Analysis explores private brand product perceptions in Grand Generation consumers, suggesting targeted marketing strategies.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore the subjective percept ions of private brand (PB) products by retailers, targeting the “Grand Generation” consumers born between 1950 and 1979, who are known for their vibrant and active lifestyles. Research design, data, and methodology: Thirty Grand Generation consumers (born between 1950 and 1979) who had purchased private brand products within the past six months were selected as the P sample (participant sample). Q-sort was performed by forcing the respondents into 23 pre-defined distribution boxes on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree). Factor analysis was performed using Ken-Q Analysis software, and eigenvalues and Z-scores were calculated to derive three types of Q factors. Afterwards, Varimax rotation was applied to categorize the subjective perception of the P sample, and interpretation for each type was performed based on this. Results: Grand Generation's subjective perception of PB products was classified into three types: ‘repurchase-oriented practical value type’, ‘conservative and cautious consumption type’, and ‘digital information-based practical type’. Implications: In terms of theoretical contributions, this study identifies the Grand Generation, comprised of Generation X and Baby Boomers, as a new middle-aged and older consumer group with strong purchasing power and potential value. Furthermore, this group has been re-evaluated as a key consumer group for private label products, broadening the scope of private label product research. From a practical perspective, We propose a strategy focused on strengthening price and distributor trust among the baby boomer generation. For Generation X, we present differentiated PB product marketing implications that take into account generational characteristics, such as premium value and digital content-centered strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: