

Cumulative
Difference

1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6

0.11
0.00
0.25
0.04
0.57

0.11
0.11
0.36
0.40
0.97

0.11
0.23
0.18
0.21
0.41

0.11
0.34
0.52
0.73
1.14

Concluding Remarks
Returning to the purpose of this paper, where does this leave us? At one level, the survey
results simply show - not surprisingly - that customer perceptions of store image, defined in
the terms specified in this study, are more positive and coherent in the domestic than host
market. Does this mean that there are real differences in customer perception between the two
markets which might require adaptation of store image? Or can this be explained simply by
the fact that the internationalising retailer has had less exposure in the foreign market and in
time one would expect this current image to change (hopefully so that customer perceptions
reached the higher levels found in the domestic market)? Assuming that the aim is to achieve a
similar image in the host market, from a managerial perspective a disaggregation of store
image and closer attention to the different dimensions contributing to image is important as it
highlights areas requiring attention and towards which valuable resources might be channelled.
Gaps in perceptions may reflect fundamental differences in opinions over the retail offer - if the
gap is greater with respect to tangible dimensions there may be a fundamental problem (ie
dislike) with the retail offer (store, merchandise, price). If the gap is greater between
intangible dimensions, exposure to and experience of the retail offer over time may close this
gap. In short, the need for and type of remedial action may differ.

From the results of this survey, there is evidence that in relative terms within countries certain
aspects (whether dimensions or attributes) are already perceived in similar ways - the

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

22
Customer Service dimension, and in particular the returns policy and cleanliness attributes
are the most positively received aspects in both countries, whilst the Pricing Policy
dimension and the fashionability of merchandise attribute are the least positively received
aspects. This would suggest that some components of store image, whether defined as
tangible or intangible, transfer between international markets, either in absolute or relative
terms. The retail company may then need to determine which components this applies to and
how these components contribute to the future image required.

As stated earlier, if one was taking a standardised approach to the foreign market, one might
expect that the less tangible dimensions of store image - those where customer perceptions are
based upon exposure to and experience of the retailer - would generate the greatest difference
in perceptions between customer groups when retailers move into new international markets
and that managing this perceptual gap is one of the biggest challenges facing international
retailers. If one returns to the distinction made earlier between the more tangible dimensions defined here as Physical Characteristics, Product Range and Pricing Policy - and the less
tangible dimensions - Customer Service, Character and Reputation, one would expect
customer perceptions between the two countries of the latter three dimensions to be more
divergent than for the former three.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

23
The results of this study however suggest that this tangible/intangible distinction may be too
simplistic, or at least there are important implications of different perceptions in these
categories. While one might argue that definitions and the grouping of attributes explain these
outcomes, or that the retailer chosen Marks and Spencer, is an exception, the results
surprisingly (?) suggest that one of the more intangible dimensions, Character, is that for
which the perceptions of UK and Spanish respondents were most closely matched - it appears
to have transferred more easily. In contrast, the greatest divergence of opinion is found in
respect to the dimensions termed Product Range and Store Reputation which register the
greatest differences in perception. One defined as a tangible the other as an intangible
dimension. This may have different managerial implications. The gap in Reputation might
be expected and may close over time with exposure to the company, but the gap in Product
Range may hint at fundamental differences in perceptions over the tangible elements.

Just as important as the apparent absolute gap in perceptions of image by customers in

different markets, may also be the relative importance these national perceptions place on an
attribute or dimension. In the case of this study not only are Product Range and Store
Reputation perceived the most differently in the two markets but both of these dimensions
are ranked very highly in the UK market - where they were equally ranked as the second most
positively viewed dimensions, and with only 0.11 separating the mean scores achieved by the
top three dimensions. In short, not only is there an apparent difference in perception of these
dimensions between the two countries, but if the retailer wishes to achieve a similar image
perception as in the domestic market, these dimensions appear to be important in achieving
this. Similarly, whilst customer perceptions in the two markets are closest in respect of
Character, from a UK perspective this dimension is relatively less important than Product
Range and Store Reputation. It perhaps then becomes important not just to close the
gap in perceptions between the Spanish and UK market but to ensure that this raises the
relative perception of these dimensions in Spain, and leads to a more standardised image in
both markets - in this case Quality, Value and Service Worldwide.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

24
Appendix 1 : Store Image Dimensions and Attribute Statements
Physical Characteristics
The store is clean and tidy.
The store decor is attractive.
The store layout makes shopping easy.
The store atmosphere is excellent.
Pricing Policy
The prices charged are fair.
Prices are low compared to similar stores.
You get good value for your money.
The relationship between price and quality is good.
Product Range
The store carries a wide selection of different kinds of products.
The products stocked are of a good quality.
The merchandise is fashionable.
St Michael is a reliable brand.
Customer Service
Store personnel are kind and helpful.
Salespeople have a good knowledge of the products.
The store operates an easy return policy.
The store offers a high level of customer service.

Character
Marks & Spencer projects a conservative image.
Marks & Spencer has a clear British appeal.
Marks & Spencer serves the middle class.
Marks & Spencer is a world class retailer.
Store Reputation
Marks and Spencer transmits a reliable image.
You have total confidence in Marks and Spencer.
You find Marks and Spencer totally trustworthy.
Marks and Spencer will never let you down.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

25

Appendix 2 : Sample Characteristics

Gender
- male
- female
Age
- 25 or less
- 26-35
- 36-45
- 45 and over
Household Size
-1
-2
-3-4
-5+
Income
- under 10,000
- 10,001-20,000
- 20,001-30,000
- 30,000 plus
not available

UK
n
34
116

%
22.7
77.3

Spain
n
29
121

%
19.3
80.7

27
42
33
48

18.0
28.0
22.0
32.0

50
65
24
11

33.3
43.3
16.0
7.3

20
50
67
13

13.3
33.3
44.7
8.7

9
33
68
35

6.0
22.0
45.3
23.3

12
36
34
56
12

8.0
24.0
22.7
37.3
8.0

23
58
34
15
20

15.3
38.7
22.7
10.0
13.3

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

26
References
Akehurst G and Alexander N (1995a), The Internationalisation Process in Retailing, Service
Industries Journal, 15(4), pp1-15.
Akehurst G and Alexander N (1995b), Developing a Framework for the Study of
Internationalisation of Retailing, Service Industries Journal, 15(4), pp204-209.
Alawi HMA (1986), Saudi Arabia: Making Sense of Self Service, International Marketing
Review, Spring, pp21-38.
Alexander N (1990),Retailers and International Markets: Motives for Expansion,
International Marketing Review, 7(4), pp75-85.
Alexander N (1995), UK Retail Expansion in North America and Europe: A Strategic
Dilema, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2(2), pp75-82
Amirani S and Gates R (1993), An Attribute-Anchored Conjoint Approach to Measuring
Store Image, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 21(5), pp30-39.
Arons L (1961), Does Television Viewing Influence Store Image and Shopping Frequency,
Journal of Retailing, 37 (3), pp1-13.
Bailey J, Clarke-Hill C M and Robinson T (1995), Towards a Taxonomy of International
Retail Alliances, Service Industries Journal, 15(4), pp25-41.
Brown S and Burt S L (1992), Conclusion - Retail Internationalisation: Past Imperfect,
Future Imperative, European Journal of Marketing, 26 (8/9), pp80-84.
Burt S L (1991), Trends in the Internationalisation of Grocery Retailing: The European
Experience, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 1(4),
pp487-515.
Burt S L (1993), Temporal Trends in The Internationalisation of British Retailing,
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 3(4), pp391-410.
Burt S L (1995), Retail Internationalisation: Evolution of Theory and Practice, in
McGoldrick P and Davies G (eds), International Retailing: Trends and Strategies, Pitman
Publishing, London, pp51-72.
Buzzell RD (1968), Can You Standardise International Marketing?, Harvard Business
Review, 46(6), pp102-113.
Davies K and Fergusson F (1995) The International Activities of Japanese Retailers,
Service Industries Journal, 15(4), pp97-117.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

27
Dawson J A (1993) The Internationalisation of Retailing in Bromley RDF and Thomas CJ
(eds), Retail Change: Contemporary Issues, UCL Press: London, pp15-40.
Dawson JA (1994), Internationalisation of Retail Operations, Journal of Marketing
Management, 10, pp267-282.
Doyle P and Fenwick I (1974), How Store Image Affects Shopping habits in Grocery
Chains, Journal of Retailing, 50(4), pp 39-52.
Dunning JH (1981), International Production and the Multinational Enterprise, Allen &
Unwin: London.
Dupuis M and Prime N (1996), Business Distance and Global Retailing: A Model for
Analysis of Key Success/Failure Factors, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 24(11), pp30-38.
Golden LL, Albaum G and Zimmer MR (1987), The Numerical Comparative Scale: An
Economical Format for Retail Image Measurement, Journal of Retailing, 63(4), pp 393-410
Goldman A (1974), Growth of Large Food Stores in Developing Countries, Journal of
Retailing, 50(2), pp5-29.
Goldman A (1981), Transfer of Retailing Technology into the Less Developed Countries:
The Supermarket Case, Journal of Retailing, 57(2), pp5-29.
Hamill J and Crosbie J (1990), British Retail Acquisitions in the US, International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management, 18(5), pp15-20.
Hansen RA and Deutscher T (1977), An Empirical Investigation of Attribute Importance in
Retail Store Selection, Journal of Retailing, 53,(4), pp59-72.
Helfferich E, Hinfelaar M, and Kasper H (1997), Towrads a Clear Terminology on
International Retailing, International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research,
73(3), pp288-307.
Hildebrandt L (1988), Store Image and Perception of Performance in Retailing, Journal of
Business Research, 17, pp 91-100.
Ho SC and Sin YM (1987), International Transfer of Retail Technology: The Successful
Case of Convenience Stores in Hong Kong, International Journal of Retailing, 2(3), pp36-48.
Hollander SC (1970), Multinational Retailing, MSU International and Business and
Economic Studies, MSU: East Lancing.
Jacoby J and Mazursky D (1984), Linking Brand and Retail Image - Do Potential Risks
Outweigh the Potential Benefit?, Journal of Retailing, 60(2), pp 105-122.
Hirschman E (1981), Retail Research and Theory, in Enis BM and Roering KJ (eds),
Review of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago.
Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

28

Hirschman E, Greenberg B and Robertson D (1978), The Intermarket Reliability of Retail

Image Research: An Empirical Examination, Journal of Retailing, 54 (1), pp3-12.
Jain AK and Etgar M (1976), Measuring Store Image through Multi-Dimensional Scaling of
Free Response Data, Journal of Retailing, 52(4), pp61-70.
James DL, Durand RM and Dreves R (1976), The Use of a Multi-Attribute Model in a Store
Image Study, Journal of Retailing, 52(2), pp23-34.
Johnson M and Allen B (1994), Taking the English Apple to Spain, International Journal
of Retail and Distribution Management, 22(7), pp3-9.
Joyce ML and Lambert DR (1996), Memories of the Way Stores Were and Retail Store
Image, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 24(1), pp24-33.
Kacker MP (1985), Transatlantic Trends in Retailing, Quorum: Westport, Connecticut.
Kacker MP (1988), International Flow of Retailing Know-How: Bridging the Technology
Gap in Distribution, Journal of Retailing, 64(1), pp41-67.
Kapferer J-N (1986), Beyond Positioning: Retailers Identity, Retail Strategies for Profit and
Growth, Seminar Proceedings, ESOMAR: Amsterdam, pp167-75.
Kaynak E (1980), Transfer of Supermarketing Technology From Developed to Less
Developed Countries: the Case of Migros Turk, Finnish Journal of Business Economics,
29(1)
Kaynak E (1985), Global Spread of Supermarkets: Some Experience from Turkey, in
Kaynak E (ed), Global Perspectives in Marketing, Praeger:New York.
Keaveney SM and Hunt KA (1992), Conceptualization and Operationalization of Retail Store
Image: A Case of Rival Middle-Level Theories, Journal of The Academy of Marketing
Science, 20(2), pp165-175.
Kelly R and Stephenson R (1967), The Semantic Differential: An Information Source for
Designing Retail Patronage Appeals, Journal of Marketing, 31, October, pp21-27.
Kunkel J H and Berry L (1968), A Behavioural Conception of Retail Image, Journal of
Marketing, 32, October, pp21-27.
Laulajainen R (1991), Two Retailers Go Global: the Geographical Dimension, International
Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 1(5), pp607-626.
Lessig VP (1973), Consumer Store Images and Store Loyalties, Journal of Marketing, 38
(October), pp 72-74.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

29
Levitt T (1983), The Globalisation of Markets, Harvard Business Review, 61 (May-June),
pp92-102.
Lindquist J D (1974), Meaning of Image: A Survey of Empirical and Hypothetical Evidence,
Journal of Retailing, 50(4), pp29-38.
Loker S, Good L and Huddleston P (1994), Entering Eastern European Markets: Lessons
from Kmart, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 1(2), pp101-106
Marcus BH (1972), Image Variation and the Multi-Unit Retail Establishments, Journal of
Retailing, 48 (2), pp29-43.
Marks RD (1976), Operationalising the Concept of Store Image, Journal of Retailing, 52(3),
pp37-46
Martenson R (1981), Innovation in Multinational Retailing, University of Goteborg:
Goteborg.
Martenson R (1988), Cross Cultural Analysis in Global Marketing: A European Case in
Shaw S, Sparks L and Kaynak E (eds), Marketing in the 1990s and Beyond, Proceedings of
the Second World Marketing Congress, Vol 2, University of Stirling: Stirling, pp694-709.
Martineau P (1958), The Personality of the Retail Store, Harvard Business Review, 36,
(January/February), pp47-55.
May E G (1974), Practical Applications of Recent Retail Image Research, Journal of
Retailing, 50(4), pp15-20, 116.
Mazursky D and Jacoby J (1986), Exploring the Development of Store Images, Journal of
Retailing, 62(2), pp145-165.
Mitton AE (1987), Foreign Retail Companies Operating in the UK, Retail and Distribution
Management, 15(1), pp29-31.
McClure PJ and Ryan JK (1968), Differences between Retailers and Consumers
Perceptions, Journal of Marketing Research, 5, pp 35-40.
McDougall GHG and Fry JN (1974), Combining Two Methods of Image Measurement,
Journal of Retailing, 50(4), pp53-61.
McGoldrick P and Blair D (1995), International Market Appraisal and Positioning, in
McGoldrick P and Davies G (eds), International Retailing : Trends and Strategies, Pitman
Publishing: London, pp168-190.
McGoldrick P and Ho S L (1992), International Positioning: Japanese Department Stores in
Hong Kong, European Journal of Marketing, 26(8/9), pp65-73.
McGoldrick P and Holden NJ (1993), Developments by Western Retailers in East European
Markets, Journal of Marketing Channels, 2(3), pp62-83.
Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

30

Menezes D and Elbert NF (1979), Alternative Semantic Scaling Formats for Measuring Store
Image: An Evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), pp80-87.
Myers H (1995), The Changing Process of Internationalisation in the European Union,
Service Industries Journal, 15(4), pp 42-56.
Myers R (1960), Sharpening Your Store Image, Journal of Retailing, 36(3), pp124-137
OGrady S and Lane HO (1997), Culture: An Unnoticed Barrier to Canadian Retail
Performance in the USA, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 4, pp159-170.
Oppewal H and Timmermans H (1997), Retailer Self-Perceived Store Image and Competitive
Position, International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, 7(1), pp40-59.
Oxenfeld A R (1974) Developing a Favourable Price-Quality Image, Journal of Retailing,
50(4), pp8-14, 115.
Palmer A (1985), Retail Image Dimensions and Consumer Preferences, Developments in
Marketing Science, 8, pp11-15.
Pathak DS, Crissy WJE and Sweitzer RW (1974), Customer Image versus the retailers
Anticipated Image, Journal of Retailing, 50(4), pp 21-28, 116.
Pellegrini L (1994), Alternatives for Growth and Internationalisation in Retailing,
International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, 4(2), pp121-148.
Perry M and Norton NJ (1970), Dimensions of Store Image, Southern Journal of Business,
5(2), pp1-7
Pessemier EA (1980), Store Image and Positioning, Journal of Retailing, 56, pp 94-106.
Quelch JA and Hoff EJ (1986), Customising Global Marketing, Harvard Business Review,
64 (May-June), pp59-68.
Rich SU and Portis BD (1964), The Imageries of Department Stores, Journal of Marketing,
28 (April), pp10-15.
Salmon W and Tordjman A (1989) The Internationalisation of Retailing, International
Journal of Retailing, 4(2), pp3-16.
Samli AC and Lincoln D (1989), Management Versus Customer Perception of Image, in
Samli AC (ed) Retail Marketing Strategy: Planning, Implementation and Control,
Greenwood Press, pp 193-205.
Schiffman L, Dash J and Dillon W (1977), The Contribution of Store-Image Characteristics
to Store Type Choice, Journal of Retailing, 53(2), pp3-14,46.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

31
Shackleton R (1996), Retailer Internationalisation: A Culturally Constructed Phenomenon,
in Wrigley N and Lowe M (eds), Retailing, Consumption and Capital, Longman: Harlow,
pp.137-156.
Sewell S W (1974) Discovering and Improving Store Image, Journal of Retailing, 50(4),
pp3-7.
Simpson EM and Thorpe DI (1995), A Conceptual Model of Strategic Considerations for
International Retail Expansion, Service Industries Journal, 15(4), pp16-24.
Sorenson RZ and Wiechmann UE (1975), How Multinationals View Marketing
Standardisation, Harvard Business Review, 53 (May-June), pp38-54, 166-167.
Steenkamp J-BE and Wedel M (1991), Segmenting Retail Markets on Store Image: Using a
Consumer Brand Methodology, Journal of Retailing, 67(3), pp300-320.
Sternquist B (1997a), Internationalisation of Japanese Department Stores, International
Journal of Commerce and Management, 7(1), pp57-73.
Sternquist B (1997b), International Expansion of US Retailers, International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management, 25(8), pp262-268.
Swan JE and Futrell CM (1980), Increasing the Efficiency of the Retailers Image Study,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 8, pp51-57.
Takahashi Y (1994), Toys R Us Fuels Changes in Japans Toy Distribution System, Journal
of Marketing Channels, 3(3), pp91-112.
Tordjman A (1988), The French Hypermarket: Could it be Developed in the United States?,
Retail and Distribution Management, July-August, pp14-16.
Treadgold A (1988), Retailing Without Frontiers, Retail and Distribution Management ,
16(6), pp8-12.
Treadgold A (1990/91), The Emerging Internationalisation of Retailing: Present Status and
Future Strategies, Irish Marketing Review, 5(2), pp11-27.
Treadgold A (1991), Dixons and Laura Ashley: Different Routes to International Growth,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 19(4), pp13-19.
Treadgold A and Davies RL (1988), The Internationalisation of Retailing, Longman:London
Truitt NS (1984), Mass Merchandising and Economic Development: Sears, Roebuck and Co
in Mexico and Peru, in Shelp RK, Stephenson JC, Truitt NS and Wasow B, Service
Industries and Economic Development, Praeger: New York, pp49-113.
Weale W (1961), Measuring the Customers Image of Department Stores, Journal of
Retailing, 37(2), pp40-48.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

32
Whitehead M (1992), Internationalisation of Retailing: Developing New Perspectives,
European Journal of Marketing, 26(8/9), pp74-79.
Williams D E (1992) Motives for Retailer Internationalisation: Their Impact, Structure and
Implications, Journal of Marketing Management, 8, pp269-285.
Wrigley N (1989), The Lure of the USA: Further Reflections on the Internationalisation of
British Grocery Retailing Capital, Environment and Planning A, 21, pp283-288.
Wrigley N (1997), British Food Capital in the USA - Part 2: Giant Prospects, International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 25(2), pp48-58.
Wu BTW and Petroshius SM (1987), The Halo Effect in Store Image Measurement, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15, pp44-51
Zimmer M R and Golden L L (1988), Impressions of Retail Stores: A Content Analysis of
Consumer Images, Journal of Retailing, 64(3), pp265-293.

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.